Concealed Carry Reciprocity is CURRENTLY banned under Federal Law. (Important)


Eagle2009

New member
Concealed Carry Reciprocity, and all unlicensed carry of any kind is effectively banned under current federal law. I am not joking, nor am I mistaken, so please take the time to read my post, and please E-mail your Congressional representatives with the letter I have prepared for your convenience, and included at the very bottom of this post. This will only take a few minutes of your time.


The federal law I am referring to, is Title 18 U.S.C Part 1 Chapter 44 Section 922(q) known as the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995. This federal law, which is currently on the books, effectively bans all concealed carry reciprocity agreements between States, by making it illegal for any person to have a functional firearm within 1000 Feet of the property line of any Elementary or High School in our country, with very few exceptions.

The original version of this law, passed in 1990, was struck down by the US Supreme Court in "United States v Lopez (1995)," because Congress had not claimed a connection to "interstate commerce," however the second version, the one which is currently on the books, was upheld as recently as 2005 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case United States v Dorsey




One exception to this law, is if the firearm is unloaded and in a locked container.

A second exception is having the firearm "on private property not part of school grounds." Remember, the roads/highways/sidewalks are not private property, so this exception does not apply while driving on public streets.

A third exception, is if the person possessing the firearm has a concealed carry permit issued by the State in which the school zone is located. This means that as the law is written, and as it has been interpreted by BATFE, if a person with a concealed carry permit is in any State other than the State that physically issued their permit, and they drive within 1000 feet of any K-12 school (which is impossible to avoid) with an unlocked gun, they are committing a federal crime. Violation of this law is punishable by up to five (5) years in federal prison and a conviction will bar a person from owning firearms for life


There was even a case in 2000 (United States v Tait) where an Alabama concealed carry permit holder was prosecuted under this federal law, for carrying a firearm in Alabama. The prosecution claimed that Mr. Tait's Alabama permit did not exempt him from the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act, even in Alabama.

In another case, United States v Nieves-Castaño, a woman was actually convicted under the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act for having a firearm in her home! Her home (a third floor apartment) just happened to be within 1000 feet of a school and it happened to be public property (a housing project). She was not a student, and her conduct had absolutely nothing to do with the school. This conviction was upheld by the Federal Appeals Court for the First Circuit in 2007.


Ironically, law enforcement officers carrying a handgun under LEOSA are not exempt from the GFSZA, unless they are acting in their official capacity. This means that a law enforcement officer, carrying under LEOSA while on vacation with their family, can not drive within 1000 feet of a school without risking five years in federal prison.



Also note, there is no exception in the law for the discharge of a firearm by anyone other than a law enforcement officer acting in their official capacity on public property while in a school zone (within 1000 feet of the property line of any K-12 school), under any circumstance. This could conceivably be an issue if you're the victim of a violent crime while on public property such as roads, sidewalks, fair grounds, city parks, etc.





Many people think this law has never been enforced. Unfortunately this is not the case. This revised law has indeed been enforced, below you will find several court cases that you can read.


Update: Here is a February 2012 letter from US Senator Tom Coburn in which he states, "(GFSZA) does result in otherwise law-abiding citizens being arrested when they did not know they were breaking the law."


There you go, straight from a US Senator's mouth.


US Senator Coburn's February 2012 Letter












---------------------CASES--------------------------------------------


United States v Danks (1999) USA v. Jordan Danks

United States v Tait (2000) (Attempted prosecution of an Alabama permit holder) 202 F3d 1320 United States v. Tait | OpenJurist

United States v Haywood (2003) UNITED STATES of America v. Ira HAYWOOD, Appellant.

United States v Dorsey (2005) (Upheld the revised law as constitutional) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nikos Delano DORSEY, Defendant-Appellant.

United States v Smith (2005) USA v. Smith This case says that the mere movement of the gun's component parts in Interstate Commerce is enough to satisfy the jurisdictional element needed for conviction.

United States v Nieves-Castaño (2007) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Belen NIEVES-CASTAÑO, Defendant, Appellant. A woman was convicted for having a gun in her home; which happened to be within 1000ft of a school.

United States v Weekes (2007) [Link Removed STATES OF AMERICA v. PHINEHAS WEEKES[/url]

United States v Benally (2007) Link Removed

United States v Cruz-Rodriguez (2008) Untitled #1668141


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------











Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 44 Section 922 (unlawful acts)
Link Removed

Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 44 section 921 (Definitions)
United States Code - TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - PART I - CRIMES - CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS - section 921


BATFE Opinion (2002) on Reciprocity: http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf



Homeschoolers Attempt to File Suit: Link Removed

Gun Free Zones Plotted on City Maps: Gun Free School Zones Directory



GFSZ%20Phoenix.jpg




GFSZ%20Cleveland.jpg




GFSZ%20Maricopa%20County.jpg




Link Removed




Link Removed











Title 18 U.S.C. §922(q)
(1) The Congress finds and declares that—
(A) crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, is a pervasive, nationwide problem;
(B) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the interstate movement of drugs, guns, and criminal gangs;
(C) firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate commerce and have been found in increasing numbers in and around schools, as documented in numerous hearings in both the Committee on the Judiciary [3] the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
(D) in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which they are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce;
(E) while criminals freely move from State to State, ordinary citizens and foreign visitors may fear to travel to or through certain parts of the country due to concern about violent crime and gun violence, and parents may decline to send their children to school for the same reason;
(F) the occurrence of violent crime in school zones has resulted in a decline in the quality of education in our country;
(G) this decline in the quality of education has an adverse impact on interstate commerce and the foreign commerce of the United States;
(H) States, localities, and school systems find it almost impossible to handle gun-related crime by themselves—even States, localities, and school systems that have made strong efforts to prevent, detect, and punish gun-related crime find their efforts unavailing due in part to the failure or inability of other States or localities to take strong measures; and
(I) the Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation’s schools by enactment of this subsection.
(2)
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
(iii) that is—
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.
(3)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the discharge of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) as part of a program approved by a school in the school zone, by an individual who is participating in the program;
(iii) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in a school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual; or
(iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity.
(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preempting or preventing a State or local government from enacting a statute establishing gun free school zones as provided in this subsection.


Title 18 U.S.C. §921(25) The term “school zone” means—
(A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or
(B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.
(26) The term “school” means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.





----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle2009's Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. I have never represented myself as such. Please do not even consider taking my comments or interpretations of the law as fact or legal advice. The law is a very serious matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
















---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample Letter: Write your Congressional Representatives
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995; How It Conflicts with the Laws of Forty-Eight States and Turns Millions of American Gun Owners Into Everyday Federal Criminals

I wish to express my concerns about Title 18 U.S.C §922(q) known as "The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995." This federal law makes it generally unlawful for any person to knowingly possess a functional firearm, within one thousand(1000)feet of the property line of any public or private elementary, middle, or high school in our nation. As the law is currently enacted, it effectively voids, in developed areas, the concealed carry reciprocity agreements which have been entered into by most of the forty-eight(48) states that issue permits. The law also fails to recognize unlicensed carry in the states that allow this practice. Although The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 contains two exceptions which are applicable to armed citizens, they do not adequately protect these individuals while exercising their Second Amendment rights. The original 1990 version of this law was ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, and was reenacted in 1995 with the very minor changes necessary to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling.

The first exception in the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 is that it does not apply to private property. Although this exception protects gun owners living within 1000 feet of a school, it does not provide armed citizens any protection while they are traveling on public property, such as sidewalks, roads, and highways. The attached maps illustrate how the large number of schools in developed areas make it nearly impossible for someone to travel armed without being in violation.

The second exception is if a person has a concealed carry permit physically issued by the state in which the school is located. Although this exception allows permit holders to legally travel armed in their home State, it does not protect them if they wish to visit other states which recognize their permit through reciprocity agreements. This is further explained by the attached letter from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. For obvious reasons, our laws do not require an automobile driver to get a separate driver's license from every state they wish to drive in. Accordingly, the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 should not require a permit holder to obtain separate state permits to qualify for the federal exemption. In addition, most states allow for some form of legal, but unlicensed carry. This may be open carry, automobile carry, or concealed carry without requiring a permit. These activities are highly regulated in the states which allow them, but they are not recognized by The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995.

Importantly, the current law is different than the original version which was passed in 1990, and struck down by the United States Supreme Court in the 1995 case of United States v Lopez. The US Supreme Court ruled the original law was invalid because Congress had not included the required jurisdictional element which is used in other federal laws. Following the Lopez ruling, Congress reenacted the law, with the necessary jurisdictional element, requiring that the prosecuting attorney prove that a firearm or its part have at some point in time, moved in or otherwise effected interstate commerce. Although the current law has not been reviewed by the US Supreme Court, it has been reviewed and upheld by several Federal Appellate Courts including the First, Third, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits. All of these circuits have ruled that the presence of a jurisdictional element in the current law, corrects the issue that caused the original 1990 law to be struck down in United States v Lopez.

In conclusion, by making it generally unlawful for an individual to travel armed on public sidewalks, roads, and highways that pass within one thousand feet of a school, Title 18 U.S.C. §922(q) criminalizes activity which is legal and highly regulated under state law. It is important that The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 be amended to recognize the laws of the forty-eight States which allow citizens without criminal convictions to legally carry a firearm.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Here is a link to an official letter from BATF stating that the current law does not allow for concealed carry reciprocity agreements between States.

www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf



This law is very easy to fix. By far, the best solution is to add an exception for "any firearm lawfully possessed, carried, or transported under State law."
 

Eagle2009

New member
It should be, but so should many other federal laws. Read the United States v Dorsey case. The federal appeals court upheld the conviction against constitutional challenges. People are getting convicted of this.
 
That's a heck of a first post and you may wish to study it a little closer. The ban deals primarily with students carrying weapons and not persons who are not students passing through the zone. Here's some reading on it:

About the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994

Link Removed

http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/speced/guide/policy/guns.pdf

While there is an attempt to include all persons in the act, it should be noted that most states already ban students from carrying weapons to school. Some University's and Colleges are slowly changing that law though.
 

Eagle2009

New member
Ronwill, the statute does not mention "students" anywhere in it. In the United States v Nieves-Castaño case, a woman was actually convicted under the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act for having a firearm in her home! Her home (a third floor apartment) just happened to be within 1000 feet of a school, and it just happened to be public property (a housing project). She was not a student, and her conduct had absolutely nothing to do with the school. This conviction was upheld by the Federal Appeals Court for the First Circuit in 2007.


Here are two quotes from the appeals court decision:

United States v Nieves-Castaño Appeals Court said:
Nieves-Castaño lived in a third-floor apartment in Building 9 of the Nemesio R. Canales Housing Project in Puerto Rico. She shared the apartment with her mother, her mother's school-age child, and her own two minor sons.


United States v Nieves-Castaño Appeals Court said:
In the end, the defendant's argument devolves into a claim that the government's evidence was insufficient to show that the defendant possessed a firearm within 1000 feet of a school's grounds. That claim fails. As Soler held, "[p]recise measurements may be unnecessary in some cases where the spatial leeway is relatively great and the gap in the claim of proof is relatively small." 275 F.3d at 154. Here, three minor children lived with the defendant, and it would be easy for a jury to conclude that she knew there were two schools nearby, within or just outside her housing project and less than 1000 feet away, and that she regularly passed by those schools. One school was, in fact, located next to the south entrance of the housing project. The prosecution's evidence was that the distance from the main fence of that school to the corner of Building 9 was 636 feet, and that the distance from the entrance of the school to that same corner was 670 feet. The record shows that the other school was even closer. The distance from the corner of Building 9 to that school's fence was 473 feet, and the distance to its entrance was 550 feet. The measurements were made using a small wheel-like device commonly used to measure forensic crime scenes.4 The government also introduced an aerial photograph showing the location of the schools and the defendant's apartment, which was entirely consistent with the measurements.
37

Whatever the fine points about measurement, there was leeway — before reaching the 1000 foot mark — of at least 330 feet between one of the schools and Building 9. This was more than sufficient to cover any refinements in the horizontal and vertical measurement needed to account for the distance between the corner of Building 9 and Nieves-Castaño's apartment. The conviction on Count Two is affirmed.

And yes, for anyone wondering, Puerto Rico falls under the same Federal Law that we do in the mainland... so don't be fooled into thinking this case is somehow "different" or "special" because of where it occurred.
 
Ronwill, the statute does not mention "students" anywhere in it. In the Link Removed case, a woman was actually convicted under the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act for having a firearm in her home! Her home (a third floor apartment) just happened to be within 1000 feet of a school, and it just happened to be public property (a housing project).

The difference here is "public housing" ran for or by the government. Similar things happened in California and were overturned because of the SCOTUS decision. You will find that no one has been prosecuted for transporting weapons through a school zone unless they were students. Does this mean the current administration won't try to abuse this law? They will in fact use every opportunity to advance their agenda of gun bans. This law will be extremely difficult to use for those purposes though. Here's some reading on more current public housing decisions:

Link Removed
 

Eagle2009

New member
In United States v Danks (1999) and United States v Smith (2005) both individuals were convicted under the 1000 foot rule. Smith was in his personal vehicle, on a public street (within 1000 feet of a school), when he committed the violation he was convicted of. The United States v Smith case is undeniable proof of an individual being convicted of this while in a personal vehicle on a public street.

Also, the case of San Francisco trying to ban guns in public housing projects has no relation to this law. The thing in San Francisco was dealing with California State law. This is a Federal Law. People arrested under this law are brought into Federal Court. In the case you cited, San Fransisco voluntarily agreed to drop the ban. The California court did not order them to... in fact they never made a ruling either way. Even if the California court had made a ruling, it wouldn't matter... because this is a federal law.
 
In Link Removed and Link Removed both individuals were convicted under the 1000 foot rule. Smith was in his personal car, on a public street (within 1000 feet of a school), when he committed the violation he was convicted of. The appeals court upheld it.

Once again this was long before the SCOTUS decision and, in Danks case, he fired the gun for a reason not explained in the reading. There has been much talk of the "Interstate Commerce" provision and I would like to see some very recent cases where arrests were made simply for having a firearm within 1000 feet of a school. Most states have amended their laws, including here in Georgia, to allow carry of a firearm by those with a permit while dropping off or picking up a student but not within school buildings. I guess we'll just have to see what happens.
 

Eagle2009

New member
The United States v Smith case was in 2005. It doesn't matter what Georgia law says, or the law of any other State. Federal Law trumps State law under the supremacy clause every time. The United States v Cruz Rodrguez appellate case upheld a GFSZA conviction under the 1000 foot rule on September 8, 2008. That was seven months ago.
 
The United States v Smith case was in 2005. It doesn't matter what Georgia law says, or the law of any other State. Federal Law trumps State law under the supremacy clause every time. The Link Removed appellate case upheld a GFSZA conviction under the 1000 foot rule on September 8, 2008. That was seven months ago.


Also, the case of San Francisco trying to ban guns in public housing projects has no relation to this law. This is a Federal Law.

I can see this discussion will end in a stand off but consider the following excerpt:

" The "gun free zones" law exempts CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon) holders who live in a state that requires a background check before the issuing of a permit. (This means that CCW holders that live in states like Alabama are not exempted under this provision because background checks are not mandated by state law.)

And the site:

GUN-FREE ZONES ACT: MYTH VS. REALITY
 

Eagle2009

New member
Your Georgia permit exempts you from this law while in Georgia. So you can carry on school property in Georgia, if Georgia law allows you to. However, if you step foot outside of Georgia, and go to Florida or any of the other countless States that recognize Georgia's permit by legal agreement, you are risking 5 years in federal prison and the permanent loss of your right to own a firearm for the rest of your life, as soon as your drive within 1000 feet of any K-12 school with an unlocked firearm.


And all those people that have non-resident Utah licenses? They are exempt from GFSZA... IN UTAH. They risk federal prosecution every time they go to the grocery store in their home state.

I realize how hard this is to accept, and it is absurd. But I am right about this, so PLEASE send a letter to your United States Senators and Congressional representative.
 

FN1910

New member
Which of those linked cases involved a defendant that held a valid CWP? I only glanced at two of them and neither one mentioned a permit that I saw.
 

Eagle2009

New member
Also, as I mentioned earlier, this law effectively eliminates all unlicensed carry. Many States allow an individual to lawfully carry a loaded handgun openly in a holster, without any kind of permit or background check. Unless the individual also has a CCW permit issued by the State they are in, they risk federal prison every time they pass within 1000 feet of a school. Many states also allow people to keep a loaded handgun in their car without a permit. Again, when they drive within 1000 feet of a school, they risk five years in federal prison. Throwing your gun in the back of your pickup truck so you can head to the range? It better be unloaded and in a locked case.
 

FN1910

New member
Link Removed (2000) is the case where an Alabama concealed carry permit holder was prosecuted by a US Attorney (federal prosecutor), under this federal law, for carrying a handgun in Alabama.

Thanks for that link. The first two you posted to this case did not work for me. This was an enlighting case where I did not know that unpon release of a felon in Michigan that their full rights were restored. I don't see this case as a person being arrested for carrying a gun on school property with a permit as much as a test of the vaildity of a permit. This just showedc that anyone in Alabama can get a permit as long as you are friends with the sheriff.

Have any of the laws involved in this case changed since then?
 

Eagle2009

New member
I'm not familiar with Michigan law, so I don't know if anything has changed. United States v Tait is proof that the federal government has prosecuted a permit holder, and can do it again if they choose to. This is why we should petition our Congressmen to amend the law so that seemingly lawful activities, like driving down the road in a reciprocal State, are recognized.
 

FN1910

New member
From the text of the law you quoted:

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

From the letter from the BATFE that you linked.

The law clearly provides that in order to qualify as an exception to the general prohibitions of the Gun-Free School Zones Act, the license must be issued by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of that State.

Has this been tested in court anywhere? The author of this letter certainly tries to take some liberties with his interpretation on the difference between being licensed and having a license issued. I would be interested in a case where a court ruled on it. Certainly the Tait case did not answer this question and considering how that case was ruled I would say that it should be favorable to the state having licensed an individual if a reciprocity agreement had been signed by both states.
 

Eagle2009

New member
I too have noticed that... and even if the court agrees that you are "licensed" by the reciprocity agreement, you will likely be hung up on:
Title 18 U.S.C Part 1 Chapter 44 Section 922(q)ii (excerpt quoted) said:
and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an
individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify
that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license

And if you want to be really picky... some CCW permits aren't issued by "law enforcement" authorities... they're issued by the Department of Agriculture, or the County Clerk's office etc. So technically, these may not qualify for GFSZA exemption, even in the State that issued them.
 

Bohemian

New member
Its about time we set our representatives in Washington straight on what exactly "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means...

for starters, its ludicrous that a concealed carry permit is required for concealed carry...

Thomas Jefferson, carried concealed most of the time, and often stated it was your civic duty to be armed at all times...

Never did see where he or any of the founding fathers felt that the Second Amendment required licensing or permission of any kind from any body...

"Gun Free Zones"? give me a fricking break!

"Kill for Free Zones" more like...

biggest mass shootings in u.s. history have occurred in fricking "GUN FREE ZONES"

Time for a New Declaration of Independence! a New American Tea Party!

This time we show up Armed!
 

FN1910

New member
I too have noticed that... and even if the court agrees that you are "licensed" by the reciprocity agreement, you will likely be hung up on:

Originally Posted by Title 18 U.S.C Part 1 Chapter 44 Section 922(q)ii (excerpt quoted)
and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an
individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify
that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license


And if you want to be really picky... some CCW permits aren't issued by "law enforcement" authorities... they're issued by the Department of Agriculture, or the County Clerk's office etc. So technically, these may not qualify for GFSZA exemption, even in the State that issued them.

I don't think so because in the Tait case this exact thing was the basis for the guilty verdict being overturned. Yes Tait was prosecuted but I think that this establishes case law where they will not try it again.


The government first argues that Alabama licenses never qualify for the exception in § 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) because Alabama does not require its licensing agents to conduct background checks on firearms license applicants. The § 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) exception only applies if "... the law of the State ... requires that ... [the sheriff] verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license." 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(B)(ii). By its basic terms, the statute merely requires that the Alabama sheriff ensured that Tait was qualified under Alabama law to receive the license. While the Alabama law is extremely lenient, it is nonetheless the only pertinent law. Alabama has chosen its laws, and these are the laws which determine whether the federal statute's exception applies. See Caron v. United States, 524 U.S. 308, 118 S.Ct. at 2011- 12, 141 L.Ed.2d303.6 Alabama is free to set forth its own licensing requirements, and Congress chose to defer to those licensing requirements when it established "qualified under law" as its criterion for the exception to the Gun-Free School Zone Act. Therefore the government's first argument with respect to § 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) is rejected.
 

New Threads

Members online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,358
Messages
622,686
Members
74,171
Latest member
Cryss
Top