Saturday, March 10, 2007

Gun Rights in D.C.

A story in yesterday's NY Times notes that homicides, after falling nationwide to forty-year lows, have been increasing in the last couple of years, and cites as a prime cause the greater willingness of young men to use guns to resolve disputes that formerly would have been resolved with fists. Thus it was at best awkward for the D.C. Circuit to hand down its decision in Parker v. District of Columbia on the same day the story ran. In Parker, the DC Circuit holds that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and that the District's restrictive gun control law violates that right. One other circuit, the Fifth, has likewise held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, but in that case, United States v. Emerson, the court's Second Amendment discussion was dicta because it upheld the conviction on the ground that Emerson's particular act of gun possession fell within the zone of regulation even the individual right view of the Second Amendment permits. Because the Second Amendment discussion in Parker is a square holding, there is now a real circuit split with the many circuits that have rejected the individual right view, and so the Supreme Court is likely to take the case.

In reading Parker yesterday, I was struck by the one-sidedness of the analysis. In my one sustained academic foray into the politically fraught area of the Second Amendment, an article I wrote for a symposium in 2000, I acknowledged what I think any fair-minded reader of the relevant materials must: that the text and original understanding of the Second Amendment are unclear, and that the Supreme Court cases which appear to reject the idea that it protects an individual right are quite conclusory in their reasoning. Nonetheless, because my bottom line in that article was skepticism towards the individual right view, it typically gets cited as supporting the "collective right" view.

I can live with that, I suppose. (There's no such thing as bad publicity, right?) But it is a bit vexing to have my views cited simply for the purpose of being dismissed, which is what Judge Silberman's opinion in Parker does. See for yourself. Here's the key excerpt from yesterday's decision in Parker:

The District points to the singular nature of the Second Amendment’s preamble as an indication that the operative clause must be restricted or conditioned in some way by the prefatory language. Compare Eugene Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 793 (1998), with Michael C. Dorf, What Does the Second Amendment Mean Today?, 76 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 291 (2000). However, the structure of the Second Amendment turns out to be not so unusual when we examine state constitutional provisions guaranteeing rights or restricting governmental power. It was quite common for prefatory language to state a principle of good government that was narrower than the operative language used to achieve it. Volokh, supra, at 801-07.

Translation: The District of Columbia and Professor Dorf think that the operative portion of the Second Amendment must be read in light of its preamble, but had they bothered to read Volokh's article -- which appeared two years before Dorf's article -- they might have noticed that such preambles were common in state constitutions without suggesting that they limited the operative portions of the rights protected in those constitutions. So the Second Amendment Preamble can be safely ignored as hortatory. (And isn't that Dorf character a doofus?!)

Well, your honors, I'm scratching my head as to how you could have made this point if you really read my article. If you did, you would have noticed that I not only read Volokh's (excellent) article; I also had a response. Here's what I said:

Volokh points out that provisions of state constitutions of the founding era commonly contained preambles of the sort we see in the federal Constitution’s Second Amendment. Those provisions involved not only the right to bear arms, but a diverse collection of other rights, including freedom of speech and the press, the right to trial by a local jury, and many more. Volokh draws two inferences from the existence of these provisions: first, the framers’ decision to include a preamble in the Second Amendment was mere stylistic happenstance, to which virtually no significance can be attributed. Second, reading the contemporaneous state constitutional provisions alongside the Second Amendment drives home the lesson that even when a constitutional provision’s operative clause is over or under inclusivewith respect to its justification clause, it is still the operative clause, and not the justification clause, that controls. Although we might not think “that entirely unfettered freedom of speech in the legislature” is, in the words of the justification clauses of the Speech and Debate Articles of the Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont constitutions, “essential to the rights of the people,” we would nonetheless be obliged to give full effect to the operative language of those provisions. Volokh argues for similar treatment for the Second Amendment: even if we no longer believe that “A well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State,” we nonetheless must respect “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”

Although I agree with the overall thrust of Volokh’s argument, it does not, in my view, carry us very far in the direction of the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment. I should begin by noting my substantial disagreement with Volokh’s first inference. As a matter of textual interpretation of the Second Amendment, it is largely irrelevant that clause preambles are commonplace in other documents. In the United States Constitution, the inclusion of a preamble marks the Second Amendment as extraordinary. The frequent use of clause preambles in contemporaneous documents does, I concede, shed some light on the subjective intent of those who drafted the Second Amendment as well as, perhaps, the most common understanding of the political community at the time. However—and here Volokh’s second argument undermines his first—it is the text itself, not the subjective intent of the drafters nor even the background understanding of the time, that was enacted. In the case of the Second Amendment as it appears in the federal Constitution, that text is striking for containing its own preamble.

More broadly, as the title of my article states, the key question is not what the Second Amendment may have been understood to mean in 1791, but what it means today? And on that question, the Supreme Court has said pretty clearly that its "right" language needs to be read in light of its preamble, a point made at length in dissent by Judge Henderson. As I acknowledge above, the Supreme Court opinions on point are under-argued, but the standard rule is that lower courts must follow Supreme Court precedent unless the Supreme Court itself overrules that precedent. Having violated the spirit if not the letter of that rule, the DC Circuit has now teed the issue up for the Justices to take a fresh look at the question.

Okay, that's a longer-than-usual post, and since I get a large volume of "fan" mail whenever I say anything about the Second Amendment, I'll have enough to do tomorrow without posting again. I'll post again Monday (and perhaps one of my co-bloggers will post before then). Meanwhile, I'll be working on my FindLaw column for Wednesday on the Justice Department Inspector General's Report on the use of national security letters.

31 comments:

Adam P. said...

Well I guess I won't be asking you to write me a clerkship recommendation for Judge Silberman... But seriously, I find the D.C. Circuit's opinion troubling in a number of ways. The major problem I always have with 2nd Amendment rights against gun laws is that, even if there is a fundamental right for individuals to "own guns" (and I challenge whether "bear arms" = "own guns"), could strict scrutiny be "strict in theory, and fatal in fact"? The District of Columbia most certainly has a compelling interest in restricting access to guns: its a gun-crime laden city, with little hunting or shooting for sport, and a gazillion licensed law enforcement officers. Narrow tailoring presents more issues. I would assume its accepted that banning handguns in the Senate galley would be okay, as would banning guns on airplanes. But a ban on handguns in the home might even make more sense given the states interest in preventing gun violence. The majority of gun crimes and accidents aren't committed on airplanes or Senate galleys, but in homes. And where do people keep the guns that are used in street crime? In their homes.
Interestingly, this comes up against some of the Griswold/Lawrence cases which increase privacy/autonomy as to what one does in their own home. But if the Constitution allows a ban on the small use of marijuana in one's home, the "home" argument seems to lose its traction as to guns.
Finally, as to the DC law's provision that licensed firearms must be kept locked or disassembled, I have no idea how an individual can claim the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to have one's handgun ready at their hip to fire at a moment's notice.
As is often point out in regards to scripture, the Constitution is a document for us to live by, not to die by.
Now I'm gonna get my peacenik self out of here before the NRA wing of Dorf on Law (or, more likely, the internet) comes and attacks my crazy hippie ways.

Adam P. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
egarber said...

I have some questions:

1. Mike seems to concede that the subjective intent might lean in the direction of individual rights, but that it’s the text that matters (forgive me if I misread).

Certainly a logical statement.

But let me ask – does that also mean that Madison’s views about “establishments of religion” have no bearing on First Amendment interpretation? To me, “establishment” is a peculiar and fuzzy word. From a strictly textual viewpoint, might “establishment” simply mean a national church structure?

The Courts have relied on Madison and Jefferson to understand exactly what “establishment” means (correctly so, I believe). After all, it seems difficult to derive strict separation between church and state from the mere words.

I’m not making a harsh originalist argument – but I do think it’s important to review the original PRINCIPLE (that can be molded to apply later) at play.

2. Adam P. says that, if you concede that a fundamental right is at play (not that he is), perhaps the state has a compelling interest in denying ownership in the home (btw, I think the “ownership” argument stems from the right to “keep” arms, not “bear them”).

I know it’s not quite the same thing (given that there’s more clarity around the first amendment), but isn’t this like saying, “because some people might blow themselves up by misreading a chemistry book, we should therefore ban all chemistry books?”

If you’re on the gun control / ban side, I think you’re better off fighting the idea that ownership is an individual fundamental right. Otherwise, you invite a bunch of uphill comparisons, I think.

I happen to be an individual rights advocate on the gun issue, though as Mike says, I acknowledge the difficulties of second amendment interpretation.

egarber said...

Adam p said: But if the Constitution allows a ban on the small use of marijuana in one's home,

Actually, has there been a Supreme Court ruling on the PRIVACY right to grow and smoke in one's home?

I seem to recall that this issue always seems to do with commerce clause reach -- i.e., does the Wickard precedent (jurisdiction where commerce is merely affected) extend to home drug use?

Can anybody answer this one?

Chevron Groupie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Adam P. said...

Egarber, the easy point about the chemistry book example is that there's no reason to have a gun in your home except to potentially use it to shoot someone (even if self-defense, its not there as a paperweight). A chemistry book, even if "misused", has benign uses . There's no "good" use of a gun in one's home, even if the gun is used properly. I don't think most pro-gun rights fans would say its a happy occasion when someone gets shot.

There's also some concern that this comes out of litigation in D.C. Is it morally justified to bring this litigation simply to get a case up to the Supreme Court, even though you had to struggle to find a plaintiff with standing, and the potential harm to the residents of DC - who already are some of the most disadvantaged folks in the US- is great?

One of plaintiffs' counsel commented that the victory was one for "the Civil Rights of all Americans"... I can't help but feel that is an affront to the largely African-American population in DC and their own struggle for civil rights. Also, unlike a decision like Lawrence which, although seen primarily as a victory for Gay Americans, had greater constitutional overtones that do increase liberty for all Americans, even those against a right to sodomy, the narrow nature of the Second Amendment is that most Americans will not experience a great rush of liberty.

egarber said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
egarber said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
egarber said...

Adam P, thanks for the reply.

You said: the easy point about the chemistry book example is that there's no reason to have a gun in your home except to potentially use it to shoot someone (even if self-defense, its not there as a paperweight). A chemistry book, even if "misused", has benign uses .

That’s a legitimate argument if we’re debating how government should use power measured against rational scrutiny. But since your original argument presumed the ownership right was fundamental, the question would be whether this explanation satisfied strict scrutiny analysis.

I think it would be very difficult for the state to argue that banning guns in the home is the least intrusive means to serve its compelling goal of curbing crime and domestic violence. Justifying outright bans on the grounds that guns are designed only to “shoot people” would seemingly implicate even the most benign ownership imaginable. Under that standard, I could keep an UNloaded gun buried 50 feet beneath my house and STILL not be able to exercise my fundamental right (my burying the gun has no effect on the reason it exists).

If the right is fundamental, then the ownership liberty is PRESUMED; an argument so broad (guns are designed to shoot people, therefore nobody should have one) that it denies ANY ownership would seem by definition to be very suspect.

Though the chemistry book example isn’t quite the same (as I acknowledged), the analogy is applicable to some degree in a fundamental rights analysis, imo. That’s why I think your argument is stronger in a world where gun ownership ISN’T a fundamental right.

As always, I apologize if I'm misrepresenting your position in any way.

Joe said...

By chance, I recently read the book "A Well Regulated Militia" by Saul Cornell that challenged some of the originalist arguments (like the main dissent in the 9th Cir. on the point, the ruling was heavily originalist), including what "keep and bear" means.

The opinion is too sure of itself. It doesn't help that the dissent dubiously tries to find an out that doesn't address the underlining point. Dred Scott etc. clearly implies the 2A applies to residents in federal territories etc.

Also, as with the 9th Cir. dissent (not the brief one by one of the panel's liberals), why this focus on 1790? The ruling points to the First or Second (I forget) Militia Act requiring people to bring their own guns, including pistols. But, the Dick Act etc. in modern times treats the "effectiveness" of the militia quite differently.

Finally, what of U.S. v. Miller? The ruling expressly focuses on the preamble. The efficiency of the militia, something the Supreme Court also did in dicta (e.g., Lewis v. U.S.). So how can an inferior court say that it obviously covers more than the militia?

[I think the home possession, including having a workable weapon that credibily can be used for immediate self-defense, issue is a possible narrowing factor. I would also cite privacy rulings. See also, the dissent in the Quicili handgun case, that also did just that. Under common law, one could use lethal force to protect one's home.]

George Lyon said...

Michael: I agree your law review article was more equivocal than how it has been cited; however, since it was largely cribbed in Judge Reinhardt's opinion in Silveira (with citations mind you) with all the equivocation removed, it has tended to be read more definitively than you may have intended.

