"Criminal Trespassing - illegally posted properties"

List the property or business name in the title. Please provide backup support such as photos, letters, website links, news reports, etc. Please provide contact information when available.

"Criminal Trespassing - illegally posted properties"

Postby tkdmavrick » Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:41 am

Tim Nunan and I are having a disagreement about what the law is pertaining to restaurants that try to post with an illegal sign or have a stated "no guns" policy without the proper signage at the door.

Here's the hypothetical situation. I go carrying into a restaurant. The restaurant is not legally posted and there is no otherwise indication (circle and slash). My coat opens when I sit down and the server sees my gun and reports it to the manager. The manager comes over and says that I have to leave the restaurant because they have a "no guns" policy.

I maintain that I do NOT have to leave, that I was "invited" in as a member of the public, and that the "shall be announced" provision of the posting law was removed, and if I am not creating a disturbance, I have every right to be there (I obviously wouldn't come back), and have every right to finish my meal, since, if I ordered it, I have the legal responsibility to pay for it.

Tim Nunan feels that if I am asked to leave and refuse, I am criminally trespassing and that the restaurant can make up their own rules as to who they can and can not allow onto the property. I disagree since this would allow restaurants to ban blacks, for example. I maintain that the trespass laws for a business that is open to the public are not the same as for those of a PRIVATE landowner. As a business open to the public and they ask the general public to come in, I am there as an "invitee".

Of course I can search the online TCA, but I suspect a lot of this is determined by case law and my friend and I will research the UT law library this weekend.

John Harris, care to chime in?
David Morrow
Knoxville

Proud Member:
TFA
Life Member NRA
SAF
VRWC (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy)
tkdmavrick
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 5:49 pm
Location: Knoxville

Re: "Criminal Trespassing - illegally posted properties"

Postby C. Richard Archie » Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:50 pm

I am not John, but having researched this question extensively, (John can correct me if I am wrong) I concur with Tim. Verbal instructions from a competent person in "charge" of a venue are binding. To the point that if no posting is evident, they can tell you what the rules are, and you must obey the instructions. A venue may allow concealed carry, but not open carry, they are not required by law to post that, and upon their discovery of you in an open carry mode, can ask you to leave or conceal. If you do not honor their request, you can be found in violation and subject to criminal trespass charges. Similarly, should you be carrying in a concealed manner, and the "In Charge" person discover you are armed, and they ask you to leave as they have a policy against weapons, if you do not, you would be subject to criminal trespass charges. Once you are verbally informed of a policy, and asked to leave, (even if there is no legal posting), you must obey the request.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams

TFA/NRA Life Member
Chapter Leader, West TN Regional Chapter
C. Richard Archie
 
Posts: 902
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:42 pm
Location: Bells

Re: "Criminal Trespassing - illegally posted properties"

Postby FLMason » Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:33 pm

Any properity not owned,operated or leased by a federal,state,or local gov is going to be private properity. They can refuse service to anyone and ask them to leave at any time and you must do so. Now if they ask you to leave because of your race,sex,religon or age then they would leave themself's open for a civil rights lawsuit. JMO
FLMason
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: "Criminal Trespassing - illegally posted properties"

Postby lilredhunter » Wed Aug 19, 2009 5:32 pm

As a former manager of a restaurant I must agree with Mr. Archie and Mr. Nunan. No matter of the posting if you are asked to leave any place whether it is private property or a business , once you asked to leave & you refuse to leave then you are criminally Trespassing.
Chris
A VERY Proud Member of TFA & NRA
lilredhunter
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:16 pm
Location: Centerville ,Tn

Re: "Criminal Trespassing - illegally posted properties"

Postby JayC » Wed Aug 19, 2009 6:02 pm

As the others Not leaving when asked to is clearly a violation of the law, and the reason they can do that to HCP holders and not African Americans is because race is a protected class from discrimination and being a HCP holder isn't.

Now, if you could prove the reason you were asked to leave was because of your race, disability status, or some other reason currently protected under the law, then you could file a lawsuit against the restaurant for discrimination... Then all you have to do is prove it...

Restaurants are running a risk with asking people to leave, because one day they'll do it to somebody in a protected class in such a way that calls said persons class into question (and they';ll have an audio recorder on them when it happens)... and the lawsuit will hurt, and hurt bad.
JayC
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:25 am

Re: "Criminal Trespassing - illegally posted properties"

Postby David Lewis » Wed Aug 19, 2009 6:42 pm

Richard, Tim, et al., are correct. Like Richard, I've had this discussion with John, & he told me to leave if it ever happened.

Now, I don't recall if we discussed whether or not I was obligated to pay for the meal, if I'd already ordered or it was on the table,
& I was then asked to leave. :shock: I've heard some opine that they'd simply do as asked, and leave (which is the right thing to do),
but there was no way they were going to pay for the meal. I'm inclined to hold that opinion, too, but I don't know the legality of it.

David
David Lewis
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 1:30 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Re: "Criminal Trespassing - illegally posted properties"

Postby lilredhunter » Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:23 pm

John or David correct me if I am wrong on the food portion of this. I was told when I was a manager of a restaurant, that unless the food is actually on the table in front of the patron it has not been served. If the food has not been served then you are not required to pay. Because the food "order" could be canceled or changed. If the food is on the table then you are considered served so you are obligated to pay.
Chris
A VERY Proud Member of TFA & NRA
lilredhunter
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:16 pm
Location: Centerville ,Tn

Re: "Criminal Trespassing - illegally posted properties"

Postby Dan Lee » Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:30 pm

I definitely agree that you must leave private property if an authorized agent of the property asks you to leave. That is as it should be.. If the posting is improper, you would not however be able to be charged with a "criminal trespass" as far as I know..
Dan Lee
 

Re: "Criminal Trespassing - illegally posted properties"

Postby lilredhunter » Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:17 pm

It doesn't matter if the place is posted, posted wrong or what. If you are asked or told to leave and you do not comply with that you can be charged with trespassing. If you enter an establishment and are asked to leave for whatever reason then you are required to comply. You fail to comply you can be charged with trespassing. I do not know what it takes to escalate the charge to criminal trespassing.
Chris
A VERY Proud Member of TFA & NRA
lilredhunter
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:16 pm
Location: Centerville ,Tn

Re: "Criminal Trespassing - illegally posted properties"

Postby morg » Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:43 pm

lilredhunter wrote:John or David correct me if I am wrong on the food portion of this. I was told when I was a manager of a restaurant, that unless the food is actually on the table in front of the patron it has not been served. If the food has not been served then you are not required to pay. Because the food "order" could be canceled or changed. If the food is on the table then you are considered served so you are obligated to pay.


Now we have a problem.

You don't want me on your property but . . . gee, I can't seem to find my cash or my CC . . . . I'll just sit here with my pistol flapping in the breeze while my sister brings me some cash from her home 75miles away:-)

I have really wondered about this.

If I can't sit and eat it, why should I pay for it.

Morg
morg
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 2:21 am

Re: "Criminal Trespassing - illegally posted properties"

Postby lilredhunter » Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:46 pm

Morg what you have is an attempt to Dine & Dash. What would happen here in this situation is you would be charged with attempted fraud.
Chris
A VERY Proud Member of TFA & NRA
lilredhunter
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:16 pm
Location: Centerville ,Tn

Re: "Criminal Trespassing - illegally posted properties"

Postby FLMason » Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:56 am

Most of the time if you are asked to leave even if you have not paid for your meal then you would just leave as asked even if you had started to eat . If it is a place where you have pre paid for your meal than they have to give you a refund unless you have already finshed your meal. JMO
FLMason
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: "Criminal Trespassing - illegally posted properties"

Postby tkdmavrick » Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:08 pm

While I will admit that I am wrong when proved to be, and I understand that the consensus opinion is that I am, I have not yet seen a poster yet quote to me a specific section of TCA nor cited any specific case law. I am still not quite convinced because I believe that a place "open to the public" does NOT have the same "trespass" laws as a totally private place like a residence. I am doing the legal research to find out more.

Granted, and folks don't take me wrong, if I was asked to leave, I would offer a few choice words to the manager that no one else could hear, and leave without paying for my meal, and never return. But my and your feelings about the law are probably different than what TCA and case law actually is.

Sort of like the guy carrying in NY state who is then caught doing so, then screaming about his 2nd amendment rights while behind bars. Or sadly, yelling about the Heller decision while sitting in a Chicago jail.
David Morrow
Knoxville

Proud Member:
TFA
Life Member NRA
SAF
VRWC (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy)
tkdmavrick
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 5:49 pm
Location: Knoxville

Re: "Criminal Trespassing - illegally posted properties"

Postby lilredhunter » Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:51 pm

If I am asked to leave, I would do so and I would not say a word. I would walk out quietly, leave and tell everyone I know. The worst thing anyone with a permit can do to bring more scrutiny is to show anger. We all know that anger is one of the first things that the anti-gunners say is about our anger and that someone with an HCP is going to get mad and lose their temper and start shooting. That jacka$$ in Williamson County (Cool Springs) didn't help our cause at all, it gave to gun grabbers fuel for their flame, when he pulled his weapon, on either an angry employee or former employee.
Chris
A VERY Proud Member of TFA & NRA
lilredhunter
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:16 pm
Location: Centerville ,Tn

Re: "Criminal Trespassing - illegally posted properties"

Postby KevinMcCauley » Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:02 pm

I personally believe they have an inherent right to ask you to leave regardless of what is contained in the restaurant bill. It is their property. They can be fools and ask you to leave and lose your business but it is their right to do it.
"If we are going to have people in places where there are guns you know they're going to make poor decisions."
- Nashville Police Chief Ronal Serpas

"I don’t want people in my bar not drinking."- Adam Dread
KevinMcCauley
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:43 pm
Location: West Nashville

Re: "Criminal Trespassing - illegally posted properties"

Postby tkdmavrick » Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:48 am

OK ..... nobody else was inclined to look up TCA so for my own edification here it is:

39-14-405. Criminal trespass. —
(a) A person commits criminal trespass who, knowing the person does not have the owner's effective consent to do so, enters or remains on property, or a portion thereof. Knowledge that the person did not have the owner's effective consent may be inferred where notice against entering or remaining is given by:
(1) Personal communication to the person by the owner or by someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(2) Fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders;
(3) Posting reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders; or
(4) Posting the property, in accordance with the requirements of § 70-4-106(b)(1)(B)(ii).
(b) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) The property was open to the public when the person entered and remained;
(2) The person's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property; and
(3) The person immediately left the premises upon request.
(c) For purposes of this section, “enter” means intrusion of the entire body.
(d) Criminal trespass is a Class C misdemeanor.

[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 2005, ch. 297, §§ 1-3.]

39-14-406. Aggravated criminal trespass. —
(a) A person commits aggravated criminal trespass who enters or remains on property when:

(1) The person knows the person does not have the property owner's effective consent to do so; and

(2) The person intends, knows, or is reckless about whether such person's presence will cause fear for the safety of another.

(b) For purposes of this section, “enter” means intrusion of the entire body.

(c) Aggravated criminal trespass is a Class B misdemeanor unless it was committed in a habitation, in a building of any hospital, or on the campus, property, or facilities of any private or public school, in which event it is a Class A misdemeanor.

(d) (1) A person also commits aggravated criminal trespass who enters or remains on the real property, including the right-of-way, of a railroad:

(A) With the intent to do harm to the property or to railroad property located on the property; or

(B) With the intent to do harm to another person or knowing that their presence will harm another person.

(2) Aggravated criminal trespass on railroad property is a Class A misdemeanor.

(e) (1) A person also commits aggravated criminal trespass who trespasses upon a construction site, or property used or owned by a public or private utility or an electric or telephone cooperative, with the intent to steal, deface, destroy, tamper with, alter or remove any equipment, supplies or other property found on the site or property.

(2) (A) In order for subdivision (e)(1) to apply, the construction, utility, or electric or telephone cooperative property must be posted by use of a sign of a size that is plainly visible to the average person at all gates or entrances to the property and shall contain language substantially similar to the following:

UNLAWFUL ENTRY ON THIS PROPERTY CONSTITUTES THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL TRESPASS AND IS PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT FOR UP TO ONE YEAR AND A $2,500 FINE.

(B) If the proof shows that the defendant entered the posted property at some place other than a gate or entrance, it is not a defense to this subsection (e) that the defendant did not know that the property was posted against trespass.

(3) Aggravated criminal trespass on a construction site is a Class A misdemeanor.

[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 2006, ch. 668, § 1; 2008, ch. 690, § 3.]

[Edited only to remove excessive white space. Please! there's no need to run to 2 screens or more with blank lines! David Lewis]
David Morrow
Knoxville

Proud Member:
TFA
Life Member NRA
SAF
VRWC (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy)
tkdmavrick
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 5:49 pm
Location: Knoxville

Re: "Criminal Trespassing - illegally posted properties"

Postby tkdmavrick » Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:11 am

OK Folks,

Sorry about the squirrely spacing on the Aggravated Criminal Trespass citation .... the web page just wouldn't let me edit out the spaces.

Anyway, if asked to leave by the restaurant manager, I must leave (to paraphrase an old British navy saying : "grumble I may, but go I must"). If I refuse to leave then I am guilty of aggravated criminal trespass.

But folks, and I supsect John Harris will chime in here, the nitty, gritty, details of the law, and specifically certain sections, are determined by case law. The sections cited don't give exceptions, but seem to indicate that the property owners' rights are sacrosanct; they are not. Nothing in the citations say that the restaurant owner can't say: "We don't serve no N*****s here, get out", yet we all know that that is not allowed. Yes, I know it is trumped by federal anti-discrimination law, but is the trespass law trumped by the requirements of the posting law (39-17-1359)?

As per gun owners, at one time the "property posting" law was "posted or announced" and the "announced" part was stricken from the law. In effect, if I am asked to leave because the manager says the restaurant has a "no gun" policy then why have the law about posting (specifically since the "shall be announced" portion was removed - the restaurant manager is effectively "announcing"). Why did the legislature even bother with a posting requirement in the first place, if restaurants can restrict anyone they want based upon "property rights" and "trespass laws"?

There certainly is more case law to study here.
David Morrow
Knoxville

Proud Member:
TFA
Life Member NRA
SAF
VRWC (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy)
tkdmavrick
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 5:49 pm
Location: Knoxville

Re: "Criminal Trespassing - illegally posted properties"

Postby C. Richard Archie » Fri Aug 21, 2009 12:30 pm

http://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/op/2007/OP/OP148.pdf

Reading this may shed some more light on the subject. Posted by ProguninTN in another thread.

Questions:
5. Can the holder of a valid handgun carry permit be prosecuted for criminal trespass in
violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-405 if the owner has not posted a sign that satisfies the
requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1359 but has ordered the permit holder to leave the
property because he or she is armed and the permit holder has then refused to vacate the premises?
6. Can the holder of a valid handgun carry permit be prosecuted for criminal trespass in
violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-405 if the permit holder reenters the property while armed
after the owner has ordered the holder to vacate the premises and not return while armed in cases
where the owner has not posted a sign that satisfies the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-
1359?
7. Can a property owner regulate the manner in which the holder of a valid handgun
carry permit may possess or carry his or her handgun on the owner’s property?


Answers:
5. Yes. The holder of a valid handgun carry permit can be prosecuted for criminal trespass
in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-405 if the owner has not posted a sign that satisfies the
requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1359 but has ordered the permit holder to leave the
property because he or she is armed, or for any other lawful reason, and the permit holder has then
refused to vacate the premises.
6. Yes. The holder of a valid handgun carry permit can be prosecuted for criminal trespass
in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-405 if the permit holder reenters the property while armed
after the owner has ordered the holder to vacate the premises and not return while armed in cases
where the owner has not posted a sign that satisfies the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-
1359.
7. Yes. A property owner has the right to regulate the manner in which the holder of a valid
handgun carry permit may possess or carry his or her handgun on the owner’s property. In
exercising such right, the property owner may allow a handgun carry permit holder to carry the
handgun concealed but not openly, openly but not concealed or in any other manner that the property
owner deems appropriate.



Analysis:
5. The crime of criminal trespass is defined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-405(a). It states,
in relevant part:
A person commits the crime of criminal trespass who, knowing the person does not
have the owner’s effective consent to do so, enters or remains on property or a
portion thereof. Knowledge that the person did not have the owner’s effective
consent may be inferred where notice entering or remaining is given by:
* * *
(1) Personal communication to the person by the owner or by someone with
apparent authority to act for the owner;
* * *
(3) posting reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders.
Page 5
3Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-405 states that a person can commit the offense by either the entry or remaining on
the property without the effective consent of the owner. As shown by Ash, supra, a person can be subjected to
prosecution for criminal trespass if he or she remains on the property after the owner has ordered him or her to vacate.
4There is nothing in the language of Tenn. Code Ann. §39-14-405(b) to suggest that the possession of a valid
handgun carry permit is a defense to a criminal trespass charge. That subsection sets forth the defenses that are available
to such a charge. Possession of a valid handgun carry permit is not mentioned.
State v. Ash, 12 S.W.3d 800 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999), is instructive. As that case shows, the
gravamen of the offense is the entry onto or continued occupation of property after the owner has
informed the defendant that he or she is not permitted to enter or remain on the property.
The sign requirement set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1359, read in light of Tenn. Code
Ann. § 39-14-405 and Ash, provides the means to establish guilty knowledge on the part of a
defendant. Such signs, if conspicuously posted at the entrance or entrances to the property, provide
objective proof that persons in possession of firearms, including handgun carry permit holders, are
not welcome and their entry is against the consent of the owner. A handgun carry permit holder who
enters a posted property could therefore be subject to prosecution for criminal trespass.
The failure to post signs means that it might be more difficult in a given case to prosecute
a handgun carry permit holder because the permit holder could argue that he or she lacked guilty
knowledge. The text of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-405, however, indicates that the holder of such
a permit could become subject to prosecution if he or she refused to leave after the owner has
directed him or her to vacate the premises.3
6. An armed handgun carry permit holder who reenters property after being ordered to
vacate does so with knowledge that the reentry is without the effective consent of the owner and
would therefore be subject to prosecution for criminal trespass. The fact that the trespasser holds
a valid handgun carry permit is not a defense to a criminal trespass charge under Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 39-14-405.4
7. Owners of property have the right to possess, enjoy and use their property. State ex rel.
Elvis Presley Foundation v. Crowell, 733 S.W.2d 89 (Tenn. App. 1987). Such a right carries with
it the right to set the terms and conditions governing the use of property. The right to set terms and
conditions governing the use of property rests with both private parties and federal, state and local
governments. See, e.g., United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983); Adderly v. Florida, 385 U.S.
39 (1966); State v. Lyons, 802 S.W.2d 590 (Tenn. 1990).
A property owner’s right to set terms and conditions governing the use of property would
naturally include the right to determine whether others may enter or remain on the property while
armed. In situations where the owner permits the possession of firearms on the property, the right
to impose restrictions would also include the right to determine whether firearms may be carried
openly, concealed or either openly or concealed.



Footnotes:
1 Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1302 prohibits the carrying of a variety of weapons for the purpose of going armed. In addition to prohibiting the carrying of firearms, the statute also prohibits the carrying of explosive devices, hoax devices, switchblades and knuckles.

2 The inclusion of posting requirements in other statutes that prohibit the possession of firearms in specified areas provides further support that the exclusion of such requirements for judicial proceedings was intentional. For example, both Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1309, which prohibits the possession of weapons on school property, and Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311, which prohibits the carrying of weapons in public parks, playgrounds and other recreational facilities, require the posting of signs. The inclusion of such a requirement in both statutes shows that the legislature knows how to impose such a requirement when it wishes to do so.

3 Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-405 states that a person can commit the offense by either the entry or remaining on the property without the effective consent of the owner. As shown by Ash, supra, a person can be subjected to prosecution for criminal trespass if he or she remains on the property after the owner has ordered him or her to vacate.

4 There is nothing in the language of Tenn. Code Ann. §39-14-405(b) to suggest that the possession of a valid handgun carry permit is a defense to a criminal trespass charge. That subsection sets forth the defenses that are available to such a charge. Possession of a valid handgun carry permit is not mentioned.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams

TFA/NRA Life Member
Chapter Leader, West TN Regional Chapter
C. Richard Archie
 
Posts: 902
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:42 pm
Location: Bells

Re: "Criminal Trespassing - illegally posted properties"

Postby tkdmavrick » Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:03 pm

Thank you Mr. Archie,

I PUBLICLY STAND CORRECTED!

<head hung low - chin on chest>
David Morrow
Knoxville

Proud Member:
TFA
Life Member NRA
SAF
VRWC (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy)
tkdmavrick
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 5:49 pm
Location: Knoxville

Re: "Criminal Trespassing - illegally posted properties"

Postby C. Richard Archie » Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:25 pm

We are all on the same side here, or should be!

We all need to know as much about the laws as we possibly can. Not saying I AGREE with them, but we need to be aware of what the facts are, it makes us more efficient in discussing the situations that are handled by our Legislators. If we become educated as to the fats, we are then more valuable to ourselves, and to our children, in trying to change what is wrong with the system.

I have for most of my life, been pretty opinionated with respect to the 2nd Amendment and the corresponding issues. Having strong thoughts, and making statements that were right as to direction, but lacking facts to support my stance, has burned me more than once. Now, I try to research and prove my beliefs before I announce them. I have also been surprised at just how rickety the foundation of our belief system has become. It will take us all who love Freedom and Liberty, doing the best we can, to shore up the Rights our Founders intended us to have.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams

TFA/NRA Life Member
Chapter Leader, West TN Regional Chapter
C. Richard Archie
 
Posts: 902
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:42 pm
Location: Bells

Next

Return to Posted Properties - General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron