Tag Archives: Bump-Fire

POLL: What to do with Bump Stocks

The deadline approaches: On Tuesday, March 26, 2019, those still holding bump stocks (with a bare few exceptions) will magically become felons as inert chunks of plastic mystically morph into post-’86 machineguns.

Hypothetically speaking (because none of TZP’s regular readers could possibly mean to become malum prohibitum criminals), what will/are you doing with your “bump-stock-type device?

 

Perhaps we’ll be seeing reports of “compliance”, especially the rubber band sort.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

I’d call it a double standard

But I’m not aware of the ATF having any standards.

Back in 2017, the ATF released a white paper, Options to Reduce or Modify Firearms Regulations. Point 8 was quite interesting.

On average in the past 10 years, ATF has only recommended 44 defendants a year for prosecution on silencer-related violations; of those, only approximately 6 of the defendants had prior felony convictions. Moreover, consistent with this low number of prosecution referrals, silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings. Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety necessitating NFA classification, and should be considered for reclassification under the GCA.

Suppressors are “rarely used in criminal shootings.” No kidding. Therefore, they aren’t a threat to public safety and shouldn’t be NFA items. I can agree with that.

And then we have the GOA’s bump stock law suit. In oral arguments, the government…

One of the government’s lawyers brought up the Las Vegas shooting from 2017 as a reason to ban bump stocks. He claimed that the inherent dangerousness of bump stocks necessitated a ban for the sake of “public safety.”

Ooooh. “Public safety.” Because bump stocks are used… Um, how often?

GOA’s attorney countered by telling the judge there is no actual proof of one recorded instance where bump stocks have been used in a crime.

Olson even cited the lack of FBI and ATF statements, studies or reports to demonstrate that there is no conclusive evidence that a bump stock was actually used by the Las Vegas shooter.

I’m sure the DOJ lawyer was quick to set the record straight, and tell the judge all about Mandalay Bay and all the… othertimes.

This was something of a “mic drop” moment, because when given the chance to respond, the government’s lawyer could not — in fact, he refused to — counter Olson’s statement on this point.

Since that would have been a heck of a good time to affirmatively state that bump stocks were used (as opposed to being there), the refusal to do so suggests that…

Bump-fire stocks have never been used in a crime, unlike suppressors which are not a threat to public safety.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

FPC, FPF Announce Expedited Appeal in Bumpstock Ban Cases

WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 4, 2019) — Today, attorneys for Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation filed opening briefs in their consolidated appeals with the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in the ongoing federal litigation challenging the confiscatory “bump-stock” ban rulemaking by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Copies of the briefs and related filings are available at BumpStockCase.com.
[…]
n the Guedes appeal, FPF argues that the text of the federal statutes at issue in the Final Rule are clear and unambiguous, that the rule of lenity precludes the ATF’s proposed new definition of ‘machinegun’, and that the rule is unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious. The brief also argues that the “district court abused its discretion in finding the statutory language ambiguous and erred as a matter of law in according ATF Chevron deference regarding the terms ‘single function of the trigger’ and ‘automatically’.”
[…]

Read the rest

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Guedes et al vs. BATF: Preliminary Injunction Denied

By now, I hope you’ve heard that two cases challenging the bump-fire stock ban suffered a serious setback on Monday.*

David Codrea points out some issues with the ruling and lets us know an appeal has been filed.

Appeal is good. Because that ruling is a mess. Friedrich just shot an upright middle finger to the Constitution, statutory law, administrative procedure, physical reality, and sanity. It’s that bad.

The ruling came Monday, but I’m only know publishing this because of the sheer volume of material I had to review. The ruling itself is 64 pages long. Then there’s the motion for preliminary injunction, the government’s opposition to that, and the Guedes reply to the government response. I was provided with some supplemental material, too.

The Guedes case and the — previously — separate Codrea challenge were consolidated as Guedes et al. So this ruling is twice as damaging as it might’ve been.

The hours I spent studying hundreds of pages of documentation can be summarized quite briefly.

  • A preliminary injunction temporarily stopping implementation of the rule is denied.
  • A preliminary injunction isn’t called for anyway because you can get compensation later… for losing an “unlawful machinegun” for which compensation isn’t offered?
  • Administrative Procedures Act (APA) required 90 days of commenting, not the 85 we got. Tough shit. Unless you can prove someone definitely would have offered something not presented by another commenter, no harm, no foul. So what if their right to speak was denied?
  • APA requires a public hearing, which was denied. Tough shit. ATF said no one would have offered anything new (even though FPC/FPF was trying to do just that).
  • New definitions of old terms. (This will require elaboration below.)
  • The president can appoint acting-anything regardless of the Constitution and statutory law.
  • Judge Dabney L. Friedrich is nuts.

In declaring bump-stock-type devices (BSTD) machineguns, the ATF found it necessary to redefine a couple of terms. A machinegun is “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”

While it was long believed that “automatically” referred to the process of chambering, firing, extracting, and reloading, the government’s lawyer, one Eric Soskin, informs us it now means something that “thus allows the ordinary — of the ordinary skill, the ordinary shooter to shoot must [sic] faster.”

“Function of the trigger,” received a similarly crazed reworking. I’ll spare you the pages of argument, but it goes: “function of the trigger” refers to the finger, not the trigger. The government’s definition of machinegun now becomes…

“any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot much faster, without manual reloading, by a single volitional function of the trigger finger.”

With bump-stocks, it no longer matters that the finger engages the trigger and operates it for every shot. Engagement doesn’t count unless the finger itself is intentionally moved to operate that trigger. Volitional movement of other body parts — like the non-trigger hand and arm that move the rifle into the finger — don’t count. They defined the trigger as actually being the finger, or as plaintiff’s attorney Joshua Prince put it:

I think then it becomes the question of whether the person is actually the machine gun, and how are we going to contend with that. Because now if we’re saying for it to operate automatically it has to be the person who actuates it, we’re talking about every single person in the United States and throughout the — through the world as being a machine gun, if that’s the rabbit hole we’re going to go down.

A year ago, I was warning that this made body parts into machineguns, along with anything that can be fired “much faster.” The federal government just went to court and said so. You’re welcome. Please hit my tip jar.

As for pants and rubber bands… that remains to be seen. When all this documentation becomes public, you must read the discussion of rubber bands. When asked if a closet full of semi-auot rifles and a box of rubber bands would be considered by the ATF to be a machinegun, the DOJ lawyer answered:

You know, I think until we — I don’t think we are in a position to come out and give an advisory opinion on what the agency might decide to do with a particular rubber band.

Perhaps you thought I was joking about turning in rubber bands last year, too. Tip jar!

In denying the preliminary injunction, Friedrich found that it was not justified because “the Coalition is unlikely to succeed on these final challenges to the bump stock rule.” She essentially found that the ATF may arbitrarily redefine any word for which Congress neglect to specify a definition (the discussion included “the” and “shall,” and probably should have included “and.”

Friedrich found that federal agencies are not required to follow federal law if they don’t think it would helpful.

And she found that the President can do whatever he wants.

Did I wake up in Maduro’s Venezuela this morning?

I’m sure someone will trot out the old argument that this is Trump’s multidimensional art of the deal. When the ANPRM dropped, it was, “He’s just going to get a bunch of opposed comments so he can say no one really wants this.” When NPRM dropped, it became, “Nah, it a cunning plan to collect comments so the ATF can say they made a mistake and the rule isn’t justified.” When the rule dropped, “His plan is to get this challenged in court so it’ll get tossed as obviously, blatantly illegal.”

Well, it’s in court, and the judge isn’t tossing it. In fact, she says it’s probable that it will stand. And guess who appointed Dabney L. Friedrich, who looks to be upholding the ban, to the DC District Court.

Go ahead, tell me about the dimensional shift to SCOTUS.

Oh, and Friedrich? It’s not “Condrea.”


* That NBC article illustrates just why I will not use that outlet as a source without confirmation. It’s factually wrong on multiple points. The judge did not — yet — uphold the ban. Friedrich did not dismiss the case. And her court is not in Washington state.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Escaping An Abusive Relationship

My dear, it’s time to admit it. You are in an abusive relationship. He doesn’t really love you. He loves controlling you. You may even suffer from a form of Stockholm Syndrome, in which you’ve come to believe that he does this for your own good.

He is manipulating you with fear. He tells you that you have to give up some things, or freedoms, or you risk losing more.

That’s his modus operandi. “Just give them what they want, or they’ll take everything.”

It’s time for you to take your family and escape from his abuse. You can’t save this “relationship.” It isn’t a relationship, it’s enslavement. Get out, and go to a shelter that will protect you.

It’s time to leave the NRA.

In 1934, the NRA backed the National Firearms Act. They told you they did it to save handguns. But what it did was make militia grade weapons unaffordable, inaccessible, for most militia members. A black eye.

In 1968, the NRA compromised on the the Gun Control Act. They told you it was to prevent worse infringements. But it established licensing and large classes of “prohibited persons” with no constitutional rights. It effectively ended mail order of firearms. Bruises.

The NRA compromised on the Firearms Owners “Protection” Act. They told you it “protected’ you from unconstitutional state abuses. Those abuses still exist. And what you got was a complete ban on new machineguns, making the few in circulation far more expensive. A missing tooth.

The NRA rolled over on the Undetectable Firearms Act. They told you it was to protect existing guns. But it killed research and development of new firearms technologies. A broken, bloody nose.

Gun Free School Zone Act: For the children. But it could make you a felon for walking in the area of a school you couldn’t even see. More bruises, a cracked rib.

Brady: It’ll keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the NRA told you. They didn’t tell you that a supermajority of criminals get guns through unlawful channels bypassing background checks. You got a prior restraint on your human/civil rights, more expensive guns, delays, and the FBI keeping records of purchases. A concussion.

The NRA helped write an “assault weapon” ban. They told you it was because if they didn’t write it, it would have been worse. The NRA’s ban included SKSes with fixed ten-round magazines. Is that blood leaking from your ear?

Remember when the NRA thought constitutional carry — honest folks being armed for defense without begging the state’s permission, and paying for the privilege — was bad? The NRA actively sabotaged state-level CC efforts; successfully in New Hampshire. Slap. Punch.

The NRA supported Fix NICS, which includes language that encourages states to add people to NICS without any trial, hearing, or notice; for non-criminal activities. Boom. Coma.

The NRA petitioned the federal government to “regulate” bump-fire stocks as machineguns, then feigned surprise when they discovered that bump-fire stocks would now be banned post-1986 machineguns… thanks to the NRA’s FOPA compromise. And if bump-fire stocks “easily convert” semiautomatic rifles to machineguns… The all semiautomatic rifles are machineguns under the same open-bolt ban, or ban of semiauto ARs that could accept an M-16 trigger group. The NRA is punching and kicking your unconscious body.

The NRA has endorsed no-due process extreme risk protection orders, so-called “red flag” laws, allowing the confiscation of firearm from someone not accused of a crime. And now they’ve been used to confiscate firearms from folks who simply know someone who wasn’t accused of a crime. Oooh. Fractured skull.

So, my dear, it’s time to wake up and escape your abuser, while you still can. The NRA isn’t beating on you because it loves you; just your money. And when your abusive partner demands money to fix the injuries he inflicted upon you, find something creative to do with those NRA fundraising letters.

Leave the National Rifle Association. For good. That marriage cannot be saved.

(edit: corrected “by passing” to “bypassing”)

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

“Expropriation”

I was cruising the usual gun bloggers for newsletter fodder last week and came across this.

“Expropriation Without Compensation” is Theft
There is no voice of reason. One guy is worried it will stop foreign investment. (Really? Just because you steal things that have been in another’s possession for generations, you think people might be turned off by that?)

When I saw the post title, and knowing that a big expropriation is coming, I initially assumed this was the bump-fire stock ban, in which a minimum of hundreds of thousands of people will theoretically lose anywhere from 280,000 to 520,000 pieces of property to corrupt government acts.

But no.

South Africa is just about set to steal land from white farmers because whites are not allowed in SA anymore. (Almost) South Africa white farmers crisis: This IMPORTANT date could change South Africa FOREVER.

The date in question for South Africa is March 31, 2019, which might add to the confusion, since our ban was formally published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2018. 90 days after that (when the ban proper goes into effect) is March 26, 2019.

Pretty close coincidence. And yes, I do equate the South African and American government thefts. Both establish precedents that the government can take whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and doesn’t even have to make a token payment. In South Africa, it’s farms. In America, it’s toys.

For now. It’s a precedent. What might our benevolent government decide we don’t need next? Yes, a semiauto ban could be on the horizon. But why limit the precedent to firearms?

Anyone remember a guy named Gore, who planned to outlaw internal combustion? Take a look at the Green New Deal being pushed by incoming Democrats.

I will admit that the SA and American thefts differ in a key aspect. The South Africans formally (if rather corruptly) amended their constitution to make their theft “legal.”

In America, the ATF simply (and rather corruptly) wrote a new rule. No amendment, legislation, or rational rationale required. Just language games.

How crazy is it that the South Africans stealing land are paying more lip service to law than the United States?

Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Screw you, NRA

The NRA has released a Statement on Bump Fire Stock Rule. Feel free to read it, but I can paraphrase their five paragraphs in a few words:

Don’t blame us. We only wanted regulation under the NFA, registration, taxes, and a ban on new stocks. And our compromise saved us from other bans. Let’s work together.

Wayne LaPierre, or Chris Cox. It’s hard to tell them apart sometimes.

The preemptive surrender monkeys of the NRA asked for the ATF to regulate bump-fire stocks as National Firearms Act items. They asked for this as nearly the entire politico-media industrial complex was saying that bump-fire stocks turn semiautomatic rifles into machineguns.

And just in case it wasn’t clear enough, the NRA told them: “The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.”

Does that language sound familiar?

What type of NFA item did the NRA think the ATF would call them? I recall when the NRA helped draft a city “assault weapon ban” and similarly claimed they were preventing something worse. It didn’t. And the NRA version even banned SKSs with fixed ten-round magazines.

Capitulating on “bump-fire stocks turn guns into machineguns” before anyone even entered a bill merely signalled to the gun control crowd that they’re fair game, and open season. It told their pet RINOs that they would not be held responsible for human/civil rights infringement. Semiauto ban bills were then entered.

The NRA claims there could have been an amnesty for existing bump-fire stocks, as provided for in the Gun Control Act of 1968, and gives an example from 1981. Apparently they completely forgot their complicity in the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 that completely closed off any possible amnesty for anything built or imported after the May 1986 deadline. (For that matter, the NRA was complicit in the NFA, claiming it would have been worse without them caving on militia grade weapons for militia members.)

If the NRA wanted an amnesty to register existing bump-fire stocks, it had to be through legislation to change the complete ban on new machineguns in FOPA. By going the ATF regulation route, they guaranteed a ban on bumpfire stocks. The Zelman Partisans have been pointing out this problem for months. The NRA didn’t notice until the rule was signed (and the problem of a semi-auto ban because they can be easily converted to “machinegun” with bump-fire stocks, the same way we lost open-bolt semi-autos)?

The NRA told the ATF to regulate these inert chunks of plastic as machineguns, and then act shocked that FOPA applies.

Either the NRA is staffed with complete idiots, or it was just another cunning plan to push rights violations so they could then fundraise to “fight” the rights violation. Or buy Wayne a limo; whichever makes him happier.

“It’s critical that all gun owners unite and prevent the Bloomberg-bought Congress from dismantling our Second Amendment freedom.”

It is critical for all gun owners to unite. Folks, it isn’t your grand dad’s NRA anymore, and it’s too far gone to ever fix and make into whatever you imagine the NRA once was. The NRA has been doing this for more than two decades. I quit the NRA over it in the mid ’90s. It’s past time to tell them you aren’t buying this load of manure anymore.

Take your time, money, and effort to someone who will work for you, instead of the NRA which consistently — NFA, GCA, FOPA, GFSZA, Brady, constitutional carry, ERPOs, bump-fire — works against you and your rights.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Amnesty: GCA ’68 vs. FOPA ’86

I’m going to be posting another column tonight. This is going to be background material for it.

Some people are defending the NRA’s call for regulating bump-fire stocks under the National Firearms Act; the NRA’s… thinking… being that there could have been an amnesty to grandfather in existing stocks.

An interesting theory. The Gun Control Act of 1968 did allow for amnesty and registration periods.

But then, just 18 years later, we got the Firearms Owners “Protection” Act of 1986.

FOPA flat out slammed the door on registration of “machineguns” manufactured or imported — for civilians — after the May 1986 deadline. The possibility for other NFA items — suppressors, short-barrel firearms, etc. — might still be there. One might even argue that machineguns that had, at some point, been lawfully possessed prior to the ’86 deadline (had been registered, but somehow got improperly transferred) could still get an amnesty.

But nothing manufactured or imported after ’86. Like bump-fire stocks, which suddenly became “machineguns.”

Sorry, NRA. You should have read those laws, in which you are complicit, a little more closely.

I did. In fact, I always read legislation as, “What’s the worst possible interpretation an abusive ATF or administration could make of this?” The NRA should do the same. You aren’t going to be fundraising on your screw-ups forever; folks are getting tired of your backstabbing.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

The Motivation for Lying

There’s been a shooting. The shooter claims self defense. But then witnesses come forward and contradict his story. Who knows? Witnesses honestly do not always see the same thing, or they might misinterpret what they saw. The shooter may honestly believe he had to shoot the person, and maybe he did.

Then photographic evidence reveals the shooter not only blatantly lied about a crucial fact that “supported” his need to shoot, but afterwards he — or someone helping him — tampered with evidence to back up the shooter’s lie.

About now, I — and you, I hope — would have serious doubts about the righteousness of that shoot. Why did he lie? Why was evidence tampered with?

What was his real motivation?

But I’m not really talking about use of defensive force.

Now, suppose someone is passing a law or a new rule that will ban something. It’s something you consider silly, unnecessary, and wasteful. Even potentially dangerous. The rulemaker may honestly believe the item needs to be banned. And it sounds reasonable to you.

But then documentation is presented that shows the rulemaker blatantly lied about what the item does. It simply doesn’t work that way; the lie is contrary to physical reality.

Having any doubts about the rulemaker’s motivation yet?

The ban already seemed reasonable even to you, a person familiar with the topic. It already seemed beyond reasonable and absolutely imperative to a very large segment of the population. And that was before the lie.

So why would the rulemaker bother to lie about it? What does he have to gain? What’s his… future?… motivation?

Bothered yet?

Then you realize there’s another lie, that the item changes the inherent speed at which another device operates, and you know it doesn’t; it’s only an aid for the user. The user can actually do the same thing without the gadget at all.

Why lie about that, too?

This rule is intended to clarify that the statutory definition of machinegun includes certain devices (i.e., bump-stock-type devices) that, when affixed to a firearm, allow that firearm to fire automatically with a single function of the trigger

And now that the “bump-stock-type device” ban is set, imagine a change in the DC power structure after the 2020 elections, less than two years away.

What would an administration even less friendly to human/civil rights do with that ban rule and it’s precedent?

Bump stock owners resist ban, in no hurry to surrender devices
“I hadn’t even heard about it,” David Reeh, an operating partner at U.S. Shooting Academy in Tulsa said Wednesday.
[…]
He said the ruling doesn’t raise alarms with him about a slippery slope for future seizures of other guns or gun parts.

I suppose if he hadn’t even heard about, then he certainly never read the NPRM, much less the rule. The ATF was counting on that kind of ignorant complacency. Lies work, if no one questions them.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

“Compliance”: Bump-Stock-TYPE Devices

The bump stock ban rule is out. Bump-fire stocks are now machineguns. To power-crazed tyrants, anyway. But, since FOPA forbids possession of machineguns manufactured or imported later than May 1986, you’ll have to get rid of them.

You want to be good, right?

I suppose you could simply destroy your bump-fire stock, but if the ATF gets hold of some retailers’ customer list and comes knocking, you’ll want some proof that you already complied. You could hang on to the properly cut up pieces (you do have an oxy-acetylene torch?) and show them that.

Or you could turn in your new contraband like a good little citizen. Mail your bump-fire stock to the ATF.

Oh. Wait. That’s “bump-stock-TYPE device.” “Type” is fairly all-inclusive. To be safe, you should send in any bump-fire assist gadgets you have on hand.

Rubber bands come to mind. So do Jeans (belt loops).

For that matter, none of this is needed to bump-fire a rifle; you can do it with bare hands. But you don’t want to ship those off, so represent them with gloves.

Heck, send them a finger.

Again, any semi-auto rifle can be bump-fired, so any stock is a “bump stock,” right? If you happened to replace the original wood stock for your SKS and have the old one laying around…

..send ’em that.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
99 New York Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20226

Heck, you might even toss some shoestrings in with your bump-fire toys, just in case they change their minds again.

They do that, after all.

Don’t forget to ask for a receipt. You should even consider sending it certified mail.

On the other hand, you might want to keep your stocks. I supppose you could tie 2 bump-stocks together. “No, Mr. ATF. That there is my constitutionally-protected nunchuks.”

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail