IL: Can a black man own a gun in Cook County?

Status
Not open for further replies.

2dogs

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
1,865
Location
the city
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3605

Prichett in his own words: Can a black man own a gun in Cook County?

from John Birch, ConcealCarry.org
[email protected]

August 19, 2003

ILLINOIS GUN OWNERS - YOUR TRIAL IS ABOUT TO BEGIN...TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16th

Now is the moment for gun owners in Illinois to send a message to Cook County prosecutors that we are not going to tolerate being routinely prosecuted for transporting our weapons in Illinois.

Contact: John Birch, President, Concealed Carry, Inc., 630 660-3935 email: [email protected]

Our local "Black Man With a Gun," Roderick Pritchett is about stand and face felony charges in Cook County. Roderick could have copped a plea to a lesser offense, but he believes in gun rights passionately and has refused to compromise. He is risking it all...a fully felony conviction...and as people of conscience we must not let Roderick face this trial alone. Details of Roderick's arrest follow in his own words and you will NOT believe how Roderick has been treated. As you read this, remember this could be you on the way home from the gun range....

STATEMENT BY RODERICK PRICHETT

My name is Roderick Pritchett and I would like to humbly thank and acknowledge everyone who has made a contribution in my defense involving my pending Unlawful Use of Weapons trial. All E-mails, letters, and phone calls, have increased my courage to continue pursuing justice.

In November 2002, just days before Thanksgiving, my life changed forever.

I lived a normal life for pretty much considering the neighborhood. I grew up on the rough streets of the South-side of Chicago. My father walked out on us, so me and my younger brother assumed the role of the men of the house. I dropped out of high-school at sixteen to help my mother with the bills my father left behind. My mother, always very religious, raised us to be God fearing. The fear of breaking my mother's heart, and embarrassing our family name, knowing we knew right from wrong, prevented me from turning to the streets and leading a life of crime.

House keeping skills my mom acquired being raised in Jamaica, and being a maid wasn't the life she envisioned for her children, but it kept a roof over our heads. She stressed the importance of an education. I got back in school earned my GED and continued my education. I met and fell in love with my girlfriend, I became a father, and we moved to a decent area of the north side that we agreed would be a safe neighborhood to raise our son in. Soon I landed a job working for Charles Schwab & Co. and all was well.

Most of my work associates hunted for sport, and I became interested through conversations, and the snack meat we ate during our lunch breaks I've come to learn was venison. I was taught the laws and procedures of purchasing a firearm in Illinois, and became familiar with the transportation laws of Illinois. After complying with the necessary requirements, and waiting what seemed to be forever, in August 2002, I was able to purchase my first Firearm. Exercising my second amendment right, in a safe environment, I made frequent trips to the shooting range to to practice.

On my way back from the shooting range in Harvey IL, I'd always stop by to check on my mom, and run some errands for her. Her poverty populated neighborhood was a haven for crime and violence. My Ford wagon, with its baby car seat in the rear, was very odd to a group of my peers. Being a young black male why wasn't I driving something fancy? Eventually my random presence drew hostility from the natives involved in suspicious activities. That's when I realized that my firearm would also serve as a means of protection. I'm not a killer! So Please don't misconstrue my owning of a gun as condoning killing.

Enter the down hill spiral called my life: After September 11, my job announced they were going to do layoffs. I was one of them.

In November, 2002 I ran an errand accompanied by a friend for my mom in an area, which even armed police find dangerous.

During this errand my life changed forever. The police lights came on behind me. My incident with the police came about because of my old green wagon's faulty tail light.

The cops asked for my license and registration, which I then kindly presented. But when my passenger was told to walk home, without the police even knowing the distance my passenger had to travel at night in a high crime area, thoughts of "Will I become the victim of random physical police abuse," began to fill my head. The police had sent my witness home and now, whatever happened, it would be my word against the two of theirs.

I got nervous. When told they were going to perform a search on my car, I became petrified with fear. Fear of becoming an innocent victim. I feared that they would find my gun, encased, unloaded, and then kill me. It might sound crazy, but a woman in Chicago was killed because a nervous police officer thought her cell phone was a gun.

In New York Diallo's wallet got him shot forty-one times.

What would they do to someone with a real gun? I thought.

I immediately volunteered my FOID card stated my business and told them where to find my encased unarmed pistol. (Unknowingly I gave up my Miranda rights).

The police chose a different abuse for me, far more satisfying than death. Punish an innocent man forever, with a felony charge of unlawfully using a weapon I had never fired out side of a shooting range. But for transporting a weapon I was about to be charged with a Class IV felony, Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons (UUW)

As a result my car was impounded and retrieving it carried a seven-hundred dollar price tag. I was sent straight to jail. Photographed and fingerprinted. I sat next to murders; I had conversations with rapists. Too afraid to sleep, I laid on the floor of an overcrowded jail next to crack addicts going through withdrawals. I shared open toilets with homeless people, consumed with the smell of death, and all I could do was think about my family.

I was handcuffed to walls and then in the back of a pitch black truck, that hit every pot hole. I remember being thrown around like a rag doll then handcuffed to benches as I was moved around from jail to jail.

I though the worst was over, until I got to my final destination, the Cook County jail. There, stripped naked, searched, threatened and ridiculed by police officers. As a child I was taught not believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. I was however taught to believe in real people, real super heroes. Heroes like "officer friendly." But In reality, in the world of reality there is no officer friendly. Just guys with badges versus guys like me...without a badge.

I was forced to undergo a series of psychological test such as "do I consider myself to be a weakling?" With a Sharpie pen a number replaced my name and was inscribed on my forearm. I spent three an half days in the Cook County jail. Undergoing an experience some would compare to alien abduction and others to slave ship conditions. X-rays was performed. Hours of invasive exams, and physicals were carried out.

Imagine rooms full of angry, drunk, and bleeding men. Imagine a soup line of men, humans stripped of their dignity. Imagine the look on my face when an officer told me to place my penis over a garbage can, then proceeding to force a q-tip into my penis.

What was such an experiment for? Purchasing a firearm? Did I deserve this? I asked myself. When was the rehabilitation to begin? I found it a full time job to control my anger.

The single filed lines quickly moved on to where blood was drawn. For anyone afraid of needles, please stay out of jail. There I sat bleeding through the vein in my arm where my identification number was. Wondering what would become of me. I glanced around the crowded cell. The inmates who've been through the process before sat with an unconcerned look on their face. Rookies such as my self were easy to spot. That's what makes you a prey to a predator. An announcement came allowing us to use the phone. During the shoving I lost my grip on the cotton swab we were given to hold over the bleeding holes in our arms.

A visible blood clot formed under the puncture and I had to notify someone because I became concerned for my safety. When you can see a bruise on a black man its cause for concern. I informed a nearby officer of the situation. The officer, in an attempt to get me killed because I had spoken to him, had the privileges of my cellmates and as I to use the phone taken away. Lucky for me my cellmates took pity. The day was Thanksgiving and I would be thankful my life had been spared while I munched my baloney sandwich.

Bail for me was set at five hundred dollars, a fortune to me. My mom used her holiday and rent money savings to bail me out. (Note from John: Fortunately members of CC, Inc. and CCRA donated the bail money back to Roderick's mom in time to save the holidays.)

I came home to an ocean of debt, including legal fees. I my girl friend and I, had lived out our studios lease, and were renting on a month to month basis. I explained the situation to my landlord; he read about my case in the paper and knew of my unemployed so he refused to rent to us for another month. With no place to go my family and I moved in with my mom. We scraped together the last of what we had to get our car out of the city pound.

No company will hire me because of my pending UUW. case. With no job, I can't pay rent, so I applied for housing assistance. Housing also performed a background check, and refused to rent to me. Now I have no convictions, just this one pending nonviolent UUW. For being a gun owner my life changed forever.

In the police didn't have to shoot me. They assassinated my character. All they have to do is lie on police reports.

The pressure from this case has turned the responsibilities of functioning normally in society for me into a task usually burdened upon violent convicts. All my rights, including, innocent until proven guilty, were eradicated the day I was brought up on charges. All I want is to have my life back, which is being fought for in court under the jurisdiction of the State of Illinois.

Thankfully, there may be no officer friendly or super heroes; but there is Concealed Carry Inc. Your support has been my lifeline to sanity. I hope to see as many of you at my trial as possible. I am going before the jury to state my case and I will waive my 5th Amendment rights and speak the truth.

No matter what happens..

"We won't die so some liberal Utopians can test their theory of passive resistance to armed thugs on law-abiding citizens."

Roderick Pritchett
[email protected]

THE CALL TO ACTION

After nearly a year Roderick Pritchett's Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons felony trial is upon us Monday, September 15th. We have to treat this just like the cops treat a trial of a cop killer. The cops PACK the court room sending a clear message to the jury. We must do the same for Roderick.

When you arrest one gun owner, you arrest all gun owners.

The Cook County Circuit Court needs to look like a well dressed NRA national convention just rolled into town. Hopefully we will have enough attend that the overflow will be in the hallway. The press will be invited as well. We have nothing to hide and do not fear the white light of the media on us.

As word spreads that gun owners will be at the trial security will ramp up significantly at the court house costing Cook County taxpayers additional thousands. For some reason, even though statistically we are the most background checked citizens in the state, when we gun owners come calling the cops get twitchy trigger fingers. So be it. This is Illinois after all where murderers get a free pass from the governor and gun owners get jail.

The trial will start on Monday, September 15th however that day will be primarily jury selection and instruction.

THE DATE: We need you in the flesh at 9:30am Tuesday, September 16th @

Circuit Court of Cook County
Room 108 5600 Old Orchard Road
Skokie, IL 60077 847-470-7200

The trial begins at 10am; however we will assemble at 9:30am in front of the court and go through security together in a show of solidarity.

Coat and Tie is recommended, but slacks and shirt with collar would be fine. Your presence is what is needed MOST!

We will sit quietly and respectfully during the trial however there will be NO DOUBT who we are there to support.

PARTY: After Roderick is acquitted we will adjourn close by the court house to celebrate at a place TBD. We will pass the hat one last time for Roderick's legal defense and present the money on the spot to both Roderick and attorney Walter Maksym.

Please pass this information on to gun clubs, organizations and to other like minded Americans.

If you can't make it to the court house (yes, we know it is a work day for real Americans) and wish to donate you can send a check made out to WALTER MAKSYM and ASSOCIATES to:

Concealed Carry, Inc.
PO BOX 4597
OAK BROOK IL 60522-4597

Now is the moment for gun owners in Illinois to send a message to Cook County prosecutors that we are not going to tolerate being routinely prosecuted for transporting our weapons in Illinois. BE THERE or don't complain when the blue lights come on behind you.

Just to get a feel for attendance please email me at [email protected] if you or your organization will attend.
 
I'll be going. If anyone with a better car than my jalopy can give me a ride, I'll split gas and buy lunch.

This is the kind of situation that separates the ones who really mean it from the internet commandos. If you're serious about the RKBA, you need to be out meeting people and doing things in reality, not just talking on a web forum or caching MREs for a revolution, folks. If you don't want to take the day off, believe me, I understand. I'm going to have to put in for a day from two different jobs to do this, plus drive four hours one way to get there. But if that seems like a lot, read Roderick's description of the last year again and ask yourself how many people would show up if that were you in his place.

Now, divide that number by ten, because on a good day, that's probably what you'd get.
 
I hope they know about this case:

--

FIFTH DIVISION

FILED: 4/11/97

No. 1-96-2136

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS V. RICHARD R. MCDADE
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County.
No. 95 CR 35311
The Honorable JOSEPH J. URSO, Judge Presiding.

O R D E R

Following a bench trial, defendant Richard McDade was convicted of unlawful use of a weapon and sentenced to 15-months probation. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred (1) in denying his motion to suppress evidence, (2) in finding him guilty of unlawful use of a firearm, and (3) in denying his motion to reconsider. Defendant's basis for each of these assertions is that he qualified for an exemption under section 24-2(I) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/24-2(I)(West 1994)).

At a hearing on defendant's motion to suppress evidence, the evidence established as follows. On December 6, 1995, defendant drove with his friend, Dennis Webber, from Champaign, Illinois, to Chicago. Defendant owned a shop which sold model race cars and was going to Chicago to purchase model cars. When defendant left his shop that day, he took his .380 caliber Lorcin handgun with him. Defendant unloaded the gun and placed it in a carrying case. He put the gun in the glove compartment of his car and put the magazine clip in the pocket of his coat, which he placed on the back seat. At some point while defendant was driving, he asked Webber to check the gun to make sure it was unloaded. Webber removed the gun case from the glove compartment, took the gun out of the case and verified that it was unloaded. He returned the gun to the case and the case to the glove compartment.

At approximately 2 p.m. that day, defendant and Webber were driving down Montrose Avenue in Chicago after having purchased some model cars. Chicago police officer Kevin Pietruszka observed defendant, who was driving the car, with marijuana paraphernalia in his mouth. Officer Pietruszka and his partner stopped defendant and Webber and observed a plastic bag containing a green, leafy substance which they believed to be marijuana on the front seat. The officers arrested defendant and Webber and searched the vehicle, discovering the unloaded pistol enclosed in a leather case in the glove compartment. Officer Pietruszka testified that his partner recovered the magazine clip containing seven bullets from defendant's pocket while conducting a custodial search. Defendant and Webber both testified that the officers did not discover the magazine clip during the search and that defendant voluntarily informed the officers that he had the clip. Defendant also testified that he told the officers that he had a valid firearm owner's identification (FOID) card.

The trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence and the matter proceeded to trial. At trial, the parties entered by stipulation the testimony from the suppression hearing. In addition, the parties stipulated that at the time of the defendant's arrest he had a valid FOID card. The parties further stipulated that if Officer Pietruszka were called he would testify that the defendant admitted that the gun recovered from the glove compartment belonged to him.

The trial court found defendant guilty of unlawful use of a weapon under section 24-1(a)(4) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/24-2(i)(West 1994)). The trial court specifically found that defendant was not entitled to an exemption under section 24-2(i) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/24-2(i)(West 1994)), noting that the gun was merely in a zippered leather case rather than some type of locked container and that the gun and ammunition both were accessible to defendant.

On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in (1) denying his motion to suppress evidence, (2) finding him guilty of unlawful use of a firearm, and (3) denying his motion to reconsider. Because we find that the trial court erred in finding defendant guilty of unlawful use of a firearm, we need not address defendant's other contentions.

Section 24-1 of the Criminal Code of 1961 provides:

"(a) a person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:

***

(4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person except when on his land or in his abode or fixed place of business any pistol, revolver, stun gun, taser or other firearm." 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(4)(West 1994).

However, the Code also provides for certain situations in which section 24-1(a)(4) does not apply. Section 24-2(i) provides:

"nothing in this Article shall prohibit, apply to, or affect the transportation, carrying, or possession of any pistol, revolver, stun gun, taser, or other firearm *** which is unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container, by the possessor of a valid Firearms Owners Identification Card." 720 ILCS 5/24-2(i)(West 1994).

A defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to this statutory exemption. People v Staples, 88 Ill. App. 3d 400, 403 (1980).

In People v. Bruner, 285 Ill. App. 3d 39 (1996), the defendant was charged with unlawful use of a weapon under section 24-1(a)(4) where she was carrying an unloaded, encased pistol in her purse and she possessed a valid FOID card. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss on the ground that she was entitled to an exemption under section 24-2(i) and the State appealed. Bruner, 285 Ill. App. 3d at 44.

Based on Bruner we find that defendant was entitled to an exemption under section 24-2(i). We acknowledge that, while facts in Bruner do not indicate that the defendant was carrying ammunition for the gun, defendant in the instant case had a magazine containing seven bullets in his jacket pocket in the car's back seat. However, the statutory exemption contains no requirement regarding the absence of or location of ammunition. Therefore, we must find that defendant was exempt from section 24-1(a) (4).

The State, however, argues that defendant was not entitled to this exemption because Webber removed the gun from the case to ensure that it was unloaded and therefore the weapon was not encased at all times. The State relies on principles of strict statutory construction in support of its position. Specifically, the State argues that because the legislature did not indicate in section 24-2(i) that encasement of the gun may by intermittent, it presumably intended that the gun must be encased at all times. In support of its position, the State cites several cases involving statutory construction. See People v. Lofton, 69 Ill. 2d 67 (1977), and People v. Spain, 91 Ill. App. 3d 900 (1980) (respective defendants denied an exemption to the unlawful use of a weapon stature where they did not meet all the exception's requirement); People v. Cahill, 37 Ill. App. 3d 361 (1976) (defendant's conviction for failure to possess firearm owner's identification card proper, even though defendant produced a valid card at trial, where the statute specifically prohibited possessing a firearm without having the card in one's possession).

The principal rule in construing statutes is to determine and achieve the legislature's true intent and meaning. People v Frieberg, 147 Ill 2d 326, 345 (1992). In order to determine legislative intent, the court may consider not only the statutory language, the reason and necessity for the law, the evil sought to be addressed and the intended purpose of the statute. Frieberg, 147 Ill. 2d at 345. The courts must presume that the legislature did not intend "absurdity, inconvenience or injustice." People v. Steppen, 105 Ill. 2d 310, 316 91985)

The State invites us to construe section 24-1(a)(4) and section 24-2(i) in such a way that a person who is otherwise properly carrying a weapon in compliance with those sections is guilty of unauthorized use of a weapon if he momentarily removes the weapon from its case for any reason. We do not find the State's argument to be persuasive. In the instant case, Webber testified that as he and defendant "were coming just out of town, [defendant] asked me to check the pistol one more time." Webber then removed the gun from its case in the glove compartment, verified that it was unloaded and returned it to its case. It is unclear whether Webber did so as the two men were just leaving Champaign or as they were about to enter Chicago. However, it is clear that some time after Webber checked the gun, the two men returned to the car that they were stopped by the police. There was no evidence that the gun was removed from its case after defendant and Webber re-entered the car. When the police searched the car, the unloaded pistol was secured in its case in the glove compartment.

Defendant merely asked his friend to momentarily remove the gun from its case to ensure that it was unloaded. Were we to adopt the State's interpretation, we would find that the defendant violated the statute by his attempt to ensure that he was in compliance with the statute. This would be an absurd result. We do not believe that the momentary removal of the gun served to deny defendant the exemption provided by section 24-2(i) for the remainder of his trip. For the foregoing reasons, we find that the defendant proved beyond a preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to the exemption under section 24-2(i) and reverse the judgement of the circuit court.

The judgement of the circuit court is reversed.

Reversed.

HOFFMAN, J., with HOURIHANE and SOUTH, JJ., concurring.
 
I know this is a silly question but, where is Jesse Jackson? Where is Al Sharpton? Why isn't Spike Lee making a movie about THIS?
These money-grubbing media whores will run to the aid of a bunch of gang punks at a football game and threaten and blackmail all sort of crap for people caught on tape beating up innocent bystanders. But damned if they'll show up for someone who is actually innocent himself.

Sorry for the rant, it's just the obviousness of the lie that irritates.
I wish I could be there but Cali is a bit too far to drive from.
 
If I'm not working that day, I'll be there. It's a 275 mile drive but it will be worth it. A couple things bother me about this.

What was the probable cause to search Mr. Prichett's car? Was he already under arrest? The fact that his companion was told to leave the scene suggest that he had already been placed under arrest and that the officers intended to tow the car. If so, what was he arrested for? Violations of the chapter on vehicle lighting in the IVC aren't normally custodial arrests. :confused:

Why is the States Attorney taking this case forward? Last Spring the Illinois Supreme Court issued a ruling that has pretty much ended consensual searches during traffic stops. So unless they arrested Pritchett for something else, and this was a search incident to arrest, the gun is evidence discovered illegally. On top of that, if Pritchett was in fact the holder of a valid FOID card, and the gun was unloaded and cased, it was legal. How did he commit UUW under the state statute? Even if there is a local ordinance against possessing a handgun in Cook County, it can't be a felony under Illinois law. Lessor entities then the state can't have laws with penaties of longer then 1 year in the county jail.

I am well aware that justice in Cook County is much different then justice in the rest of the state, but something in the details (or the lack of them in this case) has me wondering if there is more to the case then we're being told.

Jeff
 
Jeff, as I understand it, at least one of the officers' reports claims that the gun was "loaded." Whether they are actually claiming that the gun was loaded, or simply acting on the assumption that a gun in a case with a loaded magazine is "loaded," I don't know. That's a common misconception among Illinois law enforcement, not just in Chicago.
You're right, though. It certainly smells.

After John Horstman, Vana Haggerty, Mcdade, and Bruner, you'd think prosecutors would be beginning to get the message, but apparently they aren't. To my knowledge no one has ever been successfully prosecuted for this mode of carry, but they keep trying. In the Horstman, Haggerty, and McDade cases, there was no argument from either side that the guns were legally owned, were encased, and were not loaded. Those cases were prosecuted anyway, so even though it seems stupid to you and I, we can't rule out the possibility that they're doing the same thing again. (In Bruner, part of the controversy was whether her purse constituted a "case." That, too, should have been obvious, since the law actually says a "case, box, firearm shipping box, or other container.")
 
Jeff,

It sounds like Mr. Prichett offered up the location of the gun voluntarily. He should not have done this, but given his situation, fear of police brutality or retribution if they found the gun was not at all unwarranted.

I'll be making a contribution of $50. This story makes me sick. I wish all of us could have been there with him when he got stopped, rather than now at his trial.

If you are in the socialist state of Illinois, you owe it to yourself to show up.
 
Don, Rock Jock,
Even if he offered it up voluntarily, it was still legal, being cased and unloaded. And if they asked him if he had any "knives, guns, drugs, handgrenades or unlicenced nuclear devices" before he offered it up, that would have been coersive according to the last State Supreme Court ruling on this.

It just doesn't sound right to me. I have been in the position the officers were in many times. I just don't think we're being told the entire story here. We've got a few weeks before this goes to court. If everything is as John posted here...I honestly look to see the prosecutor drop this at the last minute to save face, especially after the April State Supreme Court decision.

I know more about the Vanna Haggerty case then I can talk about here.

Jeff
 
I'll be there

I've been reading this forum for a while, but I've never registered until now. I live in the
Chicago area, and this case really has me p.o.’d.

Mr. Prichett got busted on the south side of Chicago, and the case is going to be tried in the
far northern edge of Cook County- in the mostly white, mostly liberal suburb of Skokie.
There are several branches of the Cook County Court that are a lot closer to the scene of
the “crime†than Skokie, and they handle felony cases too. I don’t think that Mr. Birch was at all out of line in bringing up
the race card in this particular instance.

I am definitely going to take off work to attend these proceedings. If anyone wants to
meet for lunch before, or beers after, please send me an e-mail or PM.
 
Does this all mean that I can't drive through Cook County when going to Michigan from St. Louis? I think I may drop a note to a newspaper, the chamber of commerce, etc...


If you are driving through Chicago in an interstate trip, the gun is unloaded and in the trunk you are theoreticly protected by federal law providing you do not stop and gun possession was legal at the start and end point of the journey.

I believe ( and as always could be wrong ) that ISRA won a similar casr pertaining to intrastate journeys. i.e. if the gun is unloaded in the trunk and you are passing through Chicago you theoreticly are legal.

Problem is you have to be in transit otherwise you have a handgun in Chicago without registration. Registration has been closed since 1985 except for police, licensed armed security and Chicago Alderman ( the last MAY have changed )

Reality time. If you are caught with a gun in Chi it is entirely up to the LEO if they really like you they let you go with your gun ( helps if you are female), if they like you they let you go without your gun, if they do not like you they arrest you "and let the judge sort it out", yes they know it is lawfull and they do not care. ( I hereby aplogize to any LEO who would not follow an unconstitutional law ).

The old system was somewhat better. Under orders from Da Mayor his Royal Higness King Richard II if a cop caught someone carrying a gun they " got the gun off the street" by confiscating it and not doing anything to the person who was carrying it. They could have been put in jail for up to a year at that point in time, now it is a felony.


NukemJim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top