Lawmakers on Bill to Require National Handgun Permits: ‘We do it with cars, why not guns?’

Send to Kindle
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT)

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT).

Federal lawmakers proposed a new piece of legislation Thursday that, if passed, would impose stringent handgun restrictions across all 50 states.

Members of Connecticut’s congressional delegation were pleased to announce their “Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act,” assuring that the widespread adoption of their state’s handgun policies would result in fewer armed criminals.

“All states require licenses to drive a car or hunt or fish – so why not handguns, which can kill?” said Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal, one of the bill’s sponsors, in a statement. “Requiring a license to purchase a deadly weapon is at least as important as requiring one to drive a car. This legislation should win broad, bipartisan support.”

Based upon Connecticut’s licensing system, here’s an idea of what the bill would require: First you have to show up to your local law enforcement office to fill out the required paperwork for a handgun license. Then you must submit to background checks and fingerprinting. Finally, you have to prove you are at least 21 years of age and a legal U.S. resident.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), another supporter of the bill, believes that a federal handgun permitting system will help save lives.

“Permit-to-purchase requirements for all handguns keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who would fail a background check, and our bill would help other states develop programs similar to ours here in Connecticut,” said Murphy.

Murphy’s statement refers to a recently released study from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, which found that firearm-related homicides in Connecticut decreased 40 percent after the state implemented its handgun permitting scheme. While the numbers are compelling, keep in mind that correlation does not always equate to causation.

Still, Daniel W. Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Gun Research Center, is confident that “these laws are effective in deterring the diversion of guns to criminals.”

However, the nation’s gun lobby disagrees with the study and the notion that more gun laws will keep bad guys from obtaining firearms.

“They selectively include and exclude data to create statistics that fit with the gun-control argument,’’ said Jennifer Baker, spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association.

“In a perfect world there would be no violence and we’d all be safe. But the fact is, gun control doesn’t make us safe. It creates more victims,” Baker continued.

(The following is a submission from freelance writer Brent McCluskey)

{ 57 comments… add one }
  • Jerry Idol February 13, 2017, 7:09 pm

    His state must be in the back ages. North Carolina has had a process better than that you have to go through to buy a hand gun or a firearm. You go to the local law enforcement buy a hand gun permit fill it out wait a week for them to do a back ground check when or if it comes back ok then the Sheriff signs it then you take it to your nearest gun dealer and fill out a Federal firearm license form show them all of you papers and buy the gun. If you want to carry it concealed then you sign up for a authorized mandatory conceal carry course if you pass then you go back to the same law enforcement agency pay a higher fee get finger printed have your picture taken then a Federal background check is done even further when those papers come back you are able to carry a concealed firearm. You must have in your possession the permit the Law Enforcement gives you to carry a concealed weapon at all times. Simple things they teach you in class is if a cop stops you put both hands on the steering wheel and inform the officer you have a concealed carry permit. He will generally ask you where it is located and you tell him. How much more simple can a process be for any state to follow with pissed off democrats still wanting to bring up more laws about firearms just to make the Republicans mad along with the rest of us law abiding citizens. It’s going to get to the point where We The People start suing any congressperson for not abiding by the Constitution and especially our second amendment rights.

  • mike ehrig November 11, 2016, 6:27 pm

    this country is a federation of states. states rights need to prevail. the less involvement the federal government has in our lives the better off we will be. i sure dont need an overpaid beaurecrate in washington trying to control every aspect of my daily life….even if it seems like thats what they’re trying to do right now!

  • curtis June 17, 2015, 7:11 am

    it doesn’t work with cars either. look at all the accidents involving drunk drivers that don’t have a license. just the other day we had a young girl killed down in Ms. the guy had 4 prior DUI’s and no license. it didn’t keep him from killing that poor girl. Illinois has some of the worst gun laws in the nation and take a good, hard look at Chicago. the worst record in the nation for gun deaths. criminals are going to be criminals no matter how many laws we put on the law abiding. we don’t need more. they need to enforce the one’s they have and leave us alone or we will all be criminals, because we will have to be. IN MY OPINION.

  • R.A.Williams June 16, 2015, 11:28 am

    Which begs the question, “Why do we have to register cars?” or anything else for that matter.

    • kirk June 16, 2015, 12:44 pm

      Right to Travel

      DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
      HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
      HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS

      By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

      For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

      CASE #1: “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

      CASE #2: “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

      It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

      CASE #3: “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

      CASE #4: “The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

  • Jasonn June 16, 2015, 9:21 am

    The STATES can do that now if they want. There is absolutely no reason for the federal government to get involved.

  • Taubeman June 16, 2015, 3:19 am

    Why cars, and not guns? The Constitution does not guarantee the right to ” keep and own cars.”

  • Andrew N. June 16, 2015, 1:17 am

    I am both amused and saddened by the absolute stupidity of some of our elected officials. Somehow, despite all the contrary evidence this guy thinks that criminals obtain guns through legal means. “Permit-to-purchase requirements for all handguns keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who would fail a background check, and our bill would help other states develop programs similar to ours here in Connecticut,” said Murphy. There are already laws in place to prevent felons from legally obtaining guns. Why would criminals all of a sudden start obeying THIS law after ignoring all the others? Will the criminals finally see the rainbows and unicorns that come with a utopian society? I think not, so while the Liberals dream, I’ll keep my guns handy and magazines full, thank you.

  • Charlie June 15, 2015, 10:16 pm

    This isn’t just about gun control, it’s about more tax revenue for the Feds and States. The criminals will get their guns illegally anyways, if they plan on doing a crime, they’re not going to register for a gun or a permit! We need constitutionalist to replace all these socialist politicians, and Judges!

  • Roberto June 15, 2015, 8:49 pm

    Puerto Rico has such laws and we have more illegal guns than legal and our criminality is among the worse in the USA. Gun control does not work to keep them from criminals only from us good citizens.

  • Dave June 15, 2015, 7:40 pm

    Those two need to be voted out of office. They are 100% for stripping the second amendment from out Constitution and or Bill of Rights. Those two are the biggest Fascist Demo-rats in the Senate.

  • Ross June 15, 2015, 6:34 pm

    Idiot.! I am sooo sick of Dummycrat comments. No common sense. No real world experience. Just blah blah look at me.

  • Ross June 15, 2015, 6:34 pm

    Idiot.! I am sooo sick of Dummycrat comments. No common sense. No real world experience. Just blah blah look at me.

  • cribbooky June 15, 2015, 6:17 pm

    “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”
    -U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

  • Stargzer June 15, 2015, 5:36 pm

    Well, if a so-called license GUARANTEED the RIGHT TO PURCHASE AND CARRY ANY FIREARM IN ANY STATE ANYWHERE AND ANY TIME with only a NICS check and without it being placed on a register it might be worth looking at. That will happen when we see unicorns, passenger pigeons, and dodos prancing together on the Mall in Washington, DC.

  • Gary George June 15, 2015, 5:30 pm

    Abolish CCW for OC in favor of licensing? You have to have training and study for a Driver’s License. Why not? They could teach the Basics & qualify for it in Junior High. These Anti 2A earmarks get sneaked into the Laws all the time. We have the statistical proof uninfringed 2A cuts down on crime. It’s only fair. Let’s go for it!

  • DickG June 15, 2015, 3:52 pm

    A cute little comment, Senator. But as comparing apples and oranges, comparing guns and automobiles is also cute.
    .
    Your use of Liber-Logic is astounding, Sir.
    .

  • Aydene Militello June 15, 2015, 3:50 pm

    I live in Illinois. If I purchase any fire arm in Illinois it is registered. If I go out of State I might be judged as having committed a criminal act trying to evade registration. I don’t like having my private property registered with the thought that I may slip it into the hands of a criminal, or for that matter that I might go off the deep end. So long as there is a registration I’ll abide by it. States that don’t have a registration generally don’t have the big city crime issues to face. Frankly, I consider it a flaw in our communities that the Police don’t consider armed citizens as trusted fellow law enforcement when it may be necessary to call on them. All of those who live in criminal activity hot spots had best be armed rather than crying for someone else to carry the responsibilities of keeping crime in check. National registration makes me think of every Country that has a Federal Police force. Citizens are always at the mercy of the State. Gangs are punks covering little bits of turf. If the day comes that one leader will unite them as one large army, someone will have to face them. Sounds like an ISIS dream come true, while our fellow citizens cry out to disarm their productive and honorable fellow, armed, citizens.

  • Jon C June 15, 2015, 2:54 pm

    The bill’s rationale has a basic flaw…yes; one requires a license to drive, hunt, & fish, but an individual does not require licensing to buy a car–buy a rod & reel–and none for buying weapons(regardless of use). These are all property issues, not usage nor operation. Further more, operating a car, hunting, nor fishing are constitutionally protected rights, they are just privileges granted by an governing authority voted on by the people; whereas the RIGHT to “keep and bear arms” is a protected under the American constitution.

  • Ed June 15, 2015, 2:40 pm

    Nothing less than a major step forward to gun confiscation,

  • Scotty Gunn June 15, 2015, 1:53 pm

    Won’t pass=this time. Their timing is bad.
    “In political theory, the Overton window is the range of ideas the public will accept. According to the theory, an idea’s political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within that window, rather than on politicians’ individual preferences.[1] It is named for its originator, Joseph P. Overton (1960–2003),[2] a former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.[3] At any given moment, the “window” includes a range of policies considered politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too extreme to gain or keep public office.”
    -Wikipedia

  • Nate June 15, 2015, 1:18 pm

    I disagree with a “Permit to Purchase” bit, but a national Concealed Carry Permit would be pretty welcome. That would be a good way to go with this, as many states allow a CCP to take the place of a NICS check when purchasing firearms. Applicants would have a similar screening process with fingerprinting and background checks, but the permit would be much more functional and longer lasting then simply a permit to purchase, yet fill the same role.

    The car comparison is obviously a Straw Man…a car is not set as a deadly weapon unless INTENT of the driver sets it that way. Similarly, as mentioned by another commentator, driving a car is not a Right, but a Privilege. Privileges can be revoked more easily than Rights as they are granted by the state and qualified for. Rights are inherent as being a citizen of this country…and some Rights are even extended to non-citizens who are visiting.

  • Bunker Hill June 15, 2015, 12:38 pm

    California. New York. ‘Nuff said! We’ve already seen this tried and, yes, the process gives the government the list they need to conduct future confiscations. Someone wake up this rookie and give him a recent history lesson. We certainly don’t need folks from deep Blue Connecticut force feeding their predictable Socialist agenda to the rest of FREE America. The biggest jerks I’ve ever met were from CT! They’ve certainly earned their right to be Subjects.

  • James H June 15, 2015, 11:33 am

    The Second Amendment (and the entire Constitution) is to protect the people from the Federal government. The Federal government cannot pass legislation that is not Constitutional which this bill would attempt to do. The Second Amendment is clear that the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. The Tenth Amendment requires “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” It is clear to me that the Congress nor any of the Federal government has the power to do this under the fundamental law of the United States. (But that hasn’t stopped them recently.) Only the states and the people of the states can license handguns and automobiles. It would take an amendment to the Constitution to allow the Federal lawmakers to license handguns as is suggested by this article.

  • BDub June 15, 2015, 11:19 am

    “Requiring a license to purchase a deadly weapon is at least as important as requiring one to drive a car. This legislation should win broad, bipartisan support.”

    They keep repeating this “bait & switch” talking point. You do not need a license to BUY a car. Also driving a car is an act of continuous risk, and carrying a gun is NOT. Driving a car is not a protected Constitutional Right, carrying a gun IS.

  • mach37 June 15, 2015, 10:00 am

    First & foremost: the Federal Government does NOT register or require permits to license cars, and the only way it can coerce states to do so is through denying federal funding of a state’s pet projects.

  • Mark June 15, 2015, 9:57 am

    Hmm, cars still kill over 50,000 people a year, so how come I never hear anyone demanding they be outlawed. Oh, and the right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Admendment to the constitution. No one has a right to drive a car, it is a privilage you earn by passing the drivers test and paying for license.

    • kirk June 16, 2015, 12:39 pm

      I hate that this has become so pervasive. We have a RIGHT to travel around our own country as free citizens. For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license.

      CASE #1: “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

      CASE #2: “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

      It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

      CASE #3: “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

      CASE #4: “The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

  • JohnQinTX June 15, 2015, 9:50 am

    This drivel is for consumption they will be up for re-election and want to make sure their base knows they are for control of guns. Of course this will not fly, simply because we still have enough folks in congress who know that they too want to keep their guns and do not want to anger their constituents. Must admit I sure am tired of seeing these idiots re-elected to their place in the House and Senate, but not much we can do about low attention voters, welfare recipients.

  • Friend of jose June 15, 2015, 9:48 am

    I sold a car to a Mexican without a license…… Is that a felony?

    • Eric June 15, 2015, 12:48 pm

      I didn’t know there were provisions to license Mexicans.

  • D Hicks June 15, 2015, 9:45 am

    Whatt new nightmare will they think up next.

  • Gerardo June 15, 2015, 9:33 am

    Except that drivers are licensed at the state level, not the federal level.
    But as long as we’re playing games, let’s go all the way. Let’s make it one time, shall issue, and serves as your national carry permit for all 50 states and DC. And if you live in a full auto/SBR/suppressor friendly state, you can transport them across state lines since they’re legal in your home state.
    You can also get an international driver’s license through AAA, so I should be able to get an international carry permit through the NRA, right?
    Sure you still want to play?

  • L Cavendish June 15, 2015, 8:59 am

    OK…we can do this…as long as they require the exact same procedure for the following:
    1:Voting- must show person is mentally capable
    2:Marriage- must undergo training and information on divorce
    3:Having children- must show ability to support said child to age 18
    4:Citizenship/Permanent Residency- Must show ability to speak English

  • Leighton Cavendish June 15, 2015, 8:49 am

    And yet…the criminals that wish to get guns will STILL find a way to get guns…through theft…friends or family…whatever means necessary…and will NEVER go through all the trouble that you want a legitimate purchaser to endure.

  • joe June 15, 2015, 8:35 am

    I only need a driver’s license to operate a car on a government road. I suppose I only need one of these licenses to shoot on a government range.

    I’ve never been asked for a driver’s license to buy a car.

    • Blasted Cap June 15, 2015, 10:06 am

      Exactly. I’ve bought several from friends and nope didn’t need to show a license. They didn’t even ask for one when I registered them at the court house.

  • Cyrus June 15, 2015, 7:22 am

    The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests. -Patrick Henry

    • mach37 June 15, 2015, 10:09 am

      The Constitution is violated many times daily, by both state and federal law enforcement officers AND by laws that are unconstitutional. Our only current means of protection from unconstitutional laws is lengthy and very expensive litigation. It takes years for many cases to work their way up to Supreme Court level, and too often the Supreme Court refuses to rule on cases purely on technicalities, and the lesser courts far too often judge wrongly, most often in cases involving freedom of speech – such as defining physical actions as “speech” when that is clearly incorrect.

  • Joe June 15, 2015, 7:11 am

    Phase one;
    Registration
    Phase two;
    Confiscation
    Phase three;
    Eradication…

  • JiminGA June 15, 2015, 6:49 am

    “‘WE DO IT WITH CARS, WHY NOT GUNS?’ As far as I know we don’t need a permit to buy a car. You can’t cure stupid.

    • Greg June 15, 2015, 11:55 am

      I hear the lawmakers flawed argument all the time, here is the big difference OTHER than it being a constitutional right.
      1. You do not need a license to drive a car. Yes you read that correctly.
      2. You do not need license plates to operate a car.
      3. You do not need driver’s ed to operate a car.
      4. There is no age limit for operating a car.
      5. There is no speed limit for operating a car.

      He is overlooking the difference between private land and public streets. Any item in my house is on private land. If I choose to teach a 10 year old how to drive a corvette on my private 2 mile oval driveway, I am NOT required to get any of the above and there is no speed limit.

      Gun owners already face the same licensing as cars in most states if they choose to take their firearms into public on public land. In a private home, or on private land, there should be no requirements. This includes building it in your garage. If it never leaves your property, it should be legal.

  • Steven June 15, 2015, 6:43 am

    Armed criminals= law-abiding gun owners.

  • oldfuzz695 June 15, 2015, 5:12 am

    Connecticut, you are full of extreme lefties who have no knowledge of the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is a right. A driver License is a privilege. As the character Drill Sgt. in Forest Gump said, “Are you stupid or sumthin?!

  • Will Drider June 13, 2015, 12:15 pm

    History is full of countries and governments that force weapns registration and follow up with confiscation. Nazi Germany and Englands suppression of Ireland to name a few. DL and vehicle registration was initiated to control who is allowed to drive, track what they driveand where normally it resides. The second part was to create anoter tax base with reoccurring costs. Registration of firearms also comes with fees. Move to CA and you haveto pay $25 registration fee on each firearm. Try to register a firearm that is not on the approved list; its confiscated and you go to jail. If the registered owner dies the Government will confiscate the firearms. The Government now mandates how you spend your money with taxes and health insurance. The Government tellsyou what you can’tdo wih your property and just took control of all natural water and includes dry land that may flood once in 50 years. The Government wants to export our democracy to forgien countries but never include the Right to bear arms. Government is now pushing for laws that will silence your voice on firearms. We must resist every tyrannical plan they throw at us. Every inch we give is another inch closer to the abyss and there is no return from there.

  • Robert Sweeney June 13, 2015, 11:45 am

    YIKES!!! Apparently I have been driving around without a National Automobile Permit! I didn’t even know one existed! I even sold a car last year without going through a Federal Driver Background Check! OMG!!!

  • Trevor June 13, 2015, 10:46 am

    Its the typical Liberal mentality,” You should ask the government for permission”. Go back to Ct., there is a reason we don’t want to live there.

  • DRAINO June 13, 2015, 8:22 am

    YES!!! Because we ALL know that registration for vehicles has been the pinnacle of success at keeping them from being used in commission of crimes and from being used without licenses or insurance…..Its BOUND to work for firearms, right?! Only the Kool-Aid drinkers are going to fall for that old trick. Wake-up, America! Name any government program like this that has been successful. Wake-up, You Low-Information Voters!! You are under attack from those that have sworn to protect and defend you. Wake-up!!!!!!

  • Mark N. June 13, 2015, 2:26 am

    Tis is just another version of the universal background checks bill that failed so miserably. And it is idiotic for the following reasons:
    1. To buy a hand gun from a dealer, you have to be a resident, 21 years old or older, and pass a background check. So this makes you do what you already have to do, but it tacks on fingerprints and a multiple hour training requirement.
    2. Guns bought on the black market, which are illegal sales as it is, and usually of stolen firearms, do not go through NICS or any other background check. Therefore, the requirement to get a permit from the police will have no effect on the black market.
    3. Most crime guns are bought on the black market, or are obtained from family and friends.
    4. Most murders are committed by juveniles under the age of 21 who are not legally allowed to purchase or possess handguns as it is.
    Therefore, this is mere security theater that will have–in fact cannot have–any effect on the crime rate.

  • FelixD June 12, 2015, 9:41 pm

    I remain amazed that a member of Congress can’t understand that a civil right does not require a licence. Additionally, he expects citizens of the republic to submit to greater government intrusion than “illegal immigrants”. We must stand together without compromise to defend ALL of our civil rights.

    • Phil June 15, 2015, 7:12 am

      Unfortunately ‘Common Sense’ is not a prerequisite to being a Congressman.

      • Uncle Sam June 17, 2015, 2:31 pm

        Evidently, its not a prerequisite for the Czar either!

  • Alkemyst June 12, 2015, 8:58 pm

    I am so sick of this argument about “we do it for cars, why don’t we do it for guns?” Here’s why knucklehead. Keep and bear arms: RIGHT! Driving and owning a car: NOT A RIGHT! It really is that simple. In addition, regulating the LAW ABIDING does nothing to STOP THE CRIMINAL! You know, criminals, those whose life is in CRIME, those activities that are already BREAKING THE LAW?! Are getting through to you yet? Hello? McFly?!

    End rant…

    • Boba Fett June 15, 2015, 10:06 am

      I want to projectile vomit every time I hear a comparison between guns and cars. Here’s the biggest difference between the two: Nobody wants to, nor could they ever, ban or confiscate cars no matter how many deaths they were involved in. They have become an inextricable part of the life blood of this country, and without them our economy would come to a grinding halt. So, no matter how tightly regulated cars become, they’re just not going anywhere.
      Guns, on the other hand, will. Regulations serve only to keep them out of the hands of innocent people, and that’s the whole point. With guns, the intent of regulation is to get rid of them, no matter how convincingly innocent their packaging may appear – that’s not the case with cars.

  • Mike DeRusha June 12, 2015, 8:20 pm

    Also, would this mean we don’t have to do a nics check every time? Or is it like a chl? You get approved by the Sheriff personally, but ya still gotta do a nics check every time.

  • Mike DeRusha June 12, 2015, 8:12 pm

    We shouldn’t be doing it with cars either. Every stupid law that assumes people are too stupid to make a decision makes the next generation less able to exercise good judgement.

  • Al June 12, 2015, 8:01 pm

    It’s all about incrementalism: You can keep your guns (for now) – we’ll confiscate them later.
    Better idea: Punish unlawful use. Enforce borders. Keep out criminals and gang members.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend