Friday, April 20, 2007

Does the US Need Better Reporting Laws for the Mentally Ill?

The mentally ill (those determined to be so by the courts etc.) are supposed to be barred from buying handguns, but frequently the information is not given to the NCIS:

But Rand and others—including federal officials—say that enforcement of the provision in the law barring the mentally ill from buying handguns has been erratic at best. More than 20 states don’t report any mental health records—including court records of mental commitments—to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the central federal database for background checks on firearm purchases, according to Paul Bresson, a FBI spokesman. Other states, including Virginia, do report some records, but officials acknowledge that the state and federal databases are complete. Asked if Virginia should have submitted a record of the Temporary Detention Order on Cho to the bureau, Bresson responded: "We rely on the state to submit the data to us. We don't interpret the law. All we're doing is providing a database for them." Still, Bresson added, "based on what we now know, it would seem that it would have been a record that should have been in the NICS”...

Whatever the reason, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York, contends that every year thousands of gun purchases by mentally unstable and other unqualified people have been falling through the cracks. McCarthy has been sponsoring legislation that would offer incentives to states to report more records of mental illness and commitments to federal and state databases.

One person in the article mentions that the problem is with the medical community that has traditionally opposed making such records available on privacy grounds. Confidentiality in mental health is very important, but then, so is making sure that the mentally ill do not obtain guns illegally. Can we really rely on someone like Cho marking "yes" to form 4473 asking “Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective or … committed to a mental institution?” I think not.


Anonymous JKB said...

I'm not sure I see where the medical community has any say in the matter. An adjudication is a judicial proceeding and such public records should be forwarded to the NICS. If necessary, judges could start issuing specific restraining orders prohibiting the purchase and possession of weapons by those they adjudicate as a threat to themselves and others. That way should the situation change the person could apply to the court to have the order removed.

8:37 AM, April 20, 2007  
Anonymous Viola Jaynes said...

I would have to agree with you, someone like Cho would not ever mark "yes" to those questions.

10:06 AM, April 20, 2007  
Anonymous brian said...

Does it matter? Was Cho ever admitted for inpatient psychological treatment?

The only way this even works is if there is some kind of recording of status. Unlike a criminal record, there aren't always records of someone's mental illness. Not all people with mental illness seek or receive treatment.

Unless we're going to embark on a massive mental measurement program and tag everyone, then all we really have to fall back on is the licensing requirements to weed out the truly crazy. And for some reason, I can see the first person denied a gun permit on psychological grounds suing the pants off the government and getting the ACLU to help.

11:08 AM, April 20, 2007  
Anonymous Sebastian said...

I started to make a comment, but it got so long I turned it into a post. The link is in my name if anyone wants to read. I generally support the NICS improvements, so it has more complete mental health records.

In Pennsylvania, we have our own instant check system called PICS, which does have more complete records, but VA relies on the national system, which is not quite as complete.

11:55 AM, April 20, 2007  
Blogger Purple Avenger said...

The Brady Bill allocated a significant amount of money for upgrading of state reporting systems in anticipation of the instant check process when it came online.

I would not be surprised to find out that the states spent the money on other stuff or never got it.

12:06 PM, April 20, 2007  
Blogger Kirk said...

"Can we really rely on someone like Cho marking 'yes' to form 4473 asking 'Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective or … committed to a mental institution?'"

I thought that the point of all those questions was to add perjury to the offense. If not--that is, if we really do take the answers at face value--what's the point of the instant background check?

12:19 PM, April 20, 2007  
Blogger Tom said...

Helen, what do you think about overreach? I expect it to be a problem for whatever is going to be proposed in the wake of this event.
Here in California, beyond prohibitions on court-adjudicated or ordered individuals, anyone admitted to a facility under a so-called "5150" order for a 72-hour assessment and evaluation hold is barred from purchasing a gun for at least 5 years, regardless of any legal outcome or the outcome of an evaluation. A 5150 order can be initiated by a police officer, mental health worker, or psychiatrist on the belief that a person is a danger to self or others or is unable to care for oneself. A lot of times, it happens to sweep up too many people: a lot of non-violent domestic disputes (saying someone threatened to kill themself or someone else is a great way to get them out of the house for awhile), or people who get into some sort of communication misunderstanding when dealing with the system.
What I'm expecting, unfortunately, in the wake of this event is some sort of massive overreaction either proposed or enacted, where people who have had any contact, even voluntary or self-initiated, with the system could get added to some sort of federal blacklist. That isn't going to encourage people who need help to seek it out.

