PDA

View Full Version : [b]Sac Valley Shooting Center Bans CA DOJ from using range[/b]


Pthfndr
06-05-2005, 3:32 PM
The Folsom Shooting Club, owners/operators of the Sacramento Valley Shooting Center - arguably the premier shooting facility in Norcal if not the state - www.sacvalley.org/ (http://www.sacvalley.org/) a club I am a member of, has decided to no no longer allow the CA DOJ to use it's facility for practice and training due to their support of gungrabbers. Our range relies on law enforcement agencies, mainly the California Dept of Corrections, for a large part of our revenue. So this is no small thing to do.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v47/Pthfndr/FSCLetter.jpg

RRangel
06-05-2005, 3:38 PM
Excellent. This is what needs to happen. I hope more organizations and businesses flat out reject and refuse to do business with those that support the infringement on our rights.

imported_FW10ring
06-05-2005, 4:15 PM
Superb! Thanks for sharing that!!

dave3006
06-05-2005, 4:23 PM
Every gunstore, gun manufacturer, equipment supplier, and range should boycott all law enforcement sales and support.

It is us and them. We need to put pressure (legal/non violent) on every agency and officer until they beg us to do business with them.

We have the power. But, we don't use it. Pathetic.

dave3006
06-05-2005, 4:25 PM
The begging will only be listened to after the second ammendment is restored in California.

schizrade
06-05-2005, 4:34 PM
Alright!!! That will get some attention.

tkimerer@aol.com
06-05-2005, 5:29 PM
Simply Outstanding http://www.calguns.net/bow.gif I applaud Sac valleys efforts and it makes me very proud to be a member. If more companies would make this stand and simply say "if you're going to make it hard for the public to own firearms then we aren't going to assist you in arming yourself against them" maybe the balance would shift.

Ducati748r
06-05-2005, 5:32 PM
Excellent!!! http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Now that's what I'm talking about!!!

bg
06-05-2005, 7:14 PM
Yes Sir ! Now that's what I call showing some rocks !

Dave S
06-05-2005, 8:17 PM
As a non-resident of California, I'm delighted to see a group with enough rocks to stand up and tell the crooked politico's of our Nation to go blow!!!

I hope that it's OK, but I downloaded the image of this letter to my website and posted it in the "Unpopular Speech" section. If this isn't desired, please email me at dave at davestopher dot com.

Keep fighting the good fight!

A shooter in Illinois,

Dave

MrTenX
06-05-2005, 8:26 PM
Some folks with balls going on the offensive.
OUTSTANDING!!!!

C.G.
06-05-2005, 8:44 PM
Good on them! http://www.calguns.net/marines.gif

ligamentum flavum
06-05-2005, 11:22 PM
Simply awesome. I wonder if there will be a reply from those who received the letters. First Barrett Rifles and now SVSC. I hope this is only the beginning and that more companies follow suit!

dave3006
06-06-2005, 5:15 AM
Mrtenx, just to be clear, this action should not be considered "going on the offensive". We are simply at this point weakly saying "stop" in the middle of our collective rape as gunowners. It is a small DEFENSIVE measure.

Gunowners have never been on the offensive in this state. That would take leadership which we don't have.

(blocking a punch is not offense)

shooterx10
06-06-2005, 9:14 AM
About FREAKIN' time!!!! http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Please post this up on other gun club's forums and other internet pro-gun forums such as thehighroad.org!

06-06-2005, 10:51 AM
Outstanding. Well written as well.

jnojr
06-06-2005, 11:36 AM
Did the DOJ ever use this range, officially? I think this is a fantastic gesture, but it's probably an empty, meaningless one.

Even if they did use this range, they'll use this as an excuse to take tax dollars to build themselves a no-public-allowed range for themselves.

Silverback
06-06-2005, 12:09 PM
I like the idea! I'm going to join and I don't care if I ever use their range. I'm going to support their actions with my money!

Drjones
06-06-2005, 8:41 PM
Awesome!!!!

Don't forget to write letters and make phone calls of support to the range!!!

They need to know that they are not alone!!!

Scatch Maroo
06-07-2005, 1:49 AM
I have written both US Optics (Buena Park), as well as Tactical Operations, Inc. (Beverly Hills) and notified them of the Folsom Shooting Club's decision and asked if they had any intent on boycotting the DOJ or LE agencies in a sign of support of their fellow community members. I suggest everyone else take a minute and do the same.

Also, can anyone think of any other manufacturers in California?

Scatch Maroo

Ford8N
06-07-2005, 6:15 AM
Good, but I have to ask. Why didn't they do this when they started banning pistol grips in '89? http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

shooterx10
06-07-2005, 9:38 AM
I have written both US Optics (Buena Park), as well as Tactical Operations, Inc. (Beverly Hills) and notified them of the Folsom Shooting Club's decision and asked if they had any intent on boycotting the DOJ or LE agencies in a sign of support of their fellow community members. I suggest everyone else take a minute and do the same.

Also, can anyone think of any other manufacturers in California?


Bar-Sto Precision and EDM Arms are in So Cal.

We should ask our respective gun clubs to BAN ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT (not just the CA DOJ) from using their ranges as a training ground or for their pistol qualifications. We'll see how far that goes... http://www.calguns.net/banghead.gif I wonder how much revenue comes in from range rental by LEOs.

dave3006
06-07-2005, 12:30 PM
I have a better idea. Have all gun related business stop all services or sales to ANY government employee. They all get their paycheck from the same government that is stealing our rights.

Then, have all gun owners boycott any business that does not comply.

(kind of like "Unintended Consequences" without the violence).

jwissick
06-08-2005, 1:14 PM
The Brady bunch is watching this thread....

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=48548

kemasa
06-08-2005, 2:00 PM
It is not just a matter of involving government organizations, but all firearms owners. I disagree with blanket bans of all government employees since many do not support these bad things and it would only serve to alienate and divide the pro(choice)-firearm side. Banning government employees while working or in an official capacity is a good idea if their departments support the anti-gun efforts.

I am a FFL and a while back I decided to change the fees that I charge, specifically I now charge the person more if they are not a member of a gun rights organization, any organization will do since some people don't like some due to politics.

If more businesses were to do this, then perhaps the people would be more informed and there would be more resources to fight cases like this.

It is funny in the article that the anti-gun types are annoyed, even to the point of claiming that this type of action is un-American and protecting the criminals, whereas the opposite is really true, so it must be getting to them. The fact is this action is VERY American, the freedom to choose and to express your opinion. This type of action also serves to protect citizens by allowing them to choose if they want to have a firearm for protection. The anti-gun crowd is the biggest protector of criminals as they create a safe working environment by taking away firearms from the law abiding citizens (aka victims).

chickenfried
06-08-2005, 2:12 PM
I would love to see the Sacramento Valley Shooting Center's reply to the Brady Bunch.

I'm probably going to donate some money or buy something from SVSC. That's pretty hard for a cheap skate like me. If only they were a bit closer I could justify a membership.

ligamentum flavum
06-08-2005, 2:13 PM
Wow, I've never read an article from a "news source" that was so one-sided.

For those who are here because of the reference link in the US Newswire article, please understand the following. The article does not explain that having serialized ammunition will open up a huge black market of unserialized ammo. If people think unserialized ammunition can be controlled, let me remind you of how "easy" it is to control illegal street drugs in the US.

The article also did not address the possibility of someone taking someone else's used and "microstamped" cartridge cases from a shooting range to be left at a crime scene to "throw off" investigating officers. Or, criminals can just use revolvers, which do not eject their used cartridge cases. Furthermore, police departments throughout California will need substantially higher budgets to pay for the much more expensive serialized ammunition. I do not believe it is necessary for me to overtly remind the readers of who funds our local police departments. Lastly, where will funding for the database to track and log all the millions of rounds of ammunition come from?
We lawful gun enthusiasts would love to reduce crime and gun violence as well, that is why we abide by the laws in this state. However, we strongly believe these laws will definitely cause more harm than good.

shooterx10
06-08-2005, 2:38 PM
Of course, these two bills have NOTHING to do with fighting crime, but is basically a backdoor ban on firearms ownership. That is right, it will NOT stop there. The gun grabbing idiots already started with "assault weapons," next will be bolt-action "sniper rifles" and then "big bore" shotguns.

If the gun-grabbing idiots want a particular class of gun banned, all they have to do is put a label it that will cause fear. Labels such as a "terrorist's gun of choice" ala .50BMG rifle or a "gangbanger's gun of choice" come to mind. The latter bull***** is probably what spurned the AW bans in 1989 and 1994.

Also, I've seen this Brady Bunch article on other Internet groups! Can someone forward this to Keepandbeararms.com?

I wonder if Cam Edwards of NRAnews.com got wind of this yet? I emailed him at his website: http://www.camedwards.com but no response.

Spread the word!

RRangel
06-08-2005, 9:42 PM
Well you know one thing? The fact that the Folsom Shooting Club has done this is a very good thing. The press release from the brady bunch has given us some insight into why an organization that is obvioulsy biased against gun ownership would even comment on it.

I think it works. I had my doubts, but now I know that the idea of boycotting those who support victim disarming state governments should be stepped up.

This is part of the news release:

As the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, working with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters, is devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities

Sure thing. Our betters want us safe even if it kills us. They must be terrified of this boycott thing.

shooterx10
06-08-2005, 11:20 PM
Look here, this made it to the KeepAndBearArms.com website: http://keepandbeararms.com/news/nl/read_comments.asp?nl...40&tmpD=6%2F9%2F2005 (http://keepandbeararms.com/news/nl/read_comments.asp?nl=10838115200440&tmpD=6%2F9%2F2 005)

What other gun forums has this story/article not been posted?

Turbinator
06-09-2005, 8:53 AM
Originally posted by Jim Diver:
The Brady bunch is watching this thread....

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=48548

On a related topic, how do we all feel about having anti's amist our forum? I am sure they either browse as guests or are registered users.

Turby

trempel_ry@yahoo.com
06-09-2005, 1:26 PM
What other gun forums has this story/article not been posted?
I posted a link to this thread and the mentioned article on SIGforum.
On a related topic, how do we all feel about having anti's amist our forum? I am sure they either browse as guests or are registered users.
Let them browse.

delloro
06-09-2005, 3:45 PM
Ops Inc
O.P. Seberger Jr.
Owner

P.O. Box 377
Shingletown, CA 96088

Fax: (530)474-3779
E-Mail: opsinc@c-zone.net

icormba
06-09-2005, 8:25 PM
I find this quote so ironically hypocritical in ohhh so many ways:

"What's next - should police who support sensible gun laws have their firearms taken away? This is un-American, and these guys ought to have their heads examined," said Jim Brady, chair of the Brady Campaign."


Adding "un-American" to the mix just leaves me speechless!

by the way... I would trust Bill, delloro, Ramon the Admin, shooterx10 & a lot of you others that I've never met in person with guns before I'd trust those 13 L.A. County Sheriffs who shot-up Compton the other day! And my feelings on that subject are still a bit mixed.

Stevil
06-09-2005, 10:31 PM
An interesting move not without risk BUT here in California I think a brave, bold and necessary one.

Things seem to be coming to an impasse regarding responsible and reasonable firearms legislation.

This State Legislature has transcended their remit and I think its beholden of us all to start taking a more aggressive stance (such as Sac Valley) as we have little hope of retaining our basic human rights in the corrupt Legislature.

It would be great to see other ranges and clubs extending this cession along with suppliers, and even manufacturers. Maybe we could extend it to all Law Enforcement Officers outside and including the DOJ whilst on-duty, perhaps that would be a large enough signal to the corrupt Legislature and Government apparatus to suspend their Un-American assault on our freedoms and liberty. Desperate times unfortunately oft call for desperate measures.

As for the Brady bunch, I welcome their involvement in this board BUT I doubt many of them could conjure a coherent argument or sustain a factual intelligent discourse for very long, you can only beguile reality for so long before it catches up with you.

delloro
06-10-2005, 7:42 AM
Ronnie Barrett did something very similar when he quit selling his guns to CA law enforcement agencies. I am still very much in awe of his personal committment to principle.

Army
06-10-2005, 8:53 AM
Originally posted by delloro:
Ronnie Barrett did something very similar when he quit selling his guns to CA law enforcement agencies. I am still very much in awe of his personal committment to principle.

Which is so ironic for me.

My #1 dream for when I came home from Iraq, was to purchase my own M107. I was one of 12 Designated Marksmen detailed for the security team at LSA Anaconda. My weapon of choice...the M107 .50 rifle built by Barrett. More than a few rounds were fired into the "bad ville" 1.5k outside the main gate.

But my Commander in Chief, the Governor of California, lied to me and signed new anti-gun (anti-freedom) legislation concerning the ownership of .50 BMG firearms. My dream of playing with, and owning the finest .50 out there, was pooped on. I am mad as hell to be lumped into the same catagory as terrorists and other criminals.

So...HOOAH to the Sac Valley Shooting Center for standing on freedoms principles!

Bruce
06-10-2005, 9:41 AM
Originally posted by icormba:
I find this quote so ironically hypocritical in ohhh so many ways:

"What's next - should police who support sensible gun laws have their firearms taken away? This is un-American, and these guys ought to have their heads examined," said Jim Brady, chair of the Brady Campaign."


Adding "un-American" to the mix just leaves me speechless!

by the way... I would trust Bill, delloro, Ramon the Admin, shooterx10 & a lot of you others that I've never met in person with guns before I'd trust those 13 L.A. County Sheriffs who shot-up Compton the other day! And my feelings on that subject are still a bit mixed.

Hypocritical too. Their next target after the populace is law enforcement. They have only grudgingly provided exemptions to LEO's so they could get endorsements from the agencies. The goal is to have off duty cops unarmed as well.

686+
06-10-2005, 2:17 PM
Quote from the brady campaign:
"What's next - should police who support sensible gun laws have their firearms taken away? This is un-American, and these guys ought to have their heads examined," said Jim Brady, chair of the Brady Campaign.

It amazes me that calling this clubs freedom of chooice with whom they will do business with is called un-American by this organization. That is the key freedom that I love in this nation. Actually it ticks me off!

O.K. I am nowhere near Sacramento, but I am making a CHOICE to call them and get a membership there.

All of you, call and become members. Lets double their 1000 members capacity.

dwtt
06-10-2005, 5:21 PM
Originally posted by Admin:

I think it works. I had my doubts, but now I know that the idea of boycotting those who support victim disarming state governments should be stepped up.


I was at the Cow Palace gun show in Feb handing out flyers opposing the handgun ban in SF, and I thought about one action I would take if the ban were to pass. I would take out an ad in Shotgun News and ask every manufacturer, distributor, dealer, and wholesaler in the US to only sell to the city of San Francisco guns, ammunition, and magazines legal for sale to regular citizens. Now it seems that ad might be for the entire state of California. I envisioned this ad to be like Serbu's ad in SGN after AB50 was signed by Ahrnold. Then I got a dose of reality when I found out it would cost ~$700 for a half page ad. I might still run the ad, but I'll have to see how SB357 and AB352 plays out. If we can get out of state distributors, dealers, and manufacturers to realize how much the gun control crowd has destroyed the 2nd amendment here in CA and that the rest of the country is next, maybe they would be willing to give up some short-term sales profits for long-term gains in protecting our rights. Not only here in CA but in the entire country.

ligamentum flavum
06-11-2005, 12:00 AM
An article from the Sacramento Bee I c&p'd from sigforum. Much better written and much less biased than that piece-of-feces "news" article from US Newswire.

Shooting range shut to Lockyer staff
Gun club says it's banning on-duty Justice officers as a protest against two bills.
By Kevin Yamamura -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 2:15 am PDT Thursday, June 9, 2005
Local gun club members have banned on-duty state Justice Department officers from their popular Sacramento-area shooting range in a symbolic stand against Attorney General Bill Lockyer's pursuit of legislation they oppose.
Lockyer's office fired back Wednesday by calling the impact minimal because most, if not all, of its Sacramento-based officers did not use the range on duty in the past year.

The Folsom Shooting Club, which runs the Sacramento Valley Shooting Center in Sloughhouse, last week sent the Democratic attorney general a letter describing the ban and the group's opposition to two bills designed to trace bullets or cartridges back to a shooter.

The club is opposed to Senate Bill 357 by Sen. Joe Dunn, D-Santa Ana, which would require handgun bullets in California to have a serial number, and Assembly Bill 352 by Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, which would require semiautomatic guns to stamp cartridges upon firing.

Club President Thomas Hause wrote to Lockyer that the organization "is concerned that your staff will further your efforts regarding AB 352 and SB 357 while using our facility." According to the letter, the Folsom club has roughly 1,000 members and its range sits on more than 880 acres.

The Justice Department's 500 sworn officers, like other local, state and federal law enforcement agencies, are required to meet state firing standards four times a year. The department's 100 Sacramento-based officials use local shooting ranges based on convenience and availability, said Nathan Barankin, a Lockyer spokesman. He said he was able to determine Wednesday that at least 80 of those agents did not use the Sloughhouse range in the past year because it was too expensive.

But Ed Vernon, vice president of the Folsom Shooting Club, said various law enforcement agencies, including the Justice Department, use the club's range each week.

"We just felt we had to take a stand," Vernon said. "It was a statement we wanted to make as a board. Personally, I would like to see gun owners and shooters in California take more of an interest in what's going on."

Vernon said Justice Department officials are free to use the range off duty. Sacramento Police Chief Albert Nájera and Sacramento County Sheriff Lou Blanas also support SB 357, but Vernon said his club is targeting only Lockyer's department because the attorney general has been principally involved in crafting the legislation.

The Folsom Shooting Club has focused most of its opposition on SB 357, which would require bullet manufacturers to place serial numbers on handgun ammunition starting in July 2007.

Vernon said he believes the bill would discourage ammunition companies from selling bullets in California due to high production costs and force law-abiding gun owners to dump whatever ammunition they already own.

"I'm a (bullet) reloader and a competitive shooter, and if ammunition and components aren't available in California, my hobby is gone," Vernon said.

He added that the club's stand has received support from other gun owners throughout the state.

Groups supporting the bills criticized the club for penalizing Lockyer's office for his political views.

"We're not questioning their right to do this, but who's next?" said Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "If some of their members say, 'We've looked at this and this doesn't really sound like gun control and helps cops catch bad guys,' do you kick those members out, too?"

Chuck Michel, attorney for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said his group isn't taking a position on the ban but that it sympathizes with the Folsom club. He suggested that the move is part of a growing rift between law enforcement leaders and gun owners.

"Hopefully the agencies and rank-and-file officers will take note and put pressure on their leaders to drop these ill-conceived proposals," Michel said.

Lockyer's office has promoted SB 357 as a way to help law enforcement immediately trace a bullet to its shooter in homicides and other gun crimes. The bill would rely on technology that stamps an alphanumeric code on each bullet and require purchasers to register their ammunition in a statewide database.

Bullet manufacturers have led the opposition against SB 357, charging that the serialization requirement would cost too much money to install in factories.

"We continue to be strongly opposed to the legislation because it amounts to a de facto ammunition ban in California," said Lawrence G. Keane, general counsel for the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute. "Manufacturers cannot comply with requirements of the bill unless new factories are built. And they simply don't have the ability to build new factories for California, so they will be forced to abandon the market."

Dunn would not comment on the club's move, but Koretz criticized it.

"I think it's pretty outrageous that the top law enforcement official in the state would be denied access to a shooting range," Koretz said. "His personnel use these ranges to hone their skills to protect the public."

Both SB 357 and AB 352 are moving through the Legislature with support from majority Democrats. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the measures.

06-11-2005, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by Stevil:
As for the Brady bunch, I welcome their involvement in this board BUT I doubt many of them could conjure a coherent argument or sustain a factual intelligent discourse for very long, you can only beguile reality for so long before it catches up with you.

That might be true of the dogmatists that have willingly drank the Kool-Aid so to speak, but don't write-off everyone outside of the shooting community as unwilling to listen and learn. Many only speak from ignorance on the specifics of each issue and of the bigger picture too.

If this thread (or the whole CG site) is indeed being surveilled by the antis, than it's best to keep this in mind.
JMO.

Stevil
06-11-2005, 10:44 PM
quote:
"but don't write-off everyone outside of the shooting community as unwilling to listen and learn. Many only speak from ignorance on the specifics of each issue and of the bigger picture too."


I wasn't doing so, a was referencing the Brady bunch fascists.

I spend a lot of time attempting to educate those ignorant on the issues... and very politely I may add. http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kruzr
06-11-2005, 11:38 PM
"We're not questioning their right to do this, but who's next?" said Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "If some of their members say, 'We've looked at this and this doesn't really sound like gun control and helps cops catch bad guys,' do you kick those members out, too?"
I suspect you'd have to look real hard to find a gun owner who would believe this has to do with crime.

What kind of idiocy is this? This guy really believes that the "bad guys" will abide by these laws, rather than drive a few hours to Nevada or Arizona or Oregon. I wonder if he also thinks that when they buy guns, they fill out 4473's, have a NICS check, leave a fingerprint, proof of residency, pass the HSC test, buy a lock, do a safe handling demonstration, wait ten days, and leave with the gun in a locked case.

I don't see the point of even discussing anything with people who are so emotionally caught up in their ideas that logical and critical thinking isn't possible.

06-11-2005, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by Kruzr:

I suspect you'd have to look real hard to find a gun owner who would believe this has to do with crime.

I suspect you'd have to look even harder to find a majority of gun owners who would even know what SB357 or AB352 even is though. Two guys in one week (both known "gun nuts") gave me the puzzled, "SB & AB what?". Sad. Really sad.

Forget the antis, they're at least tuned in to the discussion. For that, I have a bit of respect for them.

The real worry should be over the clueless, soon-to-be-felon, gun owners who haven't an inkling of an idea as to what is going on in the world of rights removal being perpetrated by the state.

Ducati748r
06-12-2005, 9:55 AM
Originally posted by Basura Blanca:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kruzr:

I suspect you'd have to look real hard to find a gun owner who would believe this has to do with crime.

I suspect you'd have to look even harder to find a majority of gun owners who would even know what SB357 or AB352 even is though. Two guys in one week (both known "gun nuts") gave me the puzzled, "SB & AB what?". Sad. Really sad.

Forget the antis, they're at least tuned in to the discussion. For that, I have a bit of respect for them.

The real worry should be over the clueless, soon-to-be-felon, gun owners who haven't an inkling of an idea as to what is going on in the world of rights removal being perpetrated by the state. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You hit the nail on the head so to speak. I've run across a couple of gun owners who haven't got a clue what's going on and it really upset's me. It seems more than half the battle is trying to get other gun owners off their dead @sses and get them fired up. http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Kruzr
06-12-2005, 12:45 PM
I suspect you'd have to look even harder to find a majority of gun owners who would even know what SB357 or AB352 even is though. Two guys in one week (both known "gun nuts") gave me the puzzled, "SB & AB what?". Sad. Really sad.
Well, I hope you fixed that situation with those two rather than roll your eyes at them. At our range, we put out an info sheet on these bills that sits right next to the cash register. We tell people to take one and read it.

06-12-2005, 7:18 PM
Originally posted by Kruzr:
At our range, we put out an info sheet on these bills that sits right next to the cash register. We tell people to take one and read it.

You can lead a horse to water...

But yes, I tried my best to explain that it was important to get involved. It usually just falls on deaf ears though.
Truthfully, I have better luck getting the attention of the non-gun crowd on these issues which again is pretty sad.

74man
06-25-2005, 5:08 PM
Great, put them on the spot. I have written everyone I know in our Senate and Assembly to blast down this SB352 & 357,even our Govenor. I salute you and your members.FSC.

Rascal
06-26-2005, 3:31 PM
Well, I live too far to go to this range, but I'm going to join anyway.
To SVSC, My hats off to you! http://www.calguns.net/bow.gif http://www.calguns.net/marines.gif

Soon to be new Member. http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Silverback
06-26-2005, 7:52 PM
Have you read the recent revisions to SB 357?