Selling banned SB281 defined "assualt rifles" out of state?

bobthefisher · Apr 14, 2013

Just as the title states. How will the new laws affect selling SB281 defined "assualt rifles" that are grandfathered to someone out of state after Oct. 1st? Will they have to be handed over to an FFL first, or do we now have to hold onto them forever (except inheritance)? Sorry if this is a dup.

... · Apr 14, 2013

bobthefisher said:
Just as the title states. How will the new laws affect selling SB281 defined "assualt rifles" that grandfathered to someone out of state after Oct. 1st? Will they have to be handed over to an FFL first, or do we now have to hold onto them forever? Sorry if this is a dup.

you can sell out of state (go through the FFLs). MD law does not apply outside of MD. We're not slaves, if they ban AK's then I can go to VA and shoot an AK, etc.

please watch the national level

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/13/manchin-toomey-deal-could-allow-gun-owners-seller-to-carry-sell-across-state/

if this is true then you may be able to buy out of state and legally bring it into MD !!!!!!

Action at the national level could change gun transfers, but we have to wait and see. It make sense though. How come I can sell my unlocked iphone 5 to a guy in NYC for $1,500, but I can't sell my $400 handgun?

gmhowell · Apr 14, 2013

... said:
if this is true then you may be able to buy out of state and legally bring it into MD !!!!!!

I hope this could happen, but I don't want to be the guy Gura uses as a test case against AG Frosh

... · Apr 14, 2013

gmhowell said:
I hope this could happen, but I don't want to be the guy Gura uses as a test case against AG Frosh

look, this is unsettled.

If I have to get a background check every time, but can buy any gun in any state, then I'll compromise. Why should AR-15s be legal in 45 states? If we can get this and make all state bans meaningless this is a good deal. And as I read into it, this is based on the commerce clause. Therefore if I sell my guns out of state I need to background check the buyers with NICS. However, if transfer to my family, no need for a check. I'm not jumping up and down, but since the democrats don't really know anything about guns I hope we can slip in some language to get something like this.

Think about it. If MD had a ban, but MD residents could buy in other states, just not MD and still legally get banned guns in other states we'd be fine. And if the courts came in and smacked MD, NJ, MA, NY, CT, CO, HI, IL, and all of the other trouble makers that would be good.

... · Apr 14, 2013

bobthefisher said:
Just as the title states. How will the new laws affect selling SB281 defined "assualt rifles" that are grandfathered to someone out of state after Oct. 1st? Will they have to be handed over to an FFL first, or do we now have to hold onto them forever (except inheritance)? Sorry if this is a dup.

you know what screw the law.

call up the DOJ and tell them you have assault weapons.

Eric Holder will then buy them from you and send them to mexico for free. With all of the drug money he's got I'm sure he'll give you at least $3,000 a gun. And if you get in trouble obama or holder will just pardon you.

... · Apr 14, 2013

gmhowell said:
I hope this could happen, but I don't want to be the guy Gura uses as a test case against AG Frosh

Gura will destroy AG frosh in court. How many supreme court cases did frosh win?

ddeanjohnson · Apr 14, 2013

the Fox story is very inaccurate

... said:
you can sell out of state (go through the FFLs). MD law does not apply outside of MD. We're not slaves, if they ban AK's then I can go to VA and shoot an AK, etc.

please watch the national level

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/13/manchin-toomey-deal-could-allow-gun-owners-seller-to-carry-sell-across-state/

if this is true then you may be able to buy out of state and legally bring it into MD !!!!!!

Action at the national level could change gun transfers, but we have to wait and see. It make sense though. How come I can sell my unlocked iphone 5 to a guy in NYC for $1,500, but I can't sell my $400 handgun? . . .

If I have to get a background check every time, but can buy any gun in any state, then I'll compromise. Why should AR-15s be legal in 45 states? If we can get this and make all state bans meaningless this is a good deal. And as I read into it, this is based on the commerce clause. Therefore if I sell my guns out of state I need to background check the buyers with NICS. However, if transfer to my family, no need for a check. I'm not jumping up and down, but since the democrats don't really know anything about guns I hope we can slip in some language to get something like this.

Think about it. If MD had a ban, but MD residents could buy in other states, just not MD and still legally get banned guns in other states we'd be fine. And if the courts came in and smacked MD, NJ, MA, NY, CT, CO, HI, IL, and all of the other trouble makers that would be good.

Firearms are different from iphones, and different from most other things, because federal law itself contains a general requirement that interstate firearms transfers must be conducted in accord with the laws of both the buyer's state and the seller's state, in addition to all of the other federal requirements. As far as I can see, nothing in the proposed Manchin-Toomey Amendment would change that.

Here is how the pertinent provision of the U.S. Code would read if the Manchin-Toomey Amendment became law (the bracketed language is current law that would be stricken, and the language in all caps is the proposed new language that would be inserted in its place) (these changes are made on pages 29-30 of the Manchin-Toomey Amendment):

18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3):

[It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver] any firearm to any person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the licensee’s place of business is located, except that this paragraph (A) shall not apply to the sale or delivery of any [rifle or shotgun] FIREARM to a resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee’s place of business is [located] LOCATED OR TEMPORARILY LOCATED if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in [both such States] THE STATE IN WHICH THE TRANSFER IS CONDUCTED AND THE STATE OF RESIDENCE OF THE TRANSFEREE (and any licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both States), and (B) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;

So, no, you will not be able to go to another state, purchase an "assault" or "copycat" firearm, and bring it back into Maryland. The FFL in the other state won't sell it you because it is banned in Maryland, and even under the Manchin-Toomey Amendment, that would be a federal violation. But even if he did, you would still be committing a state crime in Maryland as soon as you crossed the border with it.

The Manchin-Toomey Amendment would allow FFL dealers to sell handguns face-to-face to residents of other states, just as federal law now allows them to do with rifles and shotguns. But the transaction still would have to comply with all applicable laws of the dealer's state and of your state, Maryland. I am doubtful that such transactions will be practical for Maryland residents for handguns, given the way that the Maryland law is set up with respect to the state-conducted background check for handguns -- the various state-law requirements, including the waiting period, the distinct state-conducted background check, and so forth. Even if that problem could be overcome, you would still need the Handgun Qualification License required by the impending new Maryland law (with the same exceptions as applicable in Maryland). In addition, the Handgun Roster, fired-shell casing, and "integrated lock" requirements would all have to be complied for any handgun for which any or all of those requirements would be applicable in Maryland. All of that would be a lot for any out-of-state FFL to deal with. So, my prediction would be that even if the Manchin-Toomey Amendment becomes law, it will still be impossible for Maryland residents (other than those with federal firearms licenses) to buy handguns over-the-counter from dealers in other states.

That Fox story to which you linked is completely messed up. There is nothing in the Manchin-Toomey Amendment that allows people with carry licenses to carry firearms in states other than the state issuing the license. The Amendment would merely allow an FFL dealer to use certain state-issued licenses "in lieu of conducting a background check" for purposes of the proposed new requirements for dealer-conducted background checks of certain private transfers (at gun shows, etc.). It appears to me that the carry permits issued by most or all states probably would qualify for this use, and so would the Handgun Qualification License that Maryland will be issuing. The pertinent language is on page 22 of the Manchin-Toomey Amendment. But this has nothing to do with carry rights.

According to press reports, another amendment will be offered to the pending base bill (S. 649) that would indeed make certain state-issued carry permits effective across state lines (sometimes referred to as "national reciprocity"), but no such amendment has yet been filed, and no such provision is found in the Manchin-Toomey Amendment.

SkunkWerX · Apr 14, 2013

Manchin-Toomey, if I understand correctly, will allow for reciprocity for those who have obtained CCW's in their home states, to carry in any other states who issue CCWs.

Think about it? If this is the case, exactly what does it do for most Marylanders who CANNOT get a Carry permit here at home? Manchin-Toomey may adversely affect a Marylanders ability to carry using an out-of-state permit except in that exact state where they have obtained the permit, ie; only in UT, or only in FL, etc.

I dont claim to be an expert on the current Manchin-Toomey proposal, just saying, be careful until we see the final version.

ShallNotInfringe · Apr 14, 2013

ddeanjohnson said:
Firearms are different from iphones, and different from most other things, because federal law itself contains a general requirement that interstate firearms transfers must be conducted in accord with the laws of both the buyer's state and the seller's state, in addition to all of the other federal requirements. As far as I can see, nothing in the proposed Manchin-Toomey Amendment would change that.

Here is how the pertinent provision of the U.S. Code would read if the Manchin-Toomey Amendment became law (the bracketed language is current law that would be stricken, and the language in all caps is the proposed new language that would be inserted in its place) (these changes are made on pages 29-30 of the Manchin-Toomey Amendment):

18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3):

[It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver] any firearm to any person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the licensee’s place of business is located, except that this paragraph (A) shall not apply to the sale or delivery of any [rifle or shotgun] FIREARM to a resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee’s place of business is [located] LOCATED OR TEMPORARILY LOCATED if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in [both such States] THE STATE IN WHICH THE TRANSFER IS CONDUCTED AND THE STATE OF RESIDENCE OF THE TRANSFEREE (and any licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both States), and (B) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;

So, no, you will not be able to go to another state, purchase an "assault" or "copycat" firearm, and bring it back into Maryland. The FFL in the other state won't sell it you because it is banned in Maryland, and even under the Manchin-Toomey Amendment, that would be a federal violation. But even if he did, you would still be committing a state crime in Maryland as soon as you crossed the border with it.

The Manchin-Toomey Amendment would allow FFL dealers to sell handguns face-to-face to residents of other states, just as federal law now allows them to do with rifles and shotguns. But the transaction still would have to comply with all applicable laws of the dealer's state and of your state, Maryland. I am doubtful that such transactions will be practical for Maryland residents for handguns, given the way that the Maryland law is set up with respect to the state-conducted background check for handguns -- the various state-law requirements, including the waiting period, the distinct state-conducted background check, and so forth. Even if that problem could be overcome, you would still need the Handgun Qualification License required by the impending new Maryland law (with the same exceptions as applicable in Maryland). In addition, the Handgun Roster, fired-shell casing, and "integrated lock" requirements would all have to be complied for any handgun for which any or all of those requirements would be applicable in Maryland. All of that would be a lot for any out-of-state FFL to deal with. So, my prediction would be that even if the Manchin-Toomey Amendment becomes law, it will still be impossible for Maryland residents (other than those with federal firearms licenses) to buy handguns over-the-counter from dealers in other states.

That Fox story to which you linked is completely messed up. There is nothing in the Manchin-Toomey Amendment that allows people with carry licenses to carry firearms in states other than the state issuing the license. The Amendment would merely allow an FFL dealer to use certain state-issued licenses "in lieu of conducting a background check" for purposes of the proposed new requirements for dealer-conducted background checks of certain private transfers (at gun shows, etc.). It appears to me that the carry permits issued by most or all states probably would qualify for this use, and so would the Handgun Qualification License that Maryland will be issuing. The pertinent language is on page 22 of the Manchin-Toomey Amendment. But this has nothing to do with carry rights.

According to press reports, another amendment will be offered to the pending base bill (S. 649) that would indeed make certain state-issued carry permits effective across state lines (sometimes referred to as "national reciprocity"), but no such amendment has yet been filed, and no such provision is found in the Manchin-Toomey Amendment.

This is exactly how I read the M-T amendment also. Watching the misinformation propagate is frustrating. Makes me wonder if people are actually reading the language in the bill or just repeating the media narrative... We should not be like Congress and read the bill BEFORE it's passed.

Just to add another fun fact about the base bill, S 649 adds required reporting of lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours to the US AG and the local authorities... The current MD bill (SB281) calls for 72 hours.

*** With all this talk about "gun control", I haven't heard one politician say how they plan to take guns away from criminals ***

AvidRider · Apr 14, 2013

But if you buy an AR-15 in another state under the proposed federal legislation, you would still have to register the gun as you bring it back into Maryland, right?

ddeanjohnson · Apr 14, 2013

SkunkWerX said:
Manchin-Toomey, if I understand correctly, will allow for reciprocity for those who have obtained CCW's in their home states, to carry in any other states who issue CCWs.

As I explained in my post above, there is nothing whatever in the Manchin-Toomey Amendment, or in the underlying bill (S. 649), that in any way would extend the privileges conferred by any carry permit beyond the borders of the state that issued it. Both Fox News and CNN have completely bungled that aspect in their reports. There is no such provision in the amendment.

According to other press reports, other senators may later propose a different amendment that would indeed incorporate some form of "national reciprocity," but no such amendment has yet been filed and so it is impossible to discuss its implications in Maryland or elsewhere.

ddeanjohnson · Apr 14, 2013

AvidRider said:
But if you buy an AR-15 in another state under the proposed federal legislation, you would still have to register the gun as you bring it back into Maryland, right?

I believe that Maryland authorities would say that under current law, if you go to another state to buy an AR-15 (except the "Colt AR-15 Sporter HBAR rifle"), you must transfer it via a Maryland-licensed FFL in Maryland, just like a handgun. There may be others who dispute that this is necessary, but that is my understanding of the view of Maryland law held by those who enforce it.

If the Manchin-Toomey Amendment became law tomorrow, it would not change the current situation at all with respect to such an out-of-state purchases, I think. Whatever is required now would still be required. Manchin-Toomey is pertinent mainly to transactions between residents of the same state.

After October 1, 2013, you would not be able to buy the AR-15 out of state, period (unless you are law enforcement or the like). No dealer could sell it to you because the gun will be banned in Maryland and therefore the sale would be a federal violation as well. No private individual in other state could sell it to you because it would violate federal law. If somebody did sell it to you, unlawfully, you would violate Maryland state law as soon as you crossed the state line with it, to bring it home. That's the way I read the bills. If you are actually contemplating doing such a thing, you should consult a lawyerl, which I am not, and get legal advice, which this is not.

Andybrown · Apr 14, 2013

Similar to the "Assault Pistol" law of a few years ago

I believe the new law will play out like the previous one?
There's a list of weapons. After the cut-off date, private citizens will no longer be able to TRANSFER (other than immediate family members), ACQUIRE, DISPOSE OF, nor POSSESS.

http://www.mdshooters.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=82489&stc=1&d=1365946863

MichaelTech · Apr 14, 2013

here is how i see this. (In layman and not a lawyer way)

It is not like a Hi-Cap magazine is defined now or is redefined in the new Bill.

Under current law and future sb281 Hi -cap magazines can not be obtained in state. But you may go out of state and get them and bring them in state and POSSESS them. The Word Possess is left out of the Law wording when it comes to Magazines.

For assault rifles they have included the word POSSESS which makes it illegal to have within the state. But they have also added in the language "Under certain circumstances" This is what Grandfathering and the October first deadline is all about. part of the certain circumstances are to grandfather in already purchased assault weapons and to also allow law enforcement and other designee to still get and possess them after the October Date.

So buying out of state does not work specifically because the language has included possess unless under certain circumstances which they have well defined.

Also here are a couple questions I have:

I live in Maryland on the tri state boarder of PA and DE. Both are 5 minutes away from me. I also live near Elk Neck State Park and the Public Range there.

First question is I wonder how they are going to address out of state users of Elk Neck Shooting range? If I read it right no out of state resident could legally come in and shoot any defined weapon under sb281 but I don't know that for sure. Also how are they going to handle this going into effect. in other words, what is going to happen to out of state residents that are not clear on the new law and accidentally violates the law going to a range like Elk Neck in MD?

Second, I love on the border and am a Maryland Resident. So now I have registered my restricted weapons and everything is good and legal on what I own. What if I leave the state and move across the boarder. What is the status of the weapons I have registered. Could I legally as a Delaware resident bring them back across state line into Maryland and shoot at Elk Neck or does registration stay in effect only ass long as I was a Maryland Resident. Also say I move for a year to Delaware and then move back to Maryland. What is the status of my restricted weapons? Do I need to or can I re-register them? I think the law allows for residents moving to the state that can prove they possessed the weapon before Oct 1st can with a hefty civil penalty tax register the weapon in state. But I am not very certain of this part.

mac1_131 · Apr 14, 2013

MichaelTech said:
here is how i see this. (In layman and not a lawyer way)Also here are a couple questions I have:

I live in Maryland on the tri state boarder of PA and DE. Both are 5 minutes away from me. I also live near Elk Neck State Park and the Public Range there.

First question is I wonder how they are going to address out of state users of Elk Neck Shooting range? If I read it right no out of state resident could legally come in and shoot any defined weapon under sb281 but I don't know that for sure. Also how are they going to handle this going into effect. in other words, what is going to happen to out of state residents that are not clear on the new law and accidentally violates the law going to a range like Elk Neck in MD?

Second, I love on the border and am a Maryland Resident. So now I have registered my restricted weapons and everything is good and legal on what I own. What if I leave the state and move across the boarder. What is the status of the weapons I have registered. Could I legally as a Delaware resident bring them back across state line into Maryland and shoot at Elk Neck or does registration stay in effect only ass long as I was a Maryland Resident. Also say I move for a year to Delaware and then move back to Maryland. What is the status of my restricted weapons? Do I need to or can I re-register them? I think the law allows for residents moving to the state that can prove they possessed the weapon before Oct 1st can with a hefty civil penalty tax register the weapon in state. But I am not very certain of this part.

most of that has already been pretty well hashed out

an out of state resident can enter if they legally posessed it before the effective date because they fall under the same circumstances you quoted for in-state residents. the law does not specify residents or non-residents under the allowed exceptions

same thing for a resident leaving and returning. you legally possessed it before the effective date, so you can return with it

they have repeatedly told us this is what it means, even though it is a complicated read. some of the delegates out your way even asked MSP and this is what they told them

highfructosecornsyrup · Apr 14, 2013

Is MD saying, buy a banned weapon from an out of state business rather than support an in-state business?

Or is it just not clear since they are writing bills they know nothing about...

mac1_131 · Apr 14, 2013

no, not at all. you can't buy a banned weapon and bring it in to the state after the effective date, so you might as well buy it from a MD dealer while you can

if it's regulated, the transfer to a MD FFL is more complicated than just buying it from a MD dealer

ddeanjohnson · Apr 14, 2013

MichaelTech said:
It is not like a Hi-Cap magazine is defined now or is redefined in the new Bill.

It is true that neither current law nor SB 281 use the term "Hi-Cap magazine," but this has no legal significance. The bill does define "detachable magazine." Current law states, "A person may not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, purchase, receive, or transfer a detachable magazine that has a capacity of more than 20 rounds of ammunition for firearms." Effective October 1, 2013, SB 281 will change "20" to "10."

MichaelTech said:
First question is I wonder how they are going to address out of state users of Elk Neck Shooting range? If I read it right no out of state resident could legally come in and shoot any defined weapon under sb281 but I don't know that for sure. Also how are they going to handle this going into effect. in other words, what is going to happen to out of state residents that are not clear on the new law and accidentally violates the law going to a range like Elk Neck in MD?

This scenario was debated during the legislative process, and there is nothing unclear about what the new law says. If one brings a banned weapon, acquired on or after October 1, 2013, into Maryland, one commits a criminal offense. It does not matter whether he is going to the Elk Neck Shooting Range or the Eastern Shore. How individual violators are dealt with will depend, as is usually the case, on the judgments of the prosecutors and judges. But the law is clear enough on this point.

MichaelTech said:
Second, I . . .am a Maryland Resident. So now I have registered my restricted weapons and everything is good and legal on what I own. What if I leave the state and move across the boarder. What is the status of the weapons I have registered. Could I legally as a Delaware resident bring them back across state line into Maryland and shoot at Elk Neck or does registration stay in effect only ass long as I was a Maryland Resident. Also say I move for a year to Delaware and then move back to Maryland. What is the status of my restricted weapons? Do I need to or can I re-register them? I think the law allows for residents moving to the state that can prove they possessed the weapon before Oct 1st can with a hefty civil penalty tax register the weapon in state.

No matter where one lives, if he lawfully owns the firearm before October 1, 2013, it is grandfathered in. Maryland could care less if you later move to Delaware with them, and in fact Gov. O'Malley would probably prefer it. (I don't know what the Delaware laws are -- that's your worry.) The grandfathered firearm would still be legal if you moved back to Maryland. It is true that you would be required to register all "regulated" firearms, which would include grandfathered "assault" or "copycat" firearms and all handguns, within 90 days of establishing (or in this case, re-establishing) residency. I don't know how the regulations will regard a case in which all regulated firearms were already registered during a previous period of residency -- probably they'll require you to register them again, but maybe not.

As I read the bill, a new resident who fails to register handguns and other regulated firearms within 90 days of establishing residency is exposed to possible criminal prosecution; there are no civil penalties attached.

Many of these points are discussed further in my detailed summary of the major provisions of SB 281, here:
http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=114585

However, some points will only be clarified by later regulations and administrative guidance from the Maryland State Police and/or attorney general -- and perhaps, in some cases, court rulings.

gmhowell · Apr 14, 2013

... said:
Gura will destroy AG frosh in court. How many supreme court cases did frosh win?

I agree. I just don't want to be a party to that case.

SkunkWerX said:
Manchin-Toomey, if I understand correctly, will allow for reciprocity for those who have obtained CCW's in their home states, to carry in any other states who issue CCWs.

Think about it? If this is the case, exactly what does it do for most Marylanders who CANNOT get a Carry permit here at home? Manchin-Toomey may adversely affect a Marylanders ability to carry using an out-of-state permit except in that exact state where they have obtained the permit, ie; only in UT, or only in FL, etc..

This is my understanding of some plans, as put out in PR and the popular press. (IOW, ddeanjohnson, I know what I'm saying isn't necessarily grounded in reality. Following comments are just random dreaming and supposition).

What I like about this is the lulzy potential it opens up for Frosh, Gansler, O'Malley and all the rest to have people carrying all over the place without being able to do a damned thing about it. MD would be forced to recognize VA permits. And PA permits. And TX and MT and etc. permits. In fact, you would have a better chance at carry in MD by moving to one of those states, applying, and then coming back and visiting. FWIW, same thing goes for Bloomberg and the asshats in NY.

AvidRider said:
But if you buy an AR-15 in another state under the proposed federal legislation, you would still have to register the gun as you bring it back into Maryland, right?

Conjecture based on dreaming again: if the ability to purchase from any state were to become reality, I have no doubt that MD would attempt to make you register, ban stuff for import into the state, etc. Any federal law would require an iron clad preemption clause.

highfructosecornsyrup said:
Or is it just not clear since they are writing bills they know nothing about...

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Pinecone · Apr 15, 2013

1) Out of state transfers of banned firearms will have to go through an FFL in the byers home state. An MD FFL will not be able to sell them, even to an out of state person.

All out of state transfers have to go through an FFL now, and the buyer has to buy in person at the FFL place of business.

2) You could not buy and bring back a banned firearms into MD after Oct 1, even if Federal law allowed you to buy it. NO ONE can bring in a banned firearm that was purchased after Oct 1, 2013.

Same for the range use, if someone from DE came to Elk Neck range with a banned firearm that they purchased after Oct 1, 2013, they would be in violation of MD law.

Selling banned SB281 defined "assualt rifles" out of state?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Durka ninja

Ultimate Member

Not Banned Yet

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

autodidact

Ultimate Member

Lil Firecracker

Active Member

autodidact

autodidact

Member

Attachments

Member

MSI Executive Member

Active Member

MSI Executive Member

autodidact

Not Banned Yet

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics