Illinois: Legislation introduced to require gun owners to carry $1 million insurance policy

raiven · February 17, 2009 at 02:10 AM

<H1 class=subheadlinemain>Democrat Proposes Law Requiring Firearm Owners Have $1,000,000 Insurance Policies </H1>

Infowars

Monday, Feb 16, 2009

Illinois — the land of Obama and the Blagojevich mafia — is serious about making the Second Amendment so expensive only the rich will be able to exercise it. Kenneth Dunkin, a former social worker and Democrat member of the Illinois House of Representatives, has introduced HB0687, entitled the “Firearm Owners ID-Insurance” bill. It is currently in the Rules Committee.

Dunkin’s bill amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act, a previous bill aimed at chipping away at the Second Amendment. Dunkin’s amendment states “that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person.”

A million dollars!

Can you imagine the premium on such an insurance policy? It would be astronomical and out of the reach of most people in Illinois.

If the firearm owner cannot afford the insurance or decides that it is simply crazy and also unconstitutional and refuses to participate, “the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card,” thus making the the firearm illegal and the owner a criminal.

If Dunkin’s bill makes it out of committee and is passed by the Illinois General Assembly, a whole lot of people will have their firearms confiscated by the State Police

http://www.gunnewsdaily.com/

Ocellairs · February 17, 2009 at 05:02 AM

...this I believe has been posted prior to you're post.

Blacksmith58 · February 17, 2009 at 03:38 PM

Whether this has been posted before or not, I've never heard of it till now, so thanks for posting it!

Once again, these anti-gun folks are attacking the Law Abiding Folks. Do you think the thug on the street will carry this type of insurance?

Anytime I hear of a new law, my mind always looks at "Who this law affects?" 99 times out of 10, it only affects the law abider, not the bad guy!

I know, Welcome to the Socialist Republic of Illinois and soon to be the United Socialist Americas!

tdiller · February 17, 2009 at 03:43 PM

Would my million dollar umbrella policy cover it? Along with my homeowners, boat, camper, motorcycle, and auto insurance I have a million dollar umbrella. The cost in premiums was not that much in fact by wrapping all this coverage into one carrier I was able to add the million dollar umbrella for as much as I was paying to several different insurance companies combined. Yes I know it's the principle and if I had to add another million just in case my gun goes bang that's a different story.

<H1 class=subheadlinemain>Democrat Proposes Law Requiring Firearm Owners Have $1,000,000 Insurance Policies </H1>

Infowars
Monday, Feb 16, 2009

Illinois — the land of Obama and the Blagojevich mafia — is serious about making the Second Amendment so expensive only the rich will be able to exercise it. Kenneth Dunkin, a former social worker and Democrat member of the Illinois House of Representatives, has introduced HB0687, entitled the “Firearm Owners ID-Insurance” bill. It is currently in the Rules Committee.

Dunkin’s bill amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act, a previous bill aimed at chipping away at the Second Amendment. Dunkin’s amendment states “that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person.”

A million dollars!

Can you imagine the premium on such an insurance policy? It would be astronomical and out of the reach of most people in Illinois.

If the firearm owner cannot afford the insurance or decides that it is simply crazy and also unconstitutional and refuses to participate, “the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card,” thus making the the firearm illegal and the owner a criminal.

If Dunkin’s bill makes it out of committee and is passed by the Illinois General Assembly, a whole lot of people will have their firearms confiscated by the State Police

http://www.gunnewsdaily.com/

Molly B. · February 17, 2009 at 04:02 PM

In Mayor Daley's rant the day of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Heller case he said he would do this.

When this comes up for committee hearing we will need to make our objections heard!

Molly B.

SirMatthew · February 17, 2009 at 10:06 PM

http://www.prisonplanet.com/democrat-propo...e-policies.html

I revisited the link and have to say some of the comments left by readers are actually quite alarming. For example, consider the following post left by one reader:

line in the sand Says:

February 16th, 2009 at 6:19 am

HEAR YE, HEAR YE, HEAR YE: In lieu of the pending bill before the house concerning the Second Amendment(a) to the Constitution of the United States of America (HR-45), a new doctrine has been enacted by the citizens of these United States of America on this sixth day of February in the year of 2009.

(a)A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

We the gun owners of America and its citizens, by the gun owners of America and its citizens, for the gun owners of America and its citizens, in order to secure the safety of the citizens and protect our families and to insure the right of every individual herein these United States of America to a life of freedom and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, do hereby declare and mandate that any entity, individual person, group, lobbyist, corporation or government body either state or federal, from this day forward be considered, treated as, and acted upon as the enemy of the people and citizens of these United States of America and shall be considered an act of aggression and war against the citizens of these United States of America should the following criteria apply.

1. Any entity, individual person, group, lobbyist, corporation or government body either state or federal of this country or any other country, wanting to or attempting to either by the passage of bills, laws or mandates, or by forceful execution of police or military, the infringement in any way upon the citizens of the United States of America to keep and bear arms.

2. Any such actions will be considered an act of hostile aggression and an act of war against the citizens of the United States of America and be met with the fullest measure of resistance. These same entities, individual persons, groups, lobbyists, corporations, government bodies either state or federal will be captured if at all possible and tried in the court of the people of the United States of America for treasonous acts against the people of the United States of America. They will be tried, judged and if convicted in OUR court, be sentenced to either imprisonment or death or both.

These are our new laws and mandates. We will not sit idly by while you financially destroy this country of OURS and then allow you to infringe upon OUR second amendment.

Your laws and rules and mandates are hereby nullified and dismissed as frivolous attempts to control the people of the United States of America and insure them harm and or death. YOUR LAWS NO LONGER APPLY!

The people of the United States WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS. THERE WILL BE A REVOLUTION.

For a long time now I have read a dozen or more articles a day relating to gun rights issues. I always read the comments left by readers and sometimes even leave a few myself. If reader comments can be thought of like a thermometer to gauge the American temperament then I had little reason to be alarmed until recently.

The fact someone took the time to compose the above comment (however impressively worded it may be) tells me there are people out there who are really on the edge of blowing it. This kind of comment is becoming more and more common over the past several weeks and I can't help but wonder if we aren't on the verge of some major backlash soon. From the economic crisis to the bailout to the election to the stimulus plan to a host of other things, a lot of people are getting REALLY upset. They have reason to be upset, but can they keep it under control? Judging from their comments I'm not so sure they can keep it together much longer.

You know, some people have shorter fuses than others and (if I can use an analogy) its hard to predict which popcorn kernel will blow first. But one thing you do know, keeping all those kernels to the fire will eventually result in one of those kernels popping. Several other kernels will pop very soon after the first one does and then all the other kernels will start popping at once. It's not going to be pretty if or when that happens and authorities will quickly try to put a lid on it. I suspect that will only make matters worst.

Just saying, these are tense times for a lot of people so let's remember to be careful and stay calm out there. This particular bill will most likely never see the light of day, but if it should pass then we'll consider our options at that time.

PPK · February 17, 2009 at 10:14 PM

It's also posible that it was left by a member of the Brady bunch to make us look bad.

papabear47 · February 18, 2009 at 12:26 AM

It's also posible that it was left by a member of the Brady bunch to make us look bad.

Get the pot boiling and stir until the scum comes to the top....Sounds like a Brady technique to me.

anonymous too · February 18, 2009 at 12:48 AM

The NRA's lobbyist also is the lobbyist for ABATE. There have been bills over the years to require special insurance for motorcyle riders. Todd's always beaten those bills into nothing, he'll beat this one up too.

wyldejackyl · February 18, 2009 at 03:51 PM

It's still ridiculous to even propose such a thing. Akin to this is a special insurance policy required for all males of breeding age, in case they knock someone up and then skip town.

I'd like to see how this guy Duncan can substantiate his bill. Show us the numbers. Show me just how much criminal damage is done by law-abiding gun owners, and then for s&g's, show me how much damage is done by the criminal element who fail to jump through hoops to own a gun in this state. Present this in a public forum, and let's see where it goes.

These cowards work behind closed doors for a reason.

Zim · February 18, 2009 at 04:22 PM

With Obama in the white house we are going to be fighting this fight for a few years. Call your state reps NOW.

But if they want my FOID card they can have it. They still are not getting my guns.

We need to get these Chicago thugs out of Springfield. They are the criminals and the reason this state is in trouble. Not law abiding gun owners

GWBH · February 18, 2009 at 04:51 PM

Let me get this straight - I need insurance to exercise one of my Constitutional rights...

raiven · February 18, 2009 at 09:05 PM

well the isra donet seem to happy abought it.

Have you heard the one about the $1,000,000 FOID insurance?

No, it's not a joke. It's Illinois House Bill 687

ISRA tracks state legislation and has lobbyists on the ground in Springfield.

One bill that is getting a lot of attention is HB 687, which would be a $1,000,000 insurance policy required of FOID card holders. Outrageous? You bet. One can only wonder at the motivations for introducing legislation like that.

Our lobbyists are aware of this and other potentially infringing legislation, as well as bills that would be breakthroughs for Illinois Gun Owners, like bills introducing Family and Personal Protection to Illinois. So far, this bill, HB 687, has not progressed far enough to warrant more than vigilance.

You can stay up-to-date on Illinois Legislation by checking our 2009 Legislation Page. There's a permanent link to this at the top of the ISRA home page.

You can be notified of important developments and do you part by taking action at appropriate times by signing up for ISRA Email Alerts. Email alerts are free, you don't have to be a member to sign up, but of course, ISRA wants your support, please join the ISRA if you're not already a member.

Stay tuned for more ways to stay informed about legislation and other items of importance, coming in the near future.

Posted Wed Feb 18 08:30:52 CST 2009

http://www.isra.org/

Yas · February 19, 2009 at 01:36 AM

I'm curious as to how much this would cost as a policy. Anyone have an idea what a carrier would gouge an individual?

ilphil · February 19, 2009 at 01:49 AM

I'm curious as to how much this would cost as a policy. Anyone have an idea what a carrier would gouge an individual?

Whatever it is would be too damn much. :Angry!:

Yas · February 19, 2009 at 03:04 AM

Found this at ar15.com from a guy that is a FFL Discussing Business insurance for a gun dealer

I did some checking with my insurance company about the business insurance. For me to carry a policy that insures the guns and equipment for my business up to $120,000 is costing me some $2500 a year. I think it's a bit over $600 quarterly.

Now, bigger places like Springfield Armory and Rock River Arms (and small shops like myself) have an option of buying a policy that protects for Liability. Get ready for the price tag.

Are you sitting down?

Over $50,000 a year.

This is Liability coverage for $1,000,000 (maybe a bit more) for the event that there is ever a problem with the firearms that are associated with the business. Now, this is a business so the rates may be a little higher since there is a retail market involved and not so much as a private insurance.

I can't tell you the details about who has what, but I go through the same insurance company as the 2 previously mentioned. I can't afford this liability insurance - others don't carry it either. Bush signed a bill into law that a Business like Baer, RRA, Bushmaster, and so on - cannot be held responsible for the use of the firearm, only the liability of the product and the possibility of failure and great bodily harm or death.

Think some people won't be able to afford the insurance? I bet 90% of us couldn't afford it and I'll bet the other 10% would consider selling the guns to save the money.

Ar15 com discussion

Yas · February 19, 2009 at 03:08 AM

Found this at ar15.com from a guy that is a FFL Discussing Business insurance for a gun dealer

I did some checking with my insurance company about the business insurance. For me to carry a policy that insures the guns and equipment for my business up to $120,000 is costing me some $2500 a year. I think it's a bit over $600 quarterly.

Now, bigger places like Springfield Armory and Rock River Arms (and small shops like myself) have an option of buying a policy that protects for Liability. Get ready for the price tag.

Are you sitting down?

Over $50,000 a year.

This is Liability coverage for $1,000,000 (maybe a bit more) for the event that there is ever a problem with the firearms that are associated with the business. Now, this is a business so the rates may be a little higher since there is a retail market involved and not so much as a private insurance.

I can't tell you the details about who has what, but I go through the same insurance company as the 2 previously mentioned. I can't afford this liability insurance - others don't carry it either. Bush signed a bill into law that a Business like Baer, RRA, Bushmaster, and so on - cannot be held responsible for the use of the firearm, only the liability of the product and the possibility of failure and great bodily harm or death.

Think some people won't be able to afford the insurance? I bet 90% of us couldn't afford it and I'll bet the other 10% would consider selling the guns to save the money.

Ar15 com discussion

One of the guys got it right over there, jim crowe law's.

If we could afford that kind of money we would have bodyguards... armed bodyguards.

Smittyp83 · February 19, 2009 at 04:01 PM

I just called Rep Dunkin's office and spoke with one of his assistants. I politely asked how this bill would prevent crime. After checking with one of her co-workers, she advised me that this bill is NOT intended to prevent crime, but is "geared towards accidents that may happen such as if a child gets a hold of a gun and shoots someone or if someone is carrying a gun in their car and it accidentally goes off". I asked if Mr. Dunkin was aware that owning a firearm is a Constitutionally protected right and he is trying to mandate having to get an insurance policy to exercise that right. At that point, she said she would have to refer me to Rep Dunkin. I happily left my name and phone number.

Obviously, this bill is intended as a punishment to current gun owners and a deterrent for future gun owners, nothing more, nothing less.

I have already spoken with my State Rep and Senator about this bill and they will both be voting "No". Fortunately, my State Rep is on the Rules Comittee!

GWBH · February 19, 2009 at 05:31 PM

I just called Rep Dunkin's office and spoke with one of his assistants. I politely asked how this bill would prevent crime. After checking with one of her co-workers, she advised me that this bill is NOT intended to prevent crime, but is "geared towards accidents that may happen such as if a child gets a hold of a gun and shoots someone or if someone is carrying a gun in their car and it accidentally goes off". I asked if Mr. Dunkin was aware that owning a firearm is a Constitutionally protected right and he is trying to mandate having to get an insurance policy to exercise that right. At that point, she said she would have to refer me to Rep Dunkin. I happily left my name and phone number.

Obviously, this bill is intended as a punishment to current gun owners and a deterrent for future gun owners, nothing more, nothing less.

I have already spoken with my State Rep and Senator about this bill and they will both be voting "No". Fortunately, my State Rep is on the Rules Comittee!

Nice work Smittyp83 - not bad for an 'Air Force Guy'... :headbang1:

Smittyp83 · February 19, 2009 at 07:43 PM

Nice work Smittyp83 - not bad for an 'Air Force Guy'...

WOW! Well, I tried joining the Army, but I had already graduated high school

GWBH · February 19, 2009 at 08:30 PM

Nice work Smittyp83 - not bad for an 'Air Force Guy'...

WOW! Well, I tried joining the Army, but I had already graduated high school

:beer1: :frantics:

Yas · February 20, 2009 at 07:04 AM

I just called Rep Dunkin's office and spoke with one of his assistants. I politely asked how this bill would prevent crime. After checking with one of her co-workers, she advised me that this bill is NOT intended to prevent crime, but is "geared towards accidents that may happen such as if a child gets a hold of a gun and shoots someone or if someone is carrying a gun in their car and it accidentally goes off". I asked if Mr. Dunkin was aware that owning a firearm is a Constitutionally protected right and he is trying to mandate having to get an insurance policy to exercise that right. At that point, she said she would have to refer me to Rep Dunkin. I happily left my name and phone number.

Obviously, this bill is intended as a punishment to current gun owners and a deterrent for future gun owners, nothing more, nothing less.

I have already spoken with my State Rep and Senator about this bill and they will both be voting "No". Fortunately, my State Rep is on the Rules Comittee!

I'm calling the assistant B/S on this. They are smoking you.

1. all firearms in illinois are supposed to be transported Unloaded.

2. all firearms are sold with the obligatory lock now a days.

3. Law already passed? that foid owners are already liable for any children getting ahold of firearms in existence.

4. I've got a safe and no children. I'm being discriminated against due to the fact I shoot blanks. I want to be made whole. ( a cute little term used in arbitration.)

wiki Dunkin

The honorable Mr Dunkin is

As a member of the Illinois House of Representatives, Dunkin serves on seven committees: Child Support Enforcement, Committee of the Whole, Financial Institutions, Insurance, Mass Transit, Telecommunications, and Tourism and Conventions. Dunkin is also a member of the Illinois Legislative Black Caucus. On January 9, 2009, Dunkin was the sole House member officially excused from vote on HR1671 concerning the impeachment of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

The only good thing I've found tonight on him is he voted to keep politicians names off street signs in order to save money when our CPO's get impeached.

Be carefull your dealing with another Chicago politician.

Slappy · February 20, 2009 at 04:10 PM

I'd get the million dollar policy then accidentally lose the gun so the insurance company could pay me the million dollars I spent buying it.

Thats how it works, right? :thumbsup:

Yas · February 20, 2009 at 06:07 PM

Been thinking about this,

I might even call up this guy and thank him.

Current Elected Office Contact Information

Contact Rep. Kenneth Dunkin at dunkinke@ilga.gov

Website: www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?GA=96&MemberID=1450

Springfield Office:

278-S Stratton Building,

Illinois 62706

Phone: (217) 782-4535

Fax: (217) 782-4213

Chicago Office: (more district offices)

1520 North Wells Street

Chicago, Illinois 60610

Phone: (312) 266-0340

Fax: (312) 266-0699

I hate using this term. (Fudd) But single handedly Not only may he have woken up more Fudd's in this state, but so many more around the country by the press coverage it's starting to receive on national news as well.

mauserme · February 21, 2009 at 02:13 PM

I’m new to the forum but have been in insurance for more than 20 years. Sorry- my first post is going to be long but there’s a lot that needs to be said.

tdiller mentioned a personal umbrella and this is the most likely insurance policy a gun owner would purchase in an attempt to legally posses his/her guns under the proposed bill. This type of policy provides an extra layer of liability coverage over that provided by your car insurance, homeowner insurance, boat, motorcycle, etc. The cost of this policy might be $100 to $200 per year, possibly more. While some can easily bear this cost many cannot. Lower income groups would be the most negatively effected, some might say discriminated against, if this bill passes.

Beyond the cost of the policy, eligibility to purchase an umbrella policy requires that you first purchase primary auto and homeowner insurance policies with liability coverage higher than many people carry. Gun owners who do not own a vehicle will normally not be able to purchase an umbrella. Similarly, renters who choose not to insure the contents of their apartment will not be eligible. For those who do have these primary policies, additional cost might be incurred in order to meet minimum requirements.

And how is your driving record? A couple tickets? An accident or two? An umbrella policy will not be available to you. Bad drivers need not apply.

Then there is the question of relatives resident in my household. If my 19 year old son lives with me, my umbrella policy covers him. Yet, he does not own the home in which he lives and might not own a car. The proposed statute says that a FOID card will be revoked if the card holder

“… does not submit evidence to the Department of State Police that he or she has been issued

in his or her name

a liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1,000,000 …” (emphasis mine)

In this case, although my son does benefit from umbrella coverage, he is not eligible to purchase a policy in his own name, thus negating his Second Amendment rights. And what of my wife? Must she also purchase a policy at additional cost, or will the fact that she is named on my policy suffice?

Finally, the statement

“covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person“

poses 2 significant problems.

First, ownership of a stolen firearm under this bill continues until the theft is reported to the police. Consider a situation in which you walk into the middle of an armed robbery and you are disarmed by the perpetrator. Your gun, which you still own because there are no police on scene to report the theft to, is then immediately used by the perpetrator to injure or kill someone. Are you legally liable for the injuries? Probably not, and your policy will not pay damages because a liability policy only covers acts for which you are legally liable.

Second, and most importantly, depending on how one defines a “willful act” it is impossible to purchase a policy to cover all situations. Policies differ, but the following is representative of the type of wording found in a personal umbrella policy

“Exclusions

We do not provide coverage:

1. For Bodily Injury or Property Damage either expected or intended by the Insured. This exclusion does not apply to Bodily Injury if:

a. such Insured acted with reasonable force to protect persons or property; and

b. such actions were not criminal, malicious or committed in violation of a penal law or ordinance by any Insured or with any Insured’s prior knowledge and consent.

The question of what constitutes “reasonable force” immediately arises. For many people nothing beyond complete pacifism will be considered reasonable, and whether or not there is coverage will be entirely at the discretion of the insurance carrier and their concept of “reasonable“. And if you are charged with manslaughter? Exclusion 1b comes into play negating coverage entirely. Murder, though willful, is most certainly not within the scope of coverage.

