The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 27, 2014, 07:05 PM   #26
g.willikers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 4,879
It's probably just a matter of timing.
If an elderly person becomes untrustworthy enough to be relieved of their guns, then they have usually reached the state of not being able to live on their own, either.
Problem solved - no need for their gun when they're being looked after.
__________________
Lock the doors, they're coming in the windows.
g.willikers is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 07:08 PM   #27
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 4,016
A bud of mine, his aged Uncle used to catch a rabbit that no one else could see. Uncle would be sitting in a chair, reach down, start cursing, come up with nothing and throw it across the room. "Damn Rabbit!" Uncle claimed that rabbit running around inside the house caused all sorts of problems.

Now if Uncle had a shotgun, and gone rabbit hunting in the house, things might have been very interesting.
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading.
Slamfire is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 07:11 PM   #28
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,072
Quote:
When Gramps produces a loaded firearm and threatens a known family member and caretaker, Junior has been qualified to determine if Gramps is fit to own a gun.
What if Junior calls it wrong? I've had a couple of these requests, and they usually boiled down to Junior wanting it because Gramps had a few senior moments unrelated to the gun.

Many years ago, I had surgery and had a bad reaction to some pain meds. I was a bit addled for a few days while we worked it out, and I was smart enough not to drive. I still had my guns at the house. Had someone done this, I'd not have been happy. If it were necessary to remove the guns, that determination lies either with me or with the courts.

If Junior's so concerned about the matter, he can go through proper channels.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 07:13 PM   #29
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 10,919
My elderly Uncle realized he was slipping (somewhere above age 90) and gave me his last firearm, a Charter Arms that he had kept for home defense. I hope I last as long and am as thoughtful as him.
Jim Watson is online now  
Old January 27, 2014, 07:16 PM   #30
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willie Lowman
That being said, I don't think many people would go to court over what would be seen as a private family matter.
They may not be as concerned with the issue of self defense, but once an elder person is declared mentally unfit to take care of his/herself, then the family can change a lot when you do not expect it, all due to the issue of money. Its fairly common in my area for a family to be divided over the financial issue, which in turn goes hand in hand with the self defense issue, when speaking of being incompetent to take care of oneself.

I find it is important for people to consider what they would like and document it in a manner legal for your area, so if there is a question your views which you documented while having a sound mind can be shared with the court. Who gets the firearms, money, house, and who can or can not be in charge of medical care decisions. Just basic family planning.
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old January 28, 2014, 01:24 AM   #31
Merad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 5, 2011
Posts: 332
My Grandad came back from WW2 a little the worse for wear. I think he's probably always had some degree of mental issues from it, which have naturally gotten worse with age. I don't know all the details but at the least he has some form of schizophrenia and has talked about seeing/hearing things that weren't real. He's always insisted on keeping a M1 Carbine under the bed and a .32 revolver under the pillow.

There was a "family conversation" about his guns maybe 5 years ago after gramps informed one of the uncles that he'd seen the Japs going through the woods and would give them hell if they came back. The uncle, who is his neighbor, determined that the "jap" in question had been a guy from the power company.

No one was willing to step up and actually take the guns, so I told them to get the firing pins removed. As far as I know, they didn't do it. Gramps turns 94 this year. He finally gave up his drivers license... after causing 4 wrecks in 18 months. Hope the same thing doesn't end up happening with the guns.
Merad is offline  
Old January 28, 2014, 01:56 AM   #32
JimmyR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 4, 2012
Posts: 1,006
I have not been placed in this position; however, with my work in the mental health field, including geriatric psych, I can say what I would look for:

1) Do I have a Power of Attourney or State Appointed Guardianship over said person?
2) Am I making legal or medical decisions for said person?
3) Has this person been diagnosed by a Qualified Medical Professional (typically an MD) with some form of dementia?
4) Has this person demonstrated consistantly poor orientation to person, place, time, or situation? (e.g.- unable to recall her name, thinking one is in a different place, belief that one is in a different place, etc.)

If I am answering more of these questions in the affirmitive, then I would feel comfortable making the decision to remove firearms from the home if the person appeared to be a threat to themselves or others. If most of these questions are answered in the negative, and I am still concerned about the safety of my loved one, then my next call would be to my loved one's physician or my lawyer.
JimmyR is offline  
Old January 28, 2014, 10:24 AM   #33
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,353
Quote:
That being said, I don't think many people would go to court over what would be seen as a private family matter.
And if Gramps is mad enough to do just that? Now you're doubly screwed. You have to give them back, and Gramps isn't going to be very friendly to the idea of giving them up voluntarily. Possibly triply screwed, if you end up facing criminal charges over the issue. As Tom has said, if it's really to that point, there's a proper channel for doing it, and it covers and solves multiple issues. If you're not willing to go through that avenue, it probably hasn't gotten that bad.

Quote:
If I am answering more of these questions in the affirmitive, then I would feel comfortable making the decision to remove firearms from the home if the person appeared to be a threat to themselves or others.
Only one of those questions gives you the right to make that decision. The first one. The last two can lead to the first one being affirmative, but you shouldn't feel comfortable taking their property without their permission until the first one is affirmative. For your protection and theirs.
JimDandy is offline  
Old January 28, 2014, 11:29 AM   #34
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,134
Its a tricky subject. Essentially, you only have the legal right to take their guns away if you have already been granted that right through a legal procedure.

Gramps/Granny can give you that right, but there are a few papers that need to be filled out. Or you can be awarded that right, and responsibility by a court action. Otherwise, despite your assessment of risk, you don't have the legal right to take their guns away. The same as any other piece of their personal property.

For safety, few would argue that taking away the guns, when there is a clearly demonstrated risk, is prudent. However, at that point, YOU become responsible for them, and their safety.

If you do need to take their guns so something bad doesn't happen, you should immediately seek legal control of their affairs. Bescause, if its that bad, someone responsible needs legal control, and if you don't do it, the state will, but only after something (usually bad) forces them to do so.

The flip side of that coin is that YOU become responsible for their protection. Its a terrible burden to bear, for the rest of your life, having to wonder if Granny might not have been raped and beaten to death by some thugs, if only you hadn't taken away that .38 or that shotgun because you were worried about what might happen....

Not a simple or easy decision in many cases. In some cases, it is both, but not every case, which is why the decision has to be made on a case by case basis.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 28, 2014, 11:31 AM   #35
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,373
Quote:
No, it hasn't, and no he isn't. You or I have no more right to take away the property of Gramps, than we do our adult children. "That qualification" rests solely with whatever judicial system the State government has provided. Junior gets to tell the Judge Gramps can't be trusted with a firearm anymore, but he is never qualified to make that decision for Gramps. The Honorable Somebody R. Other has that qualification.
I have the right to take a firearm away from ANY person who threatens me with it and only a fool would return it to them and continue to be in their presence or allow anyone else to be in their presence when they're armed without a full and complete knowledge of the danger.

We can go to court AFTER I take the gun away, to make it permanent and fully legal, but if I'm going to continue to be a caretaker for someone who pointed a gun at me, they're NOT going to have a gun. That's the choice. I take care of you and you don't have a gun or I don't and you do. They can choose between the 1:1 chance of starving to death without assistance or the 1:millions chance of needing the gun. I'm not taking the chance of getting shot by someone who has already exhibited diminished and dangerous mental faculties.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is online now  
Old January 28, 2014, 01:03 PM   #36
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,930
Quote:
Originally posted by Brian Pfleuger:

[B]We can go to court AFTER I take the gun away, to make it permanent and fully legal[/B], but if I'm going to continue to be a caretaker for someone who pointed a gun at me, they're NOT going to have a gun
My sentiments exactly.

There is a period of time when family members feel/know another family member has become mentally incompetent and unsafe to themselves/others before the courts have made a decision that this person is mentally incompetent.
In that period of time, if things have gotten that bad and while getting the ball rolling on the legal end, IMO, it is not only the right thing to do but the responsibility of the other family members to step in and do something.
shortwave is offline  
Old January 28, 2014, 05:09 PM   #37
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 1,252
I think it was John Mellencamp who said
"There is nothing more sad or glorious than generations changing hands."

When your elders begin to lose their faculties and motor skills, it's never a pleasant experience. Morally, however, you need to take responsibility for your elders when they begin failing. Sometimes that means you need to take away some of their freedoms for their own good and for the good of others. From personal experience, I can tell you that it's a decision neither joyful nor lightly made. It's a situation that needs to be reviewed on a case by case basis.
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old January 29, 2014, 01:18 AM   #38
JimmyR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 4, 2012
Posts: 1,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDandy
Only one of those questions gives you the right to make that decision. The first one. The last two can lead to the first one being affirmative, but you shouldn't feel comfortable taking their property without their permission until the first one is affirmative. For your protection and theirs.
From a legally enforceable point of view, then yes, you are right; however, I also ascribe to Brian's point:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger
I have the right to take a firearm away from ANY person who threatens me with it and only a fool would return it to them and continue to be in their presence or allow anyone else to be in their presence when they're armed without a full and complete knowledge of the danger.

We can go to court AFTER I take the gun away, to make it permanent and fully legal, but if I'm going to continue to be a caretaker for someone who pointed a gun at me, they're NOT going to have a gun.
Further, just because I have a POA doesn't always mean I can act under it- many of them stipulate that the attourney in fact may act when the person becomes incapacitated, which is where the rest of my questions come to play. In addition, just because I have the right to do something doesn't mean I should exercise that right- Mom may be getting senile, but I see no need to remove a firearm because her short term memory is going out.
JimmyR is offline  
Old January 29, 2014, 08:01 AM   #39
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,167
Tom Servo wrote;
Quote:
If it were necessary to remove the guns, that determination lies either with me or with the courts.
Well, if you are "addled" or, otherwise mentally incapacitated (Alzheimers, dementia ) you likely won't have the clarity of thought to make the decision yourself. As for the courts, as Brian Pfleuger wrote;

Quote:
We can go to court AFTER I take the gun away, to make it permanent and fully legal, but if I'm going to continue to be a caretaker for someone who pointed a gun at me, they're NOT going to have a gun.
If you wait too long to "make the decision" for someone, the courts may get involved ... due to a shooting incident.

Having gone through similar events with a family member I can say that sometimes you have to make responsible decisions for someone who cannot. I will take your firearms / keys, and you can be pi$$ed. I would rather have you alive and mad as hell than you, or someone else dead, or injured as a result of my inaction.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old January 29, 2014, 09:48 AM   #40
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,353
Quote:
If you wait too long to "make the decision" for someone, the courts may get involved ... due to a shooting incident.
IF you "make the decision" for someone, you'd better get the courts involved. Brian has the right idea. His decision doesn't stop at just taking them away. His "plan" is take them away, then make it "legal" in the courts. He's been the only one to include that follow-through after saying he'd take Gramps' guns.

Many of the others have talked about it like taking away the guns would be the end of it. Which runs into Tom's point- paraphrased to "Who made you King of the World"? Those old folks have the same rights as you or I. Saying "Its for their own good" without getting a judicial review wouldn't fly if your local police chief tried to use the argument on us, so why should it fly because we're the one doing it?

Quote:
Further, just because I have a POA doesn't always mean I can act under it-
I would suspect that the level of impairment required to justify taking away the firearms rights would require more than a durable Power of Attorney, wouldn't it? The threshold is adjudicated mentally defective. Wouldn't that lead to a legal guardianship instead of a POA? And I'm assuming here they aren't one and the same. From what I've read, to be able to get the judgement they can't have firearms they have to be extremely impaired, and unable to care for themselves. That sounds like someone has to care for them, in a parenting role far more than a mere financial observer/overseer.
JimDandy is offline  
Old January 29, 2014, 12:11 PM   #41
Willie Lowman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2009
Location: Uh-Hi-O
Posts: 2,410
I wonder how many families would crucify the family member who took Gramps to court? Right or wrong, legal or no, I know how my family considers issues of money or medical condition. If I were to make a legal issue out of a condition that one of my family members has, I may as well change my name, sell my house, pack my bags, and leave the state. It is an issue of privacy.

Quote:
Which runs into Tom's point- paraphrased to "Who made you King of the World"? Those old folks have the same rights as you or I. Saying "Its for their own good" without getting a judicial review wouldn't fly if your local police chief tried to use the argument on us, so why should it fly because we're the one doing it?
That is a very valid point!


So say Junior and Junior Jr. and Missy and Sissy all sit down and agree that they are sick and tired of Gramps waving his shotgun at them. There comes the issue that they must tell Gramps that he has to go talk to the Judge and possibly sign some papers relinquishing his precious firearm. Or perhaps they don't want to hurt Gramps' pride taking him to court and telling strangers that he is a danger his loved ones, they'd rather just take his shotgun and call it a day.

The first way is legally correct. The second way is not but I am guessing more likely to happen.
Willie Lowman is offline  
Old January 29, 2014, 12:44 PM   #42
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,072
Quote:
If you wait too long to "make the decision" for someone, the courts may get involved ... due to a shooting incident.
That could happen. Do what you feel you need to.

However, let's say I've got a busybody son-in-law who doesn't like guns, or a child who's nearly never involved in my day-to-day life. He decides something about my behavior is just odd. Does that give him the right? Who is he to make that determination?

The little cretin can go get a court order, but until then, he doesn't have the authority to steal or tamper with my property.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 29, 2014, 01:23 PM   #43
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,353
Quote:
The first way is legally correct. The second way is not but I am guessing more likely to happen.
It certainly is. In a way it's a lot like jaywalking. Chances are nothing happens. But some people get tickets. Someday Gramps is going to take Jr, Missy, and Sissy to court. Possibly have them arrested and charged.

By all means, people should go to Gramps first, and try and get him to voluntarily surrender his arms. Failing that, they should have a judge approve of their actions to protect Gramps' rights, and their freedom.

Besides which, as I've already pointed out if Gramps is in that bad of shape, you've got far more issues than just his firearms. His estate, his health, his life when he goes wandering off. If Gramps is in such bad shape he doesn't have the right to own firearms, he doesn't have a lot of other rights, and needs a legally appointed guardian to look after him.
JimDandy is offline  
Old January 29, 2014, 02:18 PM   #44
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,930
Originally posted by Tom Servo:

Quote:
However, let's say I've got a busybody son-in-law who doesn't like guns, or a child who's nearly never involved in my day-to-day life. He decides something about my behavior is just odd. Does that give him the right? Who is he to make that determination?

The little cretin can go get a court order, but until then, he doesn't have the authority to steal or tamper with my property.
I guess that's where coming from a family in which other family members that are closer to me would gladly take this 'little cretin' on a fence row chat . And hopefully, if a family member is portraying signs of incompetence this issue has been noticed and discussed by various members of the family.
shortwave is offline  
Old January 29, 2014, 05:03 PM   #45
skizzums
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2013
Location: Douglasville, Ga
Posts: 1,291
instead of filing down trigger mechs and other trickery, could he/she be convinced to switch to a shotgun with less lethal ammunition? again, case by case
__________________
My head is bloody, but unbowed
skizzums is offline  
Old January 29, 2014, 06:41 PM   #46
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,167
JimDandy Wrote:
Quote:
IF you "make the decision" for someone, you'd better get the courts involved. Brian has the right idea. His decision doesn't stop at just taking them away. His "plan" is take them away, then make it "legal" in the courts. He's been the only one to include that follow-through after saying he'd take Gramps' guns.
I could not agree more. Thing is, it takes TIME to go through the proceedings to be granted a conservatorship, you may have to act first, then go to court and make it "tidy".
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old January 29, 2014, 07:03 PM   #47
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
However, let's say I've got a busybody son-in-law who doesn't like guns, or a child who's nearly never involved in my day-to-day life. He decides something about my behavior is just odd. Does that give him the right? Who is he to make that determination?

The little cretin can go get a court order, but until then, he doesn't have the authority to steal or tamper with my property.
Agreed. The issue I have with this topic is, "who actually has a right to that firearm (an item of value) when gramps is declared unfit to care for himself and how do they know there is not another claim on such?"

Just because there may be a need to safely store an item, there may be a prior claim which can come up later. Just because gramps has lost his mental faculties, and says "here son, you can have this "x" item" another person can claim and go through the legal process with an alternative argument about how gramps promised to give it to them instead when gramps was in a better frame of mental ability. Even if you prevail in court, that is still time and money which may have cost more then the worth of the firearm in question. Why open oneself up to the possible legal issues by doing it alone without court assistance direction and documentation?
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old January 30, 2014, 12:46 AM   #48
JimmyR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 4, 2012
Posts: 1,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDandy
I would suspect that the level of impairment required to justify taking away the firearms rights would require more than a durable Power of Attorney, wouldn't it? The threshold is adjudicated mentally defective. Wouldn't that lead to a legal guardianship instead of a POA? And I'm assuming here they aren't one and the same. From what I've read, to be able to get the judgement they can't have firearms they have to be extremely impaired, and unable to care for themselves. That sounds like someone has to care for them, in a parenting role far more than a mere financial observer/overseer.
A power of attourney and legal guardianship, at least in my home state of Indiana and the neighboring state of Kentucky (to the best of my knowledge) are two different paths toward the same goal. They typically grant the same or similar powers, depending on how the issuing authority decides. The biggest difference is that a POA is issued by the individual, while legal guardianship is typically awarded by the State.

For example, if I am 65, and want to be forward thinking, I might have a POA drawn up that allows my family to make medical and financial decisions for me if I become incapacitated- physically, mentally, or otherwise. Part of that often includes buying or selling property.

However, if I am 65 and have developed an early onset of Alzheimer's, and think I am 25 years old, the little green men are after me, and that my wife is the Queen of Russia, then my family might be forced to go before the courts and petition that I be appointed a guardian, because I am completely incapacitated, and will likely not regain lucidity.
JimmyR is offline  
Old January 30, 2014, 08:01 AM   #49
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,167
JimmyR Wrote;
Quote:
For example, if I am 65, and want to be forward thinking, I might have a POA drawn up that allows my family to make medical and financial decisions for me if I become incapacitated- physically, mentally, or otherwise. Part of that often includes buying or selling property.

However, if I am 65 and have developed an early onset of Alzheimer's, and think I am 25 years old, the little green men are after me, and that my wife is the Queen of Russia, then my family might be forced to go before the courts and petition that I be appointed a guardian, because I am completely incapacitated, and will likely not regain lucidity.
That is exactly the way it works in TN as well, I may have medical and/or financial POA to handle day to day affairs however, it takes a Judge to grant a conservatorship/guardianship that basically allows you to make all decisions. It requires a physician statement of the persons diminished mental capacity, among other requirements. It is a lengthy and rather emotionally taxing process on all involved.

This is also why I said that you may be forced, by circumstances to separate Gramps from his Firearms/keys for his, and everyone else' s safety and then go to court and make it "legal" OR You can do the "right" thing and go through the legal process first and if Gramps happens to have a crash and kill someone or shoots someone, just consider it "collateral damage" for protecting his rights. You will be hard pressed to find someone more pro-rights than me but, sometimes delicate decisions must be made on a case by case basis, as tough as that may be. The other side of the coin is; Can I look myself in the face if that happens knowing I could have prevented it ?

I also would have a hard time going to Gramps' funeral after an "incident" and look into the casket and think "Bless his heart, but at least he got to keep his rights and dignity right up till the coroner showed up"
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -

Last edited by OuTcAsT; January 30, 2014 at 08:50 AM. Reason: additional thoughts
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old January 30, 2014, 11:27 AM   #50
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,134
Quote:
The flip side of that coin is that YOU become responsible for their protection. Its a terrible burden to bear, for the rest of your life, having to wonder if Granny might not have been raped and beaten to death by some thugs, if only you hadn't taken away that .38 or that shotgun because you were worried about what might happen....
Quote:
The other side of the coin is; Can I look myself in the face if that happens knowing I could have prevented it ?

I also would have a hard time going to Gramps' funeral after an "incident" and look into the casket and think "Bless his heart, but at least he got to keep his rights and dignity right up till the coroner showed up"
No, not an easy choice at all. I think we are all in agreement that if there is a "clear and present danger" posed by Gramps/Granny with a gun, that we must do something. And we pretty much seem to be in agreement that the "something" must be more than physically taking the guns away, to protect both you and the elderly's legal rights and responsibilities.

Not an easy path, but one we must walk when/if the situation demands it.

I don't see much more that can be discussed about this, but I've been wrong before....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

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 -5. The time now is 04:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14326 seconds with 7 queries