Tag Archives: Bump-Fire

ARs Are Not Machineguns

Gun Owners of America, Inc. v. Garland, GOA’s bump-fire stock case brought about an interesting development. The Department of Justice sent the court a letter in response to a request about the meaning of “can be readily restored to shoot.”

Violence enabling lawyers who claim that the existence of bump-fire stocks, lightning links, and autosears mean that AR-pattern firearms are machineguns should take note of page 2 of that letter.

In any event, an AR-15 is not a firearm that can be “readily restored” tp fire automatically. An AR-15 — a semiautomatic firearm — is not a weapon that “previously could shoot automatically but will not in [its] present condition.

To be honest, the possibility that courts or the ATF would so rule has concerned me. So I hope the ATF also reads this letter, too. I don’t think we should get too complacent about this, but we can breathe a little easier… for now.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

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 ISP bills, and general living expenses. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Gun Control 2021?

The Machine Gun Nest has pieced together all the elements of a potential semiautomatic rifle ban in 2021. They have discovered the dangerous precedent of allowing the ATF to redefine words to make inanimate bits of plastic into machineguns, paperweights into firearms, and pistols into rifles. Why, all this adds up to making semiautos into machineguns because they’re easily converted.

“What’s going on with gun control right now in 2021?
There’s been much talk at the range recently about the new proposed gun control by the Biden Administration. Many people are perplexed. We get a ton of questions, emails, and phone calls asking, “Will this affect me?”, “What can I do?”, “Why are they doing this?” among others.
[…]
So, where does this all come together?

It’s obvious when you look at what’s happened and what’s been proposed where the Biden admin is headed for gun control. They are testing the waters right now with these two proposed rule changes, but I guarantee this is not the end. These current ideas have been taken right from the David Chipman “Legal and Lethal” playbook. There’s a part where Chipman writes this about semi-automatic rifles

Well, no sh-t, Sherlock. TZP has been warning about this specifically for nearly fours years. We warned about this before the ATF even proposed the bump-fire stock machinegun rule.

We warned you again two years ago, when that very “easily converted” argument was made in court. We warened you repeatedly.

We warned you in 2018 that easily converted to a higher rate of fire would define “machinegun.”

And again, two weeks ago.

“What’s going on in 2021” maybe wouldn’t have been such a problem if more people had paid attention to what was going on in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. More attention than ridiculing those of us warning about “Bump Stock Hill” anyway.


Speaking only for myself as an individual: There have been many days in recent years when I seriously questioned why I bother with trying to raise awareness of these dangers. This is one of those days. My work seems pretty pointless.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Another Victim On “Bump Stock Hill”

Last year, Rare Breed Triggers introduced their FRT-15 trigger. It’s an innovative device that helps the user of an AR-pattern firearm to fire rapidly. Specifically, the sear forces a reset of the trigger without the operator having to release finger pressure from the trigger. Thus, you maintain pressure, the trigger resets with each shot, and the continuously applied finger pressure operates the trigger again. Clever.

Clever, until the ATF got around to deciding that bump-fire stocks are machineguns, thanks to the devious way they redefined “function of the trigger” really means operation of the finger.

How can the courts rule that “function of the trigger” means volitional movement of a finger? And yet, they have.

In correspondence with Rare Breed Triggers at the time, I wrote:

“I’ve just watched your Vimeo video about the FRT trigger. I must admit, as I watched the animation explaining the operation, all that went through my head was, “My god, they’ve invented the bump TRIGGER. The ATF is going to go nuts.”

The ATF did.

In the new, Trump-induced way of viewing the finger as a firearm component, the simple fact that you still had to manually operate the trigger, means squat. The ATF has classified the FRT-15 trigger as a machinegun.

I warned that the bump-fire precedent was dangerous. And got laughed at. It’s just about a silly toy that no one needs. It doesn’t have anything to do with my stuff. Folks didn’t want to die on “bump stock hill,” when they could put forth their resources towards more important things.

And bump-fire stocks got banned. Now it’s the FRT-15. I expect binary triggers — triggers that fire the firearm on both the pull and the reset — to be next.

Finally, as was attempted in Nevada, the ATF — having decided that bump-fire stocks, forced reset triggers, binary triggers, drop-in autosears, and lightning links are so simple to install in AR-platform firearms that the entire class is “easily converted into machineguns. Meaning they are machineguns, and So sorry; you didn’t register those machineguns before May 1986, so they’re banned. Turn ’em in or go to prison.

Don’t expect to be offered compensation either. That was another bump-fire precedent. We aren’t going to compensate owners who broke the — newly redefined — law.

I’ve been accused of nitpicking, for worrying about obscure rules, laws, and judicial rulings. This is why I do that.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

[UPDATED] DigiTrigger

This appears to be a machinegun under current ATF BSTD/AutoGlove/etc rulings. Now, the demo in the video is marked “Military & Police,” so I’m going to assume that it won’t be available to us peons, despite SCOTUS’ Miller ruling. But…

This civilian unit seems to have the same problem. Unlike a normal mechanical binary trigger, which fires one round when the finger pulls the trigger and a second round when the finger allows the trigger to reset, DigiTrigger appears to use the electronics to operate the firing mechanism twice for a single finger operation of the trigger. (see below) That is exactly why the ATF shut down the AutoGlove. The alleged single — “volitional” — operation of the trigger is the basic of the BSTD rule.


Update:  I contacted the company. The pull/release (P/R) mode is not burst, but fully simulates P/R: fire on pull, then fire when the finger lets the trigger reset. The DT1.6 digital machinegun I first mentioned is, as I expected, definitely NFA and is under development for the LE/Mil market. No surprise there.


I get it. People want to push the envelope of what they think is legal. But unless they’ve amassed a large pile of legal fund cash, and a herd of good attorneys, with the intent of a serious court challenge to BS ATF determinations and court decisions, all Digital Trigger Technologies is doing is asking for trouble.

If they know what they’re getting into and are willing to go to the mat on this, more power and the best of luck to them

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

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 ISP bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Bump Stock Ban Update: Oh dear bog

I read a couple of the most recent responses from the government in the Aposhian and GOA challenges of the ban.

I see the government still fails to explain some points.

1. The government argues that pulling the action of the firearm forward to engage the trigger with the user’s finger the first time is a “pull of the trigger,” but then argues that pulling the action forward a second time is not a “pull of the trigger.” Why are identical acts not the same?

2. The government asserts that the Akins Accelerator is a machinegun because the spring absorbed recoil energy then used the stored energy to push the action forward again. And yet it then argues that using a rubber band to absorb recoil energy and push the action forward is not a machinegun. W.T.F?

3. “A ‘Single Function of the Trigger’ Is a ‘Single Pull of the Trigger’ and Analogous Motions,” but using the off-hand motion to engage the trigger is not an “analogous motion.”

4. And they still maintain that a BSTD, without spring or rubber band, is a machinegun, while a semi-auto without spring or rubber band is not, without saying why.

My head hurts.

Allow me to put that in perspective.

DOJ: This is a Cadillac.

DOJ: This is a Cadillac, too.

DOJ: This is a Chevy.

And the bobblehead judges are just nodding their unquestioning acceptance.

This nation is so screwed.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

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 ISP and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

So you didn’t want to die on “bump stock hill”

For better than a year and a half, The Zelman Partisans have been trying to warn gun owners that the bump-fire stock ban was a bigger deal than just that. In late May, we warned that lawyers were taking notice and making this argument in public.

Now they’re arguing in Nevada state court that all semi-automatic firearms are “easily convertible” to machineguns and therefore are machineguns.

Parents of Las Vegas massacre victim sue gun makers and dealers: “These are weapons of war”
As the Parsons later learned, the shooter had used a dozen different rifles, each modified to simulate a machine gun with automatic fire. That allowed him to fire more than a bullet a second.

Machine guns have been banned since 1986. But the lawsuit the couple filed last night claims a gun that’s easily modifiable to fire automatically is a machine gun, and is therefore “flatly illegal” under federal and state law.

This challenge to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act hinges on the bump-fire ban. PLCA doesn’t protect manufacturers when they’ve broken the law, and this argument is that they’ve been unlawfully marketing post-1986 (thanks, VNRA) “easily converted” machineguns to civilians.

If you want to derail this suit, and avoid the otherwise inevitable unpleasantness of an attempted semi-auto ban, you need to support the groups fighting the bump-fire stock (or even rubber bands) ban:

Firearms Policy Coalition and Gun Owners of America Are leading the charge in federal court.

Donate to Firearms Policy Coalition (and enter to win a SIG P320)

Donate to GOA

Please note that I am not recommending any donations to the National Rifle Association. They got us into this mess. And, to date, I can find no indication that they’ve diverted a penny of LaPierre’s wardrobe-and-busty-intern budget to a ban challenge; I’ve not found so much as an amicus brief in someone else’s case.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

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 ISP and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

“Political Expediency, Not Statutory Ambiguity”

The Firearms Policy Coalition and Cato Institute have filed an amicus brief in Gun Owners of America v. Barr, the GOA’s bump-fire stock case in the 6th Circuit.

Read it. It’s only 17 pages in full, and the brief proper is just 11 pages (the remainder being the standard legal paperwork administrivia).

Yes, read it; but I’m going to distill the basic message for you anyway.

The ATF’s Interpretative Reversal Is Based on Political Expediency, Not Statutory Ambiguity
[…]
What prompted this reversal? The proposed rulemaking reveals that the impetus for this change in position was not an organic review of agency policy. Instead, the change was triggered by public outrage following the October 2017 mass killing in Las Vegas, which likely involved a bump-stock-type device:
[…]
The ATF admits that the rulemaking was commenced “in response” to outside political pressure.
[…]
On February 28, 2018, the president hosted a meeting with members of Congress to discuss school and community safety. […] President Trump interjected that there was no need for legislation because he would deal with bump stocks through executive action:

And I’m going to write that out. Because we can do that with an executive order. I’m going to write the bump stock; essentially, write it out. So you won’t have to worry about bump stock.”
[…]
Reportedly, Justice Department officials told Senate Judiciary Committee staff that the government “would not be able to take [bump stocks] off shelves without new legislation from Congress.”

Likewise, the ATF director told police chiefs that his agency “did not currently have
the regulatory power to control sales of bump stocks.”

While the Department stated that “no final determination had been made,” President Trump boasted that the “legal papers” to prohibit bump stocks were almost completed. […] [B]efore the rulemaking was announced, President Trump tweeted: “Obama Administration legalized bump stocks. BAD IDEA. As I promised, today the Department of Justice will issue the rule banning BUMP STOCKS with a mandated comment period. We will BAN all devices that turn legal weapons into illegal machine guns.”

Right there, they document that the decision had been made, regardless of the actual rulemaking process or facts, and that it deliberately bypassed legislation. We knew that, of course, but they collated and documented it in incriminating detail.

This is now a test of the court itself, not just ATF or DOJ. Taking the longer view, because I anticipate the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals blowing this off, it is a test of the Supreme Court.

If the ban is upheld, despite flawed regulatory practices (which didn’t really matter, as the process was a Potemkin show to pretend they weren’t actually banning by political fiat), and the grossly improper bypassing of Congress, there is no law.

By and large, honest gun owners try to live by the Constitution and the rule of law. We’ve put up with much over the decades because it was framed as “law,” and we thought we, too, had the courts and law to make our case for freedom. The politicians, bureaucrats, and especially the courts must consider the ramifications of making that impossible.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

 

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 ISP and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Misplaced Optimism

I wrote last week about the seemingly virtually nonexistent bump-fire ban compliance rate. A commenter spoke at some length on why people aren’t complying. I think he is overly optimistic.

“…99.997% who are well aware of the blatant abuse this nonsense is and will continue to be, not to mention its wholesale uncontsitutionality, and putting their nickel on “the ban can’t stand”,”

Judging by reactions I get, I doubt the number of sensible people is anywhere near 99%. Take this recent comment regarding my compliance rate column:

“I would say this, if I owned a bumpstock. you can have it.. And no, I wan’t no reason to waste ammo. I do not own one. I have belt loops on my pants. Bump stocks be damned. IT WAS JUST A GIMMICK. Let it fade. I like people, the nut job in Vegas, not so much. Think about that, Las Vegas, and there might be a nut job in the mix. Where will I vacation next?”

.

After a year and a half of discussion that person still doesn’t get it. “Let it fade,” and you let all law fade, and we live by royal whim, imperial fiat. “Stroke of the pen” and all that entails.

Nor should anyone who has been paying attention to the courts assume “the ban can’t stand.” Not just the courts hearing the bump-fire cases, which have uniformly stated that the plaintiffs (our side) are unlikely to succeed (with one lone dissent), but other cases: courts finding it unlawful to follow the law as written because a previous president chose to ignore the law, Portland protestors shutting down interstate (and international) coal traffic as the authorities refuse to do anything about it. A judge who found pipeline protestors innocent: “not responsible by reason of necessity”.

The ban well may stand.

“Anyone determined enough to protect his investment AND his rights will have had six months to think and plan slowluy acquire the necessities to ferret their hunk of plastic away somewhere safe and impossible to find.”

Maybe. But how many folks who assumed it would never happen bothered to plan?

“Soom enough BATF will have at least as much egg on their mugs”

Egg in their beer is looking more likely, considering that the DC Appeals court made arguments for the ATF, claims even the feds declined to make, to rationalize upholding the ban.

“HOW can the government of one state order private entities in another state and tell them what they may/mayn’t DO…” the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution prohibits that.

How can the courts rule that “function of the trigger” means volitional movement of a finger? And yet, they have. But I’ll give you a hint how that can happen, although I don’t know if this has been raised in the bizarre NJ case: constructive possession; a California prosecutor could argue that a standard capacity magazine shipped to California remains in the constructive possession of the shipper until it is delivered to the purchaser. Thus, the shipper “possessed” the arbitrarily-unlawful magazine in California, and is subject to their law. Take one look at the Ninth Circus and tell — with a straight face — that they would not buy that legal contortion.

Or the Supreme Court. Remember, these are the judicial gymnasts who, for eighty years, have upheld the National Firearms Act on the grounds that such items can be regulated because they are not militarily useful, but that machineguns can be regulated because they are.

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

Overturning the bump-fire ban is not a slam dunk in an age where the laws is whatever the government says it is today. And remember that the ATF and Courts are both parts of that government.

We are fighting lunatics and liars — DOJ attorneys like Eric Soskin and judges alike — who matter-of-factly state that fingers are triggers, and the only difference between a machinegun and a semi-auto is whether the finger is moved volitionally. (Which, coupled with the concept that a select-fire trigger group is a machinegun itself, makes your finger one such if you are moving it.)

That fight will be long and hard. And expensive. Two of the major groups leading the challenges to the ban are the Firearms Policy Coalition and Gun Owners of America. They can use your support in this.

Donate to Firearms Policy Coalition (and enter to win a SIG P320)

Donate to GOA

(Other groups and individuals raising money to fight the ban can drop a link in comments, and I’ll update this list to include you.)

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

 

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 (too late; I’m selling the truck; contact me if you’re interested in a ’96 Ranger with less than 85K miles)) 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!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

BSTD Bump-Fire Ban Compliance Rate [POLL]

The deadline for compliance with the irrational “bump-stock-type device (BSTD)” — bump-fire — ban has passed. So how effective has the imperial fiat been at making the nation safe from inert “machineguns”?

Who the hell knows? No one even knows how many there were; the ATF’s “estimate” (“SA Smedley! Quick; bend over so I can pull a number out.”) was 280,000 to 520,000 BSTDs sold. I’d like to see them give a 95% confidence level for WAG.

But I was interested, so I’ve been collecting turn-in reports. Such as they are. The majority of reports of turn-ins and destruction were merely unsubstantiated, vague claims that “people” are “complying,” without so much as a single example. I don’t count those.

The biggie, of course, was RW Arms who turned in for destruction 60,000 items they still had in stock. I’m not counting those because they hadn’t been sold; they weren’t part of the 280-520K giggle-guess.

After that come the great state of Washington, with a reported 1,000 turned in during their “buy-back”.” The problem with that number is hiding in the details. People were supposed to be paid $150 for each bump-fire stock. But the most detailed report stated that they only paid for 122 of 150 stocks surrendered. I suspect they were paying for commercial products, and some maliciously compliant smartasses (bless ’em) slapped together some bump-fire stocks from hunks of wood or PVC pipe.

So my wild ass guess is that only 81% of the WA turn-ins would count against the ATF “sold” estimate: 810.

Florida, which also banned bump-fire ahead of the federal rule, saw a whopping “handful,”, which I’ll call 5 (for the digits of a hand). Moving right along…

Illinois saw “a few” but a more detailed report clarified that “few” meant “1”.

Massachusetts, again with an earlier state ban: “only a few”. Since “few” doesn’t appear to be defined in statutory law, let’s say that between “handful” and “dozen.” Call it 8.

In North Carolina, the ATF claims “some” were turned over, but declined to give numbers. How many is “some”? I’m feeling generous. It was “steadily […] over the last few weeks.” Steadily = 1 per week. Few = 8. So call it 8 more BSTDs.

Vermont has some hard numbers. They got… 2.

The only other reported numbers were Rhode Island, New Jersey, and the City of Denver: Zero, 0, zip, nada, each. Zero is a number.

So, nationwide, I can only document 834 bump-fire stocks turned in. For some values of “document.”

But one can comply with the Royal Whim by destroying your valuable property. That’s going to be a little tougher to nail down.

I had no news reports specifically describing any destructions, just the aforemention vague “people are doing but we don’t know.” So next I turned to YouTube.

Frankly, a couple of searches there surprised me. I honestly thought I’d find more. As with news reports, it was mostly, “I’m going to,” or “I did, but I’m not showing it.”

The only videos I located which showed the destruction or the finished “product” numbered just…

11.

Of those eleven, we have 1 which went out in a blaze of glory in a Viking funeral (the dildos were a nice touch), 1 destroyed in the shop, 1 more chopped, 3 barbecued to death, 3 lost in a horrible dumpster fire, 1 homemade pistol bump-fire device rendered inert, and 1 lost in a tragic boating accident just before it was turned in.

Scratch the homemade unit (only counting those the ATF estimates “sold,” you know), and we have 10. We’re now up to 845 mass murder tactical death machines safely off the street.

845. Across the nation.

I searched a few firearms forums as well. Not a single turn-in or destruction mentioned. It was mostly, “They’re stupid; I never had one,” “I had one, but it wasn’t as good as I thought, and I got rid of it years ago,” or “They look like fun, but I never bought one.” I rather expected a “few” from my cold, dead hands declarations, but didn’t spot any.

845.

Taking the ATF’s low estimate of 280,000 BSTDs sold, they have achieved a miraculous 0.30% compliance rate.

Using the highball guess: 0.16%.

Trump must be so proud.

Zelman Partisan regulars are fine, upstanding people who obviously do their best to comply with constitutional laws. No doubt any of us who happened to own one of these evil machineguns has done the right thing. So quick poll of those who had them.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

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 (too late; I’m selling the truck) 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)

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

DC Court of Appeals Denies… REALITY

In keeping with April First traditions of foolery, the DC Court of Appeals denied the Guedes et al appeal for a stay on the bump-fire ban.

It is 86 pages of legalese, which you may read at your leisure. Much of it addresses the legal aspects of Whitaker’s signing the rule, and administrative issues raised. The meat that I believe most TZP readers want to see boils down to this statement.

But the Rule reasonably distinguishes binary-trigger guns on the ground that they require a second act of volition with the trigger finger. The release of a trigger is a volitional motion. But merely holding the trigger finger stationary—which is what operation of a bump stock entails—is not.

Volitionally operating your finger counts. Volitionally operating your entire off hand and arm does not. Thus, inert hunks of plastic are machineguns. As is any light-trigger firearm which might be fired with an involuntary and nonvolitional muscle twitch, or sympathetic squeeze. Essentially, any unintended — nonvolitional –discharge proves your firearm to be a machinegun.

Equally infuriating, and more dangerous, is the way they dismissed all arguments against the ATF simply redefining words and changing intent. That’s peachy. Law no longer means anything whatsoever except what an unelected bureaucrat says it does, and is subject to arbitrary change. Your broken down Trabant can be a main battle tank. Better start your NFA paperwork.

There is no law.

There is no constitution.

You’ll also love the part where the lunatics in black dresses (which I hope come standard with built-in straitjackets) find that retroactively declaring bump-fire stocks to be machineguns is not a retroactive action. The Queen would be envious of their reality-denial skills.

The one glimmer of sanity is found in the dissent by Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson.

“Unlike my colleagues, I believe the Bump Stock Rule does contradict the statutory definition and, respectfully, part company with them on this issue.”

And for good reasons. Sane and logical reasons. This is the first time I’ve seen a judge diagram a sentence in a ruling.

For the reasons detailed supra, I believe the Bump Stock Rule expands the statutory definition of “machinegun” and is therefore ultra vires. In my view, the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge and I would grant them preliminary injunctive relief.

Sadly, every other judge who has ruled on a bump-fire stock case to date believes otherwise. Even the majority (possibly unanimous, as no dissent was listed) of the Supreme Court saw no need to stay the ban. I am not optimistic as to the final outcome.

Of the case(s), or the country.

I fear the oathbreaking majority idiots have moved us another day closer to Open Season.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

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 (too late; I’m selling the truck) 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)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail