Calguns.net

Calguns.net (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=330)
-   -   Lifetime Ban for Misdemeanor Domestic "Violence" (Enos v Holder) (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=417935)

anthonyca 04-06-2011 4:58 PM

Lifetime Ban for Misdemeanor Domestic "Violence" (Enos v Holder)
 
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...1&d=1342160469 If you know anyone who has been impacted by lautenberg or feels that the lifetime misdemeanor ban is wrong, please email them a link to this thread. There are millions of us who feel this law is wrong. Let's go viral with this.

Donating money http://www.madison-society.org/litigation.html would really help this case and a possible future case for the plaintif who was dismissed by the judge. According to Donald Kilmer, that plaintiff had the best 10th amendment claim.

The 10th amendment claim will get more people interested than just gun people.

The Madison Society is suing Eric Holder and the feds over the lifetime federal ban on "domestic violence" misdemeanants. People who know about this issue know just how easy it is to become prohibited due to one of these convictions.

The case is Enos V Holder.
http://www.madison-society.org/litigation.shtml




Look at page 12. http://www.madison-society.org/laws/...-1-MTD-MPA.pdf The government is arguing that the second amendment is NOT a civil right. They say voting, speech, freedom of the press are, but not the second.

Update; Don Kilmer filed this Supplemental Authority. http://ia600300.us.archive.org/35/it...15824.23.0.pdf

Update; Enos survived the motion to dismiss by the federal government.http://ia600300.us.archive.org/attac...15824.24.0.pdf

We are winning!
Update 10-3-11

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...2&d=1317699876

The government is grasping for straws. They really hate that bill of rights and this natural rights thing.

Update;

Post # 404

Update 1-11-12
http://www.archive.org/download/gov....15824.49.0.pdf

Update 2-29-12 Motion to dismiss granted with prejudice
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...5&d=1330531223

Update 2-29-12 Don Kilmer filed a noti(ce of appeal (just a few hours after the government's motion to dismiss was granted)
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...4&d=1330544513

Update. 7-12-12 Don Kilmer filing in the 9th circuit court.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...1&d=1342160469

Update 9-7-12 http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...5&d=1347132955
Government is using the same tired argument that a denial is not grounds for a case, you need to be arrested to have a case. This is why we mostly have bad plaintifs in gun cases.

Update 9-21-12 Don Kilmer final brief before oral arguments.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...8&d=1348368108

Update. 5-8-13

This update is a little off topic. It relates to PC 242 and it inclusion of "the least touching".

http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=...3&e=46ea51d106

Update 7-2-14
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...0&d=1405308029

Update 4-7-15
Petition for writ of certiorari filed for SCOTUS Response due 5-11-15
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...1&d=1428944211

Update 5-26-15
Government again arguing that gun rights are not civil rights.
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default...-1216_enos.pdf

MP301 04-06-2011 5:07 PM

Like I think I said in another thread where this came up. Kilmer and The Madison Society Rock. I never understood how a felon could regain fireamrs rights, but as a Misd. DV convict, whether any force was used or not, your banned for life.

Several will agree with me that taking away any "RIGHT" for life should be a tall order.

stix213 04-06-2011 5:12 PM

IMO if the crime was bad enough to take away gun rights for life, the state needs to call it a felony. If it wasn't bad enough to be a felony then it wasn't bad enough to take away a fundamental right.

anthonyca 04-06-2011 5:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stix213 (Post 6151708)
IMO if the crime was bad enough to take away gun rights for life, the state needs to call it a felony. If it wasn't bad enough to be a felony then it wasn't bad enough to take away a fundamental right.

The "crime" is any touching, no matter how slight,wether it was or was not intended to cause pain or gain an advantage. You lightly toss the remote at your spouse who was complaining about you watching the game, bam your gun life is over. You want to get out of an argument so you ever so slightly move your spouses arm away from the door knob, by legal and jury instruction that is DV.

Most people get into trouble by telling the cops that they moved their spouse's hand to avoid a more heated argument. Now the cops have to arrest and the DA will prosecute even when the spouse doesn't want to press charges. It's an open and shut case and you CAN NOT win unless the jury disobeys the jury instructions and ignores the law.

anthonyca 04-06-2011 5:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MP301 (Post 6151683)
Like I think I said in another thread where this came up. Kilmer and Thje Madison Society Rock. I never understood how a felon could regain fireamrs rights, but as Misd. DV convict, whether any force waqs used or not, was banned for life.

Several will agree with me that taking away any "RIGHT" for life should be a tall order.

I joined the Madison Society and donated some money. You are correct. they rock.

Librarian 04-06-2011 6:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stix213 (Post 6151708)
IMO if the crime was bad enough to take away gun rights for life, the state needs to call it a felony. If it wasn't bad enough to be a felony then it wasn't bad enough to take away a fundamental right.

Absolutely.

Interesting article on felony: "Unintended Collateral Consequences: Defining Felony in the Early American Republic " downloadable here.

anthonyca 04-06-2011 7:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Librarian (Post 6152258)
Absolutely.

Interesting article on felony: "Unintended Collateral Consequences: Defining Felony in the Early American Republic " downloadable here.

You are the absolute master of posting relevant and interesting information. What a great resource you are the the RKBA.

wildhawker 04-06-2011 8:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyca (Post 6152784)
You [Librarian] are the absolute master of posting relevant and interesting information. What a great resource you are the the RKBA.

Understatement of the day.

LAWABIDINGCITIZEN 04-06-2011 8:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stix213 (Post 6151708)
IMO if the crime was bad enough to take away gun rights for life, the state needs to call it a felony. If it wasn't bad enough to be a felony then it wasn't bad enough to take away a fundamental right.

EXACTLY !

Al Norris 04-06-2011 8:43 PM

I went to PACER and RECAPed the docket. While it may take a while to sync everthing, here are the results (for those wishing to follow and read):

Enos, et al v. Holder, et al. Case 2:10-cv-02911 (PACER #215824). Filed on 10-29-2010 in the US District Court of the Eastern District of California, Sacramento. Donald Kilmer, attorney for the Plaintiffs. 9 Plaintiffs, all but one, convicted of MCDV (Lautenberg). Alleges the US Government has violated their 2A rights through an unlawful interpretation of 18 U.S.C. SS 921, 922, and 925. Alleges violations of 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 10th amendments. The Madison Society is funding this lawsuit.

The original complaint is available on the docket. First amended complaint is here: http://ia700300.us.archive.org/35/it...215824.8.0.pdf

Defendants MTD (points and authorities) is here: http://ia700300.us.archive.org/35/it...15824.11.1.pdf

N6ATF 04-06-2011 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stix213 (Post 6151708)
IMO if the crime was bad enough to take away gun rights for life, the state needs to call it a capital felony. If it wasn't bad enough to be a capital felony then it wasn't bad enough to take away a fundamental right.

Fixed. If the government wants someone to be killed, it should do it itself and not aid and abet murderers via victim disarmament.

anthonyca 04-07-2011 6:41 AM

Great post. Thank you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Norris (Post 6153236)
I went to PACER and RECAPed the docket. While it may take a while to sync everthing, here are the results (for those wishing to follow and read):

Enos, et al v. Holder, et al. Case 2:10-cv-02911 (PACER #215824). Filed on 10-29-2010 in the US District Court of the Eastern District of California, Sacramento. Donald Kilmer, attorney for the Plaintiffs. 9 Plaintiffs, all but one, convicted of MCDV (Lautenberg). Alleges the US Government has violated their 2A rights through an unlawful interpretation of 18 U.S.C. SS 921, 922, and 925. Alleges violations of 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 10th amendments. The Madison Society is funding this lawsuit.

The original complaint is available on the docket. First amended complaint is here: http://ia700300.us.archive.org/35/it...215824.8.0.pdf

Defendants MTD (points and authorities) is here: http://ia700300.us.archive.org/35/it...15824.11.1.pdf


J.D.Allen 04-07-2011 8:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyca (Post 6151830)
The "crime" is any touching, no matter how slight,wether it was or was not intended to cause pain or gain an advantage. You lightly toss the remote at your spouse who was complaining about you watching the game, bam your gun life is over. You want to get out of an argument so you ever so slightly move your spouses arm away from the door knob, by legal and jury instruction that is DV.

Most people get into trouble by telling the cops that they moved their spouse's hand to avoid a more heated argument. Now the cops have to arrest and the DA will prosecute even when the spouse doesn't want to press charges. It's an open and shut case and you CAN NOT win unless the jury disobeys the jury instructions and ignores the law.

I've seen it more times than I care to mention. And it's fracking amazing how the presumption of innocence goes right out the window in DV cases.

mofugly13 04-07-2011 8:41 AM

I have a co-worker who is a prohibited person because of a DV conviction. During his divorce he was fightig with his wife, and he tried to leave the house, but she blocked his way. He used one hand, on her arm to move her out of the way, and left. She called the cops, and he admitted to pushing her aside. They promptly arrested him ang confiscated his firearms. Later, after things cooled down, the wife didn't want any charges pressed, and didn't testify in court, but nevertheless, he was convicted and is now a prohibited person.

anthonyca 04-07-2011 9:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mofugly13 (Post 6155500)
I have a co-worker who is a prohibited person because of a DV conviction. During his divorce he was fightig with his wife, and he tried to leave the house, but she blocked his way. He used one hand, on her arm to move her out of the way, and left. She called the cops, and he admitted to pushing her aside. They promptly arrested him ang confiscated his firearms. Later, after things cooled down, the wife didn't want any charges pressed, and didn't testify in court, but nevertheless, he was convicted and is now a prohibited person.

Yes, and most men who don't like actual wife beaters will dig their own grave by telling the cops they don't believe in hitting women so they nudged by her to leave before it got ugly. Your done if you say that.

Gray Peterson 04-07-2011 9:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mofugly13 (Post 6155500)
I have a co-worker who is a prohibited person because of a DV conviction. During his divorce he was fightig with his wife, and he tried to leave the house, but she blocked his way. He used one hand, on her arm to move her out of the way, and left. She called the cops, and he admitted to pushing her aside. They promptly arrested him ang confiscated his firearms. Later, after things cooled down, the wife didn't want any charges pressed, and didn't testify in court, but nevertheless, he was convicted and is now a prohibited person.

Guys, let this be a lesson: Go out another way, and if she won't let you, call the cops and advise that you're being held against your will and that you don't want to physically lay hands on her in order to get out of your own home.

Turn the tables on her by calling first. Sorry to say this, but when a spouse refuses to let someone leave, it's coercion and the marriage is pretty much dead and over. There are some lines that are not meant to be crossed.

gunsmith 04-07-2011 9:28 AM

an ex GF of mine tried to get me a DV, fortunately a roomate was there & she told the cops the truth, I never touched her and never threatened. She had called the cops ( I was living in Frisco @ the time ) and said I was "had locked myself in my room, was heavily armed and unresponsive" ( if your GF is a lawyer DO NOT win an argument if you value your sanity/freedom ) ... I was indeed "armed" as I owned a bunch of guns at the time, I was unresponsive because it was 2am & I was sleeping! The door was locked because I had my own room and didn't feel like arguing.

something like 5 cop cars showed up.

J.D.Allen 04-07-2011 9:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson (Post 6155670)
Guys, let this be a lesson: Go out another way, and if she won't let you, call the cops and advise that you're being held against your will and that you don't want to physically lay hands on her in order to get out of your own home.

Turn the tables on her by calling first. Sorry to say this, but when a spouse refuses to let someone leave, it's coercion and the marriage is pretty much dead and over. There are some lines that are not meant to be crossed.

In CA not letting someone leave when they want to can also bring charges of false imprisonment...

jl123 04-07-2011 9:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunsmith (Post 6155789)
an ex GF of mine tried to get me a DV, fortunately a roomate was there & she told the cops the truth, I never touched her and never threatened. She had called the cops ( I was living in Frisco @ the time ) and said I was "had locked myself in my room, was heavily armed and unresponsive" ( if your GF is a lawyer DO NOT win an argument if you value your sanity/freedom ) ... I was indeed "armed" as I owned a bunch of guns at the time, I was unresponsive because it was 2am & I was sleeping! The door was locked because I had my own room and didn't feel like arguing.

something like 5 cop cars showed up.

Glad you came out of that OK. I hope you were done with her after that.

How did you like living in Texas?

Smokeybehr 04-07-2011 10:12 AM

The defendants are using a wad of twisted logic in their briefs. One main argument they are using is that RKBA is not a civil right. They're also arguing that the plaintiffs knew what they were getting into when they plead NC to the charges. That opens the defendants up to the ex post facto argument by the plaintiffs.

Kilmer will kick some tail on this case, especially with the weaksauce in the defendants MTD.

nick 04-07-2011 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MP301 (Post 6151683)
Like I think I said in another thread where this came up. Kilmer and Thje Madison Society Rock. I never understood how a felon could regain fireamrs rights, but as Misd. DV convict, whether any force waqs used or not, was banned for life.

Several will agree with me that taking away any "RIGHT" for life should be a tall order.

Well, it's simple. Since hunting witches doesn't work to redirect public anger from the real problems (and real culprits, a.k.a. the politicians who create them) anymore, we needed new groups to hype up and and blame bad crops on. Domestic violence offenders, sex offenders, gays, gun owners, blacks, and other "undesirables of the highest order". You name it, we've probably tried it.

Of course, many would say that there's a big difference between someone actually committing a crime (DV or sex offender) and someone born with the "wrong" skin color or someone who happens to legally own guns. So, why did I lump them all together? Well, simply because all of them above groups (and many others) were negatively hyped up way beyond the scope of the original "offense" (whatever it might've been), and that hype was and is used to unconstitutionally deprive them of rights.

Take DV offenders, for example. I'm sure enough people will post in this thread saying that they have no problem with "wife beaters" being unable to own gun and have other rights taken away from them. Well, here's the first similarity between the way DV offenders and the other "undesirables" I mentioned are treated - dismissive names are created so that one doesn't have to think about the nature of the said offense. Why think when you already have a name for them that expresses your feelings on the subject (or rather, tells you how to feel on the subject). Then, of course, there's the reality that most "wife beaters" are anything but. Unfortunately, these days you don't even have to do anything criminal to becomes a DV offender. For example, accusations of domestic violence are pretty much a standard practice when it comes to divorce proceedings, as the parties to a divorce try to better position themselves before the judge. The required burden of proof seems to be ridiculously low. Another example is, say, you got into an argument at a bar. It didn't come to a fight, but you did touch the other person while gesticulating, like many people do. Well, these days you've just committed battery. If the person in question is related to you, you've just committed DV, and you're now a witch to be hunted down and scorned by the society. Your offense is worse than that of a mugger, who'll regain his rights in 10 years.

Now, for the creepy, horrible, scary sex offenders. Unfortunately, it's another list getting onto which is almost as easy as getting on the no-fly list, although at least some due process is followed (as opposed to the no-fly list. Come to think of it, a "domestic terrorist" is the and improved witch these days, as the old kinds of witches were wearing out as the terror they inspire goes). Let's see... A guy of 18 years and 4 days had sex with his girlfriend of 17 years 11 months and 19 days. Yes, I intentionally making it this close to show the ridiculousness of the law. This is something they've been doing for the past 2 years (heck, they might be Canadians, the age of consent there is 16, as it is in, say, most of Europe, and in some US states. However, it would appear that moving to some other US states without breaking up with your girlfriend first makes you a sex offender. Sounds familiar to you gun owners?). However, the guy has just become a sex offender, provided it's proven in the court of law that he's committed this heinous act. Maybe he broke up with his girlfriend soon thereafter and she complained. Maybe her parents never liked him to begin with, and decided to use this as the means of getting rid of him.

Another example, how many times have you heard of a teenage girl (and not just teenage girls) accusing someone of raping her when she got pregnant and didn't want to admit to her parents that she had sex?

How may times have you heard of children doing that when they got peeved at their parents? According to my niece, who's 11 and used to go to a public school, they had sessions where the school counselors tried to make kids say that their parents abuse them in all sorts of ways every quarter.

There're more ways to become a sex offender without doing anything wrong. The outcome is that you're screwed for life.

Unfortunately, it being so easy to become either a sex offender, or a DV offender dilutes the original meaning of the terms, and it makes the people really committing those offenses look not as bad as they should be looking.

Did I mention how disgusting (and unconstitutional) the whole retroactivity of the Lautenberg amendment is, as well?

I hope this lawsuit will succeed.

bluev7 04-07-2011 10:26 AM

Great post thank you here is some damn light at the end of the tunnel. But really you can get a DV WITHOUT even touching someone how about that!!! Oh you broke somebodies cell phone huh? DV! No guns for you you hostile terrorist cell phone smasher oh but any stranger from another country can get a security clearance for our military!!!?

scarville 04-07-2011 10:43 AM

I used to know a guy who claimed his DV conviction was because his wife grabbed his 35 mm camera and swung it at his head. When he dodged, the camera continued through its arc and hit her in the face. Of course he could be exaggerating. However, I've read enough stories about men convicted of DV for things that a sensible jury would toss back into the DA's face with the admonition to stop wasting the taxpayers' money and go after some real criminals.

IBTL.

mrdd 04-07-2011 2:04 PM

Nick, what the heck is "DW"?

Suggestion: if you are going to use an abbreviation or acronym, spell it out the first time so others know what you are saying.

Munk 04-07-2011 2:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scarville (Post 6156294)
I used to know a guy who claimed his DV conviction was because his wife grabbed his 35 mm camera and swung it at his head. When he dodged, the camera continued through its arc and hit her in the face. Of course he could be exaggerating. However, I've read enough stories about men convicted of DV for things that a sensible jury would toss back into the DA's face with the admonition to stop wasting the taxpayers' money and go after some real criminals.

IBTL.

Then theres the whole array of people who injure themselves to claim DV, and the outright liars, and similar who were never touched.

The worst of this is the massive gender bias. Women strike men and the men are expected to shrug it off or "man up" and not press charges. They're also held to a lesser punishment in a majority of cases, even when their actions are more aggregious than some taken by men. The equal protection amendment is looked at as a joke when considering equal sentencing between men and women. This is wrong. Same crime should mean same time.

HondaMasterTech 04-07-2011 5:21 PM

If someone commits a crime which is so horrible that makes them such a dangerous person that they cannot be trusted to own a gun they are probably not trustworthy enough to be free in society.

It's very possible the entire concept of firearm prohibition needs to be redefined.

anthonyca 04-07-2011 8:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smokeybehr (Post 6156078)
The defendants are using a wad of twisted logic in their briefs. One main argument they are using is that RKBA is not a civil right. They're also arguing that the plaintiffs knew what they were getting into when they plead NC to the charges. That opens the defendants up to the ex post facto argument by the plaintiffs.

Kilmer will kick some tail on this case, especially with the weaksauce in the defendants MTD.

This is not cheap. The Madison Society will need funds for Mr.kilmer's valuable time as the government burns our tax dollars on this case.

scarville 04-07-2011 8:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyca (Post 6159945)
This is not cheap. The Madison Society will need funds for Mr.kilmer's valuable time as the government burns our tax dollars on this case.

It really sucks that gun owners contribute to defend their right but pay taxes to support the mokes that want to take them away.

TANJ.

anthonyca 04-07-2011 8:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scarville (Post 6159994)
It really sucks that gun owners contribute to defend their right but pay taxes to support the mokes that want to take them away.

TANJ.

I agree. It's amazing that the government blatantly disobeys the law and uses our money to try to bleed us out in court.

In my trade I can be personally liable for causing harm or knowingly performing shoddy work, they should be also. I know about 1983 but I am talking about charging the costs of a lawsuit personally to the gov employee who caused it. A case in point is San Francisco, they admitted they knew they were going to loose with their argument on gun bans in public housing but the wasted tax payers money and denied citizens rights out of spite.

nick 04-07-2011 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdd (Post 6157473)
Nick, what the heck is "DW"?

Suggestion: if you are going to use an abbreviation or acronym, spell it out the first time so others know what you are saying.

Thinking of Dan Wessons while posting. Fixed :)

jshoebot 04-07-2011 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyca
Now the cops have to arrest and the DA will prosecute even when the spouse doesn't want to press charges. It's an open and shut case and you CAN NOT win unless the jury disobeys the jury instructions and ignores the law.

As well they should. If a juror doesn't believe it is morally sound to convict on a law that is being applied stupidly, he has the right and the duty to choose against it. That's part of the 'jury box' people always talk about.

www.fija.org

NorCalRedneck 04-08-2011 1:46 AM

So instead of a man saying "I moved her out of the way so I could leave" and instead invoking his right to remain silent would he still be arrested and convicted. Or would it be dropped because it was a he said- she said and there were no marks or other incriminating evidence to go by?

anthonyca 04-08-2011 4:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jshoebot (Post 6160903)
As well they should. If a juror doesn't believe it is morally sound to convict on a law that is being applied stupidly, he has the right and the duty to choose against it. That's part of the 'jury box' people always talk about.

www.fija.org

I agree with you but I don't believe many people know about that, or have the guts to act.

jl123 04-08-2011 4:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyca (Post 6161599)
I agree with you but I don't believe many people know about that, or have the guts to act.

It doesn't take a lot of guts to just vote your conscience......maybe more than some have I guess. As a juror, you don't need to explain your decision.

anthonyca 04-08-2011 4:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jl123 (Post 6161605)
It doesn't take a lot of guts to just vote your conscience......maybe more than some have I guess. As a juror, you don't need to explain your decision.

With most people I have met, the herd mentality is stronger than the freedom mentality. I know people like you are actively trying to change that and I hope you are successful.

jshoebot 04-08-2011 4:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jl123
It doesn't take a lot of guts to just vote your conscience......maybe more than some have I guess. As a juror, you don't need to explain your decision.

Exactly. And when a judge says "You don't have the right to judge the law, only the facts of this case," he's not telling the whole truth. Jury nullification is one of the checks on power that our founding fathers gave us, but it's been around since long before. If more people would vote their conscience, there would be less stupid laws. :shrug:

jl123 04-08-2011 5:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jshoebot (Post 6161618)
Exactly. And when a judge says "You don't have the right to judge the law, only the facts of this case," he's not telling the whole truth. Jury nullification is one of the checks on power that our founding fathers gave us, but it's been around since long before. If more people would vote their conscience, there would be less stupid laws. :shrug:

This is correct. Judges blatantly lie.

joe_sun 04-08-2011 5:41 AM

Years ago I worked at a local DA's office as a CSO and it seems half my time was spent on DV cases. I'm glad to see others agree with me as the entire process left me sickened and with the mentality that you don't want cops in your life PERIOD.

Time and time again I saw men convicted in court or plead out to a DV charge because they non violently moved their girlfriend or wife out of their way while they were leaving the room. Nothing would have happened had their neighbors not called the police because they heard an argument.

Don't get me wrong, there really were wife beaters and husband beaters we dealt with but who in their right mind thinks that punching a woman in the face and non violently moving any part of her body deserve the same punishment?

I hope they win and I'll be giving them a donation.

SgtDinosaur 04-08-2011 10:00 AM

If memory serves, that draconian law was passed during the OJ case hysteria. It is more than overdue to be struck down.

The Director 04-08-2011 10:04 AM

Huh. Maybe Lee Baca will get to carry a gun again.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.