View Poll Results: Is this a good ruling?

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • Good decision

    29 90.63%
  • Bad Decision

    1 3.13%
  • Netural

    1 3.13%
  • Don't know/Care

    0 0%
  • Rotabega

    1 3.13%
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 63

Thread: California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    06-30-16 @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,309
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    The Second Amendment has not been changed since it was ratified more than two centuries ago. It has always stated a specific right, stated that this right belongs to the people, and forbidden this right from being infringed. It has never given license to any level of government to infringe this right.
    Prior to the 14th Amendment the states were not bound by the BoR. After the 14th several provisions from the BoR were applied to the states, however there remain parts that aren't applied to the states, such as the 5th's right to a grand jury and the 7th. The 2nd was also unincorporated before 2010, and I don't see a strong constitutional basis for changing that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    Where, in the Constitution, is there anything against imposing an appropriate penalty on a criminal, proportional to the crime of which that criminal has been properly convicted?

    The Constitution itself is the very highest law of the land. Surely, any time a public servant who has taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and who has been given extraordinary authority for that purpose, abuses that authority in order to violate the Constitution, this is among the highest of possible crimes.

    I disagree with APACHERAT in that I think six years of hard labor is far too lenient a punishment for such a crime. I think that nothing less than twenty years will do, and even that may be too lenient.
    Article 1 Section 6 prohibits the enactments of criminal penalties on Congress members for their votes in Congress.

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    You're accusing the conservatives on the SCOTUS of legislating from the bench.

    I would say most constitutionalist, republicans and even many democrats believed that the Second Amendment trumped state gun laws.
    That the original intent of the authors of the Bill of Rights Second Amendment prevented the states from disarming it's citizens. States regulating guns or disarming it's citizens would be in violation of the federal Militia Law where all males are members of the unorganized militia.

    It was always Communist Party USA and it's splinter groups like the "New Left" who are todays liberals and progressives who used the states to infringe on Americans Second Amendment rights.

    If we used your argument, states could establish a state religion.
    The intent of the authors of the bill of rights was that it would restrict the federal government, not the states. As an originalist, I disagree with the incorporation of another amendment over 140 years after the 14th was passed. Although I do recognize that it's binding precedent and I don't actively desire it's overturn.

    They could have had a state religion before 1947.

  2. #52
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Or they know that ruling for it would be pointless and they would be overturned by the higher court anyway?

    Judges tend to make rulings based on their own ideology.The fact that they are one of the most overturned courts suggests that they could care less how SCOTUS would rule rule.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    Prior to the 14th Amendment the states were not bound by the BoR. After the 14th several provisions from the BoR were applied to the states, however there remain parts that aren't applied to the states, such as the 5th's right to a grand jury and the 7th. The 2nd was also unincorporated before 2010, and I don't see a strong constitutional basis for changing that.



    Article 1 Section 6 prohibits the enactments of criminal penalties on Congress members for their votes in Congress.



    The intent of the authors of the bill of rights was that it would restrict the federal government, not the states. As an originalist, I disagree with the incorporation of another amendment over 140 years after the 14th was passed. Although I do recognize that it's binding precedent and I don't actively desire it's overturn.

    They could have had a state religion before 1947.
    But but but there is no "Fourteenth Amendment"!

    When I was attending UCLB I took a course on the Constitution. The book we were required to purchase was written by a well know Constitutional scholar and it was interesting that he was also our professor. $$$

    While thumbing through the book when I came to the Fourteenth Amendment it was only one page with one sentence. The Fourteenth Amendment was unconstitutional.

    There are more than a few Constitutional scholars who say the same thing. They have a ligament argument.

    There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!

    >" A MISTAKEN BELIEF — that there is a valid article in the Constitution known as the "Fourteenth Amendment" — is responsible for the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and the ensuing controversy over desegregation in the public schools of America. No such amendment was ever legally ratified by three fourths of the States of the Union as required by the Constitution itself. The so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" was dubiously proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868. The President shared that doubt. There were 37 States in the Union at the time, so ratification by at least 28 was necessary to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution. Actually, only 21 States legally ratified it. So it failed of ratification.

    The undisputed record, attested by official journals and the unanimous writings of historians, establishes these events as occurring in 1867 and 1868:

    1.Outside the South, six States — New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky, California, Delaware and Maryland — failed to ratify the proposed amendment.
    2.In the South, ten States — Texas, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana — by formal action of their legislatures, rejected it under the normal processes of civil law.
    3.A total of 16 legislatures out of 37 failed legally to ratify the "Fourteenth Amendment."
    4.Congress — which had deprived the Southern States of their seats in the Senate — did not lawfully pass the resolution of submission in the first instance.
    5.The Southern States which had rejected the amendment were coerced by a federal statute passed in 1867 that took away the right to vote or hold office from all citizens who had served in the Confederate Army. Military governors were appointed and instructed to prepare the roll of voters. All this happened in spite of the presidential proclamation of amnesty previously issued by the President. New legislatures were thereupon chosen and forced to "ratify" under penalty of continued exile from the Union. In Louisiana, a General sent down from the North presided over the State legislature.
    6.Abraham Lincoln had declared many times that the Union was "inseparable" and "indivisible." After his death, and when the war was over, the ratification by the Southern States of the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, had been accepted as legal. But Congress in the 1867 law imposed the specific conditions under which the Southern States would be "entitled to representation in Congress."
    7.Congress, in passing the 1867 law that declared the Southern States could not have their seats in either the Senate or House in the next session unless they ratified the "Fourteenth Amendment," took an unprecedented step. No such right — to compel a State by an act of Congress to ratify a constitutional amendment — is to be found anywhere in the Constitution. Nor has this procedure ever been sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States.
    8.President Andrew Johnson publicly denounced this law as unconstitutional. But it was passed over his veto.
    9.Secretary of State Seward was on the spot in July 1868 when the various "ratifications" of a spurious nature were placed before him. The legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey had notified him that they rescinded their earlier action of ratification. He said in his official proclamation that he was not authorized as Secretary of State "to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification." He added that the amendment was valid "if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey, ratifying the aforesaid amendment, are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of these States." This was a very big "if." It will be noted that the real issue, therefore, is not only whether the forced "ratification" by the ten Southern States was lawful, but whether the withdrawal by the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey — two Northern States — was legal. The right of a State, by action of its legislature, to change its mind at any time before the final proclamation of ratification is issued by the Secretary of State has been confirmed in connection with other constitutional amendments.
    10.The Oregon Legislature in October 1868 — three months after the Secretary's proclamation was issued — passed a rescinding resolution, which argued that the "Fourteenth Amendment" had not been ratified by three fourths of the States and that the "ratifications" in the Southern States were "usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary and void" and that, "until such ratification is completed, any State has a right to withdraw its assent to any proposed amendment." ..."<

    continue -> David Lawrence: There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!

  4. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    06-30-16 @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,309
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    But but but there is no "Fourteenth Amendment"!

    When I was attending UCLB I took a course on the Constitution. The book we were required to purchase was written by a well know Constitutional scholar and it was interesting that he was also our professor. $$$

    While thumbing through the book when I came to the Fourteenth Amendment it was only one page with one sentence. The Fourteenth Amendment was unconstitutional.

    There are more than a few Constitutional scholars who say the same thing. They have a ligament argument.

    There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!

    >" A MISTAKEN BELIEF — that there is a valid article in the Constitution known as the "Fourteenth Amendment" — is responsible for the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and the ensuing controversy over desegregation in the public schools of America. No such amendment was ever legally ratified by three fourths of the States of the Union as required by the Constitution itself. The so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" was dubiously proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868. The President shared that doubt. There were 37 States in the Union at the time, so ratification by at least 28 was necessary to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution. Actually, only 21 States legally ratified it. So it failed of ratification.

    The undisputed record, attested by official journals and the unanimous writings of historians, establishes these events as occurring in 1867 and 1868:

    1.Outside the South, six States — New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky, California, Delaware and Maryland — failed to ratify the proposed amendment.
    2.In the South, ten States — Texas, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana — by formal action of their legislatures, rejected it under the normal processes of civil law.
    3.A total of 16 legislatures out of 37 failed legally to ratify the "Fourteenth Amendment."
    4.Congress — which had deprived the Southern States of their seats in the Senate — did not lawfully pass the resolution of submission in the first instance.
    5.The Southern States which had rejected the amendment were coerced by a federal statute passed in 1867 that took away the right to vote or hold office from all citizens who had served in the Confederate Army. Military governors were appointed and instructed to prepare the roll of voters. All this happened in spite of the presidential proclamation of amnesty previously issued by the President. New legislatures were thereupon chosen and forced to "ratify" under penalty of continued exile from the Union. In Louisiana, a General sent down from the North presided over the State legislature.
    6.Abraham Lincoln had declared many times that the Union was "inseparable" and "indivisible." After his death, and when the war was over, the ratification by the Southern States of the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, had been accepted as legal. But Congress in the 1867 law imposed the specific conditions under which the Southern States would be "entitled to representation in Congress."
    7.Congress, in passing the 1867 law that declared the Southern States could not have their seats in either the Senate or House in the next session unless they ratified the "Fourteenth Amendment," took an unprecedented step. No such right — to compel a State by an act of Congress to ratify a constitutional amendment — is to be found anywhere in the Constitution. Nor has this procedure ever been sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States.
    8.President Andrew Johnson publicly denounced this law as unconstitutional. But it was passed over his veto.
    9.Secretary of State Seward was on the spot in July 1868 when the various "ratifications" of a spurious nature were placed before him. The legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey had notified him that they rescinded their earlier action of ratification. He said in his official proclamation that he was not authorized as Secretary of State "to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification." He added that the amendment was valid "if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey, ratifying the aforesaid amendment, are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of these States." This was a very big "if." It will be noted that the real issue, therefore, is not only whether the forced "ratification" by the ten Southern States was lawful, but whether the withdrawal by the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey — two Northern States — was legal. The right of a State, by action of its legislature, to change its mind at any time before the final proclamation of ratification is issued by the Secretary of State has been confirmed in connection with other constitutional amendments.
    10.The Oregon Legislature in October 1868 — three months after the Secretary's proclamation was issued — passed a rescinding resolution, which argued that the "Fourteenth Amendment" had not been ratified by three fourths of the States and that the "ratifications" in the Southern States were "usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary and void" and that, "until such ratification is completed, any State has a right to withdraw its assent to any proposed amendment." ..."<

    continue -> David Lawrence: There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!
    I'm not sure if you're being serious or not. If you are then I'll point out that the invalidity of the 14th would only serve to remove any basis for applying the 2nd (or any of the BoR for that matter) to the states.

  5. #55
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,590
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

    The "may issue" law was clearly unconstitutional, a political hack-job by those who would like to see gun ownership by the citizenry completely abolished. I'm surprised that the 9th court overruled the law, but probably because I've been brainwashed that the 9th is the most liberal arm of the democratic party. I've usually agreed with their rulings in the past (although those rulings would have been considered "liberal"), particularly when it refused to allow California to ban gay marriages or overturn the medical marijuana vote, and I certainly agree with their ruling now.

  6. #56
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,337

    Re: California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    But but but there is no "Fourteenth Amendment"!

    When I was attending UCLB I took a course on the Constitution. The book we were required to purchase was written by a well know Constitutional scholar and it was interesting that he was also our professor. $$$

    While thumbing through the book when I came to the Fourteenth Amendment it was only one page with one sentence. The Fourteenth Amendment was unconstitutional.

    There are more than a few Constitutional scholars who say the same thing. They have a ligament argument.

    There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!

    >" A MISTAKEN BELIEF that there is a valid article in the Constitution known as the "Fourteenth Amendment" is responsible for the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and the ensuing controversy over desegregation in the public schools of America. No such amendment was ever legally ratified by three fourths of the States of the Union as required by the Constitution itself. The so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" was dubiously proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868. The President shared that doubt. There were 37 States in the Union at the time, so ratification by at least 28 was necessary to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution. Actually, only 21 States legally ratified it. So it failed of ratification.

    The undisputed record, attested by official journals and the unanimous writings of historians, establishes these events as occurring in 1867 and 1868:

    1.Outside the South, six States New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky, California, Delaware and Maryland failed to ratify the proposed amendment.
    2.In the South, ten States Texas, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana by formal action of their legislatures, rejected it under the normal processes of civil law.
    3.A total of 16 legislatures out of 37 failed legally to ratify the "Fourteenth Amendment."
    4.Congress which had deprived the Southern States of their seats in the Senate did not lawfully pass the resolution of submission in the first instance.
    5.The Southern States which had rejected the amendment were coerced by a federal statute passed in 1867 that took away the right to vote or hold office from all citizens who had served in the Confederate Army. Military governors were appointed and instructed to prepare the roll of voters. All this happened in spite of the presidential proclamation of amnesty previously issued by the President. New legislatures were thereupon chosen and forced to "ratify" under penalty of continued exile from the Union. In Louisiana, a General sent down from the North presided over the State legislature.
    6.Abraham Lincoln had declared many times that the Union was "inseparable" and "indivisible." After his death, and when the war was over, the ratification by the Southern States of the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, had been accepted as legal. But Congress in the 1867 law imposed the specific conditions under which the Southern States would be "entitled to representation in Congress."
    7.Congress, in passing the 1867 law that declared the Southern States could not have their seats in either the Senate or House in the next session unless they ratified the "Fourteenth Amendment," took an unprecedented step. No such right to compel a State by an act of Congress to ratify a constitutional amendment is to be found anywhere in the Constitution. Nor has this procedure ever been sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States.
    8.President Andrew Johnson publicly denounced this law as unconstitutional. But it was passed over his veto.
    9.Secretary of State Seward was on the spot in July 1868 when the various "ratifications" of a spurious nature were placed before him. The legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey had notified him that they rescinded their earlier action of ratification. He said in his official proclamation that he was not authorized as Secretary of State "to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification." He added that the amendment was valid "if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey, ratifying the aforesaid amendment, are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of these States." This was a very big "if." It will be noted that the real issue, therefore, is not only whether the forced "ratification" by the ten Southern States was lawful, but whether the withdrawal by the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey two Northern States was legal. The right of a State, by action of its legislature, to change its mind at any time before the final proclamation of ratification is issued by the Secretary of State has been confirmed in connection with other constitutional amendments.
    10.The Oregon Legislature in October 1868 three months after the Secretary's proclamation was issued passed a rescinding resolution, which argued that the "Fourteenth Amendment" had not been ratified by three fourths of the States and that the "ratifications" in the Southern States were "usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary and void" and that, "until such ratification is completed, any State has a right to withdraw its assent to any proposed amendment." ..."<

    continue -> David Lawrence: There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!
    Son of a gun! I'll bet not too many people know that! The 14th Amendment has been coming up a lot lately, and now I wonder why.

    On another subject, will the many feet of snow that your mountains got recently help with your drought conditions eventually, or isn't it enough?

    Greetings, APACHERAT.

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by polgara View Post
    Son of a gun! I'll bet not too many people know that! The 14th Amendment has been coming up a lot lately, and now I wonder why.

    On another subject, will the many feet of snow that your mountains got recently help with your drought conditions eventually, or isn't it enough?

    Greetings, APACHERAT.
    Evening Polgara

    Technically under the Constitution, there is no Fourteenth Amendment. The rules of amending the Constitution were not followed. Even the POTOS vetoed the Fourteenth Amendment because the rules of amending the Constitution weren't followed making it unconstitutional.

    The main purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to grant citizenship to former slaves so they could vote the carpetbaggers into office.

    As you may know, the Fourteenth Amendment didn't include American Indians (Native Americans.) They were still considered to be members of a foreign sovereign nation. Except for Cherokee Indians (The Civilized Tribe) who were able to become U.S. citizens at will if they chose so. Some did many did not.

    The birth right clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was directly taken from Vattel's "The Law of Nations." ("Son follows the condition of his father.")

    If the Fourteenth Amendment constitutional or not ??? But it's the most misinterpreted amendment in the Constitution.

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    06-24-16 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,073

    Re: California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    Last thing first- are you referring to the Mulford Act of 1967? So called because of RepubliCON assemblyman Don Mulford? Now until the governor signs a bill it ain't law, so it wasn't the legislature all by it's oneses that made this law, guess who signed that bill into law.... Patron Saint of the CONs Ronald Reagan... so can the leftist crap

    It wasn't a sinister plot to disarm decent GAWD fearin' 'Mericans... it was in reaction to the Black panthers arming themselves after several were killed by police. The armed black guys were patrolling their neighborhoods and OMG some lighter shade of pale folks were scared!!!

    FYI, I NEVER defended may issue, so you are talking to the wrong dude there....

    Howsomever the analogy is flawed as housing doesn't involve deadly force.

    No, the Mulford Act prohibited the open carrying of LOADED firearms in public, but still allowed the open carry of UNLOADED firearms. California recently outlawed the open carrying of UNLOADED firearms.

  9. #59
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,771

    Re: California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by cpgrad08 View Post
    So what do you guys think of the 9th circuit ruling that California must be a shall issue state when in comes to conceal carry permits.

    I think it is a very good ruling and gives California's some freedom back to them that the state took away from them.

    California ban on concealed weapons overturned by 9th Circuit appeals court
    its a GREAT decesion

    unfortunately its a little harder to fight for our rights on this front when sometimes breaking the law in protest or risking pushing the limits could end with one going to jail or a felony charge etc.

    IMO every state should be open carry
    and i'm fine with licenses/permits etc for conceal carry but it should be accepted in ALL STATES just like my drivers license

    just like with banning gay marriages, banning open carry or weapons permits are the state abusing thier powers and overreaching.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  10. #60
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,619

    Re: California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Del Zeppnile View Post
    No, the Mulford Act prohibited the open carrying of LOADED firearms in public, but still allowed the open carry of UNLOADED firearms. California recently outlawed the open carrying of UNLOADED firearms.
    So let me get this straight, you are NOT upset the CONs took the far bigger bite out of the 2nd A in 1967 with a majority agreeing with 'em because they feared a few black folks, but oh no you are mad that now unloaded weapons can't be carried...

    Considering if you carried an unloaded firearm in the commission of a crime the law makes no never minds

    Considering the NRA teaches everyone a firearm is ALWAYS considered loaded

    Considering NO ONE can tell a weapon is unloaded from any distance...

    AND the majority of Californians supported the Mulford Act in 1967 barring loaded firearms and the brandishing law makes no difference between loaded and unloaded...

    Bemoaning the unloaded carry law is like whining about having to clean the stable after the barn door was left open in 1967...

    But whine some shall...

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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