GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-09-2007, 18:47   #1
JT-Hickman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Indy, IN
Posts: 12
Marion County - Proposal 174

Link to proposals:
http://www.indygov.org/eGov/Council/Proposals/home.htm

You will want to right click and save the PDF file to your desktop, then open with acrobat reader


Is anyone looking into this? Buddy of mine brought it up because he plays paintball, but this looks like it could affect us right to carry folks as well. Does it limit us or change the way we carry?

Last edited by JT-Hickman; 04-10-2007 at 11:20..
JT-Hickman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2007, 19:02   #2
R. Emmelman
Tired Member
 
R. Emmelman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Same rat hole IPDBrad lives in
Posts: 1,745
It appears that you posted a dead link.

While I have not seen the proposal I think the idea is to expand the pre-unigov ban aganst firing a firearm in the city limits. It is not suppose to affect ranges, only those who want to hunt or shoot on their land in Marion county. Should not affect carrying as that is a state issue.
__________________
Rich in Indy
United States Air Force Military Affiliate Radio System
MARS/SHARES Station AFA1CY
Amateur Radio WI9NDY
Marion County EMA Communications Group
R. Emmelman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2007, 19:23   #3
Sh33pDog
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2
PROP 174


Quote:
It is not suppose to affect ranges, only those who want to hunt or shoot on their land in Marion county.
I suggest everyone read this prop!

Trust me this will affect all ranges in Indianapolis. It will also affect many other counties in the state as most counties eventually do what Marion does (i.e. the smoking ban). The catch with this mess is that all ranges will have to pass a safety inspection by the sheriff. Who sets the criteria for this inspection? The sheriff sets the standard and the Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee approves the standards. All it will take is an anti sheriff and an anti committee and we will not be shooting in Marion county anymore!

Quote:
Should not affect carrying as that is a state issue.
This prop wont affect your right to carry as long as you are an irresponsible gun owner who has no problem carrying a tool that you have not properly trained yourself with! If you are a gun owner who likes to put some rounds down range in an effort to train with the tool you carry everyday then yes it will affect your right to carry!

There is a hearing on this prop on April 17, 2007 at 5:30 P.M. If you are a gun owner and you give a damn about you rights you will be there! If your not there don't come crying when you can't do a little target practice!

Sh33pdog out!

Last edited by Sh33pDog; 04-09-2007 at 19:31..
Sh33pDog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2007, 10:32   #4
Ignition
Insanityville
 
Ignition's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cherry Point NC
Posts: 5,125
i love how some many ppl are soooooooo adimate against their own freedoms. (freakin anti's)


seriously please dont sell out to this bill just because you dont think it affects you now
__________________
-Big Dawgs #5530 Young Glockers #5 OAF #1337 USMC- For Life  
-If they ban my guns, can i still use my sword? -a 9mm is really just a .45 set on stun
-Can we repeal Murphy's laws?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

-the 2nd amendment doesnt say the right to keep and bear long-guns
posted by Eric on the OAF --> Yes, when I was created, I killed all other Erics and assimilated them into my neural net. I am ERIC. I am all Erics.
Ignition is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2007, 11:11   #5
JT-Hickman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Indy, IN
Posts: 12
What can YOU do?
Attend a hearing
In the meantime, be sure to make plans to attend the hearing on Tuesday, April 17, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 260 of the City-County Building, 50 North Alabama Street, Indianapolis.

Contact the council
Rules and Public Policy Committee:
Rozelle Boyd (D) – rboyd@indygov.org - 317-327-4240
Dr. Philip Borst (R) – 317-327-4242
Cherrish Pryor (D) – cpryor@indygov.org - 317-327-4242
Bob rum (R) – 317- 856-5549
Lonnell Conley (D) – kingro@sbcglobal.com - 317-547-6652
Monroe Gray (D) – mgray@indygov.org - 317-297-1155
Joanne Sanders (R) – jmsanders@msn.com - 317-283-6040
Scott Schneider (R) – schneider725@yahoo.com - 317-845-1815

Link to council as a whole
http://www.indygov.org/eGov/Council/home.htm


If you can, go to the hearing, at the least write an intelligent email and send it to the council members letting them know your feelings.