12:22 PM, April 20, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...


I agree that we have a tendency to overreach in this society. Everything is either/or. If someone spanks a kid, it's child abuse, and on and on. We have to have more critical thought in this country and make decisions based on rationality and not stupidity or politics. Notice the politics of how hard or easy it is for certain people to get guns-- if there is threat etc. of domestic violence against a woman, a man loses his right to purchase a gun--even if he is accused unfairly. However, if someone stalks women, scares the crap out of university classes and is said to be an imminent danger to himself or others, then neither the courts nor the hospitals have a duty to report this because they might stigmitize the mentally ill. If a man is stigmitized as a domestic abuser, well surely he is guilty without much investigtion! It is one extreme to the other. We must look at the facts logically and think about what should legitimately constitute a reason to deny a person access to a weapon. Surely, we can do that without mass hysteria against the innocent. Or maybe I am being naive.

12:52 PM, April 20, 2007  
Anonymous Sebastian said...

I think, unfortunately, in this issue, it's very difficult to have a reasonable discussion. Not among individuals, but in the political space, as far as what would be appropriate public policy on the matter.

We have plenty of people on the pro-gun side who believe "shall not be infringed" means that no federal or state controls on possession of firearms are constitutional. I disagree with this notion, but the issue is full of absolutists.

On the anti-gun side, it's been pretty clear all along that their goal is to ban most firearms, particularly ones that are useful for self-defense. I have no doubt that many want to see all firearms banned. This precludes any reasonable debate on the issue, because the anti-gun side is always seeing every measure as a baby step towards the eventual goal of prohibition.

There are gun control laws that I am willing to accept and don't think are that infringing, but I generally won't say that in the political space because it emboldens the other side. I think there's quite a lot of us who would be more open to a reasonable discussion if the other side weren't pushing prohibition.

Of course, they claim to not be pushing it, but the fact is they have never met a gun control law, including the DC ban, that they didn't like. I don't think there's really much reasonable discussion to be had as long as that's the case.

1:17 PM, April 20, 2007  
Blogger Oligonicella said...

What percentage of the population do you have to be able to identify, Helen?

1:27 PM, April 20, 2007  
Blogger Tom said...

I say that Sebastian is right. We're in a "Mexican standoff" situation here. Principally, I don't think that many actors in this debate, especially on the gun-control side, have shown either honesty or good faith. The media continually and uncritically repeasts claims fed to them by the Bradys or VPC that "automatic weapons" are all over the place or other fictitious or distorted claims. The anti-gun crowd in their more candid moments openly claim that there is no second amendment right; and call anything up to the total ban in DC "reasonable and commonsense". Given this, there's little sense in compromise, and we always have to worry about what maybe the Hillary administration is going to do in a couple of years with whatever is done now.

Is there a solution? It would help if it was definitively established, say in a Supreme Court decision, that individuals indeed have a 2nd Amendment right. That would at least "disarm" (no pun intended) this issue and establish a principle that the anti-gunners couldn't dismiss, provide a legal basis for recourse for violations of that right, and then reframe the debate appropriately towards genuinely reasonable controls with fewer fears about the slippery slope or bootstrapping or misuse of such measures later. Ironically, if the 2nd Amendment was established definitively and clearly as an individual right, it would probably make establishing appropriate controls politically easier.

1:47 PM, April 20, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you very much. It seems to me, as I raised in my comment yesterday, that Cho's ability to acquire a handgun was a breakdown in the enforcement of existing gun laws.

2:03 PM, April 20, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...


I am not sure what you are asking. I think that the existing laws on the books for denial of a gun to those who are mentally ill to the point where a magistrate court ordered an evaluation and a subsequent mental health hospital said the person was an imminent threat to themselves should not be able to purchase a gun readily. Do you think they should?

2:12 PM, April 20, 2007  
Blogger Omaha1 said...

I am afraid that there will always be homicidal maniacs among us, some clever enough to evade diagnosis until they do something terrible. Cross-posted on Althouse, a tribute poem about the Virginia Tech massacre:

Now mingling with the peaceful flocks
All gentle bleats and snowy fleece
What nightmare beast among us stalks
Whose thirst for blood imperils peace
On sunny days, we watch the skies
For hawks, the harbingers of death
Sometimes, no shadow signifies
The advent of our final breath
And when the thinning veil of fate
Is ripped, like flesh by tooth and claw
Death's visage, recognized, too late
Consigns us to his grinning maw

3:03 PM, April 20, 2007  
Anonymous Bugs said...

Well, that should help people feel much better...

3:31 PM, April 20, 2007  
Blogger Omaha1 said...

I wasn't trying to make people feel better, just to make them realize the unpredictability of sudden death. Car accidents, heart attacks and strokes, are much more common of course, but you really never know when death will come for you, and you should keep that in mind as you go about your daily activities, and interact with your loved ones.

3:36 PM, April 20, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is not true:

---. It seems to me, as I raised in my comment yesterday, that Cho's ability to acquire a handgun was a breakdown in the enforcement of existing gun laws.

federal law says only if you were committed involuntarily as an inpatient for mental illness do you get on the list. Cho was not committed involuntarily.

if it's a breakdown, it's in how the law was written. However, I'm not so sure it was, in the sense that he was not an imminent threat. his threat manifested 18 months later. what were they supposed to see at the time to indicate he should not purchase a firearm? has a great thread on the legal aspects:

6:08 PM, April 20, 2007  
Anonymous TMink said...

When I was in training, a student came in for some help. It looked as if he was experiencing the onset of some schizophrenia, perhaps activated by his heavy usage of hallucinagens. He stopped using, went to student health for some meds, took them, did better, and dropped out of therapy.

6 months later he threw himself in front of a train in another town. All I knew is that he had been doing better, he had not expressed any dangerous thoughts or statements, and he had the right to stop treatment, he had the right to stop taking the meds that helped him too. While I am sorry he is gone, there was not much I could have done to stop him.

It is difficult to force someone into mental health treatment, it is impossible to make them work at getting better. We can put someone in the hospital for a few days, but we cannot keep them there.

It is tragic when that gentle young man died, it is tragic when a student becomes ill and kills people, but it is not necessarily preventable.

That is really sad, and a little scarry. But it is true.


6:54 PM, April 20, 2007  
Blogger Purple Avenger said...

federal law says only if you were committed involuntarily as an inpatient for mental illness do you get on the list.

This assertion is bogus. Read 27 CFR 478.32(a)(4)"Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution"

The people who draft this stuff are generally aware of the difference between the word "and" and "or".

9:05 PM, April 20, 2007  
Anonymous CaptDMO said...

If someone has been designated a mental defective (by gum'mint paid flunkies? We're ALL doomed!) OR lies in their "papers",they cannot leagally purchase a firearm.

So now, in the pursuit of self preservation, they find themselves
with an illegal firearm (or fork).

What's the finding for someone officially known to be mentally defective?

How many "conditions" have been invented in the name of a broader clientelle base since those dark "sanitariums" have gone out of business?

Yer honor, the accused needs to have ALL their assets, as well as ANY means to protect them, turned over to me due to what MAY have crossed the invisable line between ignoble and insane.

Don't worry, the gum'mint is there to help you! The court appointed mental health "industry" is your friend. You can tell me, it'll be our little secret, except if....

Sometimes, the idea of pop forensic psychology, with it's ominous ancestry, pales a Stephen King offering.

If it can be abused, they WILL come.

Ahem...present company excepted of course.

11:19 PM, April 20, 2007  
Anonymous CNS said...

I find a lot of this talk to be disturbing. I am bipolar, only diagnosed a couple years ago. Ten years ago, I was in college, and not far off from Cho. Violent, scaring my peers, accused of stalking, on antidepressants...oh and hating all human life.

Today? I have a job, productive member of society etc. In between...things happened. But few now would consider me a threat, though there are those that would still not be surprised if I "snapped". But thanks to supportive parents, a supportive community at college, all that, I am not a blood-soaked mass murderer.

I am just another member of society.

BUT there are those who would suck away my rights just because I am "unstable" (no hospitalizations...yet) and a potential danger. This just torques me off. Can I not own a firearm to defend myself? Do I need to buy a sword? (OK so I already have one...) What about my fiancee? Can SHE not own a gun because of me? (OK so she's psychotic and periodically asks me to hide the knives, but no one else knows that)

Point? You can never tell. It's a crapshoot. Either let us all have the same rights or take them all away. Remember: if I want to get a gun and go on a spree, I will, whatever laws are in place.

Of course I have zero intention of doing so. But it galls me just having to make that disclaimer.

1:47 AM, April 21, 2007  
Blogger J. Peden said...

Apparently like some others here, I'm not sure what people - or a gun control law - means by "mentally ill".

Specifically, if you are "on or have ever been" on anti-depressants, are you "mentally ill"? If so, then 10's of millions of people are mentally ill.

And are they then going to - surprise, surprise - be prohibited from buying a gun?

Now that would be convenient for gun controllists, wouldn't it?

Or, say, if you know you are depressed and voluntarily commit yourself to treatment, or if someone fills out the involuntary commitment forms just to be sure you don't suddenly leave the facility, is your commitment action reportable under gun control law?

Even involutary commitment for a hold period is really only a formality, but one which [I assume] a court has to sign off on - and automatically. The Judge involved cannot really *not* sign the commitment order. And at this stage the Judge never even actually sees you.

But is this commitment a reportable "court finding" under gun control law? If so, then the problem is that the process is not really a "hearing", contrary to what seems to be implied. You haven't even been evaluated yet. The Judge merely signs a paper which prevents you from leaving the facility - which is often only a regular hospital - for, say 1-3 days. After that, there has to be an actual hearing for any continued confinement to occur. But if you are "well" enough to not need further confinement, there is still no hearing.

There has been some intimation that Cho was depressed and was on anti-depressants. So far, I don't think Cho's problem was depression, though he might have been a "danger to himself" in 2005, when what I suspect was his real problem - paranoid schizophrenia - was starting to really overtake him, at which point he would possibly have been very frightened and confused to the point of thinking suicidally. But this itself would *not* be depression.

So does anyone know what medication Cho was on?

What I'm really trying to get to is that if Cho's condition is incorrectly laid to depression, a lot of people are not going to be able to purchase guns, once the gun-control lobby gets frenzied and the politicians must "do something".

Not to mention that some moron named Kennedy - not Teddy - has been on Fox News claiming that the *medications used to treat depression* can often cause action such as Cho's. I'm pretty sure that this is b.s., but this idea is nevertheless getting spread to the public so as to stigmatize not only the disease of depresson, but also the treatment itself.

So politically, a lot of people might just now be being set up to lose their gun rights.

If Cho was on an antipsychotic, not an antidepressant, the gun controllists might be thwarted in using Cho's case to further their obsession to disarm us.

Again, anyone know what med. Cho was on?

And are you people, myself included, who "are or have ever been on" anti-depressants mentally ill enough to think your gun rights should be taken away?

3:24 AM, April 21, 2007  
Blogger br549 said...

It is my belief Cho had a hell of a lot more going on than just depression.

7:48 AM, April 21, 2007  
Anonymous TMink said...

j. peden, that is an interesting can of worms. Thanks for opening it for us.


9:30 AM, April 21, 2007  
Blogger Purple Avenger said...

The mental illness section has been part of Federal Law since the Gun Control Act of 1968

Being almost 40 years on the books now, one would think some examples of abusive findings by courts exist somewhere if all these dire scenarios are being actualized.

I would like to see the govt abuse paranoia proponents produce a few of these examples. Actually, I'd be satisfied by production of a single such example.

10:56 AM, April 21, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

cho had autism according to his mom:

1:54 PM, April 21, 2007  
Blogger Purple Avenger said...

Yea, autism is certainly a good rationalization for a mass murder.

4:40 PM, April 21, 2007  
Blogger jkline said...

Helen Wrote:

I am not sure what you are asking. I think that the existing laws on the books for denial of a gun to those who are mentally ill to the point where a magistrate court ordered an evaluation and a subsequent mental health hospital said the person was an imminent threat to themselves should not be able to purchase a gun readily. Do you think they should?

The issue with the Judicial decree committing him to the hospital and finding him a danger is that it depends on how the state manages these types of commitments.

In MO a Judge can commit you ex parte (not present) for up to 96 hours. The evidence need not come anywhere close to beyond a reasonable doubt, it may not even be by the preponderance of the evidence. IOW someone's liberty can be limited for at least 96 hours, which is bad enough. To go beyond the 96 hours requires a hearing where they have representation and the burden increases to preponderance of the evidence.

Also, MO law was loosened for commitments so that imminent harm was no longer a necessity. There has to be a risk of "substantial harm" but the statute allows historical data to be used to determine this:

Evidence of substantial risk may also include information about patterns of behavior that historically have resulted in serious harm previously being inflicted by a person upon himself

This makes being Committed in some jurisdictions very easy.

Civil commitment for up to 96 hours is bad enough, but taking other constitutionally guaranteed rights based on an ex parte decision is scary. MO is even more complex in that certain non-judicial entities can commit for 96 hours without juridical review.

There may be work-arounds, but I am not comfortable with this. I worked in a state facility and saw a lot of committed folks that were released within a few hours due to bad decisions based on bad data.

This does not even touch on how bad psychology and psychiatry are at predicting violence in individuals without clear histories of violence (like multiple felony arrests, etc).

I need to pull out my copy of the VRAG (Violence Risk Appraisal Guide) and see if there are factors that Cho scores high on (recognizing that my data sucks). Since the VRAG and other violence risk appraisal tools almost always rely heavily on static factors I am thinking that he would not be scored high. These are generally the best predictive tools we have. I just don't see how we are going to be able in mental health to step up and decide these issues well.


10:50 AM, April 22, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...


Thanks for the information. However, one concern I have is that the papers I have seen say that Cho was an imminent danger to himself. Yet, he was released. On the form from the magistrate, it indicated that he denied suicidal ideation or psychotic thinking. But as we as psychologists know, we cannot always take a patient's word for their condition and allow that to stand as a reason for release etc. Did the psychologist at St.Albans do any testing? Testing might have given more insight into his condition. As you say, psychologists and psychiatrists often have bad data. The bad data may be their own fault or it may not be.

Targeted violence is certainly hard to predict and the VRAG often is not that effective at determining targeted violence. There are questions about this young man's behavior that might have been able to be answered had a more thorough evaluation been done--in addition, no one has ever mentioned if Cho went to his outpatient treatment that was ordered for him. Did anyone follow up on this? Did the therapist he saw feel he was fine? Someone was prescribing him medication--what for and based on what, an interview? Do you think a thorough evaluation of Cho with projective and objective testing would have turned up nothing? For most people who are suicidal have psychopathology present. There are many concerns. Perhaps we in mental health cannot decide these issues well, but I think that we can do a better job then we have been doing.

In my career, I have seen many patients sent to the local mental health center only to be released in a matter of days or so. Even those teens and adults who were suicidal or worse. I have seen mental health evaluations that were negligent in that they relied on patient report rather than testing and third party information to determine more about patients who are potentially dangerous. The system can do better.

11:15 AM, April 22, 2007  
Blogger GeorgeH said...

One reason Judges and Medical people are loathe to report things to the Federal Database is that there is no working method of appeal. Once you go on the list, you are on it forever. Never mind that it was a severe case of situational depression that passed with time, or maybe just a Psychiatrist having a bad day, the victim is stuck.
Theoretically there are mechanisms for appealing and getting removed from the list, but Congress has consistently refused to fund them, so they are dead letters.

1:10 PM, April 22, 2007  
Blogger Allison said...

Read 27 CFR 478.32(a)(4)"Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution"

The people who draft this stuff are generally aware of the difference between the word "and" and "or".

And you are apparently unaware of the definition of commitment. Someone who is told they will be 5150'd if they don't walk into an inpatient facility and sign up for 15 days or until their insurance runs out, who then does just that, *isn't* committed and isn't adjudicated./

5:34 PM, April 23, 2007  
Blogger look said...


6:40 AM, March 15, 2009  
Blogger selina said...


9:16 AM, March 16, 2009  
Blogger mmbox said...

本土成人貼圖站大台灣情色網台灣男人幫論壇A圖網嘟嘟成人電影網火辣春夢貼圖網情色貼圖俱樂部台灣成人電影絲襪美腿樂園18美女貼圖區柔情聊天網707網愛聊天室聯盟台北69色情貼圖區38女孩情色網台灣映像館波波成人情色網站美女成人貼圖區無碼貼圖力量色妹妹性愛貼圖區日本女優貼圖網日本美少女貼圖區亞洲風暴情色貼圖網哈啦聊天室美少女自拍貼圖辣妹成人情色網台北女孩情色網辣手貼圖情色網AV無碼女優影片男女情色寫真貼圖a片天使俱樂部萍水相逢遊戲區平水相逢遊戲區免費視訊交友90739免費視訊聊天辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網080視訊聊天室日本美女肛交美女工廠貼圖區百分百貼圖區亞洲成人電影情色網台灣本土自拍貼圖網麻辣貼圖情色網好色客成人圖片貼圖區711成人AV貼圖區台灣美女貼圖區筱萱成人論壇咪咪情色貼圖區momokoko同學會視訊kk272視訊情色文學小站成人情色貼圖區嘟嘟成人網嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區免費色情a片下載台灣情色論壇成人影片分享免費視訊聊天區微風 成人 論壇kiss文學區taiwankiss文學區

8:47 AM, March 22, 2009  
Blogger mmbox said...

2008真情寫真aa片免費看捷克論壇微風論壇大眾論壇plus論壇080視訊聊天室情色視訊交友90739美女交友-成人聊天室色情小說做愛成人圖片區豆豆色情聊天室080豆豆聊天室 小辣妹影音交友網台中情人聊天室桃園星願聊天室高雄網友聊天室新中台灣聊天室中部網友聊天室嘉義之光聊天室基隆海岸聊天室中壢網友聊天室南台灣聊天室南部聊坊聊天室台南不夜城聊天室南部網友聊天室屏東網友聊天室台南網友聊天室屏東聊坊聊天室雲林網友聊天室大學生BBS聊天室網路學院聊天室屏東夜語聊天室孤男寡女聊天室一網情深聊天室心靈饗宴聊天室流星花園聊天室食色男女色情聊天室真愛宣言交友聊天室情人皇朝聊天室上班族成人聊天室上班族f1影音視訊聊天室哈雷視訊聊天室080影音視訊聊天室38不夜城聊天室援交聊天室080080哈啦聊天室台北已婚聊天室已婚廣場聊天室 夢幻家族聊天室摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室520情色聊天室QQ成人交友聊天室免費視訊網愛聊天室愛情公寓免費聊天室拉子性愛聊天室柔情網友聊天室哈啦影音交友網哈啦影音視訊聊天室櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集123上班族聊天室尋夢園上班族聊天室成人聊天室上班族080上班族聊天室6k聊天室粉紅豆豆聊天室080豆豆聊天網新豆豆聊天室080聊天室免費音樂試聽流行音樂試聽免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看色情貼影片免費a長片

8:47 AM, March 22, 2009  
Blogger nini said...

85cc免費影城 愛情公寓正妹牆川藏第一美女 成人影片 情色交友網 美女視訊 美女視訊 視訊情人高雄網 JP成人影城 383成人影城 aa片免費a片下載 a片線上看aa片免費看 ※a片線上試看※sex520免費影片※ aa片免費看 BT成人論壇 金瓶影片交流區 自拍美女聊天室 aa片免費a片下載 SEX520免費影片 免費a片 日本美女寫真集 sex520aa免費影片 sex520aa免費影片 BT成人網 Hotsee免費視訊交友 百分百貼影片區 SEX520免費影片 免費視訊聊天室 情人視訊高雄網 星光情色討論版 正妹牆 383成人影城 線上85cc免費影城 85cc免費影城 85cc免費影城 85cc免費影城 ※免費視訊聊天室※ ※免費視訊聊天室※ 免費視訊聊天室 85cc免費影片 85cc免費影片 080苗栗人聊天室 080苗栗人聊天室 080中部人聊天室 080中部人聊天室 免費a片下載 免費a片 AA片免費看 aa片免費看 aa片免費看 aa片免費看 aa片免費看 日本av女優影片 av女優 av女優無碼影城 av女優 av女優 百分百成人圖片 百分百成人圖片 視訊情人高雄網 電話交友 影音電話交友 絕色影城 絕色影城 夜未眠成人影城 夜未眠成人影城 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 免費色咪咪貼影片 免費色咪咪貼影片 色情遊戲 色情遊戲 色情遊戲 色情遊戲 影音視訊交友網 視訊交友網 080視訊聊天室 ※免費視訊聊天室※ ※免費視訊聊天室※ 視訊聊天室 成人影音視訊聊天室 ut影音視訊聊天室 ※免費視訊聊天室※ 視訊ukiss聊天室視訊ukiss聊天室 視訊交友90739 視訊交友90739 情人視訊網 168視訊美女 168視訊美女 168視訊美女 視訊美女館 視訊美女館 免費視訊美女網 小高聊天室 小高聊天室 aio交友聊天室 aio交友聊天室 交友聊天室 交友聊天室 線上a片 線上a片 線上a片 線上a片 線上a片 免費線上a片 免費線上a片 嘟嘟成人網站 成人漫畫 情色文學 嘟嘟成人網 成人貼圖區 情色文學成人小說 微風成人區 情色貼圖區 免費視訊聊天 免費成人圖片區 愛情公寓 愛情公寓聊天室 寄情築園小遊戲 免費aa片線上看 aa片免費看 情色SXE聊天室 SEX情色遊戲 色情A片 免費下載 av女優 俱樂部 情色論壇 辣妹視訊 情色貼圖網 免費色情 聊天室 情人視訊聊天室 免費a片成人影城 免費a片-aa片免費看 0204貼圖區 SEX情色 交友聊天-線上免費 女優天堂 成人交友網 成人情色貼圖區 18禁 -女優王國 080視訊美女聊天室 080視訊聊天室 視訊交友90739 免費a片 aio 視訊交友網 成人影城-免費a片※免費視訊聊天※85cc免費影片日本線上免費a片 免費色咪咪影片免費色咪咪影片aaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看成人影城免費色咪咪影片

4:11 PM, April 05, 2009  
Blogger 天天看正妹 said...

免費視訊聊天 ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 吉澤明步QQ美女視訊秀 85cc免費影片aa影片下載城sex免費成人影片aaa片免費看短片美女視訊 sex383線上娛樂場av969 免費短片日本免費視訊aa影片下載城視訊網愛聊天室影音視訊交友 咆哮小老鼠分享論壇sex520免費影片aa免費影片下載城aio辣妺視訊 aio辣妹交友愛情館 jp成人影片aio交友愛情館馬子免費影片免費線上a片18成人85cc影城0204movie免費色咪咪視訊網pc交友s383視訊玩美女人34c高雄視訊聊天jp成人免費視訊辣妹 kk777視訊俱樂部xxxpandalive173影音視訊聊天室 sex520-卡通影片成人免費視訊 完美女人13060 免費視訊聊天sexy girl video movie辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室UT視訊美女交友視訊情色網百事無碼a片dvd線上aa片免費看18禁成人網ut聊天室kk俱樂部視訊激情網愛聊天 情人小魔女自拍卡通aa片免費看夜未眠成人影城aio性愛dvd辣妹影片直播拓網視訊交友視訊聊天室ggoo168論壇視訊辣妹love104影音live秀 美女show-live視訊情色yam交友辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室s383情色大網咖視訊aaa俱樂部台灣情色網無碼avdvdsexy diamond sex888入口Show-live視訊聊天室

9:20 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger 天天看正妹 said...

免費 a 片aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部dodo豆豆聊天室sex520網路自拍美女聊天室天堂免費線上avdvd援交av080影片aa影片下載城aaa片免費看短片成人圖片區18成人avooogo2av免費影片sexdiy影城免費線上成人影片bonbonsex0951影片下載日本av女優sex888免費看影片免費視訊78論壇辣妹有約辣妹no31314視訊dudu sex免費影片avdvd情色影片免費色咪咪影片網av080免費試看日本美女寫真集辣妹脫衣麻將視訊聊天室性福免費影片分享日本美女寫真集,kk視訊aio交友愛情館免費成人美女視訊bt論壇色情自拍免費a片卡通tw 18 net卡通18美少女圖色情漫畫777美女小護士免費 aa 片試看百分百成人情色圖片a片免費觀賞sexy girls get fuckedsexy girl video movie情色文學成人小說sex888免費看eyny 伊莉論壇sexdiy影城自拍情色0204movie免費影片aio免費aa片試看s383情色大網咖sexy girl video movie草莓牛奶AV論壇台灣論壇18禁遊戲區環球辣妹聊天室 90691拓網aio交友愛情館拓網學生族視訊777美女 sex888影片分享區hi5 tv免費影片aa的滿18歲卡通影片sex383線上娛樂場sexdiy影城免費a片線上觀看真人美女辣妹鋼管脫衣秀比基尼辣妹一夜情視訊aio交友愛情館

9:20 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger 天天看正妹 said...

小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520視訊聊天室v6 0plus論壇sex520免費影片avdvd-情色網qq美美色網ut13077視訊聊天A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道aaa免費看影片免費視訊聊天室微風成人免費視訊聊天 ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂免費 a 片85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費A片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片後宮0204movie免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費A片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aaaa片免費看影片免費視訊78論壇情色偷拍免費A片免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片aa影片下載城色漫畫帝國av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費線上歐美A片觀看免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片

9:20 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger 徵信 said...

外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇

外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇

外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇

外遇 外遇

外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿喜帖囍帖卡片外遇外遇 外遇 外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇剖析 外遇調查 外遇案例 外遇諮詢 偷情 第三者外遇話題 外遇發洩 感情挽回 徵信社 外遇心態 外遇 通姦 通姦罪 外遇徵信社徵信社外遇 外遇 抓姦徵信協會徵信公司 包二奶 徵信社 徵信 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信 徵信 婚姻 婚前徵信 前科 個人資料 外遇 第三者 徵信社 偵探社 抓姦 偵探社 偵探社婚 偵探社 偵探社偵探家事服務家事服務家電維修家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務持久持久持久持久持久持久持久離婚網頁設計徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社外遇離婚協議書劈腿持久持久持久持久持久劈腿剖析徵信徵信社外遇外遇外遇外遇徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信公會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信公會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿

2:22 AM, April 21, 2009  
Blogger 1314 said...

視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................

11:10 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger 1122 said...

85cc免費影城85cc免費影城sex520免費影片sex520免費影片辣美眉173show影片辣美眉173show影片辣妺視訊辣妺視訊正妹牆正妹牆正妹視訊gogo正妹視訊gogo視訊美女視訊美女av080 toav080 to視訊交友視訊交友一葉晴貼影片區一葉晴貼影片區免費av18禁影片免費av18禁影片gogogirl 視訊美女gogogirl 視訊美女

2:31 AM, June 08, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home