New Yorks new reality.


PDA






lilguy
March 12, 2013, 04:21 AM
There has to be many thousands of effected firearms that have to be removed from the state now. Also shops,ranges and gun clubs have semi autos used by customers and members. How do you remove all those from circulation? How does a person dispose of his collection? You can't sell them in state so no shop
will buy them. Could you sell them to Cabelas or Gander mountain with their national base of outlets? As time passes, deadlines will creep up and decisions will have to be made unless a court steps it. How is this going to effect values with these guns being forcibly dumped on the market?

If you enjoyed reading about "New Yorks new reality." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
AlbertH
March 12, 2013, 06:42 AM
There has to be many thousands of effected firearms that have to be removed from the state now. Also shops,ranges and gun clubs have semi autos used by customers and members. How do you remove all those from circulation? How does a person dispose of his collection? You can't sell them in state so no shop
will buy them. Could you sell them to Cabelas or Gander mountain with their national base of outlets? As time passes, deadlines will creep up and decisions will have to be made unless a court steps it. How is this going to effect values with these guns being forcibly dumped on the market?
I'm not from New York and I haven't had a chance to read about any new laws passed yesterday yet this morning. Please provide pertinent facts.

lilguy
March 12, 2013, 07:40 AM
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/01/details_about_new_yorks_new_gu.html

How do you sell guns after January 15 2013. There has to be an unimaginable number of guns that over time will need to be disposed of, sold/traded. Does the new law only apply to new manufactured guns allowing trade in guns already in the market?

Bubbles
March 12, 2013, 08:57 AM
Sell or consign them to an out of state FFL.

Right now I'm looking at NY and CO and shaking my head...

AlbertH
March 12, 2013, 09:06 AM
What guns are banned in New York? The NY Safe Act of 2013 bans semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols purchased after Jan. 15, 2013 that have one prohibited feature – such as a pistol grip, a folding stock or a flash suppressor. This is the state’s new definition of an assault weapon. The ban does not cover pistol grip shotguns.

While they do require prior purchased weapons that fit the laws description of an assault weapon to be registered and for the person who registers them to submit to a background check, Those weapons can still be legally owned..

The real question is, Why would a RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER have to worry about the outcome of a background check?

akv3g4n
March 12, 2013, 09:30 AM
The real question is, Why would a RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER have to worry about the outcome of a background check?

The issue isn't the background check (I mean it is, why do they need to run another background check if you already own the firearm legally) but more the need for registration with the state police. Once they have a registration of the owners of these firearms, it won't be long before they remove the grandfather clause and ban them all together.

docsleepy
March 12, 2013, 01:06 PM
No the real question is why any non-indicted gun owner would have his rights infringed by such a requirement. Second Amendment.

gym
March 12, 2013, 01:16 PM
It should be a sanity clause, I don't think more than half the people with guns that require registration, will actually register them. Just my guess, but they may wait for the law to be ruled unconstitutional.

Black Butte
March 12, 2013, 01:34 PM
... to be registered and for the person who registers them to submit to a background check .... The real question is, Why would a RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER have to worry about the outcome of a background check?

Because it's not about doing a background check. It's about building a database.

316SS
March 12, 2013, 02:15 PM
The real question is, Why would a RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER have to worry about the outcome of a background check?

Free men don't need to prove their right or justify their decision to engage in legal activities, even if the background check weren't the bait, and the database the switch, as akv3g4n and Black Butte pointed out.

AlbertH
March 12, 2013, 03:25 PM
Why do we seem to forget that Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution states that Congress is delegated the responsibility of creating the militia.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Amendment 2 describes regulating that part of section 1 article 8.

"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." that's one sentence, not four separate parts

So do you belong to a Congressional militia???

Remember the 2nd amendment is not the entire constitution for without the rest there is no United States of America, just an armed lawless land.

Many states require fingerprinting for a CPL, Most require with background checks to obtain a handgun , some require a background check to buy any weapon. a few even require some types of weapons to be registered.

None have had to change those laws due to second amendment constitutionality issues

It is going to have a 2nd amendment case make it all the way to the US Supreme Court before they provide a written opinion regarding the current gun laws. A New York case regarding this new law, may be the case that brings this issue to an end.

lilguy
March 12, 2013, 04:04 PM
Do you have a feel for how this court may rule given recent history? My concern is an outright ban, having to breakup a collection that's taken 40+ years to form.

pseudonymity
March 12, 2013, 05:46 PM
Wow, that is an astounding amount of misinformation in that link.

The shorter list of bad news in NY: semi autos with detachable mags with one or more features can not be sold in NY any longer. Existing rifles are grandfathered, but you can not sell them in state or pass them in inheritance.

Mags purchased after 3/15 have to be 7 rounds or less. Mags that are owned pre-3/15 are limited to 10 or less.

After 3/15 FTF sales/transfers are gone.

Ammo sale background checks go into effect next year.

There are at least two separate lawsuits going after different parts of the law, with a few more on the way.

psyopspec
March 12, 2013, 06:08 PM
The real question is, Why would a RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER have to worry about the outcome of a background check?

Why would a responsible citizen have curtains on their bedroom window? After all, we'd all be a lot safer if DHS could verify at any time and place that we weren't up to terroristic activities.

"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." that's one sentence, not four separate parts

If the goal was to protect the militia's arms, why is the object of the sentence fragment "shall not be infringed," "the people" rather than that militia? Article 1 makes clear that the militia is meant to be an armed force. If that's the case, why bother creating 2A at all? It would be silly to have an unarmed military force, in the 1700s or today.

tkaction
March 12, 2013, 06:17 PM
The 2nd amendment and article 1 section 8 are not completely in alignment nor are they meant to help interpret each other. There are states rights of militia formation and regulation and there is the individual right as expressed in the 2nd and verified by the supreme court. Please do not justify registration with a states rights versus individual. There is a lot of interpretation left open.

Bartholomew Roberts
March 12, 2013, 07:06 PM
"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." that's one sentence, not four separate parts

You appear to be reading this as "A well-legislated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If the militia needs to be well-legislated, then why is it that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Additionally, why would the Bill of Rights, which is all about restraining the federal government, include a preamble that argued the federal government should legislate the protected right heavily? Does that make ANY sense to you?

abajaj11
March 12, 2013, 07:16 PM
What guns are banned in New York? The NY Safe Act of 2013 bans semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols purchased after Jan. 15, 2013 that have one prohibited feature – such as a pistol grip, a folding stock or a flash suppressor. This is the state’s new definition of an assault weapon. The ban does not cover pistol grip shotguns.

While they do require prior purchased weapons that fit the laws description of an assault weapon to be registered and for the person who registers them to submit to a background check, Those weapons can still be legally owned..

The real question is, Why would a RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER have to worry about the outcome of a background check?
Here IMHO is why Universal Background Checks are a really bad idea:

1. Let's talk about gun show loopholes first. There is no Gun show loophole. The exact same state and federal laws hold IN a gun show as outside it. Closing the "gun show loophole" means basically mandating at the federal level that all sales of firearms HAVE to go through NIC checks (Form 4473). The Federal government should have no jurisdiction to regulate commerce within a state, so this may be a hard one to pass constitutional muster. However, it may be the Dems are hoping they can say that "if a firearm was used once in interstate commerce then we can regulate it forever". This argument has already been upheld by the US Supreme court in the GunFree School Zones Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fr...es_Act_of_1990)

2. Think about how a federally mandated background check on ALL firearms will be implemented. Right now, only firearms sold through FFL dealers have to pass a NICs (Form 4473) test in all states, and in some states the state laws mandate that all transfers have to be through an FFL dealer. The feds regulate the FFL dealers and do not keep records of transactions, but the FFL dealers have to for 20 years. If an FFL dealer goes out of business, those records go to ATF for storage, and are never lost. Now imagine extending this requirement to ALL buyers and sellers of firearms. Well this is impossible.

So the feds will say, well let us just require all states to do what california, for example, does already. All transfers must go through an FFL. But what to do about the millions of unregistered guns in the USA? How do the feds know who owns them? If they don't know who owns them, how will they verify that ALL guns are being sold after a NICS check? Well, the FEDs will come back and say: "We cannot implement your new law unless you allow us to register all firearms". So the inevitable next step to mandating background check on ALL firearm sales will be executive branch mandates and policy directives that all firearms be registered, without which the congressional law will be impossible to enforce.

Registration is a VERY bad idea. Registration will not prevent a crime since a legal gun may be stolen and used by a criminal (like in the Newtown case) and of course a criminal will never register an illegitimate gun they may already own.
So, the only reason for registration is keeping tabs on legal gun owners, and if needed, confiscation of firearms.

Since the 2A was written to provide a well regulated (trained) populace that could be stronger than any standing army that a tyrant could raise, the LAST thing the armed populace wants is for potential tyrants to know who has what firearm. That is why this insidious "background checks for all sales" bill MUST be resisted. it will open the door to registration in a year or two.
Just my 2 cents.
:)

RPRNY
March 12, 2013, 07:49 PM
I get the impression there are people suggesting that one of the dread "military " features disqualifies a s/a from ownership or future purchase. One feature (pistol grip thumbhole stock flash hider etc.) in tandem with a detachable magazine will require registration. Two of these "dangerous military features" are required for a firearm to be banned from sale after entry into force of GODA (Gun Owner Discrimination Act) 2013. No previously legal firearms will have to be disposed of, only magazines in excess of a capacity of 10.

The Brady Bunch, or whoever wrote the law, because it wasn't the bumbling incompetents in Albany, was smart. Semi automatic rifles are not banned. AR15/10s are not banned. AK47/74s are not banned. "Features " are banned. This is much more likely to withstand challenge under Miller (common use) . The rat weasels in Albany aren't clever enough to have come up with this and it is clever. I think most of it will withstand challenge and will be imposed elsewhere in due course.

At least as worrying are the tax proposals surfacing around the country. Again, not obviously unconstitutional but harrassment and measures that constitute infringement.

There is no compromise with the advocates of such laws. They have no intention of stopping at some reasonable point. They do not want civilians armed. The 1994 AWB gives them precedent and any new restrictions passed will create further precedent. Zero tolerance for infringement has to be the position of all those who value individual liberty. I don't have a semi auto. I have zero interest in poodle shooters, chicom spray guns or EBRs. I think they are stupid and ugly. But my fellow Americans have every right to own them as long as they use them responsibly and I will fight for their right to keep and bear their stupid, ugly rifles!

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Bartholomew Roberts
March 12, 2013, 08:04 PM
This is much more likely to withstand challenge under Miller (common use) .

Could you elaborate on this theory? I'm having a difficult time envisioning how firearms that are in widespread common use (AR15) can't be banned; but you can ban features commonly possessed by those firearms? As a logical argument it is nonsense...

However given that 3 Justices have already indicated in McDonald that they don't consider logical consistency or stare decisis to be a major issue, I can see where it might make a nonsensical political argument.

psyopspec
March 12, 2013, 08:08 PM
I don't have a semi auto. I have zero interest in poodle shooters, chicom spray guns or EBRs. I think they are stupid and ugly. But my fellow Americans have every right to own them as long as they use them responsibly and I will fight for their right to keep and bear their stupid, ugly rifles!


You're a credit to the force, RPRNY. For a long time this wasn't the prevailing attitude at all, and in the long run gun owners as a collective have allowed the antis to run roughshod over us with each new "reasonable compromise" that some gun owners support because, hey, it doesn't affect them. Keep fighting the good fight.

RPRNY
March 12, 2013, 08:41 PM
We are talking about politics and the law. Where do logic and (un) common sense come into it?

No firearms have been banned. You may own and you may purchase semi automatic firearms in common use such as the AR15. Some of them will have to be registered. Some s /a firearms such as the VEPR Hunter model will not have to be registered. Prior to GODA 2013, the NY legislature banned features (it was more than two such features in tandem with a detachable magazine) . So, in argument, the State will say such regulation has already existed and such regulation does not remove commonly used firearms (such as the AR15/10 AK etc) from the market. It only requires their registration or "modification ", modifications similar to those already regularly made by manufacturers - see "CA NY NJ etc compliant " language in ads for such firearms on Gunbroker, for example. The fact is that the firearm in common use has not been banned. Features, already regulated in several States, have been further "regulated ". Indeed, I can't see how SCOTUS would rule against this. The 1994 AWB set important precedent and Miller won't apply IMO to the regulation of "features " when the firearms themselves are not banned and when manufacturers have shown themselves willing and able to comply with such regulations.


I am not advocating this. I'm explaining what the framers of this law were trying to do and how IMO it will see the law withstand challenge in SCOTUS. The only way around it is comparative utility. That is by showing that the alleged benefits to society from the regulation do not outweigh the infringement of gun owner rights. Since the "regulation" of features other than magazine capacity have zero bearing on lethality I don't think the Statr can show net benefit but I don't know enough about the law in this area to venture an informed opinion on how the SCOTUS might view this.

Psyopspec - I have seen that attitude among my wingshooting friends. Their fine double guns will NEVER be at risk (well at least not as long as Shotgun Joe as VP) so they turn a blind eye to AWB type legislation and throw the EBR crowd under the bus. But the simple fact is there is no compromise with the collectivists and totalitarians. Their search for control knows no bounds. Plus, I kind of would like an S&W MP Sport....secretly.
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

316SS
March 12, 2013, 09:01 PM
"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." that's one sentence, not four separate parts

Dang right. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote:

The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. ... The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Somehow I doubt the fed.gov will share your enthusiasm for militias.

beatledog7
March 12, 2013, 09:14 PM
If you were a member of the underground in WWII France, and the occupying German army ordered all such people to declare what guns they have, would you comply?

Sheepdog1968
March 12, 2013, 09:32 PM
Get safe deposit box at bank in neighboring state and store there. I don't think this breaks any laws. If you eventually leave NY you can be reunited.

HOOfan_1
March 12, 2013, 09:34 PM
"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." that's one sentence, not four separate parts

So do you belong to a Congressional militia???

One sentence...a million sentences, it doesn't matter. No matter how you read it..." the right Of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Where exaclty are you getting from that that one must be part of the militia? Nothing in that sentence at all indicates what you are suggesting.

It says " the right of the people". It does not say " the right of those organized into a militia" by congress

RPRNY
March 12, 2013, 09:47 PM
Hoofan is correct and thus has SCOTUS repeatedly ruled. Were a law to read "It being abhorrent to God and good men, the people shall not kill " atheists and bad men would not be exempted from the prohibition. Were the Second Amendment to read "Recognizing the Moon is made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ", the operative clause would remain in effect. The militia part of the clause may or may not have been compromise language to get the second part of the clause passed but as Hoofan notes, the right is ascribed to "the people " not to members of a well regulated militia.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

RPRNY
March 13, 2013, 08:50 PM
http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2013/03_-_March/Judge_refuses_to_block_N_Y__gun_law/

First case decided for the State. This was a longshot given existing case law on the "message of necessity ". Again, the law and logic are only distantly connected...

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

hermannr
March 14, 2013, 12:55 AM
Half? you got to be kidding...I'l bet >10% will register...NY gun owners are MAD.

coloradokevin
March 14, 2013, 12:59 AM
Right now I'm looking at NY and CO and shaking my head...

Believe me, I'm pissed out here with these new laws pending... but our laws are still MUCH better than those of NY. The shooters in NY are in for a very rough ride.

mr.scott
March 14, 2013, 04:42 PM
AlbertH
Regarding reading the whole constitution, Congress has the power to form the militia, but the militia is responsible for supplying itself. The militia also consists of the citizenry, thus "the people" have a right to arms.
Im posting from my phone so I can't look this up, but
The militia act of 1903 says the reserve militia or unorganized militia consists of every able bodied man between 17-45.
The government has said who the militia is. Everyone one of us is the militia.

docsleepy
March 14, 2013, 05:02 PM
@AlbertH.

Here is what the Supreme Court said about the militia, in Heller:

The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

So to answer your question, YES, I am in the militia. And the Bill of Rights guarantees me the ancient right of individiuals to keep and and bear arms.

Is there any part of this that you feel the Court got wrong?

lilguy
March 15, 2013, 06:02 PM
Look out, they're not kidding. They're springing traps all over the country.



http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130314/CITYANDREGION/130319543/1010

pdsmith505
March 15, 2013, 07:08 PM
Great... he violated the state's law, and then he violated federal law by selling to someone he could reasonably be a prohibited person.

Tom from WNY
March 16, 2013, 07:47 AM
The NY AG's office has been quite proactive in monitoring gun shows and possibly internet broker sites for potential violations of NY and Federal laws. This only reinforces that responsible gun owners need to be aware of the laws that were enacted.

It also emphasizes why we need to band together and work to change them.

AlbertH
March 16, 2013, 08:25 AM
No the real question is why any non-indicted gun owner would have his rights infringed by such a requirement. Second Amendment.
How are they able to know whether you are a responsible gun owner who is allowed by law to own weapons, if they are not allowed to do background checks?

Ask you to provide an honest answer to the question?

There isn't a criminal out there who would say "NO" to that very question

Milamber
March 18, 2013, 07:07 AM
You know guys that the whole drive behind Fienstien, Brady etc to make "Mr and Mrs America hand em all in". Has nothing to do with law, constitution, protecting people or common sense. It is driven by the fact that these people are irrationally scared of guns and are in position to bully us and take our guns. Nothing more nothing less. Fienstien is a bitter old lady hell bent on getting her own way.

Rant over. We also have to look back at history to understand why the constitution even bothers to have a second amendment. England had at one time a similar law that stated it was the responsibility of every freeman to maintain sufficient arms and ammunition to protect the realm. Our founding fathers took this amended it to the second amendment. Why you ask. I believe for two reasons, firstly at the time the tax base was pretty small and standing armies were very expensive. Militia's were a common part of any country's defense plan. Secondly the founding fathers were concerned about a congress or senate or President who was or were a plant by England. It was essential that the People maintained arms to protect themselves from a enemy within.

Do we still need to protect the country with a hurriedly formed Militia, yes we might. After all just 60 years ago Yamoto famously said his blade of grass comment. Do we still need to protect our selves from a homegrown enemy government. If it can happen else where trust me it can happen here so yes.

As for private sales requiring background checks. Open up NICS to all if that's what you want. Don't force us to use dealers. The way it seems to be set up is that the dealer acts as a broker and takes a commission. Hell no no way. It also is a back door registration program. The biggest hurdle to complete and total removal of all guns from civilian ownership is not knowing where they all are. You have to get the people to register them first. That's enough to get my spidy senses tingling. Fienstien wants all guns not just the AR.

Of course your average gangbanger or nut job is not even aware that we are fighting for our rights. They don't give a damn about the law or rights of the individual till they get caught.

GoWolfpack
March 18, 2013, 07:27 AM
It is driven by the fact that these people are irrationally scared of guns and are in position to bully us and take our guns.

I don't take issue with your general point, but I think you're a little off the mark here. These people aren't afraid of guns in general. They're surrounded by people with guns every day whose job is to protect them. They would put up just as much fuss if we tried to take guns away from their protectors.

They don't believe "MR. and Mrs. America" should be able to have any guns at all. They know nothing they do will ever actually disarm criminals, but that's not what they want. They don't want you, or anyone they can't personally approve of or control, to have any guns at all. They know the laws will only disarm you, not the criminals, and that's the point.

tomrkba
March 18, 2013, 07:45 AM
Tom Gresham of Gun Talk put it best: once we accept the notion of "bad guns" the standard for which will continually drop until nothing is legal. This is a generational strategy and we can see its successes first in California. Review the history of various rifles and how they forced registration and promised no confiscation.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/xcibviewitem.asp?id=195

PabloJ
March 18, 2013, 08:53 AM
I don't take issue with your general point, but I think you're a little off the mark here. These people aren't afraid of guns in general. They're surrounded by people with guns every day whose job is to protect them. They would put up just as much fuss if we tried to take guns away from their protectors.

They don't believe "MR. and Mrs. America" should be able to have any guns at all. They know nothing they do will ever actually disarm criminals, but that's not what they want. They don't want you, or anyone they can't personally approve of or control, to have any guns at all. They know the laws will only disarm you, not the criminals, and that's the point.
Don't worry eventually they will get around to criminals, but first they want to cut off the supply of guns.
I would get into stamp and coin collecting as guns will be pretty horrible investment. With fewer and fewer people having opportunity to enjoy shooting sports it's just matter of time.

Averageman
March 18, 2013, 10:13 AM
After seeing what New York laws have become, I wonder how you can be a legal gun owner and obey the Laws of New York?
I think it would be time to seriously consider moving to a free State.
I'm very much begining to believe that Barry Goldwater was right about the Liberal North East; We should saw it off and let it float in to the Atlantic.

Tom from WNY
March 18, 2013, 10:27 PM
Ah, just wait Averageman. The Progressive Liberals have a plan for Texas. It involves an influx of Progressives, new immigration regulations and a reminder that the Progressives made it all happen. Austin will be the new normal for Texas.

I've said it before. It's coming to your state soon.

SleazyRider
March 19, 2013, 07:21 AM
After seeing what New York laws have become, I wonder how you can be a legal gun owner and obey the Laws of New York?
I think it would be time to seriously consider moving to a free State.
I'm very much begining to believe that Barry Goldwater was right about the Liberal North East; We should saw it off and let it float in to the Atlantic.
Lots of excellent information here. Which states would you include in your "floating island"? And would you follow state lines or geological features?

Speedo66
March 19, 2013, 11:05 AM
The AG of NY said in that article how dangerous it was to the people of NY that the person was selling illegal assault rifles. Which were legal 7 days prior.

Here's the reality, this is taken from a NY Time's article in Jan.:

"Gun rights advocates argue that Mr. Cuomo is wrong to focus his attention on assault weapons; of 769 homicides in New York State in 2011, only five were committed with rifles of any kind, according to the State Division of Criminal Justice Services."

So, who's BS'ing who? The Attorney General, Schneiderman, is fully aware of those stats, but as a politician, continues to spread the lie.

Now based on the prices the guy was selling them for, one could argue that was criminal, but that's another story.

paul
March 21, 2013, 11:18 AM
"How are they able to know whether you are a responsible gun owner who is allowed by law to own weapons, if they are not allowed to do background checks?"

I think you have this exactly backwards.

I AM a "responsible gun owner who is allowed by law to own weapons" until adjudicated otherwise.

The onus should ALWAYS be on "them" to prove I am incapable of safely observing my pre-existing rights.

Try your question again with 1st or 4th amendment rights considered.

P

If you enjoyed reading about "New Yorks new reality." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!