Information for this post found on Council website and on NRA’s legislation website http://www.indygov.org/eGov/Council/home.htm

Last edited by JT-Hickman; 04-10-2007 at 11:17..
JT-Hickman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2007, 14:11   #6
minuteman32
NRA & GOA Life
 
minuteman32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Indiana's 1st UT CFP Instructor.
Posts: 1,168


Meeting w/ pro 2A attorney scheduled

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by minuteman32
I was just contacted by the president of a local organization who informed me that he was contacted by a local attorney, who had worked on pro 2A matters in D.C., who has offered his services to organize & fight the Marion County shooting ban proposal! The specifics are in rout to me @ this time, but he would like to meet w/ 'us' on Thursday evening @ 6 PM @ his office (he offered the use of his boardroom) on Delaware St. (address forthcoming).
He said that if we can organize effectively, we can beat this. And, he is volunteering his services.
As soon as I get more specifics, I'll post them here. I hope that we can get a good turn out & some good ideas.
Tell even your "Elmer Fudd" friends, because they won't be able to shoot trap/skeet/etc., or hunt in Marion Co. if this goes through.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Okay, just got the email, which I'm just going to copy/paste here;

This is the run down on what I spoke to you about this morning. I heard from a local Pro-2nd Amendment attorney this morning. His name is Ros Stovall and he has worked on pro-2A issues in Washington. Ros has offered to help us defeat Proposition 174. We are planning a meeting at his downtown Indianapolis office this Thursday, April 12 at 6p.m. His office is located downtown at 225 North Delaware. He has asked if we could get some people together to help work on this issue. Please contact anyone that you feel could help us and give them the details on the meeting. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
minuteman32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2007, 17:51   #7
rhino465
Senior Member
 
rhino465's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 3,179
Send a message via Yahoo to rhino465
I hope Mr. Stovall is correct and that this onerous infringement on our rights can be defeated.

I was listening to Greg Garrison on the radio this morning and he opined that the ordinance is effectively already passed. He based this on conversations with three of the council members (Republicans) who indicated to him that the Demo supporters of the ordinance on the council have the majority and will use it. Then, all it will take is for His Majesty Bart to sign it into law and it's finished.

I suspect Mr. Garrison is correct, but we still need to fight it (and I don't even live in Marion Co.). Go to the meeting tomorrow night with the attorney if you can. Attend the public meeting and voice your opposition!

I just hope more people care enough to oppose this than cared to oppose the new security measures at the govt' center campus.
rhino465 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2007, 19:47   #8
txgho1911
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 150
From supporters in Southern Indiana.

From: jmtomes [mailto:jmtomes@pngusa.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 1:22 PM
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Subject: They never quit

Several weeks ago I received a letter about the Marion County city/county council in Indianapolis, Indiana entertaining the prospect of restricting shooting in that area.

On March 26th, Councilor Angela Mansfield, introduced a proposal to expand on a 1975 ordinance that prohibited shooting within the old city limits.

Now, because of development and expansion, she wants this ordinance to include the entire area. This will absorb areas that were hunting grounds and in some places still are.

Researching Indiana's preemption law Section 35-47-11-1(c) it appears that because this ordinance was in effect prior to the preemption statute they will be allowed to do this, unless there's enough people to oppose it.

She's concerned about festive gun fire and hunters. I guess gang bang drive by shootings isn't a big deal anymore.

According to her press release http://www.indygov.org/eGov/Council/.../20070322a.htm she has support from some NRA members and a former gun shop owner.

The article reads that these folks are more than willing to accept these new restrictions, because it excludes some areas of the county that are not yet developed, however, once they too reach the point they determine too populated those areas also will be restricted.

Here is a little of Proposal 174 that does not appear in the press release, and remember this is being supported by people we might think are on our side.

Sec. 451-8. Written Approval by the Sheriff for Private Shooting Purposes.

(a) A person may apply to the sheriff for written approval to shoot firearms on his/her property if his/her property is at least 15 acres for a limited period of time not to exceed one year. The application must contain the following:

(1) Name of the person who owns the property;

(2) Names of any other persons that the owner is permitting to shoot on his/her property;

(3) Address including boundaries of where the person proposes to shoot;

(4) Time period requested to shoot; and

(5) Purpose of the request to shoot.

(b) The Sheriff in his sole discretion shall determine if the shooting activity on the property presents a danger to any person, animal or property outside the boundaries of the property.

(c) The Sheriff may revoke the written approval prior to the expiration of the time permitted for shooting if the sheriff subsequently determines that the shooting activity presents a danger to any person, animal or property outside the boundaries of the property or is in violation of any section of this code, or of any applicable state or federal law.

(d) The sheriff may collect a fee of $100 from the applicant.

SECTION 3. This resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with I.C. 36-3-4-14.

The foregoing was passed by the City-County Council this _____ day of __________, 2007, at _____ p.m.

$100.00 and permission to shoot on your own property? No this won't cause any problems.

I've been told that there may be a hearing on this on April 19, but it may already be a done deal. I hope that some of our group who live in the Indy area can get more details or attend this hearing.

I had intended to write on another subject, but I'll save that one for another day.

This story here though points out why those of us who understand the REAL REASON FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT become so frustrated with people who claim to be on our side and jump on board with some gun restrictions for the other guy.

These milkweeds feel so good about themselves because they can accept compromise, especially when it's someone else who pays the price.

I don't know who the ,"former gun shop owner" is, but I wonder if it ever crossed his mind when he was in business that if no one can shoot a firearm why would they bother to buy one?

I understand that subdivisions have spread out and taken up what was once open land. Gun owners need to be alert to what is happening around them. They need to support their local gun ranges. It would be nice if they could provoke their state legislators to push for land to be set aside for gun range development.

Here in Indiana there is a lot of old coal mine land that would make terrific shooting ranges. Sadly,now some of that land is being built up as residential.

In the future we may have to drive a half day to get to a range and then you may need written permission to spend the gas to drive that far and for that purpose.

Jim and Margie
2nd Amendment Patriots
STAY UNITED
www.2ndamendmentpatriots.org
__________________
Organizing Indiana RKBA

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
txgho1911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2007, 22:48   #9
luxone
dis-Member
 
luxone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 87


Quote:
I was listening to Greg Garrison on the radio this morning and he opined that the ordinance is effectively already passed. He based this on conversations with three of the council members (Republicans) who indicated to him that the Demo supporters of the ordinance on the council have the majority and will use it. Then, all it will take is for His Majesty Bart to sign it into law and it's finished.
This is incredibly irresponsible of Garrison! To opine that a law that has not passed has "effectively already passed" and thus discourage people from fighting it, is quite frankly idiotic! Next time he's at a gun show hocking his crap I'll be sure to stop and thank his Highness for giving up on us peasants that live in Marion County!
__________________
Ron Paul '08 - He thinks your guns are none of his business!

The lesser of 2 evils is still evil!
Vote Ron Paul!

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Last edited by luxone; 04-13-2007 at 22:53..
luxone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2007, 20:30   #10
rhino465
Senior Member
 
rhino465's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 3,179
Send a message via Yahoo to rhino465
Well, he does so much good overall that I don't want to can him for that! Maybe he will inspire people to fight it. Some people will do stuff only when you tell them they can't do it.

It's also possible I misunderstood him ... we could ask him to explain when we see him.

And I should add that "effectively already passed" is my interpretation of what he actually said. So maybe blame me!
rhino465 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2007, 20:52   #11
R. Emmelman
Tired Member
 
R. Emmelman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Same rat hole IPDBrad lives in
Posts: 1,745
The way I heard it was that Garrison was being realistic in that the CCC is stacked with those who will rubber stamp the librial (Dem.) views. Lets face it, the CCC pretty does what Sir Bart, Frank, and his ilk wants.
__________________
Rich in Indy
United States Air Force Military Affiliate Radio System
MARS/SHARES Station AFA1CY
Amateur Radio WI9NDY
Marion County EMA Communications Group
R. Emmelman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2007, 09:36   #12
Josed
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Indianapolis, IN.
Posts: 14
It is time to get together and help vote this Democrats out of office. Before our Country ends up in the toilet.
Josed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2007, 04:56   #13
R. Emmelman
Tired Member
 
R. Emmelman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Same rat hole IPDBrad lives in
Posts: 1,745
I think it is too late. The country is already in the toilet, we just need to get out the plunger. As for Marion county, I don't see much hope. When we can still elect you-know-who to 7th district congress that just shows you where Indianapolis is going.
__________________
Rich in Indy
United States Air Force Military Affiliate Radio System
MARS/SHARES Station AFA1CY
Amateur Radio WI9NDY
Marion County EMA Communications Group
R. Emmelman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2007, 21:28   #14
dwh79
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 66
I am proud to say we had over 150 people show up to oppose prop 174. The vote was postponed when need everyone to show up again on May 22 to show our unity against such a useless proposal.
dwh79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2007, 01:42   #15
IndyGunFreak
KO Windows
 
IndyGunFreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 30,380
Send a message via ICQ to IndyGunFreak Send a message via AIM to IndyGunFreak Send a message via MSN to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Yahoo to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Skype™ to IndyGunFreak


The more I hear Kyle Hepfer's statements, the happier I am he's in a position of authority in the DNR.

Mr. Hepfer has more common sense than any 100 random politicians in this state. Although, I'm not sure his research of the last 10yrs is accurate. Anyone remember the incident at Marion County Fish and Game where the 1911 double fired, and a .45 shell hit a car in Kroger's parking lot.

Regardless... I'm glad to have him on our side.

IGF

--------------------------------------------------------
April 18, 2007

Council panel puts off vote on gun-firing ban
Proposal's author tells 150 foes that delay allows time to digest changes to the plan

A large crowd of gun rights supporters at a hearing Tuesday night voiced their opposition to a proposal restricting the firing of weapons in Marion County.

A City-County Council panel heard about two hours of testimony but postponed a vote until its next meeting on May 22. The committee voted 5-3 against an effort to immediately strike the proposal. All three Republicans voted to kill it, but all five Democrats voted to continue the debate.

In a show of hands among the crowd of about 150 people, not one person supported the measure. Nearly all of the speakers said they were hunters and National Rifle Association members, and many voiced some displeasure with the decision to put off the vote.

Angela Mansfield, the author of Proposal 174, said she wanted time for people to digest the changes she had made since the original plan drew heated opposition. Her goal, she said, never has been to infringe on constitutional rights to buy or own a weapon. Instead, she said the ordinance aims to ban people from target practice or celebratory gunfire that endangers residential neighborhoods.

"I recognize that this does not deal with criminals who don't care about the laws," Mansfield said. "There are a lot of people in our community using bad judgment about where they shoot. This gives law enforcement another tool."

She altered the original proposal so that county residents could lawfully shoot on 5 acres of private property, down from 15 acres in the original proposal. She also removed a requirement to obtain a permit from police, which could cost $100.

Still, the changes did not stop opponents from criticizing what they considered an infringement on their personal freedom.

The opinion given by Kyle Hupfer, the former director of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, summed up many of the comments. He said his research did not turn up a single hunting or target-shooting accident in the county in more than a decade.

"To take away rights from people seems short-sighted," Hupfer said. "Let's enforce the laws on the books, not penalize the legal shooters."
__________________
Quote:
Ronald Reagan
"If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
"Man is not free unless Government is limited"
IndyGunFreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2007, 04:54   #16
R. Emmelman
Tired Member
 
R. Emmelman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Same rat hole IPDBrad lives in
Posts: 1,745
"All three Republicans voted to kill it, but all five Democrats voted to continue the debate."

TELL ME IT ISN'T SO!
__________________
Rich in Indy
United States Air Force Military Affiliate Radio System
MARS/SHARES Station AFA1CY
Amateur Radio WI9NDY
Marion County EMA Communications Group
R. Emmelman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2007, 06:31   #17
rhino465
Senior Member
 
rhino465's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 3,179
Send a message via Yahoo to rhino465
Kyle Hupfer is indeed a strong voice for individual liberty, particularly RKBA. It's a very good sign that he is weighing-in on this issue.

He's the reason why the multiple restrictions on carrying firearms on DNR properties were (temporarily) suspended. Don't forget that while we battle Prop 174 that we still need to make sure the rules changes implemented by Mr. Hupfer before he left DNR become PERMANENT.
rhino465 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2007, 08:08   #18
minuteman32
NRA & GOA Life
 
minuteman32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Indiana's 1st UT CFP Instructor.
Posts: 1,168


Kyle is, unfortunately, not w/ the DNR anymore. He is in another area of state government, but I don't recall where. I also hear that the individual that has his old DNR position, is "cut from the same cloth" (Kyle said this, directly to me, during a conversation a couple of months ago), which is reassuring.

Perhaps Kyle will be able to positively influence the agency he's currently with!
minuteman32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2007, 19:23   #19
ericXD9
Senior Member
 
ericXD9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 870


Quote:
Angela Mansfield, the author of Proposal 174, said she wanted time for people to digest the changes she had made since the original plan drew heated opposition. Her goal, she said, never has been to infringe on constitutional rights to buy or own a weapon. Instead, she said the ordinance aims to ban people from target practice or celebratory gunfire that endangers residential neighborhoods.

"I recognize that this does not deal with criminals who don't care about the laws," Mansfield said. "There are a lot of people in our community using bad judgment about where they shoot. This gives law enforcement another tool."
I would love to see documented cases that involve all these many people in our community using bad judgment. I never knew it was a problem.

And Hupfer is spot-on, there are already ample laws at the disposal of law enforcement. Enforce those.

I've already "digested" the changes in her ordinance, and the resulting turd is too big to flush down my toilet. Anyone know a good plumber?

Here's a question for people who know more than me. She cited anecdotal evidence of this "widespread" problem - hearing gunshots, neighbors with bullet holes in their roofs, etc. Does she live in an area that would be covered by this ordinance? Just wondering...
ericXD9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2007, 18:54   #20
IronHorseman
Senior Member
 
IronHorseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fort Branch In
Posts: 417
E-mail message

From: jmtomes@(jmtomes) Date: Thu, Apr 19, 2007, 6:48pm To: "Undisclosed-Recipient:;"@webtv.net Subject: Marion County 174 and DNR
___ There is no denying that it will be difficult for all of us who support the Second Amendment to continue to promote and defend our Rights since the horrible episode in Virginia, but this is not the time to retreat.
_
___ The debate on the rights of citizens to protect themselves by being armed never gets this kind of media attention on it's own merit._ It only receives this amount of air time after a terrible incident.
_
___ Some may believe that those who support gun ownership should lay low for awhile._ I emphatically disagree.
_
___ Are we to keep quiet while the other side boldly steps up to every camera and microphone in the country to present their arguments supporting gun control?
_
___ Absolutely not!_ We must continue to stand up for what it is we believe and to explain to all those who are now hearing and listening to all the debating and pleas being made for, "sensible new gun laws".
_
___ I just had a phone conversation with Indianapolis,_Marion County Council member Angela Mansfield about her Proposal 174.
_
___ This is a proposal that will change_gun owner activity because of the expansion of residential and commercial property in the Indy area.
_
___ We talked for about an hour and Ms. Mansfield told me that she has made some major changes in her initial proposal._ She is going to send me the revised edition, but she told me she has dropped all of the offensive portions of that measure.
_
___ I can tell by our conversation that she is hoping to arrive at an agreement that will make everyone happy._ I also brought up some points of concern I have about_the references to_paint ball guns and other air or spring propelled guns._ She said I was the first to bring that up and wants me to send her an e-mail detailing that.
_
___ The next hearing on this will be on May 22 at the city/county office at 200 E. Washington address in Indy._ She has had other hearings on this so as to fine tune this to everyone's satisfaction.
_
___ I hope that some of our members in the area will make the meeting._ Angela_seemed willing to accept our views on protecting gun owners and gun rights._ She's agreed to keep us posted via e-mail on this issue and any other gun issues that may come up._ We appreciate that.
_
___ I was also given a notice from our good friend Dave S. in the mid part of the state about the DNR meeting concerning making permanent the rule to allow the carrying of firearms on state owned property and state parks.
_
____ The hearings will be held at 6 p.m. (EDT) at the following locations:
1) Tuesday, May 15, at the Patio Building at the Miami County
Fairgrounds located at 1029 W. 200 N. in Peru (Miami County)
2) Wednesday, May 16, at Spring Mill State Park in the Lakeview Room;
6666 Hwy 60 East in Mitchell (Lawrence County)
Specifically, the changes would permanently allow individuals with
handgun licenses for personal protection to carry a handgun on DNR
properties. The other changes involve hunting activities on both private
and public land. Those with handgun licenses for personal protection
would continue to be able to carry such firearms when hunting wild
turkeys or when hunting deer with a bow and arrow. Similarly, properly
licensed individuals would also be able to continue to carry a handgun
when running dogs for opossums and raccoons during the chasing season.
Previously, DNR rules prohibited carrying licensed handguns in these
instances. These proposals allow a means of personal protection while
hunting or visiting a DNR property.
_
___ I will be a guest on the NRANews radio program tonight at 9:40 PM Central time to talk about some of these issues._ As always I appreciate their invitation.
Jim and Margie
2nd Amendment Patriots
STAY UNITED
www.2ndamendmentpatriots.org
__________________
IronHorseman

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
IronHorseman is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 22:45.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 867
225 Members
642 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31