It can be argued that there are policies available to certain professions such as armed guards, and this is true. While this type of policy is not my area of expertise I can say that they typically exclude coverage for any shooting, negligent or intentional. Further, they are available only to businesses employing trained personnel and have a minimum cost of several thousand dollars.

Clearly the author of the bill is either entirely ignorant of insurance principles or simply seeks to deny a large percentage of Illinois citizens their rights.

Or possibly both.

burningspear · February 21, 2009 at 03:05 PM

Both!

lockman · February 21, 2009 at 03:27 PM

I’m new to the forum but have been in insurance for more than 20 years. Sorry- my first post is going to be long but there’s a lot that needs to be said.

Welcome mauserme, IllinoisCarry can always use "reasonable" people in our fight for liberty.

By the way IllinoisCarry's definition of "reasonable" is much broader than the way the word is normally used in politics. We actually include facts, realities, logic and practical application. We also include a little emotion and lots of passion but we try never to let such "feelings" interfere with our honorable primary objective, a Right to Carry in this state.

Again, I hope you will join us!

SirMatthew · February 21, 2009 at 03:41 PM

This exclusion does not apply to Bodily Injury if:
b. such actions were not criminal, malicious or committed in violation of a penal law or ordinance by any Insured or with any Insured’s prior knowledge and consent.[/indent]

Insurance companies are notorious for finding reasons to avoid paying a claim.

Discharge of a firearm in public is considered illegal in many cities, towns, and villages. All instances of self-defense with a firearm in those public places would be committed in violation of a penal law or ordinance, even if the act of self-defense was justified.

In some places it may also be illegal to possess a firearm within 1000 feet of a school. Imagine using a firearm in a lawful act of self-defense on a public sidewalk at midnight, but the insurance company won't pay the claim because their agent used a measuring tape to determine the incident took place 980 feet from a school.

All in all, this insurance idea won't work on so many different levels.

mauserme · February 21, 2009 at 04:49 PM

Again, I hope you will join us!

Well, here I am :thumbsup:

And thanks for the welcome.

Insurance companies are notorious for finding reasons to avoid paying a claim.

Maybe - some insurance companies are better than others. But rather than debating that lets focus on where we agree:

All in all, this insurance idea won't work on so many different levels.

Exactly.

The biggest problem is that, regardless of anyone's expectations of coverage, no policy currently exists that will completely fulfill the requirements in the proposed bill. And no policy is likely to exist in the future that specifically covers intentional shootings without limitation. The idea is just to broad to be palatable to any insurance company.

I suspect the bill's author understands that, and by requiring the impossible the bill becomes a de facto ban on ownership.

SirMatthew · February 21, 2009 at 04:52 PM

Again, I hope you will join us!

Well, here I am

And thanks for the welcome.

Insurance companies are notorious for finding reasons to avoid paying a claim.
Maybe - some insurance companies are better than others. But rather than debating that lets focus on where we agree:

All in all, this insurance idea won't work on so many different levels.

Exactly.

The biggest problem is that, regardless of anyone's expectations of coverage, no policy currently exists that will completely fulfill the requirements in the proposed bill. And no policy is likely to exist in the future that specifically covers intentional shootings without limitation. The idea is just to broad to be palatable to any insurance company.

I suspect the bill's author understands that, and by requiring the impossible the bill becomes a de facto ban on ownership.

That's the best "in a nutshell" explanation I've seen so far. Thanks for sharing it.

Sign In

Illinois: Legislation introduced to require gun owners to carry $1 million insurance policy

Recommended Posts

raiven

Ocellairs

Blacksmith58

tdiller

Molly B.

SirMatthew

PPK

papabear47

anonymous too

wyldejackyl

Zim

GWBH

raiven

Yas

ilphil

Yas

Yas

Smittyp83

GWBH

Smittyp83

GWBH

Yas

Slappy

Yas

mauserme

burningspear

lockman

SirMatthew

mauserme

SirMatthew

Archived

Recently Browsing 0 members

Browse

Activity

My Activity Streams

Store

Support