Clayton said...

"Egarber, the easy point about the chemistry book example is that there's no reason to have a gun in your home except to potentially use it to shoot someone (even if self-defense, its not there as a paperweight). A chemistry book, even if "misused", has benign uses . There's no "good" use of a gun in one's home, even if the gun is used properly. I don't think most pro-gun rights fans would say its a happy occasion when someone gets shot."

It is a happier occasion than if the intruders rape and murder you, that's for sure. Keep in mind that there are hundreds of thousands of civilian defensive gun uses a year in the United States. If you find the couple dozen surveys that have given such results implausible, you can visit my Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog, and see lots of examples from media. It is rare for a day to go buy without at least one example important enough to get media attention, and often several incidents a day get press. Think of how many don't.

George Lyon said...

Adam. There are many good uses for a gun in your home, the most important one being to keep you alive.

Clayton said...

"The District of Columbia most certainly has a compelling interest in restricting access to guns: its a gun-crime laden city, with little hunting or shooting for sport, and a gazillion licensed law enforcement officers."

Oddly enough, the murder rate in DC rose after the 1976 law went into effect. (Yes, I'm aware of the study that claims otherwise; they looked at raw homicide counts, ignoring the dramatic reduction in population in DC during the study period. How convenient.) A place with high crime rates has a stronger argument for allowing law-abiding adults to own guns--not a weaker argument. After all, the criminals are out of control.

High crime rates might be an argument for locking up violent felons and throwing away the key. But somehow, I don't think you will find that argument persuasive--especially when you can threaten their victims with jail time for having a gun with which to defend themselves from the criminals.

"Narrow tailoring presents more issues. I would assume its accepted that banning handguns in the Senate galley would be okay, as would banning guns on airplanes. But a ban on handguns in the home might even make more sense given the states interest in preventing gun violence. The majority of gun crimes and accidents aren't committed on airplanes or Senate galleys, but in homes."

Gun accidents are typically about 5% of gun deaths a year--and about half of those are hunting accidents.

I'm not sure that a majority of gun crimes are committed in homes. There's a lot of gun crimes that take place in liquor stores, gas stations, and on the streets of DC--where both the ban on gun ownership and very restrictive carry permit system means that the criminals are being criminals! Not only are they committing rape, robbery, and murder, but even more amazing, they aren't obeying the gun control laws!

"And where do people keep the guns that are used in street crime? In their homes."

And where do people who aren't criminals keep their guns? In their homes.

"Interestingly, this comes up against some of the Griswold/Lawrence cases which increase privacy/autonomy as to what one does in their own home. But if the Constitution allows a ban on the small use of marijuana in one's home, the "home" argument seems to lose its traction as to guns."

Except that the Second Amendment specifically protects arms, and there are dozens of 19th century state supreme court decisions that acknowledge that the right is individual (even if the Second Amendment only limits the federal government). See my book For the Defense of Themselves and the State: The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (Praeger Press, 1994) for examples, or go here to see a few examples of 19th century jurisprudence on the Second Amendment and the state analogs.

I happen to agree that the marijuana law upheld in Raich is probably not constitutional, from an originalist perspective, since there were no laws banning drugs in 1789. But there's no amendment protecting the right to smoke pot; we have an amendment that specifically protects the right to keep and bear arms.

Clayton said...

"One of plaintiffs' counsel commented that the victory was one for "the Civil Rights of all Americans"... I can't help but feel that is an affront to the largely African-American population in DC and their own struggle for civil rights."

I guess someone doesn't understand that broad definition of civil rights. It doesn't mean just an end to segregation. There are a number of civil rights out there, including the right to freedom of speech, of the press, to petition the government, freedom of religion, etc.

You should also be aware that the reason most commonly given by members of Congress who sought passage of the 14th Amendment was that freedmen were being disarmed by Southern governments. (They didn't like the freedmen shooting back at the Klan.)

"Also, unlike a decision like Lawrence which, although seen primarily as a victory for Gay Americans, had greater constitutional overtones that do increase liberty for all Americans, even those against a right to sodomy, the narrow nature of the Second Amendment is that most Americans will not experience a great rush of liberty."

Hmmm. About 40% of Americans have a gun in their home. Yup, that's a "narrow" group, unlike the 3% of Americans who are gay.

Clayton said...

joe writes:

"Finally, what of U.S. v. Miller? The ruling expressly focuses on the preamble. The efficiency of the militia, something the Supreme Court also did in dicta (e.g., Lewis v. U.S.). So how can an inferior court say that it obviously covers more than the militia?"

Because there's been an enormous amount of research done in the last 25 years that demonstrates that the right was understood to be individual in nature. Remember that the Miller decision was the result of only one side filing briefs--and even then, the Miller decision was careful not to agree with the Solicitor General's brief that there was no individual right.

Clayton said...

Joe writes:

"By chance, I recently read the book "A Well Regulated Militia" by Saul Cornell that challenged some of the originalist arguments (like the main dissent in the 9th Cir. on the point, the ruling was heavily originalist), including what "keep and bear" means."

I hope his book makes more sense than the quotes that appear from him in newspaper articles. As I point out here, a friendly editorial in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune quotes Cornell as claiming:

"There's one right the Second Amendment wasn't written to confer: an entitlement to take up arms against the government. "The founding fathers drew a distinction between a well-regulated militia, which operates under the authority of the state, and an armed mob," says Cornell. History couldn't be clearer about this point: "Once you have constitutional government," Cornell points out, "you have no right of revolution anymore.""

The problem is that both Federalists and Antifederalists insisted that there was a right to revolution, because even constitutional governments could go astray. Remember that they fought a Revolution a few years before, and it wasn't done with flowers. That's why the New Hampshire Const. of 1784 includes a right to revolution. That's why Jefferson wrote:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion [Shays's Rebellion]. The people cannot be all, and always, well-informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had thirteen States independent for eleven years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each State. What country ever before existed a century and a half without a rebellion. And what country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms! The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Cornell writes about an alternate universe, as near as I can tell--one where Whiggish ideas never took hold in America.

Kirk Parker said...

Adam P.,

Regarding: "There's no 'good' use of a gun in one's home..."

If you really do mean this, if self-defense is not a good use, then for the moment words fail me. At the very least, you appear to inhabit a very different moral universe than I do, where the rights, health, and life of the assailant have equal value to those of the innocent victim--not a place I'd care to life, thank you (and fortunately, I live in the "other" Washington.)

Dave S said...

The Supreme Court in Miller sent the case back to the Appeals Court for a determination as to whether the gun in question (a sawed-off shotgun) was a weapon which had utility in a militia context. However, by that time both defendants has disappeared (Miller was soon found murdered) and the case ended there.

The Miller decision never said that the gun was protected and never said that the gun was not protected; the case was sent back to the lower court for that determination.

The Miller decision also never mentions the defendants. The decision does not discuss whether these men were in the National Guard, state militia, the U.S. military, or were veterans, or were even eligible for military service. The Court wasn’t interested in that.

If the Second Amendment applies only to States, or to state militias, then the defendants lacked standing; why did the Supreme Court take the case at all? Had the Court ever before (or since) taken a case only to declare there was no standing? That’s a rhetorical question; by taking the case the Court affirmed that Miller and Leyton (the co-defendant) had standing.

As to domestic homicides, Kellermann (New England Journal of Medicine, 1993) found that of the 1860 homicides they surveyed, only 420 occurred in residences. And most of those 420 residential homicides involved a victim with a criminal record, i.e. criminals shooting other criminals. Only 28 of the 1860 homicides involved a law-abiding resident shot to death in his own home by a close relative or intimate. And even then, there is no data on who owned the gun or where it came from.

TRUTHMONGER said...

Amdocs is blackmailing America's "leaders." That's why they're making such insane decisions: http://dinoberry.googlepages.com/home

sexy said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,按摩棒,跳蛋,充氣娃娃,情境坊歡愉用品,情趣用品,情人節禮物,情惑用品性易購

免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,免費AV,色情網站,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人影片,成人網站,A片,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,情色網,日本A片,免費A片下載,性愛

A片,色情,成人,做愛,情色文學,A片下載,色情遊戲,色情影片,色情聊天室,情色電影,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,一葉情貼圖片區,情色,情色視訊,免費成人影片,視訊交友,視訊聊天,視訊聊天室,言情小說,愛情小說,AIO,AV片,A漫,av dvd,聊天室,自拍,情色論壇,視訊美女,AV成人網,色情A片,SEX

情趣用品,A片,免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,色情網站,免費AV,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人網站,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,成人影片,情色網


情趣用品,A片,免費A片,日本A片,A片下載,線上A片,成人電影,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,微風成人區,成人文章,成人影城,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,臺灣情色網,色情,情色電影,色情遊戲,嘟嘟情人色網,麗的色遊戲,情色論壇,色情網站,一葉情貼圖片區,做愛,性愛,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,美女交友,做愛影片

av,情趣用品,a片,成人電影,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人影城,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,情色電影,aio,av女優,AV,免費A片,日本a片,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,聊天室,美女交友,成人光碟

情趣用品.A片,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,情色電影,色情遊戲,色情網站,聊天室,ut聊天室,豆豆聊天室,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,免費A片,日本a片,a片下載,線上a片,av女優,av,成人電影,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人影城,成人網站,自拍,尋夢園聊天室

sex999 said...

A片,A片,情色,情色,A片,A片,情色,情色,A片,A片,A片下載,做愛,成人電影,.18成人,日本A片,情色小說,情色電影,成人影城,自拍,情色論壇,成人論壇,情色貼圖,情色,免費A片,成人,成人網站,成人圖片,AV女優,成人光碟,色情,色情影片,免費A片下載,SEX,AV,色情網站,本土自拍,性愛,成人影片,情色文學,成人文章,成人圖片區,成人貼圖

美女交友,AIO交友愛情館,AIO,成人交友,視訊交友網,視訊交友,拓網交友,PC交友,視訊交友90739,交友,情色交友,聊天室交友,辣妹視訊,視訊辣妹,美女視訊,視訊美女,情色視訊,日本AV,免費視訊聊天,視訊聊天,AV女優,AV,視訊聊天室,視訊,免費視訊,情人視訊網,本土自拍,自拍,AVDVD,SEX,微風成人,微風論壇,微風成人區,成人網站,成人,成人電影,嘟嘟成人網,成人貼圖,成人影片,成人圖片區,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人影城,成人文章,成人論壇,愛情公寓,情色論壇,情色,色情聊天室,色情,情色貼圖,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,寄情築園小遊戲,色情遊戲,情色電影,情色網,做愛,UT聊天室,聊天室,聊天,哈拉聊天室,豆豆聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,080苗栗人聊天室,苗栗人聊天室,080中部人聊天室,080聊天室,中部人聊天室,柔情聊天網,6K聊天室,小高聊天室,上班族聊天室,免費A片,A片,成人聊天室,一夜情聊天室,情色聊天室,色色網,免費AV

路傑 said...

免費A片, ut聊天室, AV女優, 美女視訊, 免費成人影片, 成人論壇, 情色交友, 免費AV, 線上a片, 日本美女寫真集, 同志聊天室, 聊天室交友, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 色情網站, 辣妹視訊, 美女交友, 微風成人區, 色美媚部落格, 色情影片, 成人影片, 成人網站, 免費A片, 上班族聊天室, A片,H漫, 18成人, a漫, av dvd, 一夜情聊天室, 微風成人, 成人圖片, 成人漫畫, 情色網, 日本A片, 免費A片下載, 性愛, 成人交友, 嘟嘟成人網, 嘟嘟成人網, 成人貼圖, 成人電影, 成人, 中部人聊天室, 080中部人聊天室, 成人貼圖, 成人小說, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人遊戲, 微風成人, 愛情公寓, 成人電影, A片, 情色, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 做愛, 成人遊戲, 成人影城, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 寄情築園小遊戲, 色情遊戲, 成人網站, 麗的色遊戲, 色情網站, 成人論壇, 情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 言情小說, 愛情小說, 色情A片, 情色論壇, 自拍, 癡漢, , 俱樂部, 豆豆聊天室, 聊天室, 色情影片, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊交友90739 情人視訊網影音視訊聊天室 免費視訊聊天室 視訊聊天 視訊交友 美女視訊 視訊美女 視訊 免費視訊 免費視訊聊天 視訊聊天室 辣妹視訊 一夜情 色情a片 aio交友愛情館 情色電影 情色視訊 色情遊戲 色情 情色小說 一葉情貼圖片區 色情小說 色情聊天室 情色交友 成人論壇 成人網站 色情網站 情色論壇 小高聊天室 女同志聊天室 6K聊天室 080苗栗人聊天室 080聊天室 聊天室尋夢園 UT男同志聊天室 男同志聊天室 尋夢園聊天室 UT聊天室 聊天室 豆豆聊天室 A片 成人電影 成人貼圖 嘟嘟成人網 美女交友 本土自拍 成人交友 成人影片http://ssff01.3b8mm.com/

路傑 said...

免費A片, ut聊天室, AV女優, 美女視訊, 免費成人影片, 成人論壇, 情色交友, 免費AV, 線上a片, 日本美女寫真集, 同志聊天室, 聊天室交友, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 色情網站, 辣妹視訊, 美女交友, 微風成人區, 色美媚部落格, 色情影片, 成人影片, 成人網站, 免費A片, 上班族聊天室, A片,H漫, 18成人, a漫, av dvd, 一夜情聊天室, 微風成人, 成人圖片, 成人漫畫, 情色網, 日本A片, 免費A片下載, 性愛, 成人交友, 嘟嘟成人網, 嘟嘟成人網, 成人貼圖, 成人電影, 成人, 中部人聊天室, 080中部人聊天室, 成人貼圖, 成人小說, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人遊戲, 微風成人, 愛情公寓, 成人電影, A片, 情色, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 做愛, 成人遊戲, 成人影城, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 寄情築園小遊戲, 色情遊戲, 成人網站, 麗的色遊戲, 色情網站, 成人論壇, 情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 言情小說, 愛情小說, 色情A片, 情色論壇, 自拍, 癡漢, , 俱樂部, 豆豆聊天室, 聊天室, 色情影片, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊交友90739 情人視訊網影音視訊聊天室 免費視訊聊天室 視訊聊天 視訊交友 美女視訊 視訊美女 視訊 免費視訊 免費視訊聊天 視訊聊天室 辣妹視訊 一夜情 色情a片 aio交友愛情館 情色電影 情色視訊 色情遊戲 色情 情色小說 一葉情貼圖片區 色情小說 色情聊天室 情色交友 成人論壇 成人網站 色情網站 情色論壇 小高聊天室 女同志聊天室 6K聊天室 080苗栗人聊天室 080聊天室 聊天室尋夢園 UT男同志聊天室 男同志聊天室 尋夢園聊天室 UT聊天室 聊天室 豆豆聊天室 A片 成人電影 成人貼圖 嘟嘟成人網 美女交友 本土自拍 成人交友 成人影片http://ssff01.3b8mm.com/

video said...

成人網站,成人影片,av女優,h漫,成人網站,成人電影,a片,色情,成人影片,色情,成人電影,色情,h漫,成人影片,成人電影,免費A片,色情,成人電影,成人影片,免費A片,色情,成人網站,情趣用品,免費A片


成人網站,色情,a片,成人影片,情色,免費A片,微風成人,情色,成人影片,微風成人,av女優,a片


成人網站,色情網站,av女優,色情,成人網站,成人影片,成人電影,av女優,a片,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人影片,av女優


色情,h漫,sex,情色,a片,成人網站,成人影片,av女優,色情
h漫,sex,情色,辣妹視訊,080視訊聊天室,美女交友
情色視訊,哈啦聊天室,ut聊天室,聊天室


打卡鐘,情趣用品,吃到飽麻辣鍋,黃金回收,牙醫,跳蛋,指甲彩繪,植牙,影印機,賺錢,持久液,碎紙機,黃金,情趣用品,創業加盟,打卡鐘,借錢,蒙古火鍋,當舖,情趣,賺錢,鑽石回收,咖啡機,亞太電信,情趣用品,水晶指甲,情趣用品,跳蛋,持久液,情趣用品,碎紙機,


美女交友,美女交友,美女交友,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,成人交友,成人交友,成人交友,視訊美女,視訊美女,視訊美女,聊天室,聊天室,聊天室

aa-aa said...

a片,成人網站,美女交友,美女視訊,a片,成人網站,美女交友,美女視訊,a片,成人網站,美女交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女視訊,聊天室,美女視訊



成人網站,成人影片,av女優,h漫,成人網站,成人電影,a片,色情,成人影片,色情,成人電影,色情,h漫,成人影片,成人電影,免費A片,色情,成人電影,成人影片,免費A片,色情,成人網站,情趣用品,免費A片,成人網站,色情,a片,成人影片,情色,免費A片,微風成人,情色,成人影片,微風成人,av女優



成人網站,色情網站,av女優,色情,成人網站,成人影片,成人電影,av女優,a片,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人影片,av女優
色情,h漫,sex,情色,a片,成人網站,成人影片,av女優,色情
h漫,sex,情色,辣妹視訊,080視訊聊天室,美女交友
情色視訊,哈啦聊天室,ut聊天室,聊天室



美女交友,美女交友,美女交友,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,成人交友,成人交友,成人交友,視訊美女,視訊美女,視訊美女,聊天室,聊天室,聊天室



成人網站,av女優,成人網站,a片,成人影片,成人電影,h漫,成人電影,色情,成人影片,色情,免費A片,成人影片,免費A片,情色,微風成人
美女交友,美女交友,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,成人交友,成人交友,視訊美女,視訊美女,聊天室,聊天室
美女交友,美女交友,美女交友,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,成人交友,成人交友,成人交友,視訊美女,視訊美女,視訊美女,聊天室,聊天室,聊天室



a片,成人網站,av女優,h漫,成人影片,免費a片,情趣用品,色情,微風成人,情色,sex,成人電影,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,成人網站,情色,情趣用品,色情,sex,免費a片,h漫,av女優,成人影片,a片,微風成人,成人電影聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,成人電影,成人網站,情色,情趣用品,色情,sex,免費a片,h漫,av女優,成人影片,a片,微風成人,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊



a片,a片,a片,a片,a片,av女優,av女優,av女優,av女優,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,h漫,h漫,h漫,h漫,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,色情,色情,色情,色情,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,微風成人,微風成人,微風成人,微風成人,色情,色情,色情,色情,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,色情,色情,色情,色情,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,情色,情色,情色,情色,打卡鐘,跳蛋,持久液,色情網站,黃金回收,借錢,植牙,牙醫,成人網站,成人影片,av女優,色情,h漫,情色,sex,黃金價格,黃金,黃金買賣,黃金存摺,鑽石價格,鑽石回收,鑽石買賣,當舖,辣妹視訊,080視訊聊天室,美女交友,情色視訊,哈啦聊天室,ut聊天室,聊天室,打卡鐘,火鍋吃到飽,創業加盟,賺錢,吃到飽麻辣鍋

. said...

酒店喝酒,禮服店,酒店小姐,制服店,便服店,鋼琴酒吧,兼差,酒店兼差,酒店打工,伴唱小姐,暑假打工,酒店上班,日式酒店,ktv酒店,酒店,酒店公關,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,酒店上班,酒店打工,禮服酒店,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,經紀 彩色爆米花,經紀人 彩色爆米花,酒店傳播,酒店經紀 彩色爆米花,爆米花,童裝,童裝拍賣,童裝大盤,童裝寄賣,童裝批貨,酒店,酒店,童裝切貨,酒店,GAP童裝,酒店,酒店 ,禮服店 , 酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,招待所,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店上班,暑假打工,酒店公關,酒店兼職,酒店經紀

wsty said...

www.eshooes.com .
www.pumafr.com.
www.myshoess.com.

www.eshooes.com .
www.pumafr.com.
www.myshoess.com.
[url=http://www.pumafr.com]puma shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.eshooes.com]chaussures puma[/url]
[url=http://www.myshoess.com]nike air max ltd[/url]

wsty said...

www.eshooes.com .
www.pumafr.com.
www.myshoess.com.

www.eshooes.com .
www.pumafr.com.
www.myshoess.com.
[url=http://www.pumafr.com]puma shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.eshooes.com]chaussures puma[/url]
[url=http://www.myshoess.com]nike air max ltd[/url]

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店工作, 專業酒店經紀, 合法酒店經紀, 酒店暑假打工, 酒店寒假打工, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店工作, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店經紀, 專業酒店經紀, 合法酒店經紀, 酒店暑假打工, 酒店寒假打工, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店工作, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店經紀,,

erqing said...

Those are best online website , best service , best quality. Good luck !
ed hardy clothing
Chaussures Sport
Tennis Racquet Shop
Cheap Polo Shirts
The North Face Jackets
cheap ed hardy
Chaussures Sport
Tennis Racquet
nike shox r4
ed hardy
cheap ed hardy
polo shirts
cheap polo
Remise Chaussures Sport
nike tn requin
ed hardy clothes
nike femmes chaussures