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 > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-25-2014, 3:49 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,153
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default Silvester v Becerra, 2nd 10-day wait unconst. FAQ; 9/1/17 filed for certiorari

The Opinion date: August 25, 2014

The Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The ruling: http://ia700803.us.archive.org/13/it...3362.106.0.pdf

The summary (quoting the above .pdf at pages 55-56):
Quote:
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The 10-day waiting periods of California Penal Code § 26815(a) and § 27540(a) violate the Second Amendment as applied to

those individuals who successfully pass the BFEC/standard background check prior to 10 days

and

who are in lawful possession of an additional firearm as confirmed by the AFS system;

a. If the BFEC/standard background check for such an individual is completed and approved before 10-days, Defendant shall immediately release the firearm for delivery to such individual and shall not wait the full 10-days;


2. The 10-day waiting periods of California Penal Code § 26815(a) and § 27540(a) violate the Second Amendment as applied to

those individuals who successfully pass the BFEC/standard background check prior to 10 days

and

who possess a valid CCW license issued pursuant to California Penal Code § 26150 or § 26155;

a. If the BFEC/standard background check for such an individual is completed and approved before 10-days, Defendant shall immediately release the firearm for delivery to such individual and shall not wait the full 10-days;


3. The 10-day waiting periods of California Penal Code § 26815(a) and § 27540(a) violate the Second Amendment as applied to

those individuals who successfully pass the BFEC/standard background check prior to 10 days

and

who possess both a valid COE issued pursuant to California Penal Code § 26710 and a firearm as confirmed by the AFS system.

a. If the BFEC/standard background check for such an individual is completed and approved before 10-days, Defendant shall immediately release the firearm for delivery to such individual and shall not wait the full 10-days
3 categories: anyone who has passed the background check AND one of
* has a verified gun already in the AFS system
* has a California License to Carry Concealed
* has a Certificate of eligibility AND has a verified gun already in the AFS system

The implementation has been stayed until 180 days from August 25, to allow CA-DOJ to develop procedures.

That means, until February of 2015, the existing 10-day wait policy still applies.
Don't ask your local gun store about this yet, it is not in effect.

(Theoretically, law and practice might be changed and implemented before 180 days, but that's not the way to bet.)

1) this affects only the 10-day wait.

2) this has no effect on the 1 handgun in 30 days.

3) this has no effect on Handgun/Firearms Safety Certificate.

4) this is a lower Federal Court; the ruling might be appealed to the 9th Circuit.

5) Only California law is addressed here. The applicability to any other state might need an additional lawsuit.

6) Other avenues of purchasing handguns - LEO on LEO ID, for example - are not addressed by this case.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 08-26-2014 at 2:39 PM..
  #2  
Old 08-25-2014, 3:56 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,153
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

One can apply for a CA Certificate of Eligibility with this form.

See Penal Code 26710 -
Quote:
26710. (a) A person may request a certificate of eligibility from
the Department of Justice.
(b) The Department of Justice shall examine its records and
records available to the department in the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System in order to determine if the applicant is
prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving,
owning, or purchasing a firearm.
(c) The department shall issue a certificate to an applicant if
the department's records indicate that the applicant is not a person
who is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing firearms.
(d) The department shall adopt regulations to administer the
certificate of eligibility program and shall recover the full costs
of administering the program by imposing fees assessed to applicants
who apply for those certificates.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


  #3  
Old 08-25-2014, 5:33 PM
nssurge nssurge is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 721
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

So if I'm reading this correctly, since I own firearms that are registered with the state, I will be eligible to walk out with a new gun purchased six months from now with no waiting period?
  #4  
Old 08-25-2014, 5:39 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,153
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by camvoncrosshair View Post
Librarian,
Thanks for the FAQ, things like this always need to be laid out so it is easy for the non lawyer type to read.

a couple of follow up questions.

1. is there a time limit to appeal this ruling?
2. if an appeal is made, who is it appealed to, 9th CA?
3. if an appeal is made, does the court have to hear it, or can it decline?
4. can an additional stay be granted during the appeal process?

basically, what is the flow chart like if (ok, when, we know they will) the DOJ appeals this ruling?
1) yes - 30 days
Quote:
FRAP 4. Appeal as of Right - When Taken
(a)Appeal in a Civil Case.

(1)Time for Filing a Notice of Appeal.
(A)In a civil case, except as provided in Rules 4(a)(1)(B), 4(a)(4), and 4(c), the notice of appeal required by Rule 3 must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after the entry of judgment or order appealed from.
2) yes, as already noted in the first post, #4

3) as usual, court can refuse to take the appeal

4) yes. We'll know if that happens, because someone who watches courts more closely than I will post it.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


  #5  
Old 08-25-2014, 7:00 PM
Custom ii's Avatar
Custom ii Custom ii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 317
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thanks for the FAQ's. It helps us sort it out. I know the 1 in 30 days is separate law, but wouldn't the same argument apply in that it constitutes a waiting period?

Last edited by Custom ii; 08-25-2014 at 7:04 PM..
  #6  
Old 08-25-2014, 7:35 PM
RANGER295's Avatar
RANGER295 RANGER295 is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Rural California
Posts: 3,088
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Background checks that unnecessarily take longer than that required to test against state and federal databases are unconstitutional.
Realistically how long does the background check take?
__________________
159

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."

- Mark Twain

Si vis pacem, para bellum
  #7  
Old 08-25-2014, 8:19 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,153
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Questions - that are not already answered in the first or second post - please.

Discussion goes to the main Silvester thread.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


  #8  
Old 08-25-2014, 9:20 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,489
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Librarian is correct about the ruling above, but I think it's important to understand the practical impacts.

Exempting LTC holders isn't big, yet. Projecting forward Peruta and Richards becoming final means that most serious gun owners in California will obtain a CCW permit. The court notes, "that person should be subject to the same background check as the 18 statutory exceptions to the 10-day waiting period and should not be subject to the 10-day waiting period." That means that anyone who has an LTC and doesn't get his background check approved instantaneously better have already appeared in APPS and have law enforcement out searching for him to take his guns and permit away.

The reason it's important for COE holders who have a gun in AFS to be exempt are a couple fold. First, the COE is shall issue to anyone who wishes to get it. If you don't or can't get an LTC then you can get the COE. Because the COE is fingerprint based and subject to Rap Back, if a COE holder isn't immediately approved via the background check, CA DOJ is up to shenanigans unless the aforementioned law enforcement activity has already been started to disarm that individual. If you have a COE and don't get an instant approval, we'd like to sue on your behalf!

If you don't have either license you may very well get an instant background check. However, you arguably have an 80% chance of not getting an instant check without the licenses above. What we don't know is how many of the 80% are actually first time buyers who haven't yet had changes made to their records that will allow them to be determined to be in the 20% next time. Also, the core logic of this case is that CA DOJ will have to justify why some people who already own guns are being delayed. But that issue is for a future case with specific delayed individuals and their specific facts.

If you want to avoid the 80% drama, get one of the licenses/permits and never wait again (once this case is final or the law is changed to conform to this case.)

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon

Last edited by hoffmang; 08-25-2014 at 9:22 PM..
  #9  
Old 08-25-2014, 10:06 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,153
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthem View Post
You're cute....you think anyone will read that for themselves.
Yeah, I still hope people read stickies, too.

But this is truly an FAQ thread - if it becomes a discussion thread, soon it will be as confusing as the main thread. Since the point of this one is to let folks avoid the other - but cover here only the superficial aspects - I'm going to keep this one pruned.

I could just lock this one, and may do that in the next day or so, but some useful questions have appeared, and getting those in the answer posts seems like it will be useful.


===

ETA the COE discussion has been spun off to its own thread in the How CA Laws Apply to me forum.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 08-26-2014 at 1:57 PM..
  #10  
Old 08-26-2014, 2:27 PM
slayer61's Avatar
slayer61 slayer61 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Norcal
Posts: 1,036
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Thanks, Librarian, for making it clear for us laymen.
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Paul

tiocfaidh ár lá
Bobby Sands
  #11  
Old 08-26-2014, 3:08 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,153
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor McRifle View Post
FAQ: In some other threads, people seem to be of the opinion that now, as a result of this ruling, everyone in California who has previously purchased a gun will get to take their subsequently-purchased guns home on the same day of purchase. However, language from the ruling seems to indicate that background checks of up to 10 days will still be permitted. My initial take on this ruling is that the state can no longer make a gun purchaser wait beyond the amount of time it actually takes for the DOJ to complete its investigation, but that that investigation could still legally take up to 10 days to complete. Can you shed some authoritative light on this?
The text says, for all three categories addressed,
Quote:
a. If the BFEC/standard background check for such an individual is completed and approved before 10-days, Defendant shall immediately release the firearm for delivery to such individual and shall not wait the full 10-days
Discussion of what might replace the current practice and law goes to the main thread.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


  #12  
Old 08-26-2014, 7:28 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,153
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riddler408 View Post
If you want a COE but don't have a business or work for a guns shop/manufacturer ect, would one just mark "collector"?
See the thread in the How does CA law affect me forum.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


  #13  
Old 08-27-2014, 7:07 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,153
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Most of the obvious, superficial questions have been asked and addressed.

More subtle points need to be addressed in the discussion thread.

Closed.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


  #14  
Old 01-16-2015, 2:27 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,153
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

I should have added this before - mea culpa.

Appeal to the 9th Circuit:

Quote:
The opening brief and excerpts of record are due February 23, 2015;

the answering brief is due March 25, 2015;

and the optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. [9332608] (WL) [Entered: 12/02/2014 08:53 AM]
Which means 'No, there still is no enforcement date available'.

If there is a reply brief, the 9th Circuit probably won't do anything visible until the end of April, 2015.

Case files for Eastern District level available via Michel & Associates - http://michellawyers.com/silvester-v-harris/
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 01-16-2015 at 2:34 PM..
  #15  
Old 02-03-2015, 6:12 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,153
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Feb 3, 2015: 9th granted to Kamala Harris an extension of time to file briefs -
Quote:
Appellant Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General opening brief due 03/25/2015.

Appellees Brandon Combs, Jeff Silvester, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. and The Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. answering brief due 04/24/2015.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


  #16  
Old 05-29-2015, 10:12 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,153
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

A note on case stickies:

The threads are NOT 'dead'.

A lack of updates generally means nothing has happened.

Follow this case at Michel and Associates, http://michellawyers.com/silvester-v-harris/ , which may or may not update before one of the lawyers posts an update.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


  #17  
Old 10-27-2015, 10:12 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,153
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Oct 22 - the case is being considered for oral arguments in February, 2016.

Next movement appears to be over 3 months out.
  #18  
Old 01-08-2016, 10:44 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,153
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Oral arguments announced:
Quote:
11/30/2015 Court Docket Text:
Notice of Oral Argument on
Tuesday, February 9, 2016 – 09:00 A.M. –
Courtroom 1 –
James R Browning US Cthse,
95 7th St, San Francisco, CA.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


  #19  
Old 02-09-2016, 12:32 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,153
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Oral arguments completed.

No known way to predict the time a decision might be released.

Check with http://michellawyers.com/silvester-v-harris/

Ordinarily, someone will post in the existing thread, or start a new thread, when a result is available.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


  #20  
Old 12-14-2016, 10:39 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,153
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

12/14/16 Loss at 9th.

See http://michellawyers.com/silvester-v-harris/ for the text of the opinion.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


  #21  
Old 02-13-2017, 7:14 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,153
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

2/13/17 Petition for En Banc: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1487021312
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


  #22  
Old 04-05-2017, 11:24 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,153
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

4/5/17 9th denies en banc. See main discussion thread.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


  #23  
Old 09-01-2017, 2:45 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,153
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Sept 1, Silvester et al file for certiorari - https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1504284264
Quote:
First, Petitioners respectfully suggest that the
time has come to put an end to the mass resistance
among the courts of appeals to Heller and McDonald.
Whatever the institutional and systematic harms
that come from lingering circuit splits, they pale in
comparison to those caused by active non-compliance
with, and circumvention of, this Court’s precedents.
If the credibility and fairness of the legal system is
diminished by divergent – though good-faith – legal
standards and results that vary by circuit, surely
credibility and fairness are at their lowest when various
courts of appeals decide that their own views
trump Supreme Court precedent.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Closed Thread

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 6:30 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.