Fake "Gun Rights" Group Supports Gun Control - American Rifle & Pistol Assn

[HOOfan_1]

Neville Chamberlain was big into compromises...look where that got the world.....

 

[dark.zero.x]

that I'm just an average joe who doesn't agree with you on this particular issue

I think on this particular topic, your either with us, or against us.

Any other topic I would agree to disagree, cars, women, soda ect. But this is a topic of our unalienable rights, and in my opinion the most important of them all. Would I compromise another of my unalienable rights to keep one? No. So, would I compromise the terms of my having the contested right in question? Again no.

Sadly I haven't been around all that long, a mere 22 years, But I plan on fighting the good fight till the day I die. Even if its from people like you who do not understand, or want to understand, their own rights.

 

[Deanimator]

Your conspiracy theory is completely bogus.

There actually was a CONSPIRACY behind the Lincoln assassination.

Does that make it "bogus"?

You calling something a "conspiracy theory" doesn't make it untrue.

There's no more chance of "compromising" with anti-gunners than there was of Mordechai Anilewicz "compromising" with Hans Kammler.

 

[General Geoff]

But if people are arguing that ANY restriction on gun ownership is unconstitutional, ANY at all, then the person must think that these laws are unconstitutional. Anyone here advocating for the repeal of the no-felons laws for firearms? Anyone?

*raises hand*
Felons who've done their time should have no restrictions placed on their right to keep and bear arms. Firearms should be treated just like power tools: No background checks, no paperwork, cash & carry. Felons who want to get a hold of them will get a hold of them anyway, it's a waste of government resources to require a background check to buy one legally. To be honest, I think the entire FFL system is superfluous. Repeal the GCA 1968, the streets did not run red with blood before then.

 

[danez71]

*facepalm*

Your conspiracy theory is completely bogus. You can't deal with the fact that someone who likes guns disagrees with you and so you paint everyone who doesn't have complete agreement as a shill that's part of a secret underground movement to corrupt an internet forum, or maybe even just one of many logins of the same person. Get over yourselves.


Do what I asked before and google "Mitlov". Ten years of internet usage of that name on various forums and almost none of it dealing with gun control. "Selling this slush for a decade"? Take off the tin foil hat and realize that I'm just an average joe who doesn't agree with you on this particular issue, not some sinister conspirator out to poison the internet.

I did google "Mitlov" last night and youre right... if that's your real screen name LOL


For what its worth... I do believe you. I just don't agree with you.

I thought similar things probably 25 yrs ago. Then as the AWB of 94 came along.

They banned the ruger mini 14 with an after market folding stock but not the normal wooden stock.

They said my BHP with the 13 round mag that was released in 1935 was suddenly the equivalent of the devil but a 10 round mag was 'safe and sane'.

That's when my eyes opened up to the BS misguided feel good legislation that did nothing but treat law abiding people with distrust.


People like Feinstein were heavily pushing for it as the answer to solve all of the gang killings.... despite the fact gangs went using them. Even back then, Govt data didn't support their message of "we have to save the children and ban these evil devices".

Now, people like Feinstein want to ban ALL semi autos with detachable mags.... even .22's.


Feinstein and numerous others have even come out and said they want an all out ban and confiscation.


They have not compromised... They have only gotten worse.

 

[jstein650]

You know, I haven't heard a real defendable argument from Mitlov/JSH1 in a while...
I have to admit that when I suggested that connection, my 'tinfoil hat' may have been a little tight... BTW, it's ALUMINUM! No self respecting, wild-eyed right wing, gun toter uses tin anymore! Jeeze! (sarcasm off...)

More to the point, the 2nd amendment, the constitution, and her supporters have 'compromised' now 'til we're blue in the face. And we've lost enough on enough fronts to know that the current liberal definition of 'compromise' equals defeat by attrition.

Show me a new law that will govern the lawless in a free land.
You won't be able to; and the obvious conclusion is that you really don't believe in a free state. You say you are currently 'enjoy(ing) your guns'. Well, that's just dandy.
And I'm sure you'll be happy when those of us that realize your folly from experience will fight, on your blissfully ignorant behalf, for the rights of those who still want to live in a free nation.

 

[splithoof]

"feel good legislation that did nothing but treat law abiding people with distrust"...that is EXACTLY why I have lost any and all belief that just about anything that "authority", "officials", or legislators do can possibly benefit society.

 

[Deanimator]

You know, I haven't heard a real defendable argument from Mitlov/JSH1 in a while...

After a certain point, you can't continue to try to justify the destruction of citizen firearms ownership without destroying your own "pro-gun" facade.

I think they've run out of (less self-incriminating) things to say...

 

[Mitlov]

They said my BHP with the 13 round mag that was released in 1935 was suddenly the equivalent of the devil but a 10 round mag was 'safe and sane'.

That's when my eyes opened up to the BS misguided feel good legislation that did nothing but treat law abiding people with distrust.


People like Feinstein were heavily pushing for it as the answer to solve all of the gang killings.... despite the fact gangs went using them. Even back then, Govt data didn't support their message of "we have to save the children and ban these evil devices".

Now, people like Feinstein want to ban ALL semi autos with detachable mags.... even .22's.


Feinstein and numerous others have even come out and said they want an all out ban and confiscation.


They have not compromised... They have only gotten worse.

Neither me nor the American Rifle + Pistol Association supports Feinstein-esque semi-auto bans. You're beating up on a straw man there.

Both the NRA and the R+P support some level of restriction. But at least the R+P is transparent enough to explain where their boundary is. From their page:

The types of weapons, ammunition types, and ammunition capacities allowed by law should be established by Best Practices, as exemplified by the standards of local law enforcement, private security, and top competition marksmen and hunters – never by cosmetic attributes. Basically, whatever equipment the experts deem most appropriate and effective should be available to any other citizen potentially facing the same threats.

Police use AR-15s and high-capacity pistol magazines, so the R+P supports those for private citizens as well. Cops don't generally use M-60 machine guns or fragmentation grenades or flamethrowers, so the R+P isn't going to argue that private citizens should have unrestricted access to those either.

The NRA, on the other hand, has not given any coherent explanation of what they think the boundary of what private citizens should be able to have without restrictions. But that's NOT because they believe in no restrictions. They do believe in restrictions. If the NRA believed in literally no restrictions, as many here espouse, they'd be fighting for a repeal of the National Firearms Act of 1934. But the NRA ISN'T doing that, are they? The people here who believe in literally no restrictions should be just as hostile to the NRA as they are to the R+P, since neither organization supports those positions. And if you support the NRA, then you're supporting a lobbying group that has supported everything from the National Firearms Act of 1934 to the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. You're throwing stones at R+P for not having a "no-compromise" platform when, in fact, the NRA doesn't have a "no-compromise" platform either.

So all those ridiculous Nazi and slavery analogies that have been tossed in my face in this thread? Go toss 'em at Wayne LaPierre as well, if you really believe that anyone who doesn't believe in zero restrictions of form is an "anti" and should be treated as a Bloomberg/Feinstein ally.

 

[MErl]

Neither me nor the American Rifle + Pistol Association supports Feinstein-esque semi-auto bans. You're beating up on a straw man there.

We see the slippery slope as very real. Allowing any limitation is just another step along the path to a total ban.

The types of weapons, ammunition types, and ammunition capacities allowed by law should be established by Best Practices, as exemplified by the standards of local law enforcement, private security, and top competition marksmen and hunters – never by cosmetic attributes. Basically, whatever equipment the experts deem most appropriate and effective should be available to any other citizen potentially facing the same threats.

That still comes down to some other person or committee defining what people can and cannot have or use. This week there are a couple people from THR on that board. Next week it is a shotgun hunter who uses an over-under, a target shooter that uses a single shot and a police chief that doesn't believe in civilian ownership at all.

There are plenty of complainants about the NRA and their compromising. They are far from the ideal org but they seem to be one of the better ones out there.

 

[jstein650]

Mitlov: "The types of weapons, ammunition types, and ammunition capacities allowed by law should be established by Best Practices, as exemplified by the standards of local law enforcement, private security, and top competition marksmen and hunters – never by cosmetic attributes. Basically, whatever equipment the experts deem most appropriate and effective should be available to any other citizen potentially facing the same threats."

Where do your sentences end and where does the script pick up?? - "SHOULD be established"? Can you define, specifically what "Best Practices" are? "Basically whatever equipment the EXPERTS deem..." ??? And which government agent will that be?? Maybe a handpicked guy by Eric Holder? I can imagine maybe Napolitano will be in the best place figure out these little details...

The NFA 1934 still allows pretty much anyone that's not a felon to buy NFA weapons, which heretofore, had been available at only a fairly punitive $200 stamp per. Your buddies, I'm sure will be upping that, if they've not done so already. How about $10,000 per? -- That's right, you're still enjoying 'your' guns, so you won't worry, right?

Since you're all warm & fuzzy about 'compromise', let's hear one. Give me a 'compromise' you could live with... What do you need gun owners to do and why? You sound pretty well versed on this R+P group, so here's your chance.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I have guns I bought as military collectibles and I want their magazines to match the as-issued capacity, both as collectors' items and as civilian marksmanship training items. If that standard capacity is 7, 8, 10, 15, 20 or 30 that's that.

My go-to home protection guns are a five shot revolver and a five shot pump shotgun, so my insistence on standard capacity is not a matter of "need".

The local murders that horrify me have been done with baseball bat, knife, hammer and rock. But I don't fear bats, knives, hammers and rocks: I fear persons with murderous intents.

I won't go into detail here on my experience with local option alcohol prohibition, except to say I found it did not help public safety to create a bootleg market through prohibition.

 

[Mitlov]

The quote from the webpage was in italics. As for who establishes those best practices, it's law enforcement in a particular jurisdiction. If they're giving their patrol officers 15-round magazines in pistols and AR-15s with 30-round magazines in squad cars, no law that restricts the right of private citizens to use the same should be allowed. The private citizens are facing the same threats as the beat cops.

I'm not claiming to be "well-versed" in the R+P. I first heard of them two day ago. I just snagged that statement of policy off their webpage. You don't need to attend secret meetings to know their policy stances; it's right there on their webpage.

As for compromises I'd like the "anti" crowd to give up, I'd like to see:

* CCW in all 50 states with reciprocity so CCW holders don't have to sweat when they cross state lines.

* Repeal of the absurd ammunition capacity limits that have been passed in a number of states recently. It didn't work in the 1990s (I remember Columbine) and it won't work now, and it ties up law enforcement resources trying to enforce it.

* More armed police in our schools, and some procedure to allow school officials in K-12 to carry. Allow students at public universities who have CCW permits to carry on campus.

From scanning R+P's page, it seems they seem to agree on those issues.

 

[Deanimator]

it's law enforcement in a particular jurisdiction

Not a snowball's chance in Basrah.

Police have been some of the LEAST well informed individuals regarding BOTH the law AND firearms of anyone I've encountered.

And Rosie O'Donnell is going to elope with Rush Limbaugh before I take the advice of the Chicago or New Orleans Police Departments on ANY subject.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Neither me nor the American Rifle + Pistol Association supports Feinstein-esque semi-auto bans. You're beating up on a straw man there.

I'm surprised someone as trusting as you even carries a gun. Why not just hug it out? The whole point of this post is the R&P purports to support gun rights; but their Chairman of the Board is busy liking and supporting MAIG, Moms Demand Action, and other anti-gun groups that DO support such bans on his personal Facebook page. there is even a long history of such false-flag groups trying to divide gun owners. So even as they are claiming to support gun rights, the only actual thing they've done is advocate for gun control in the form of background checks and been just a wee-bit disingenuous about their core beliefs. Yet, you are apparently willing to take their word at face value despite the screen shots from the Chairman's home page.

But wait, we're not done yet; because you believe this group so much, you'll go defend them against guys who have been active in this fight for 20 years who are telling you this is BS. The only question now is whether you believe this sincerely or you just think we're that stupid.

The NRA, on the other hand, has not given any coherent explanation of what they think the boundary of what private citizens should be able to have without restrictions. But that's NOT because they believe in no restrictions. They do believe in restrictions. If the NRA believed in literally no restrictions, as many here espouse, they'd be fighting for a repeal of the National Firearms Act of 1934. But the NRA ISN'T doing that, are they? The people here who believe in literally no restrictions should be just as hostile to the NRA as they are to the R+P, since neither organization supports those positions. And if you support the NRA, then you're supporting a lobbying group that has supported everything from the National Firearms Act of 1934 to the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. You're throwing stones at R+P for not having a "no-compromise" platform when, in fact, the NRA doesn't have a "no-compromise" platform either.

Your reasoning is ridiculous. The NRA is not pushing new gun control here. The R&P and YOU are pushing new gun control. Suggesting that because the NRA is politically savvy enough not to push giant repeals of existing gun control in the wake of Sandy Hook makes them the same as a group pushing for registration is poor reasoning at best and agitprop at worst. And for the record, the NRA has successfully repealed gun control in 1986, unsuccessfully pushed it in 1995 and 1997, and killed their own #1 priority legislation in 2004 rather than see an AWB Renewal attached to it (I would think someone who claims to oppose such bans would know that). So the NRA has some street cred that R&P lacks in this regard.

So all those ridiculous Nazi and slavery analogies that have been tossed in my face in this thread? Go toss 'em at Wayne LaPierre as well, if you really believe that anyone who doesn't believe in zero restrictions of form is an "anti" and should be treated as a Bloomberg/Feinstein ally.

Once again, the reason you are being treated like a Bloomberg/Feinstein ally is because you are pushing the same laws they support and making the same arguments. The NRA isn't doing that. More importantly, you are encouraging a bad compromise - one that would weaken the RKBA movement to a point it might not be able to recover from politically. Even worse, people are making good sound arguments why they reject your reasoning and you have failed repeatedly to address the substance of those arguments.

Instead of trying to argue why their concerns aren't valid, you've personalized the argument and cast yourself as the victim of a difference of opinion. I think that is a despicable and dishonest approach. If you are doing it out of self-ignorance, please be aware of it and respond with substance to the arguments instead of whining that a forum full of gun people are giving you heat for your support of additional gun control.

 

[Sam1911]

As for who establishes those best practices, it's law enforcement in a particular jurisdiction.

Oh my "$Diety" ... what a ludicrous idea! Have you ever asked a cop a gun question? Watched cops shoot? Looked at law enforcement polity on weapons and training?

EVER?

The day I seek the advice of law enforcement on tools, techniques, and training will be a cold, COLD, day in hell.

But at least the R+P is transparent enough to explain where their boundary is.

That paragraph you quoted shows the organization as a blatant false front. No one who knows guns and shooting well would have written such a thing. It is simply absurd.

 

[danez71]

Neither me nor the American Rifle + Pistol Association supports Feinstein-esque semi-auto bans. You're beating up on a straw man there.

Both the NRA and the R+P support some level of restriction. But at least the R+P is transparent enough to explain where their boundary is. From their page:

The types of weapons, ammunition types, and ammunition capacities allowed by law should be established by Best Practices, as exemplified by the standards of local law enforcement, private security, and top competition marksmen and hunters – never by cosmetic attributes. Basically, whatever equipment the experts deem most appropriate and effective should be available to any other citizen potentially facing the same threats.

Police use AR-15s and high-capacity pistol magazines, so the R+P supports those for private citizens as well. Cops don't generally use M-60 machine guns or fragmentation grenades or flamethrowers, so the R+P isn't going to argue that private citizens should have unrestricted access to those either.

The NRA, on the other hand, has not given any coherent explanation of what they think the boundary of what private citizens should be able to have without restrictions. But that's NOT because they believe in no restrictions. They do believe in restrictions. If the NRA believed in literally no restrictions, as many here espouse, they'd be fighting for a repeal of the National Firearms Act of 1934. But the NRA ISN'T doing that, are they? The people here who believe in literally no restrictions should be just as hostile to the NRA as they are to the R+P, since neither organization supports those positions. And if you support the NRA, then you're supporting a lobbying group that has supported everything from the National Firearms Act of 1934 to the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. You're throwing stones at R+P for not having a "no-compromise" platform when, in fact, the NRA doesn't have a "no-compromise" platform either.

So all those ridiculous Nazi and slavery analogies that have been tossed in my face in this thread? Go toss 'em at Wayne LaPierre as well, if you really believe that anyone who doesn't believe in zero restrictions of form is an "anti" and should be treated as a Bloomberg/Feinstein ally.

To be honest, I don't have a love affair with the NRA and I don't like some of their tactics either. But they're the best choice. (I vote the same way... I don't like the candidates but I vote for what I think is the best choice.)

I do give R+P credit for spelling out their position as you noted.

HOWEVER... when they claim they didn't know about MAIG... that throws up a HUGE red flag the size of China.

If they didn't know about MAIG, it destroys about 99% of their credibility. I do give 2nd chances so I'll continue to watch how they move forward. But I'm highly skeptical.


You quoted the following as part of their position.

Basically, whatever equipment the experts deem most appropriate and effective should be available to any other citizen potentially facing the same threats

I'm not a tin foil hat guy but the politicians, and if R+P is anti, will just end up saying the citizens don't face the same threat as the police and support further restrictions for citizens.

The politicians have already said and used this tactic.


The NRA isn't trying to repeal the 34 machine gun ban because they know that's not able to be won... at least in the foreseeable future.

But realistically, the only time I could quasi say they were a problem was during prohibition.

And that should be a big clue as to what banning alcohol and machine guns did. It created a huge criminal economy that was ruthless.

And the common honest man couldn't have a martini or a chance to have equal protection.

In fact, case in point... the police fought Al Capone using machine guns but the common honest man wasn't allowed to have a machine gun. Why, because we didn't face the same threat.

There's the real life history lesson as to why people don't trust that kind of verbiage. We've been burned by it before.


I'll agree with someone above... but only in an ideal world... that after a criminal gets out of jail, he should have gun rights. He paid his dues.

Ideally, if they cant be trusted with a gun, they shouldn't be out of jail. They could drive a car thru a crowded bus bench if they want to kill people.


Again, I don't think you're a plant and you're welcome to PM me if you want.

I don't agree with you. I am open to listening to another opinion though.


I think that the prohibition/Al Capone/34 machine gun ban example should be taken as a real world example of how and why people don't believe any well intended proposal when its wrapped around further restrictions.

Feinsteins and friends (and there are a lot of them) actions over the last 30 yrs should be as well.


None of the proposed laws would have stopped Columbine (which happened during the AWB), Gabby's shooting, Aruora theater, or Sandy Hook.


You cant prevent intended violence with a law. It impossible.

To think otherwise is naïve or dishonest. (Naïve describes an honest, well intended, but un-inform person - - - Dishonest describes a politician)

 

[Walkalong]

The people here who believe in literally no restrictions should be just as hostile to the NRA as they are to the R+P,

That is simply ludicrous. The NRA has a proven track record of supporting gun rights and is a major part of the reason we have any gun rights left at all. R&P is a new organization acting like they are pro gun but right out of the gate are saying we should compromise again. We are tired of compromising.

Your playing word games, and I don't buy it. I do not care if you are a shill, or a naive gun owner, I'm not buying it.

 

[TennJed]

The good news is, it looks like almost everyone here is intelligent enough to see the this American Rifle and Pistol Ass is a sham and should get exposed before it gets off the ground. Well done people

 

[JSH1]

Wow, so many posts in the last couple of days I've been away from this discussion. I spend most of the weekend laying cork flooring in my house but I did manage some time at the range to shoot the shotgun I just got back from H&R.

I guess I will try to explain why I want background checks with a registry. For me it is a law-enforcement tool. I would like law enforcement to be able to trace a gun found at a crime scene all the way back to the manufacturer. They can do that right now if the gun has been transferred by dealers but lose the trail once a gun is sold privately. Those records would also help track straw purchases and bad dealers. Right now straw purchases are hard to prosecute because you have to prove intent. If all legal gun sales include a background checks the seller can't say they didn't know the buyer was prohibited. You can also only have so many guns that are "lost" or "stolen" before a straw purchaser starts to stand out.

Why don't I fear a gun registry? I don't believe the government has any interest in going door to door confiscating guns. I'm not aware of this happening in the United States even though individual states have kept registries for decades. Please correct me if I am wrong. A registry does not lead to bans. A registry could only be used to confiscate guns if a ban made those guns illegal. If tomorrow a law is passes making my pistol illegal I will turn it in as required. My life and my family is too important to me to risk a felony weapon charge not to mention a lifetime ban on legally owning other guns. What would you do? While there is always going to be internet bluff and bluster, I suspect the vast majority here would do the same thing. What is the alternative? Are you going to join a militia to fight the government? Maybe seal it in a PVC pipe and bury it in the backyard and claim it was stolen? Keep it in your house and risk a felony weapons conviction and a lifetime ban on owning firearms? Registry or no registry once a gun is banned you are breaking the law if you keep it.

I personally believe the day to day benefit to law enforcement from universal background checks outweigh the infinitesimally small chance of that information being used to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens.

I think a federal concealed carry bill or 50 state concealed carry reciprocity is a good idea and something that could be used to make a bill with universal background checks more likely to pass. The fact that we have 50 different concealed carry laws makes it difficult for person to know what they need to do as they travel and needlessly puts them as risk if they get something wrong. I can only imagine what someone that lives in an RV does to keep everything straight. I am also well aware that it was not included in the Senate bill but, as I have stated before, I don't think the Senate bill was a serious attempt to pass legislation. As soon as they started talking about a renewed assault rifle ban I knew it was a political stunt not a serious attempt at a bill that could pass the House and become law. I believe the President was upset not that the bill failed to become law but that it failed to pass the Senate which made him and the Democratic majority in the Senate look weak.

On the legality of Assault Rifle Bans and magazine limits. As I and others have said, every Assault Rifle Ban has been litigated and they stand. Yes, most of this happened in State courts but the effect is the same. I openly admit these challenges happened under a previous court and their is a chance that the Roberts court will strike them down. Personally, I doubt it considering the most recent opinions allowed for reasonable regulation while confirming the individual right to own a handgun and concealed carry. I suspect something like a 10 round magazine limit to be reasonable to the courts. We will find out shortly as cases work their way through the courts.

BTW, if I missed someones question I apologize. There is only so much I can keep straight trying to respond to 4 pages of posts.

 

[HOOfan_1]

If all legal gun sales include a background checks the seller can't say they didn't know the buyer was prohibited. You can also only have so many guns that are "lost" or "stolen" before a straw purchaser starts to stand out..

There is the major flaw in your support of gun registration.....criminals are not going to obey universal background checks and they are not going to buy or sell their guns legally....

We've had plenty of members here from other countries detail how gun registration eventually led to gun banning.

Magazine limits are not reasonable...

 

[TennJed]

JSH1, So you don't believe a the government would confiscate (has already happened in New Orleans, Cali, & NY). But you admit it would aid in confiscation if bans happen.

That is the point. Register your guns now so we can take them later. It has ALREADY happened. What would I do if there I was asked to turn mine in? Well like you my family is more important, so if they were registered I would have no choice.

Huh, no choice. I wonder if Fienstien and Bloomberg like that. Luckily we have the NRA fighting against registration to protect you and me

 

[JSH1]

There is the major flaw in your support of gun registration.....criminals are not going to obey universal background checks and they are not going to buy or sell their guns legally....

So straw purchasers do not exist and prohibited people do not purchase guns privately from law abiding gun owners? Even gun used in a crime was purchased on the black market?

We've had plenty of members here from other countries detail how gun registration eventually led to gun banning.

You don't need a registry to ban guns.

Magazine limits are not reasonable...

That is for the courts to decide.

So you don't believe a the government would confiscate (has already happened in New Orleans, Cali, & NY)

When did New Orleans, California, or New York use registries to go door to door and collect firearms?

 

[nazshooter]

JSH1:

Registries have been tried in many places both inside and outside the U.S. and have never been shown to reduce violent crime but they have historically been used as a tool of confiscation. Canada is ditching it's long gun registry due both to it's higher than predicted costs and the fact that it hasn't been the critical factor in solving ANY crime. I believe there is an eastern U.S. state that had the same experience with their registry experiment.

You say that the government doesn't want to go door to door confiscating our guns and I'm sure you're right, such a thing would be vary dangerous today. It would be less dangerous in an America where most had registered their guns and most of those had "voluntarily" turned in the most effective ones. That is precisely the point.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

[nazshooter]

You don't need a registry to ban guns.

As a practical matter, here in America, you certainly do.

When did New Orleans, California, or New York use registries to go door to door and collect firearms?

In New Orleans they certainly did use gun shop records (the safest possible form of registry) to aid in the illegal confiscation of guns. California currently uses it's registry to confiscate guns from those it deems prohibited as well as to confiscate guns that were banned after they were registered. New York will almost certainly use it's registry to confiscate guns from those who fail to re-register as required under their new law.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2