Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 09-05-2013, 9:02 AM
pMcW's Avatar
pMcW pMcW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Morgan Hill
Posts: 530
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFi1775 View Post
try reading it again, or just search for length...
Oh, so it does. I was (foolishly) relying on the text quoted above in the OP, but I do see (b)(1):

Quote:
16740. (a) As used in this part, “large-capacity magazine” means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. As used in this part, “large-capacity magazine” also includes a feeding device that had a capacity of more than 10 rounds but has been permanently modified to hold no more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
(b) As used in this part, “large-capacity magazine” does not include any of the following:
(1) A magazine that is only of sufficient length to hold no more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
(2) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.
(3) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.
After reading that, I believe that this is a true statement:

Quote:
If it was designed and built as a 10-round (or fewer) magazine, then it should not matter how long it is.
I probably cannot go into the details of why I think that, without getting accused of violating "OPSEC."
__________________
Questions about new laws? Seek answers here first: Assault weapons law? | Ammunition law? | Magazine law?

M1A, Mini-14, M1 Carbine, Garand? Not banned.

Remove BB or similar device after AW reg? We don't know.
Quote:
(5) The department shall adopt regulations for the purpose of implementing this subdivision. These regulations are exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code). SB 880 | AB 1135
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-05-2013, 9:45 AM
flyer898's Avatar
flyer898 flyer898 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fair Oaks
Posts: 672
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Another pistol for which there have never been commercially manufactured 10 round magazines is the HK P7M13. Disassembled magazines shipped to California and permanently modified to hold 10 rounds will now be banned with no prospect of replacement. Without a magazine the pistol becomes a permanent single shot.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-05-2013, 9:49 AM
SemperFi1775's Avatar
SemperFi1775 SemperFi1775 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 713
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pMcW View Post
Oh, so it does. I was (foolishly) relying on the text quoted above in the OP, but I do see (b)(1):



After reading that, I believe that this is a true statement:



I probably cannot go into the details of why I think that, without getting accused of violating "OPSEC."
what matter is what the cops, prosecutors and judges believe...
__________________
"What the hell happened to land of the free and home of the brave???"
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-05-2013, 9:53 AM
SemperFi1775's Avatar
SemperFi1775 SemperFi1775 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 713
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyer898 View Post
Another pistol for which there have never been commercially manufactured 10 round magazines is the HK P7M13. Disassembled magazines shipped to California and permanently modified to hold 10 rounds will now be banned with no prospect of replacement. Without a magazine the pistol becomes a permanent single shot.
the power grabbers don't care if your guns don't work, their true intent is to cripple or remove as many guns as possible from the hands of their subjects...
__________________
"What the hell happened to land of the free and home of the brave???"
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-05-2013, 9:55 AM
reznunt's Avatar
reznunt reznunt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: 91750
Posts: 1,673
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertMW View Post
Ok, I had this pop into my head last night. Senate bill 396 bans and requires destruction/sale of all magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. As well as any magazine that COULD hold more than 10 rounds (10/30 AR mags)

The Bill ammends to:


How will this affect Full and Compact size semi-automatic handguns. Most of their mags are double stack with modifications so that the rounds do not stack as wide, keeping the round count to 10, but they are the length of the standard magazines. Will this attempt to take away the use of MILLIONS of handguns, most of which are bought specifically for "Self Defence."
i asked this question months ago but no one seemed to really care. i think that they think the bill will never pass because of it's absurdity. i think they underestimate how absurd the lawmakers can be.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-05-2013, 9:58 AM
pMcW's Avatar
pMcW pMcW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Morgan Hill
Posts: 530
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFi1775 View Post
what matter is what the cops, prosecutors and judges believe...
Yes. Which is why I used the word "should" (with italics for emphasis) above. Who knows how DOJ, cops, judges, etc. would interpret it?
__________________
Questions about new laws? Seek answers here first: Assault weapons law? | Ammunition law? | Magazine law?

M1A, Mini-14, M1 Carbine, Garand? Not banned.

Remove BB or similar device after AW reg? We don't know.
Quote:
(5) The department shall adopt regulations for the purpose of implementing this subdivision. These regulations are exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code). SB 880 | AB 1135
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-05-2013, 10:01 AM
ojisan's Avatar
ojisan ojisan is offline
Agent 86
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFV
Posts: 9,623
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Here's what one LE group believes after analyzing the bill...
From the opposed to SB396 position of the California State Sheriff's Association:
"For handguns that are designed to use larger magazines, it is equally troubling that this measure would render such firearms inoperable."
So, LE is reading this the same as us.
The thread I started a week ago...
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=12057013

Thanks go to the CSSA for standing up for all of us, even though the legislature didn't listen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-05-2013, 10:09 AM
SemperFi1775's Avatar
SemperFi1775 SemperFi1775 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 713
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pMcW View Post
Yes. Which is why I used the word "should" (with italics for emphasis) above. Who knows how DOJ, cops, judges, etc. would interpret it?
as servants to their power grabber masters, they shall interpret these laws by the letter...

just think about it, the more "criminals" in the system, the more secure their jobs are...why would they go against the hands that feed them???
__________________
"What the hell happened to land of the free and home of the brave???"
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-05-2013, 11:13 AM
Hoooper Hoooper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 2,467
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reznunt View Post
i asked this question months ago but no one seemed to really care. i think that they think the bill will never pass because of it's absurdity. i think they underestimate how absurd the lawmakers can be.
probably less "didnt care" than not wanting the bill to get updated with better language. If the bill is a defacto ban on a whole bunch of handguns the lawsuit will be easier
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-05-2013, 11:14 AM
pMcW's Avatar
pMcW pMcW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Morgan Hill
Posts: 530
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFi1775 View Post
as servants to their power grabber masters, they shall interpret these laws by the letter...

just think about it, the more "criminals" in the system, the more secure their jobs are...why would they go against the hands that feed them???
By the letter of this bill, as written, any magazine that was originally designed and built for fewer than 10 rounds is legal, regardless of the length. Any other interpretation reads too much into (b)(1), or reads it wrongly.

If you have a handgun that never had magazines designed built to hold 10 rounds or fewer, you will be out of luck when this passes (unless and until somebody makes some available) . But purpose-built 10-round (or fewer) magazines that happen to have the same length as a large capacity magazine do not appear (to me) to be made illegal by the letter of this bill.
__________________
Questions about new laws? Seek answers here first: Assault weapons law? | Ammunition law? | Magazine law?

M1A, Mini-14, M1 Carbine, Garand? Not banned.

Remove BB or similar device after AW reg? We don't know.
Quote:
(5) The department shall adopt regulations for the purpose of implementing this subdivision. These regulations are exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code). SB 880 | AB 1135
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 09-06-2013, 9:42 AM
prometa prometa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 556
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

the law as currently proposed:

Quote:
16740.
(a) As used in this part, “large-capacity magazine” means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. As used in this part, “large-capacity magazine” also includes a feeding device that had a capacity of more than 10 rounds but has been permanently modified to hold no more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Based on my reading of the bold section, magazines originally built to hold 10 rounds (e.g. handgun magazines that came from the factory with a 10 round capacity) were never modified nor had a capacity greater than 10. CADOJ or LE agencies may disagree with me.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09-06-2013, 9:51 AM
Decoligny's Avatar
Decoligny Decoligny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle, OK
Posts: 10,618
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Granite View Post
In prohibition did people have to turn in their alcohol when it passed? This I assume would set precedence for the magazine turn in.

I also believe as this is fought in the courts, the law can't be enacted, thus hold onto your mags.
No they did not. Prohibition only covered the production and sale of alcoholic beverages. Those who had a stock of booze could still keep it and consume it until it was gone.

Same thing with the embargo on Cuban cigars. It is 100% legal to possess and smoke pre-embago Cuban cigars, just can't buy or sell them. It is also illegal to buy, sell, or import any new Cuban cigars.
__________________

If you haven't seen it with your own eyes,
or heard it with your own ears,
don't make it up with your small mind,
or spread it with your big mouth.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 09-06-2013, 3:14 PM
Kurus214 Kurus214 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 484
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3006 View Post
+ 1 on this no way to get replacement's
+1 for me as well.. currently using pinned magazines, but no replacements are going to be made it's too small a market.
__________________
The Bigger the Government, the Smaller the Citizen


CGF/SAF/FPC Supporter

"There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-06-2013, 6:40 PM
thomashoward's Avatar
thomashoward thomashoward is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 2,005
iTrader: 72 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattymatt View Post
Come and take em!
yep, pound sand
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09-06-2013, 7:17 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 17,626
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ojisan View Post
Here's what one LE group believes after analyzing the bill...
From the opposed to SB396 position of the California State Sheriff's Association:
"For handguns that are designed to use larger magazines, it is equally troubling that this measure would render such firearms inoperable."
So, LE is reading this the same as us.
The thread I started a week ago...
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=12057013

Thanks go to the CSSA for standing up for all of us, even though the legislature didn't listen.
atleast someone sees it the same as we do and probably just as confused. as is their intent to entrap gun owners in this state.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Quote:
Public Safety Chairman Reggie Jones Sawyer, D-Los Angeles said, “This is California; we don’t pay too much attention to the Constitution,”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
When Hell is full the dead will walk the Earth. (Dawn of the Dead)
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09-06-2013, 8:37 PM
skilletboy's Avatar
skilletboy skilletboy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,912
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1911 View Post
All thus talk about takings, clauses, etc. please. That's for constitutional republics. We're a fascist state. And no, that's not hyperbole. I really believe we are. So any stupidity like constitutional issues talk is meaningless. Might as well argue angels on the head of a pin or something.

Get over it. Just shut up and accept your benevolent overlords.
Nah. I'm just going to attempt to go through the process before I tell our "benevolent overlords" to go **** THEMSELVES.
__________________
Quote:
"If the American people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the law then they will conclude that neither are they." - Michael Cannon, Cato Inst. 2014

_________________________________________

Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 09-06-2013, 10:04 PM
12yak's Avatar
12yak 12yak is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 153
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Some people bought handguns in Ca in the 80's that had standard capacity factory mags that held 13-14 rounds. The Browning 380 ACP comes to mind (12+1). There are no 10 round mags made for some of these handguns. Original owners are still legal in CA until this Bill passes... then they're screwed.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg BrowningBDA380.jpg (34.6 KB, 22 views)

Last edited by 12yak; 09-06-2013 at 10:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 09-07-2013, 11:34 AM
big jim's Avatar
big jim big jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 318
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

So FNP magazines from the factory are the same 10 or 14 they just use a different spring and plate but the body has markings and windows at 10 and 14. Basically this law would make my pistol useless right?
__________________
Winning is half the battle. The other half? Why red and blue lasers of course
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 09-07-2013, 11:46 AM
SemperFi1775's Avatar
SemperFi1775 SemperFi1775 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 713
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by big jim View Post
So FNP magazines from the factory are the same 10 or 14 they just use a different spring and plate but the body has markings and windows at 10 and 14. Basically this law would make my pistol useless right?
yup, especially for pistols with mag disconnect safety features...
__________________
"What the hell happened to land of the free and home of the brave???"
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 09-07-2013, 12:18 PM
USM0083 USM0083 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Daly City
Posts: 309
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutz View Post
I think "new" magazines will need to be created that are 90% plastic, and only capable of physically holding 10 rounds....
I'm thinking that they would have to be designed along the lines of a Glock 10 rounder, with internal ribs which make it a single stack.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 09-07-2013, 1:29 PM
totus44's Avatar
totus44 totus44 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Escondido
Posts: 675
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

These bills have all gone way past full retard...
__________________
"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
- Thomas Paine, Common Sense

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."
- Thomas Paine, The Crisis
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 09-07-2013, 4:25 PM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 147
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by socalblue View Post
You are spot on. This bill essentially "takes" a significant percentage of pistols from legitimate owners.

Manufacturers will tool up to make compliant magazines for a small number of the most popular current production pistols. Everything else is out of luck.

Add micro stamping & handguns sales & use will essentially die in CA in 2-3 years, when the last of the pistols currently on the roster fall off.
Right. Even if I destroy all my original pre-1994 ban 17-round Glock 17 mags, today's factory 10-round mags are still double stacked and blocked. A G-17 mag only long enough to hold 10 rounds in a single stack arrangement and still able to fit and feed in the G-17 grip doesn't exist. My G-17 instantly becomes a paper weight in CA until some entrepreneur invents something compliant.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 09-07-2013, 5:12 PM
Dutch3's Avatar
Dutch3 Dutch3 is offline
Dirt Farmer
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Butte County
Posts: 11,944
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by prometa View Post
the law as currently proposed:



Based on my reading of the bold section, magazines originally built to hold 10 rounds (e.g. handgun magazines that came from the factory with a 10 round capacity) were never modified nor had a capacity greater than 10. CADOJ or LE agencies may disagree with me.
I'll disagree with you for the sake of argument.

In most cases, those firearms were designed for a round capacity greater than 10.

In order to sell product in localities where greater than 10 rounds was banned, the factory modified those original magazines to accept no more than 10 rounds.

So, whether the design was modified by the manufacturer or the end user to reduce capacity, it is still considered a "modification".

The proposed law states that permanent modifications performed to reduce capacity will be illegal. There is no distinction between user-modified and factory-modified magazines.

It is clearly idiotic and without logic in terms of reality, but there it is. Would you expect anything else from a legislature that attempts to regulate things of which it has no knowledge?
__________________
Just taking up space in the second-worst small town in California.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 09-07-2013, 5:48 PM
ke6guj's Avatar
ke6guj ke6guj is offline
Moderator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 909
Posts: 23,548
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
I'll disagree with you for the sake of argument.

In most cases, those firearms were designed for a round capacity greater than 10.

In order to sell product in localities where greater than 10 rounds was banned, the factory modified those original magazines to accept no more than 10 rounds.

So, whether the design was modified by the manufacturer or the end user to reduce capacity, it is still considered a "modification".

The proposed law states that permanent modifications performed to reduce capacity will be illegal. There is no distinction between user-modified and factory-modified magazines.

It is clearly idiotic and without logic in terms of reality, but there it is. Would you expect anything else from a legislature that attempts to regulate things of which it has no knowledge?

I'm pretty sure that it can be argued that there is a difference between and end-user taking a factory 15-round magazine and modifying it to be a 10-round magazine and a factory redesigning that 15-round magazine's design to be able to manufactured as a 10-round magazine. they aren't making 15-round magazines and then modifying them to be 10-round mags. They may have taking the tooling that makes a 15-round mag body from a piece of sheet metal and redesigned it to make a 10-round mag body instead. that isn't modifying a 15-round mag into a 10-round mag.
__________________
Jack



Do you want an AOW or C&R SBS/SBR in CA?

FrontSight Training Course certificates available $25, PM for details on them and other options.
No posts of mine are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 09-07-2013, 8:00 PM
Mr. Beretta Mr. Beretta is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,828
iTrader: 186 / 100%
Default

Respectfully disagree.

Both my 92 series Beretta's and double stack 3rd generation S&W's 9mm's use factory 10rd magazines.

These magazines made be full length, but were NEVER manufacture, designed or sold to hold more than 10 rds. Period.

These were NEVER standard capacity magazines modified to hold 10rds. Never. These magazines have indentations on both sides on the magazine bodies. It was clearly the factory's "intent" to design, manufacture and distribute 10rd magazines.

These magazines were raw pieces of metal formed & stamped at the factory and ended up exactly as the factory intended..10rd magazines. It is impossible to put more than 10rds into these magazines. Period.

Handguns which are able to accept standard capacity magazines are NOT the subject of this bill. The magazines used in these guns are!

I think these types of factory manufactured 10rd magazines are & will continue to be legal! IMHO !!!!!!!







Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
I'll disagree with you for the sake of argument.

In most cases, those firearms were designed for a round capacity greater than 10.

In order to sell product in localities where greater than 10 rounds was banned, the factory modified those original magazines to accept no more than 10 rounds.

So, whether the design was modified by the manufacturer or the end user to reduce capacity, it is still considered a "modification".

The proposed law states that permanent modifications performed to reduce capacity will be illegal. There is no distinction between user-modified and factory-modified magazines.

It is clearly idiotic and without logic in terms of reality, but there it is. Would you expect anything else from a legislature that attempts to regulate things of which it has no knowledge?

Last edited by Mr. Beretta; 09-07-2013 at 9:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 09-07-2013, 9:42 PM
rexblaine's Avatar
rexblaine rexblaine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Shady Canyon, OC
Posts: 293
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

10 in the magazine and one in the chamber, that's an 11 round capacity. Des that make me a felon?
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 09-07-2013, 9:43 PM
Mr. Beretta Mr. Beretta is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,828
iTrader: 186 / 100%
Default

Nope!
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 09-08-2013, 12:57 AM
prometa prometa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 556
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
I'll disagree with you for the sake of argument.

In most cases, those firearms were designed for a round capacity greater than 10.

In order to sell product in localities where greater than 10 rounds was banned, the factory modified those original magazines to accept no more than 10 rounds.

So, whether the design was modified by the manufacturer or the end user to reduce capacity, it is still considered a "modification".

The proposed law states that permanent modifications performed to reduce capacity will be illegal. There is no distinction between user-modified and factory-modified magazines.

It is clearly idiotic and without logic in terms of reality, but there it is. Would you expect anything else from a legislature that attempts to regulate things of which it has no knowledge?
You are right in that it all hinges on the definition of modified. Do modifications to the design count, or just modifications to the product post-manufacture

This law may be easy to test in court, as a first offense is an infraction with a $100 fine, giving one nothing to lose by trying.
__________________
---
As of 10/10 the Governor has 121 bills left on his desk to sign or veto by 10/13.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:27 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.