Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41

Thread: OC in a school - suggestions

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    I am aware that oc in pfz is allowed with a cpl. I have 2 elementary age sons whom I drop off at school in the mornings & when the weather is nice, we'll be walking instead of driving. Any suggestions from people who oc at schools? Have a pre-carry discussion with County Sheriff, Local Chief, then school principal? Last thing I want is a mwg call & having my kids see that; plus, I'm a local business owner so that wouldn't be great for business.

    I don't feel the schools here are dangerous. It's just the extra handling to remove/store/reconceal is ridiculous + when walking, I would simply continue on to my shop so there wouldn't be anywhere to store a pistol.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Plymouth/Canton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    The best thing that I or anyone else can say is, know the laws and know your rights, and then assert them. Above all, have and keep your faith in knowing that you are doing all that you can within the law to protect yourself and your children.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    Trainer wrote:
    I am aware that oc in pfz is allowed with a cpl.* I have 2 elementary age sons whom I drop off at school in the mornings & when the weather is nice, we'll be walking instead of driving.* Any suggestions from people who oc at schools?* Have a pre-carry discussion with County Sheriff, Local Chief, then school principal?* Last thing I want is a mwg call & having my kids see that; plus, I'm a local business owner so that wouldn't be great for business.*

    I don't feel the schools here are dangerous.* It's just the extra handling to remove/store/reconceal is ridiculous + when walking, I would simply continue on to my shop so there wouldn't be anywhere to store a pistol.
    This is one situation that WILL get blown out of proportion by someone. I will say that I HAVE carried at a school before without issue, but it was a fairly small town (Otsego, MI) and I knew the principal and many of the teachers, and they know me fairly well, too.

    If you want this to go smoothly, I would recommend letting the principal/administrator know in advance that you intend on carrying openly, and possibly the local police as well. NOTE: This isn't a permission letter. This is just to let them know. You should include the applicable laws (Show that 28.425o ONLY applies to concealed carry, 750.234d ONLY applies to those without CPLs, and 123.1102 prohibits local ordinances that say otherwise).

    Other than that, you should be free to carry.

  4. #4
    Regular Member malignity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,101

    Post imported post

    Another tip, buy a voice recorder.

    You WILL use it if you OC at a school. I hate to say it, but at a school especially, there's going to be tons of MWAG calls to 911, regardless of if you tell them ahead of time or not.
    All opinions posted on opencarry.org are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of opencarry.org or Michigan Open Carry Inc.

  5. #5
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    malignity wrote:
    Another tip, buy a voice recorder.

    You WILL use it if you OC at a school. I hate to say it, but at a school especially, there's going to be tons of MWAG calls to 911, regardless of if you tell them ahead of time or not.
    And you know this How? We have had a few people OC in schools with zero issues. Can you cite wherea Michigan OCerhad this happen?

    If the school is near the street and you don't have to enter the school to check the kids in you can always stay on the sidewalk until they are inside.You could try this and see what happens or doesn't happen. From there you could move farther onto school property and finally enter the school.

    Or you could approach the Principal or superintendent and explain the law, etc. and get their permission.

    Schools are not covered by preemption and can ask you to leave and not bring a gun onto their property.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    I didn't realize that public schools where I had legitimate business (dropping kids off, functions, games, etc) were considered private property per se & could restrict firearms above state law. I highly doubt they will allow it, but it doesn't hurt to ask.



    edit: I knew pre-emption doesn't apply to universities/colleges, but thought public schools (k-12) were covered.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Plymouth/Canton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    Trainer wrote:
    I didn't realize that public schools where I had legitimate business (dropping kids off, functions, games, etc) were considered private property per se & could restrict firearms above state law. I highly doubt they will allow it, but it doesn't hurt to ask.



    edit: I knew pre-emption doesn't apply to universities/colleges, but thought public schools (k-12) were covered.
    I do not consider public schools private property period. If my tax money goes to support the building, teachers, and buy stuff for the students, then it is a community ran, government funded public school.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    It's kind of like at a state run old folks home or the inside of a prison. It may be public property, but you don't necessarily have a right to be there. If you don't have a legit reason to be on the property, the people in charge should be able to give you the boot off the property.

    One of the hottest issues with schools, to me, is voting. I don't know off hand, but I bet there are federal and state laws mandating that you be allowed to vote. And certainly nothing in any law I've ever heard of would allow a school administrator or police officer to kick you off school grounds for trying to vote while OCing with a CPL.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  9. #9
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    Trainer wrote:
    I didn't realize that public schools where I had legitimate business (dropping kids off, functions, games, etc) were considered private property per se & could restrict firearms above state law. I highly doubt they will allow it, but it doesn't hurt to ask.



    edit: I knew pre-emption doesn't apply to universities/colleges, but thought public schools (k-12) were covered.
    It not that it isn't public property, it is (unless a private school) it's a question of what entity controls the property. The local unit of government doesn't control the property like it does atownship hall, or library or park. SoI think it's a grey area until something can be cited that show it's a local unit of government thereby falling under the preemption statute.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Plymouth/Canton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    Trainer wrote:
    I didn't realize that public schools where I had legitimate business (dropping kids off, functions, games, etc) were considered private property per se & could restrict firearms above state law. I highly doubt they will allow it, but it doesn't hurt to ask.



    edit: I knew pre-emption doesn't apply to universities/colleges, but thought public schools (k-12) were covered.
    It not that it isn't public property, it is (unless a private school) it's a question of what entity controls the property. The local unit of government doesn't control the property like it does atownship hall, or library or park. SoI think it's a grey area until something can be cited that show it's a local unit of government thereby falling under the preemption statute.
    My mind set is this:

    Public schools are ran by the school board, which consist of elected officials. If I vote for who should get what position on the schools board, then it is in essence, a branch of a local unit of government, since those sitting on the school board get payed partially from the schools lump of money, but also from local money as well.

    Just sayin......

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    I don't know about all people on this Site, but I have a legitimate reason to be on the school grounds. The law says that from age 6-16, My child has to attend school. So dropping off, picking up, voting, Parent teacher conferences, Boyscout Meetings, all are Legitimate reasons to be there!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    Trainer wrote:
    I didn't realize that public schools where I had legitimate business (dropping kids off, functions, games, etc) were considered private property per se & could restrict firearms above state law. I highly doubt they will allow it, but it doesn't hurt to ask.



    edit: I knew pre-emption doesn't apply to universities/colleges, but thought public schools (k-12) were covered.
    It not that it isn't public property, it is (unless a private school) it's a question of what entity controls the property. The local unit of government doesn't control the property like it does atownship hall, or library or park. SoI think it's a grey area until something can be cited that show it's a local unit of government thereby falling under the preemption statute.
    Maybe so, but the local unit of government will be the ones enforcing it, and unless it's simple trespass, they would be in violation would they not?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    THway wrote:
    Venator wrote:
    Trainer wrote:
    I didn't realize that public schools where I had legitimate business (dropping kids off, functions, games, etc) were considered private property per se & could restrict firearms above state law. I highly doubt they will allow it, but it doesn't hurt to ask.



    edit: I knew pre-emption doesn't apply to universities/colleges, but thought public schools (k-12) were covered.
    It not that it isn't public property, it is (unless a private school) it's a question of what entity controls the property. The local unit of government doesn't control the property like it does atownship hall, or library or park. SoI think it's a grey area until something can be cited that show it's a local unit of government thereby falling under the preemption statute.
    My mind set is this:

    Public schools are ran by the school board, which consist of elected officials. If I vote for who should get what position on the schools board, then it is in essence, a branch of a local unit of government, since those sitting on the school board get payed partially from the schools lump of money, but also from local money as well.

    Just sayin......
    Follow the chain of command. Who/what do/does the board answer to?

    I doubt it's the local Mayor.

    Most likely the state Board Of Education I'd guess.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    I was involved with a case today where the judge said that OC on a school property was illegal under 28.4250, with or without a CPL. And the attorney general opinion was not law.

    But someone today pointed this law out to me, so It can go either way.

    750.234d Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.
    Sec. 234d.
    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:
    (a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution.
    (b) A church or other house of religious worship.
    (c) A court.
    (d) A theatre.
    (e) A sports arena.
    (f) A day care center.
    (g) A hospital.
    (h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1933, being sections 436.1 to 436.58 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
    (2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
    (a) A person who owns, or is employed by or contracted by, an entity described in subsection (1) if the possession of that firearm is to provide security services for that entity.
    (b) A peace officer.
    (c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.
    (d) A person who possesses a firearm on the premises of an entity described in subsection (1) if that possession is with the permission of the owner or an agent of the owner of that entity.


  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    stainless1911 wrote:
    I was involved with a case today where the judge said that OC on a school property was illegal under 28.4250, with or without a CPL. And the attorney general opinion was not law.

    But someone today pointed this law out to me, so It can go either way.

    750.234d Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.
    Sec. 234d.
    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:
    (a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution.
    (b) A church or other house of religious worship.
    (c) A court.
    (d) A theatre.
    (e) A sports arena.
    (f) A day care center.
    (g) A hospital.
    (h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1933, being sections 436.1 to 436.58 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
    (2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
    (a) A person who owns, or is employed by or contracted by, an entity described in subsection (1) if the possession of that firearm is to provide security services for that entity.
    (b) A peace officer.
    (c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.
    (d) A person who possesses a firearm on the premises of an entity described in subsection (1) if that possession is with the permission of the owner or an agent of the owner of that entity.
    I remember a few years back Jim Simmons saying something about a judge in a case he worked taking a similar stance. It's sad when the judges decide that they don't care what the law says, and are just going to do whatever pleases their own agenda. MCL 28.425o (it's "o", not "0") in no way prohibits or even addresses OC, but this judge just up and decides that he can pass legislation.

    Kangaroo judge.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Commerce Twp, ,
    Posts
    83

    Post imported post

    ghostrider wrote:
    stainless1911 wrote:
    I was involved with a case today where the judge said that OC on a school property was illegal under 28.4250, with or without a CPL. And the attorney general opinion was not law.

    But someone today pointed this law out to me, so It can go either way.

    750.234d Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.
    Sec. 234d.
    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:
    (a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution.
    (b) A church or other house of religious worship.
    (c) A court.
    (d) A theatre.
    (e) A sports arena.
    (f) A day care center.
    (g) A hospital.
    (h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1933, being sections 436.1 to 436.58 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
    (2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
    (a) A person who owns, or is employed by or contracted by, an entity described in subsection (1) if the possession of that firearm is to provide security services for that entity.
    (b) A peace officer.
    (c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.
    (d) A person who possesses a firearm on the premises of an entity described in subsection (1) if that possession is with the permission of the owner or an agent of the owner of that entity.
    I remember a few years back Jim Simmons saying something about a judge in a case he worked taking a similar stance. It's sad when the judges decide that they don't care what the law says, and are just going to do whatever pleases their own agenda. MCL 28.425o (it's "o", not "0") in no way prohibits or even addresses OC, but this judge just up and decides that he can pass legislation.

    Kangaroo judge.
    The judge had stated that concealed carry on a school when you are not dropping off or picking up your child who goes there is a violation, such as taking your child, who does not attend the school to play on the playground. I don't believe the judge ever addressed the open carry issue as he clearly said something like "while I find that you were carrying on your hip, I also find that you covered your firearm with your shirt."The judgewas focusing totally on the concealed carry violation.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    Thanks for all the great replies/discussion. I'll have to think about how to proceed. One thing is for sure, it would have to OC with ZERO chance of someone thinking/saying it was concealed or partially concealed.

  18. #18
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937

    Post imported post

    mpearce wrote:
    stainless1911 wrote:
    I was involved with a case today where the judge said that OC on a school property was illegal under 28.4250, with or without a CPL. And the attorney general opinion was not law.
    I don't believe the judge ever addressed the open carry issue as he clearly said something like "while I find that you were carrying on your hip, I also find that you covered your firearm with your shirt."The judgewas focusing totally on the concealed carry violation.
    Stainless,

    Melissa seems to credibly contradict, or at least significantly correct,your assertion about what the judge said. Is she correct?
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  19. #19
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    All I can say for those following this discussion is THIS if you are OCing in a PFZ via your CPL then you MUST make certain that there is no way for your gun to become covered!!!


    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    DanM wrote:
    mpearce wrote:
    stainless1911 wrote:
    I was involved with a case today where the judge said that OC on a school property was illegal under 28.4250, with or without a CPL. And the attorney general opinion was not law.
    I don't believe the judge ever addressed the open carry issue as he clearly said something like "while I find that you were carrying on your hip, I also find that you covered your firearm with your shirt."The judgewas focusing totally on the concealed carry violation.
    Stainless,

    Melissa seems to credibly contradict, or at least significantly correct,your assertion about what the judge said. Is she correct?
    Yes (thanks Melissa), she does.

    That is fare different than saying that, "...OC on school property violated 28.425o. "

    Big difference.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    DanM wrote:
    mpearce wrote:
    stainless1911 wrote:
    I was involved with a case today where the judge said that OC on a school property was illegal under 28.4250, with or without a CPL. And the attorney general opinion was not law.
    I don't believe the judge ever addressed the open carry issue as he clearly said something like "while I find that you were carrying on your hip, I also find that you covered your firearm with your shirt."The judgewas focusing totally on the concealed carry violation.
    Stainless,

    Melissa seems to credibly contradict, or at least significantly correct,your assertion about what the judge said. Is she correct?
    Melissa is correct in that this was the basis of the judges decision. I beleive I made this clear on another thread, however, since we neglected to point out:

    750.234d Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.
    Sec. 234d.
    (b) A church or other house of religious worship.
    (2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
    (c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.

    I think that since this list does not mension schools, a good argument could have been made that I wasnt carrying on school property, but on a church playground. I spoke with the owners who said unmistakably that this church property, but that the school was a church ministry.

    Not trying to hijack the thread. sorry OP.


  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    stainless1911 wrote:
    SNIP
    Melissa is correct in that this was the basis of the judges decision. I beleive I made this clear on another thread, however, since we neglected to point out:

    750.234d Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.
    Sec. 234d.
    (b) A church or other house of religious worship.
    (2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
    (c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.

    I think that since this list does not mension schools, a good argument could have been made that I wasnt carrying on school property, but on a church playground. I spoke with the owners who said unmistakably that this church property, but that the school was a church ministry.

    Not trying to hijack the thread. sorry OP.
    It doesn't need to in your case. According to Mrs Pearce, your charge was for a violation of Section 5o where it was determined that you were CC in a GFZ. Therefore, Section 234d does not come into play. Section 5o, specifically indicates that those who are licensed under the Act (CPL) are prohibited to CC on the premises of schools, churches, etc, with an exemption to parking lots.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    SpringerXDacp wrote:
    stainless1911 wrote:
    SNIP
    Melissa is correct in that this was the basis of the judges decision. I beleive I made this clear on another thread, however, since we neglected to point out:

    750.234d Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.
    Sec. 234d.
    (b) A church or other house of religious worship.
    (2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
    (c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.

    I think that since this list does not mension schools, a good argument could have been made that I wasnt carrying on school property, but on a church playground. I spoke with the owners who said unmistakably that this church property, but that the school was a church ministry.

    Not trying to hijack the thread. sorry OP.
    It doesn't need to in your case. According to Mrs Pearce, your charge was for a violation of Section 5o where it was determined that you were CC in a GFZ. Therefore, Section 234d does not come into play. Section 5o, specifically indicates that those who are licensed under the Act (CPL) are prohibited to CC on the premises of schools, churches, etc, with an exemption to parking lots.
    And, I can see where the judge got that determination.


    (1) Subject to subsection (4), an individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure under section 12a(1)(f), shall not carry a concealed pistol on the premises of any of the following:

    (a) A school or school property except that a parent or legal guardian of a student of the school is not precluded from carrying a concealed pistol while in a vehicle on school property, if he or she is dropping the student off at the school or picking up the child from the school. As used in this section, "school" and "school property" mean those terms as defined in section 237a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.237a.
    Although it does appear to contradict the following:

    ...
    (3) As used in subsection (1), "premises" does not include parking areas of the places identified under subsection (1)
    ....
    Unfortunately, if the statute is taken as a whole, then it could be construed to mean that one can CC in a school parking lot only if they are dropping off or picking up a student. Section (a) specifies "a vehicle", so I don't think the judge is making that far a reach to mean the "parking lot".

    Granted, I think the judge is still taking liberty. Section (3) is about a specific as it can get, and does include subsection 1(a). However, it appears it did leave a door open. Maybe it should be addressed by the legislature.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    ghostrider wrote:

    (1) Subject to subsection (4), an individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure under section 12a(1)(f), shall not carry a concealed pistol on the premises of any of the following:

    (a) A school or school property except that a parent or legal guardian of a student of the school is not precluded from carrying a concealed pistol while in a vehicle on school property, if he or she is dropping the student off at the school or picking up the child from the school. As used in this section, "school" and "school property" mean those terms as defined in section 237a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.237a.
    Although it does appear to contradict the following:

    ...
    (3) As used in subsection (1), "premises" does not include parking areas of the places identified under subsection (1)
    ....
    Unfortunately, if the statute is taken as a whole, then it could be construed to mean that one can CC in a school parking lot only if they are dropping off or picking up a student. Section (a) specifies "a vehicle", so I don't think the judge is making that far a reach to mean the "parking lot".

    Granted, I think the judge is still taking liberty. Section (3) is about a specific as it can get, and does include subsection 1(a). However, it appears it did leave a door open. Maybe it should be addressed by the legislature.
    I guess my first question would be, in regards to the parking lot exemption, is: Does the rules of statutory construction allow Subsection (3) to supercede Subsection (1)?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Macomb County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    I think you guys are way over complicating the issue. Show me the line in the law where it says it applies to people open carrying. There is nothing more there be honest.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •