Judge blocked Boulder assault weapon ban 10 days before supermarket shooting - CBS News

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  larry-hampton  •  3 weeks ago  •  83 comments

By:   Audrey McNamara (CBSNews)

Judge blocked Boulder assault weapon ban 10 days before supermarket shooting - CBS News
Ten people were killed Monday as the result of a shooting at a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


By Audrey McNamara

March 23, 2021 / 9:19 PM / CBS News

Mass shootings reignite debate over gun laws Mass shootings reignite debate over gun laws06:33

A judge in Colorado blocked Boulder's two-year-old ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines earlier this month — less than two weeks later, 10 people were killed during a mass shooting at one of the city's supermarkets. According to the affidavit, investigators determined that the suspect, Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, purchased an assault rifle on March 16, 2021.

Boulder County District Court Judge Andrew Hartman ruled on March 12 that the 2018 ban, which outlawed the possession, sale or transfer of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines (LCMs), was invalid because it runs contrary to state law.

"The Court finds that the Ordinance's Assault Weapons Possession, Sale, and Transfer Ban is operationally preempted because it materially impedes the state's interest in firearms regulation, and it forbids what state law authorizes," reads Hartman's ruling. He pointed to the state legislature's declaration that firearms regulation is a state interest, in order to prevent "a patchwork of inconsistent local laws involving firearms," and to best protect Coloradans.

"The Court finds that the need for statewide uniformity favors the state's interest in regulating assault weapons and LCMs," Hartman wrote. "Statewide uniformity in regulations prohibiting the possession and transfer of assault weapons and LCMs aligns with the legislature's declared interest in protecting citizen's fundamental right to bear arm and consistent treatment under criminal law."

Attorneys for Boulder argued that the city ordinance was necessary because state law does not address assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. Hartman ruled the omission was intentional — listing other weapons prohibited under state law — and therefore by choosing not to include assault weapons and large-capacity magazines the state had in fact addressed them.

"The General Assembly has enacted comprehensive scheme regulating firearms and ammunition ... which includes the prohibition of magazine capable of accepting more than 15 rounds," he wrote. "That assault weapons are plainly omitted from the list of 'dangerous and illegal weapons' and are therefore not prohibited under Colorado law, suggests an intent to make lawful the possession of assault weapons in Colorado in light of the comprehensive nature of the firearm scheme and the prohibition of LCMs accepting more than 15 rounds."

Boulder's ordinance outlawed ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.

Authorities on Tuesday identified the 10 people killed during Monday's shooting at King Soopers grocery store. The victims ranged in age from 20 to 65.

Alissa, a 21-year-old man from Arvada, Colorado, has been charged with 10 counts of murder in the first degree for the shooting, according to Police Chief Maris Herold. Using law enforcement databases, investigators determined that Alissa purchased a Ruger AR- 556 pistol on March 16, 2021, according to the affidavit for the arrest warrant.

"This cannot be our new normal… we need to see a change, because we have lost far too many lives," Congressman Joe Neguse said at a press conference Tuesday.

Former Boulder Councilwoman Jill Adler Grano, who introduced Boulder's assault weapons ban and now works as the director of community affairs for Neguse, said at the time that the city's ordinance was in an effort to prevent mass tragedies, like those in neighboring cities Columbine and Aurora.

"I don't see this as taking away Second Amendment rights," Grano said, according to Complete Colorado. "The Second Amendment does not protect assault weapons. There have been hundreds and hundreds of mass shootings in America. This is a long overdue proposal. I think it's time to say enough, not in the city of Boulder."

The National Rifle Association issued a celebratory press release after Boulder's assault weapon ban was struck down. The organization's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) supported the case.

"The city council should have listened to the city attorney. His repeated attempts to warn them that they did not have the authority to pass these ordinances were cited throughout the opinion," reads the statement. "The opinion is also very thoroughly and thoughtfully written, which will make it even harder to overturn, should the city appeal it."

The NRA said Boulder's loss should be used as precedent against other cities "who are considering passing any similar counterproductive ordinances."


ICYMI: A Colorado judge gave law-abiding gun owners something to celebrate.
In an @NRAILA-supported case, he ruled that the city of Boulder's ban on commonly-owned rifles (AR-15s) and 10+ round mags was preempted by state law and STRUCK THEM DOWN. https://t.co/wmdhGG16pc
— NRA (@NRA) March 16, 2021

Assault weapons were banned across the country for 10 years under the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly called the Assault Weapons ban, until 2004 when Congress failed to reauthorize the ban. Many states have since passed their own assault weapons laws, some more stringent than the federal ban.

President Biden was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee when Congress passed the ban. He wrote in a 2019 New York Times op-ed that, if elected president, he would push to ban them again.

"Assault weapons — military-style firearms designed to fire rapidly — are a threat to our national security, and we should treat them as such," Mr. Biden wrote. "Anyone who pretends there's nothing we can do is lying — and holding that view should be disqualifying for anyone seeking to lead our country."

Monday's tragedy in Colorado is the second mass shooting since Mr. Biden took office. Eight people were killed the week prior in shootings at three spas around Atlanta, Georgia.

The president urged support for a ban on assault weapons on Tuesday, and called on the Senate to immediately pass House legislation to close background check loopholes. "We have to act," he said.

California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who was an architect of the original ban, has called for it to be reauthorized and updated. She noted at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence Tuesday reports that the Colorado shooter used an AR-15, which was also used in recent mass shootings in Las Vegas, Nevada, Dayton, Ohio, Parkland, Florida, and Sandy Hook Elementary.

She also pointed out that violent gun massacres dropped by 37 percent during the 10 year ban, but there was an "183 percent increase in massacres" in the 10 years after the ban expired.

"All our hearts go out to all the families who lost a loved one yesterday, and the law enforcement who risk their lives in the line of duty," Feinstein said. "But, that doesn't cure the problem."

In response to Feinstein's call for a renewed federal assault weapon ban, Colorado Republican freshman congresswoman Lauren Boebert tweeted on March 14, two days after Boulder's ordinance was struck down, that "any politician who calls on guns to be banned should insist their security is also disarmed."


Dianne Feinstein wants to ban the AR-15 but I'm sure she doesn't mind her security using guns to protect her.
Any politician who calls on guns to be banned should insist their security is also disarmed.
— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) March 14, 2021

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Larry Hampton
Professor Guide
1  seeder  Larry Hampton    3 weeks ago

Colorado's Democratic Governor Jared Polis said Tuesday that the public should not accept Monday's massacre as "normal."

"This has been a painful year. And we sit here, once again, surrounded by seemingly incomprehensible, senseless loss," he said. "This is a pain that we need to sit with. We can't ever let ourselves become numb to the pain, because we simply can't let this be accepted as anything close to normal occurrence."

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
1.1  MAGA  replied to  Larry Hampton @1    3 weeks ago

We are not going to let the crime of a Muslim ISIS sympathizer be used by this regime to assault the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens.  

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  MAGA @1.1    3 weeks ago
We are not going to let the crime of a Muslim ISIS sympathizer be used by this regime to assault the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens.  

got a mouse in your pocket? what is this "we" stuff? 

you might want to take your full fledged shining and apparent islamophobia , and wrap it up in barbed wire and shove it up your ecclestiastical backside, hard deep and fast.

 being crazy , or mentally distrurbed doesnt discriminate against age sex religion or ideoligy , unlike you.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Kavika   replied to  MAGA @1.1    3 weeks ago
We are not going to let the crime of a Muslim ISIS sympathizer be used by this regime to assault the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens.  

 Who are ''we''  you and your mouse. How convenient that you have forgotten about the crazy white Christian that killed six people in Atlanta last week. 

Fucking hypocrite.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Sophomore Principal
1.1.3  Gsquared  replied to  MAGA @1.1    3 weeks ago

Your comment is beyond idiotic. 

YOU are NOT "we". 

You have no knowledge of the pertinent facts of the case, so you're making up fraudulent BULLSHIT. 

The Biden administration would NEVER "assault" the constitutional rights of anyone.  That is libel and a lie.  

Your feeble attempt to create controversy is a pathetic joke.  What a disgrace.

Mark and Kavika sure have it right.  100%.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @1.1    3 weeks ago

Another comment to reinforce the worst stereotype of the conservatives.   I wonder if the conservatives on the site want to tell you to stop misrepresenting their views and making them look bad by association.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.5  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gsquared @1.1.3    3 weeks ago
The Biden administration would NEVER "assault" the constitutional rights of anyone.

where it comes to the 2nd amendment i will respectfully disagree with you , the biden admin is in deed pushing for a ban , and other legislation that affects that particular right , that some could see as an assault .

 problem will be getting consent .cooperation, and compliance .

 the only thing keeping it from happening is the 60 vote threshold.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Sophomore Principal
1.1.6  Gsquared  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.5    3 weeks ago

What do you mean by "ban"?  You don't think they will be seeking a total ban on all firearms, do you?  I think they would consider a restriction on assault weapons.  I know there is a dispute over the definition of assault weapons.  In my opinion, calling a restriction on assault weapons an "assault" on constitutional rights would be a gross distortion

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.7  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gsquared @1.1.6    3 weeks ago

matter of opinion G, and that opinion is usually dictated by how one sees it .

first off , assault weapon is a term made up in the 1990s before then they never existed , and legislatures couldnt use the term assault "rifle" because the military already had a definition for them. and civilian versions did not fit the definition.

 The 94 AWB ( and it was intended to be a ban) , defined assault weapons as a semi automatic firearm( not counted against the features needed to be an "assault weapon" ) that had 3 or more of the following features on the firearm. 

 a detatchable box magazine ( no round limit)

 a folding or collapsable stock 

a pistol grip

a bayonet lug 

 a heat shield over the barrel ( more for shotguns)

All manufactures had to do was eliminate features and the ar produced was no longer an assault weapon by definition because it lacked the definative features .

 matter of fact one can still buy uppers that are completely compliant with the 94 expired ban and would have been legal for posession back then. I have built several for others that didnt want to take the time to learn how to themselves . and since i wasnt a dealer and they supplied all the parts all i was doing was putting together a jigsaw puzzle they didnt want to. and i never made a "ghost" gun , thats one thing I insisted on , the lower had to have a serial number.

 i have owned many semi autos that would not fall under the definition provided, but were seriously looked at as to be banned .

 my understanding is Cali didnt like this side stepping and required a fixed 10 shot magazine that one had to have a tool to remove the mag , makers came up with the bullet button , the normal mag release button was replaced and a small indented button was put in its place , and a tool of some sort , usually a metal punch was needed to take the mag out to reload. or swap out mags , makers decided to make the button just big enough that the tip of an unfired round could be used as the required "tool" to disengage the mag. again followed the letter of the law , and said screw the intent.

Feinsteins AWB of 2021 , again attempts to ban the ar platform and many other named models , thing is she used the same AW definition , and instead of having to have 3 features mentioned , only have to have one . and that opens up a lot more models and brands that can be considered an AW. including many popular and in common regular use big game rifles that happen to be semi automatic.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.8  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gsquared @1.1.6    3 weeks ago
What do you mean by "ban"? 

I mean exactly what Biden and certain members of congress have been on Tv all day on the news calling for , and they have not been using the word restriction , and have been using as example the failed and sunsetted law created in 1994 called AWB.

 or are the media talking heads , legislators and the president himself all misspeaking their intent?

 THEIR words is how i will understand their intent  and using the word ban , is pretty straight forward .

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.1.9  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @1.1    3 weeks ago
We are not going to let the crime of a Muslim ISIS sympathizer

How do you know he's a Muslim ISIS sympathizer? Or is that just a bigoted stereotype you're making?

be used by this regime

What regime? Last I checked, we have a democratically elected government. 

to assault the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens.  

Which rights? There have been no laws or Constitutional amendments passed which restricts anyone's rights. Do you even know what you're talking about?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.9    3 weeks ago
"Do you even know what you're talking about?"

Does he ever?

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  MAGA @1.1    3 weeks ago

We are not going to let the crime of a Muslim ISIS sympathizer be used by this regime to assault the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens.

Were you one of his high school classmates that bullied him because of his name and religion?  You are an inspiration to all bullies in creating future mass shooters.  If a just god existed, you’d have been checking your groceries out that day.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.1.12  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.10    3 weeks ago

It was a rhetorical question.

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
1.1.13  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @1.1.2    3 weeks ago
Who are ''we'' 

him and the teavangelical preacher he's got breathing hard on the back of his neck.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
1.1.14  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

I don't what is worse, his comment or that I actually agree with you.  J/K, your comment was so spot on.jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 to assault the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens

Where is his moral outrage for the law abiding citizens who had the constitutional right not to be executed for simply going to a grocery store to work or shop?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.1.15  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.10    3 weeks ago

Notice how my questions in 1.1.9 go unanswered. Quite telling, wouldn't you say?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2  Mark in Wyoming     3 weeks ago

OK a state judge , enforced a state law , that banned the cities ban on the grounds of state supremacy in making gun laws ...am i missing something?

 as for MZZZZfeinstein, she couldnt get the 60 votes to do away with guns in 94 , so the 94 AWB was a compromise , what the flying fish fuck makes her think her current proposed legislation has any sort of snowballs chance in hell with the current political climate and unrest to get the needed 60 votes in the senate to pass? I doubt either of the house bills will pass in the senate as well since they also need the 60 vote threshold to meet.

 even if it does pass or did become federal law , how many do you think will actually comply? I can point you at a similar act and results there to what to expect, ever hear of NYs safe act? what are they saying was the compliance rate?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2    3 weeks ago

I think even if the judge hadn't overruled Boulder's ban, this man would still have killed 10 people including a cop.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1    3 weeks ago

I fully agree, 

 the state has not banned AWs,  they might in the future , but for now they are still legal within the state, the law used to strike down the municipalities ban , was one of state supremacy in deciding what the gun laws will be . and to attempt to avoid  conflict of interests in the law as to what is and is not allowed.

 way i see it , if a municipality has an statute /law , where does the jurisdiction start or end ,  at the named municipalitys marked borders ? or does it extend outwards to unaffiliated suburbs and territories that border said municipality?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.1    3 weeks ago

Just as an after thought , now that i have had my coffee, last night will surfing my news feed  for reading material before bed, it was mentioned in the article i read that the boulder ban though in place for 2 years , had not been enforced , could be that the city didnt want it to be brought to court so quickly, just to have it on the books so to speak , i cant say. another reason is once a litigant had been found that would challenge the law , they didnt want to take any chances of losing and then having to have to pay out . so it remained unenforced until it was decided in court.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
PhD Quiet
2.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1    3 weeks ago
I think even if the judge hadn't overruled Boulder's ban, this man would still have killed 10 people including a cop.

He would have probably still gone on his rampage, but the assault style weapon is what allowed him to get up to 10 victims including 1 police officer.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.3    3 weeks ago

He wouldn't have paid any attention to any kind of ban

 
 
 
Ozzwald
PhD Quiet
2.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.4    3 weeks ago
He wouldn't have paid any attention to any kind of ban

Prove it.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
3  Buzz of the Orient    3 weeks ago

What a shame.  Coloradans are limited to being able to kill only 15 innocent people at a time.   Oh, well, another day, more people murdered by gunshot in America.  Let's hear it for "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".  Let's hear it for more people die in America from vehicle accidents than from gunshot wounds.  After all, Americans have the God-given right to own and use guns and guns and guns and guns.  Happiness is a warm gun.  

.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3    3 weeks ago

well buzz , i simply use the chinese government version of gun control, if there is gonna be a gun around , im gonna be in control of it , or have a way to mitigate and neutralize the one someone else has .

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.1    3 weeks ago

People here don't run and hide when they hear a motorcycle backfire.  I really do feel a lot safer being in a place where nobody has a gun instead of where everybody has a gun. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.1.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.1.1    3 weeks ago

that would fall under personal preference buzz and to that i say to each their own.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Masters Principal
3.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.1.1    3 weeks ago
People here don't run and hide when they hear a motorcycle backfire.

Most Americans don't either Buzz but by all means .... carry on.

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Expert
4  Tacos!    3 weeks ago
A judge in Colorado blocked Boulder's two-year-old ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines

So what? Boulder is a city. And according to what I have read in the news, this maniac didn’t even live there, and there is no word so far on where he bought it. Supposedly, he live in Arvada, which is sort of a suburb of Denver. He could have easily bought the gun in Denver - or anywhere.

This guy just committed mass murder. You think he cares about gun laws?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
4.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Tacos! @4    3 weeks ago
You think he cares about gun laws?

thats the whole point , those with criminal intent , dont follow laws , the ones that do will become the victims 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
PhD Quiet
4.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @4.1    3 weeks ago
thats the whole point , those with criminal intent , dont follow laws , the ones that do will become the victims

Then why make anything illegal?  Murder, speeding, jay walking, rape, all those laws against these crimes have not prevented them.  So why bother with any laws????

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
4.2  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Tacos! @4    3 weeks ago

This guy just committed mass murder. You think he cares about gun laws?

Like you and Mark pointed out, criminals won't follow the law, but for some reason some people believe that more laws will somehow have an effect on acts like this.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
PhD Quiet
4.2.1  Ozzwald  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @4.2    3 weeks ago

Like you and Mark pointed out, criminals won't follow the law, but for some reason some people believe that more laws will somehow have an effect on acts like this.

Do you believe in any laws?  Since not a single law, anywhere, has ever eliminated the crime it addresses.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
4.2.2  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.1    3 weeks ago

Laws keep people honest for the majority.

Example: locking car doors. For most people, a simple deterrent like that is enough to prevent them from stealing something from inside the car, but for thieves, they have no problems breaking a window or a door lock to steal contents of a car. That principle goes for homes with locked doors, lockers in a gym, really just about anything. If there were NO gun laws, even those that are generally deterred from acting like "Billy Badass" would begin to act in such a manner. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
PhD Quiet
4.2.3  Ozzwald  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @4.2.2    3 weeks ago
Laws keep people honest for the majority.

So you are for common sense gun control laws.  Glad to hear it!

 
 
 
Snuffy
Sophomore Participates
4.2.4  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.3    3 weeks ago

I think it really depends on how you decide what is a common sense gun control law.  What is common sense to one person can be a waste of time and/or resources to another. 

Case in point - banning "assault weapons".  How they decided to define an assault weapon was IMO dumb. It had to have 3 or more identifying features which in reality were cosmetics that didn't change how the gun operated from any other semi-automatic gun.  To me that is hardly common sense.  

A common sense approach to me would be to strengthen the reporting requirements to NICS so that the federal system had all the information. How many times in the past several years have we heard after the fact that there was actual information that should have prevented the individual from purchasing a gun from a licensed dealer but that information was not in NICS so the sale went thru. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
PhD Quiet
4.2.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Snuffy @4.2.4    3 weeks ago
I think it really depends on how you decide what is a common sense gun control law.

Which is why I used a very generic term.  Common sense indicating something that most people would agree on.  Registration and mandatory background checks on ALL sales for example.  I'm not talking the fear mongering "take away their guns".

Case in point - banning "assault weapons".

If assault weapons were banned, there would be no need for common sense gun laws for them.  However, you must ask yourself, what is the point of owning "assault weapons"? 

  • Hunting?  Not much sport in that. 
  • Zombie apocalypse?  Getting closer, but to spare ammo, a single fire weapon would work better.
  • Compensation for a small dick?  Yup, that's about it.
A common sense approach to me would be to strengthen the reporting requirements to NICS so that the federal system had all the information.

Exactly, registration, just like I mentioned above.  Common sense, yet totally opposed by the Republican political right.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
4.2.6  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.3    3 weeks ago

Yes and didn't we have that discussion on my gun article? jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Snuffy
Sophomore Participates
4.2.7  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.5    3 weeks ago
Exactly, registration, just like I mentioned above.  Common sense, yet totally opposed by the Republican political right.

No, strengthening the reporting requirements to NICS has nothing to do with registration. The NICS system is used for background checks and require information from states, federal agencies, etc to insure that all necessary information to properly identify that the purchaser does not have a criminal record or is otherwise i neligible to purchase or own a firearm.

I'm personally against registration as from past experience (re the Canadian Firearms Program) the costs greatly exceed any benefit. Canada scrapped their system after the cost initially estimated at a few million dollars exceeded $1 billion,  and this program was just to register an estimated 15 million long guns owned by Canada's 34 million residents.  The system was filled with inaccurate data and incomplete forms which mostly rendered the system useless. 

The bigger lesson of Canada's experiment, Mauser says, is that gun registration rarely delivers the results proponents expect. In most countries the actual number registered settles out at about a sixth. Germany required registration during the Baader-Meinhof reign of terror in the 1970s, and recorded 3.2 million of the estimated 17 million guns in that country; England tried to register pump-action and semiautomatic shotguns in the 1980s, but only got about 50,000 of the estimated 300,000 such guns stored in homes around the country

My suggestion of strengthening the reporting requirements to NICS would help insure that more accurate data is in the system used by the background check to help prevent more people who should not own guns from being able to purchase one.  Because IMO the real problem is still the person who should not own a gun having one in their possession.    I think preventing at the front-end is more effective than trying to build a system that has proven elsewhere to have dubious returns.

  However, you must ask yourself, what is the point of owning "assault weapons"? 

What's the point of owning a car that can drive 120 MPH? What's the point of spending $100 on a single meal?  It's all about personal choice. In a free society you can limit your personal choice but you should not be limiting the personal choice of another person.   

 
 
 
Ozzwald
PhD Quiet
4.2.8  Ozzwald  replied to  Snuffy @4.2.7    3 weeks ago
The NICS system is used for background checks and require information from states, federal agencies, etc to insure that all necessary information to properly identify that the purchaser does not have a criminal record or is otherwise i neligible to purchase or own a firearm.

How would you do background checks if nobody is registered for the gun?  Aren't you talking about "all necessary information to properly identify that the REGISTERED Purchaser does not have a criminal record?  Or is it like kids trying to buy beer, you just wait outside the store and ask a complete stranger to go in and buy it for you?

What's the point of owning a car that can drive 120 MPH?

No idea, except many stock cars can do that off the lot.  Other than that the purpose would be to ILLEGALLY drive that car above the legal limit. 

It's a good thing you have to REGISTER that car, huh?  That way if someone saw you committing that crime, they could turn the license plate into law enforcement and then identify you through your vehicle registration.

What's the point of spending $100 on a single meal?

Taste.

In a free society you can limit your personal choice but you should not be limiting the personal choice of another person.   

So, I assume you are pro-choice, believe in allowing people to chose their gender, believe in people marrying whomever they chose, and feel that anyone should be able to break any law they chose to.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
PhD Quiet
4.2.9  Ozzwald  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @4.2.6    3 weeks ago
Yes and didn't we have that discussion on my gun article?

We touched on it.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
4.2.10  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.8    3 weeks ago
No idea, except many stock cars can do that off the lot.  Other than that the purpose would be to ILLEGALLY drive that car above the legal limit. 

Hell, I've had my Fiesta up to 110 mph. 

I've also been on roads where there is a sign that actually states: "Speed Limit Ends"

 
 
 
Snuffy
Sophomore Participates
4.2.11  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.8    3 weeks ago
How would you do background checks if nobody is registered for the gun?  Aren't you talking about "all necessary information to properly identify that the REGISTERED Purchaser does not have a criminal record?  Or is it like kids trying to buy beer, you just wait outside the store and ask a complete stranger to go in and buy it for you?

Perhaps then I misunderstood what  you meant by registered. Under the current system, a purchaser fills out a federal form to identify themselves and the licensed gun dealer will forward the information to the NICS system for verification that the purchaser is legally allowed to purchase and possess a gun. However the purchaser is not registered in the NICS system.  The NICS system should hold all information from states and other legal entities to identify people who should not be allowed to own or possess a gun under law. To the best of my knowledge that is all the system is for, to identify (or register if  you prefer) people who should not be allowed to purchase a gun.  Maybe I got confused as when most people talk about  "Registration and mandatory background checks on ALL sales for example' they mean registration of the firearm into a federal database after the purchase so that there is a central repository of who owns what guns.  

Now if you mean by "registered purchaser" you mean someone who is pre-approved that is another discussion. There are I believe some local authorities that require a person to first obtain a certificate or license before they are allowed to purchase a gun but that is not a federal requirement.

It's a good thing you have to REGISTER that car, huh?  That way if someone saw you committing that crime, they could turn the license plate into law enforcement and then identify you through your vehicle registration.

Nope,  I don't know a single police office who will issue a traffic ticket based on the word of a civilian. Now you as a civilian can reach out to the police and inform them of a crime occurring and if the police are able to get there in time and see the traffic infraction for themselves they will issue a ticket. But not on just the word of a civilian. But this is a distraction to what I was saying. you asked what is the point of owning an assault weapon. I said it's personal choice. If your choice is  you don't like them then you don't have to own one. But your choice should not be used to manage my choice.

And for the record. Yes I am pro-choice. My choice for myself is that I do not like abortion so I would never get one myself, but that is my choice for myself and I'm not so all mighty to demand that my choice is the only choice allowed. I don't understand the entire gender discussion, in my mind I still think you are born a gender but thinking that way doesn't mean I can't allow others to believe what they want. I accept that they have the right to chose for themselves and it really isn't any of my business unless they force it on me (and I'm not even sure how they would do that). I've always believed that love is hard enough and if you find the one (or two or three) adults that you want to spend the rest of your life with then you should be able to do what you need to do. 

But your last one there is just nuts in my opinion.  If  your personal choice requires you to break the law than you will break the law,  has nothing to do with the desires of you or me. it's their choice. And they will have to deal with the consequences of their actions.  So this IMO is a dumb statement. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
PhD Quiet
4.2.12  Ozzwald  replied to  Snuffy @4.2.11    3 weeks ago
Perhaps then I misunderstood what  you meant by registered. Under the current system, a purchaser fills out a federal form to identify themselves and the licensed gun dealer will forward the information to the NICS system for verification that the purchaser is legally allowed to purchase and possess a gun.

I meant that everyone that buys a gun must register it, the same way you register your car.  Your name, address, etc., along with gun make and serial.

Now if you mean by "registered purchaser" you mean someone who is pre-approved that is another discussion.

You are correct, different discussion.  Background checks are important for deadly weapons, and the deadlier the deeper the check should be.  But not what I was talking about.

Nope,  I don't know a single police office who will issue a traffic ticket based on the word of a civilian.

You need to meet more cops then.  Call in a report, give a legal statement, and the officer will write a ticket based on that.  Just be prepared to show up in court if they fight the ticket.  Of course cell phone video and pictures will go a long way.

Keep in mind that police, very rarely, observe crimes occurring.  The main exemption is traffic crimes, and that is only because they know where to look, and sometimes stakeout well known locations just to observe the crime.

And for the record. Yes I am pro-choice. My choice for myself is that I do not like abortion so I would never get one myself, but that is my choice for myself and I'm not so all mighty to demand that my choice is the only choice allowed.

Could not have phrased it better myself.

I don't understand the entire gender discussion, in my mind I still think you are born a gender but thinking that way doesn't mean I can't allow others to believe what they want. I accept that they have the right to chose for themselves and it really isn't any of my business unless they force it on me (and I'm not even sure how they would do that). I've always believed that love is hard enough and if you find the one (or two or three) adults that you want to spend the rest of your life with then you should be able to do what you need to do. 

Again, spot on.  I also do not understand all the new gender flavors, but que sera, sera.

But your last one there is just nuts in my opinion.

It was an extreme one.  But you DO have a choice to break any law you want, your choice however does not exempt you from any punishment for that crime.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Sophomore Participates
4.2.13  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.12    3 weeks ago
I meant that everyone that buys a gun must register it, the same way you register your car.  Your name, address, etc., along with gun make and serial.

Thanks for clarifying.  Personally I am against a gun registration. The reason is that it's been tried several places before and never produced any of the results it promised and always cost a lot more money than any original estimate stated.  England years back tried to register all shotguns and they estimate they got maybe 10% of them in the registry. Canada gave up on their long gun registration in 2011 when it proved to be a very costly failure. 

And mostly it seems to be this is approaching the problem from the wrong end. You have criminals who are not likely to bother to register any guns in their possession in the first place. And based on court precedent you cannot force a criminal to answer if they have a gun or not as they cannot be forced to self-incriminate. So the most likely person who will follow thru with the registration process is the law-abiding citizen. You really don't need to worry about them for the most part as they normally don't go on shooting spree's. And when they do, there is usually some sort of indications before the action. You could use a registry to blame an innocent person of the crime if they were the last "registered" owner in the system and that gun was used in a shooting, but first we don't blame registered owners in this country for actions where their stolen property was used in a crime and secondly with the way the federal government really works can you say that any report of a stolen gun would always 100% be entered into the system?  

So in my mind what we really should be doing is trying to do a better job at keeping guns out of the hands of people who should never have them in the first place. That's why I say we need to strengthen the reporting requirements to NICS so that all the information that would prevent a person from legally purchasing a gun is in the system and can stop the sale before it ever happens. The idiot at the church in Texas had been dishonorably discharged from the Air Force, he should not have been able to purchase that gun but the Air Force failed to get the information into the NICS system. The Charleston shooter had a prior drug conviction which should have prevented him from purchasing his guns but that info was not in the NICS system. The fool that shot Gabby Giffords was kicked out of college and told he needed a cleared mental health clearance before he would be allowed back into college, but that information (for fear of violating HIPPA law) was not sent to the NICS system.  We can go on and on with these issues where if the information had been present in the NICS system these crimes and murders might have been prevented. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5  Mark in Wyoming     3 weeks ago

Assault weapons were banned across the country for 10 years under the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly called the Assault Weapons ban, until 2004 when Congress failed to reauthorize the ban.

FALSE

the firearms under this ban were not banned , often grandfathered to owners who owned them before the legislation , and new firearms were still sold as long as they did not have m 3 or more identifying features( cosmetics) in the definition provided in the legislation.

 manufactures simply stopped including the features and continued to sell the product throughout the 10 year period , and since the lack of the specified features made the product not AW, they were legal for purchase. proponents of the ban were pissed stating that makers were side stepping the "intent " of the law when makers simply followed the "letter" of the law in the manufacture process so not to make a defined assault weapon.

 twist it anyway you want , the ban had no measurable effect on crime or gun rates in the 10 years it was in effect according to congressional study and testimony about it. .

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
Professor Guide
5.1  seeder  Larry Hampton  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5    3 weeks ago

What's your solution then Mark? So far all we are doing is seeing more gun violence all the time. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6  Mark in Wyoming     3 weeks ago

Might not like my answer .

One might want to start at looking at exactly what laws are already on the books , and make sure they are actually being enforced , and i dont mean just on the federal level , but also at the state level.

 want the NICS to actually be workable and have some teeth? then require all pertinent info mandatory for submission, anything that is listed on the government form that would make one a prohibited person is mandatory to be reported to the system immediately , not at a jurisdictions convenience or discretion.

 while im at it , no more coddling those that falsify the forms used by dealers , if its a straw purchase , then the full punishment should be metted out , same for those that violate any of the conditions that make a person prohibited .

 and this also pertains to the so called "universal BGC", if that is to be made mandatory , then the system needs to be open to all, to anyone selling a firearm , not just gun dealers that are making a living selling guns , currently that is not the case , and there is no way for either a non dealer buyer or seller to check status of a check or even run one . In my adult life , i have sold 5 guns , so i dont make a living doing so, always followed the BATFE regulations to the letter , only thing i could not do is run a background check, and if allowed likely would have , just to be safe. CYA can save the day .

 something else i would look at is what class of guns are actually being used the most to commit the crimes and violence and go from there.

 and thats just off the top of my head. im sure i can come up with more if i desired .

 
 
 
Duck Hawk
Freshman Silent
6.1  Duck Hawk  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6    3 weeks ago

sounds like good "common sense" ideas. Think Cheney can introduce them?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.1.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Duck Hawk @6.1    3 weeks ago

because the term common sense is attatched , i doubt ANYONE  in congress would look at them, they dont go to either extreme being pushed . as for cheney? not a fan .

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
6.2  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6    3 weeks ago

Your thoughts Mark...... of starting with limiting all firearm magazines to no more than 15 rounds?  Possibly 9 rounds?  Anything we can do on the ammunition side of things to make viable controls? 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.2.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.2    3 weeks ago

most of the firearms i currently own already have restrictive magazine capacity , irregardless of the type of action the firearm has .

 all my bolt actions have limits of 4 and 1 , 4 in the mag 1 in the chamber so a 5 shot limit ,except one really old 22, that has either a 8 or 10 shot capacity, wont talk about the single shots , those are self explanatory .

 most of my semis , have the same restrictions as the bolt guns. 

 the ones being discussed would not be my shit hit the fan go to guns anyway so to me they dont matter . but i will say when i carry one of those out fixing the fence line for "varmints such as skunks , yotes and snakes( did i mention i really hate snakes?) , a single 20 round mag works fine  for whatever i might encounter that needs taken care of with some left over .

 to answer the actual question on magazine limits ? i wouldnt really be in favor of them because just as no 2 areas are the same , no 2 situations are the same . and i can self limit simply by my choice of and model firearm i want.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
6.2.2  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.2.1    3 weeks ago

Okay... to put it more simply.... When the zombie apocalypse hits, shouldn't we make it more sporting for the zombies to limit magazines to 15 rounds?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.2.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.2.2    3 weeks ago

In that case i would use my cross bow or throwing tomahawks.

yes i have both

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.2.4  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.2.3    3 weeks ago

seriously though? 

virginia tech. guy followed the magazine limit law , he just simply carried more mags for the 2 different guns he used.

 the law he didnt follow were the ones pertaining to murder

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
6.2.5  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.2.3    3 weeks ago

Zombies are in for a tough time I see..... don't forget the Neosporin Mark.  At least until you can get the dual purpose still operating!

OIP.6c5RjWJvSriK9jv6Vp25hAHaD2?w=330&h=180&c=7&o=5&pid=1.7

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.2.6  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.2.5    3 weeks ago

lol dad was a butcher for 50 years and swore by that stuff, i have a couple tubes of it myself .

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
6.2.7  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.2.6    3 weeks ago

There used to be a product called Pidges Oil which was even better than Neosporin.  It was created to treat cuts on animals but worked great for human use also.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.2.8  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.2.7    3 weeks ago

i also  have a big can of bag balm, and a teenie tiny little can of the same that fits in a coat pocket , it can be used as hand softener , lip balm , cut ointment , and in a pinch a lubricant on squeeky hinges , its actually used for cows udders to soften and prevent chaffing.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Masters Principal
6.3  Sparty On  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6    3 weeks ago

One big problem.   A little thing called HIPAA laws.   One of the better pieces of legislation passed in modern times imo.

It's a very slippery slope.   Some folks believe it will only be people who have back ground checks done for gun purchases that will be affected?  

Which is problematic fro several reason but guess again.   It won't end there ....

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.3.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Sparty On @6.3    3 weeks ago

i didnt say anything about HIPPA because everything i did mention has to do with either arrests , convictions or has something to do with the courts themselves  with the exception of mj use.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Masters Principal
6.3.2  Sparty On  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.3.1    3 weeks ago

It speaks to the NICS background check.  

If background checks don't encompass current mental health data for the applicant you can more or less wipe your butt with the background check form.   E.g. virtually all mass shooters have serious mental health issues.   Many of which were known to the healthcare community.   How does that get fixed with a back ground check system that doesn't cover mental health in some viable fashion?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.3.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Sparty On @6.3.2    3 weeks ago

it is my understanding that the only question on the 4473 that really has to do with mental health is the one asking if you had ever been involentarily adjudicated for mental health reasons , if it has been adjudicated , that means it went through a court of law and is legally court ordered  , that is open public record.

 other than that , someone self commits , it would likely fall under state law if a person becomes prohibited or not , some states do some states dont.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Principal
7  Hal A. Lujah    3 weeks ago

True story:  this morning I was on a call with a colleague.  She said her mind was a little scrambled this morning because she lives in a townhouse and her neighbor’s gun went off while he was cleaning it - right into their shared wall.  Since it’s a townhome they are separated by a concrete block firewall, but if he had been cleaning the gun used in the Boulder mass shooting that probably wouldn’t have mattered. Luckily nobody was hurt, but I don’t see how this isn’t a legitimate reason to remove this guys rights to own a gun.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
7.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Hal A. Lujah @7    3 weeks ago
if he had been cleaning the gun used in the Boulder mass shooting that probably wouldn’t have mattered.

Actually it would have , now if he had been cleaning an old M-1 garand or a old M-14 clone , the 7,62 round would have had the mass as well as the energy to make it through the other side .

 problem with the .223/5.56 is though it might have velocity( more.so in the surplus 5.56) it lacks mass , and the velocity energy is expended on the first hard surface the projectile encounters , thats why body armor works . 

 I can video a cinder block being broken by a 22 lr , thing is , after that first hard surface is hit , there is no projectile energy left to do anything else.

 5.56 was not designed or even intended to shoot through hardened surfaces or structures , one can try , but they will fail, its simply understanding  some simple laws of physics and energy transference.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @7.1    3 weeks ago

Are you a physics professor by any chance?

I just had a flashback....

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
7.1.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.1    3 weeks ago

lol no, im a jack of all trades and master of none. at least thats what i claim

 but because i reload my own ammunition( haven't used " store bought" in about 20 years except .22 LR, i do know how to look things up in ballistic tables , understand the different dynamics of velocity and projectile construction and coefficient  as well as what the actual projectile weight has to do in the over all scheme of how it all works  when put together , couple all that with i reload for .223 rem / 5.56 nato so i might have a better than average understanding about how that particular round both works and what its designed to do.

 i also look at the fact that the US military is looking into a different service round , in the 6 mm range because of its penetrating capabilities , be it the 6.5 mm or the 6.8 mm.

 i hope the flashback was not a negative one.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
7.2  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @7    3 weeks ago

The guy doing the cleaning is a moron and shouldn't own guns; you're right about that. Guns should always be cleared before cleaning and if someone doesn't know how to clear a gun, they need to learn how before cleaning. I think [as a gun owner and legal concealed carrier myself] that safety courses should be required; I also think that background checks on every type of gun should be required.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
8  Buzz of the Orient    3 weeks ago

I was just wondering if the judge has any trouble sleeping at night.  

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
8.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8    3 weeks ago

likely not buzz, if so then he needs to retire and stop being a judge .

 you may see it different , but all he did was uphold an older existing state law that  that  nullified a local municipal law that was illegal under the state law .

just as federal law trumps state law , state law trumps local or municipal law  that is the way it is no matter what one thinks the law should actually be.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @8.1    3 weeks ago

Well, he can tell himself that he followed the law, that his decision was legally correct, but if he has a conscience what followed has to have had an effect on him or else he's not human. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
8.1.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8.1.1    3 weeks ago

Buzz and we both know that sometimes a judges hands are tied because of the way laws are written  and they even though they may have certain morals and or biases , the law itself will only have one outcome , sometimes contrary to how any individual judge "feels".

 and if they act in a judicial capacity on their morals and biases , then trust in the judiciary gets thrown out the window.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
8.1.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @8.1.2    3 weeks ago

He followed the law, his decision was legally correct, but that doesn/t mean he might not have regretted having to do it.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
8.1.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8.1.3    3 weeks ago

I hope the faces of 10 dead people haunt him forever.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
8.1.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @8.1.4    3 weeks ago

Paula, I don't blame the judge for the murders, and I don't blame him him for making the correct legal decision, but I feel sorry for him for having to live with what might have been a consequence of having done what any good judge would have done.  I don't wish him to suffer for it.  The one who deserves to suffer is the perpetrator.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
8.2  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8    3 weeks ago
I was just wondering if the judge has any trouble sleeping at night.  

Why would he?

He didn't have anything to do with some nut job murdering folks.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
8.2.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2    3 weeks ago

My point, if you had been following the conversation, was that if he had an ounce of humanity, it could upset him that his following the law and making the correct decision was at least a part of what permitted the perpetrator to carry out his crime.  Not every human being, although maybe it's more common among conservatives, is heartless. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
8.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8.2.1    3 weeks ago

Sure, it COULD upset him.

It COULD upset anyone for any old reason.

Not a  thing to do with being heartless, just being sensible.

That seems to be a rare trait in liberals.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Participates
9  Greg Jones    3 weeks ago

Lots of foolish jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif in this article.

No ban, law, or waiting period would deter a determined mass murderer.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
PhD Quiet
9.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @9    3 weeks ago
No ban, law, or waiting period would deter a determined mass murderer.

So you are opposed to all laws that don't deter crimes?

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
10  Split Personality    3 weeks ago

Shooter apparently used a Ruger AR-556 pistol with accessories that made it look like a rifle.

I'm sure the dead and their surviving relatives will appreciate the nuance.

/s

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
10.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Split Personality @10    3 weeks ago
Shooter apparently used a Ruger AR-556 pistol with accessories that made it look like a rifle.

personally an AR pistol is still going to look like a rifle no matter what one does with it , the so called accessories, is a ghost sight ( optics) for aiming one looks through  and a velcro strap which comes with AR pistols to strap the buffer tube to the forearm.

 other than that its a cut down rifle thats designated a pistol because it does not have the features needed to be designated a rifle, meaning it can not be mounted to the shoulder and is fired with one hand. and those are BATFE definitions.

 being designated a pistol means he could not purchase it until he turned 21 , if he bought the same thing as a rifle he could have done that at 18. difference is it would have had a collapsable stock and a longer barrel to be a rifle.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

JohnRussell
devangelical
Tessylo
Kavika
r.t..b...
Hallux
Sunshine


49 visitors