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 > GENERAL DISCUSSION > General gun discussions > CGN's Best Threads (Limited Posting)
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

CGN's Best Threads (Limited Posting) This forum is for storing and or easy accessing useful or important threads.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old 03-05-2009, 8:22 PM
oaklander oaklander is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Deep East Oakland
Posts: 11,105
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Again I'm not going to explain it here, it always ends up in the same place. I can say that hoffmang is a little too hung up on "validly adopted."
OK - for the benefit of others, I will explain what I think your argument is, and why it fails:

Quote:
12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
This means that an AW must have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.

Quote:
11 CCR 5469 - The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:
(a) "detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.
This means that a "detachable magazine" is anything that does not require a tool.

Those two code sections (along Harrot v. County of Kings and some other stuff) are the main basis for the bullet button. They go together very well. The second one even refers to the first one.

What I *think* you are saying is that the DOJ can ignore those statutes, the case law, and everything else, and make up any sort of rule they want (whether or not it's validly adopted), and since it's the DOJ, they can get away with it????

Do you have any idea how crazy this sounds?

EDIT: do you have access to some secret case or something that makes this NOT sound crazy?

Last edited by oaklander; 03-05-2009 at 8:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 03-05-2009, 8:27 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

FGG,

You see that 11 CCR 5469 says "readily from the firearm" not "readily from a firearm", right?

-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
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 03-05-2009, 8:36 PM
CHS's Avatar
CHS CHS is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 11,329
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

I just want to point out, again, that I <3 this thread
__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki
Quote:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 03-05-2009, 8:36 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm not going to argue with you guys!! Are we going to bet on something or not?
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 03-05-2009, 8:42 PM
oaklander oaklander is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Deep East Oakland
Posts: 11,105
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
I'm not going to argue with you guys!! Are we going to bet on something or not?
I appreciate your attempts at humor, however - you are taking an exotic position on the legality of the bullet button, and YET you appear to be unwilling or unable to argue exactly *why* you are "right."

Again, is there something that you know that the other 23,999 Calgunners don't know?
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 03-05-2009, 8:43 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
There's another possible outcome I think, i.e., summary disposition letter, maybe under 270(f)(2)(E).
I'm glad I double checked this. It makes it clear to me that you do not understand the APA.

270(f)(2)(E) is for agencies who have had their rulemakings exempted from the APA. At no point in time has DOJ been exempted from the APA.

For those watching from the sidelines:
Quote:
270(f)(2)(E) An express statutory exemption from the rulemaking provisions of the APA is applicable to the challenged rule.
DOJ's AW rulemaking authority is here:
Quote:
12276.5 (c) The Attorney General shall adopt those rules and regulations
that may be necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent
of this chapter.
Their one statutory exception to the APA was here and was only applicable to the AW listings before AB-2728 is right above and shows you how 270(f)(2)(E) would otherwise come into play:
Quote:
12276.5 (b) (2) Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Division 3 of
Title 2 of the Government Code, pertaining to the adoption of rules
and regulations, shall not apply to any list of assault weapons
promulgated pursuant to this section.
Glenn/Spawn Ranch/FGG:

I've had this exact argument with you on Ar15.com where you stormed off in a huff after coming back from surfing.

If you care about moving gun rights forward, then give me your best argument that the bullet button isn't legal. This time, don't delete your post and your account before I get a chance to read it.

-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
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 03-05-2009, 8:55 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
270(f)(2)(E) is for agencies who have had their rulemakings exempted from the APA. At no point in time has DOJ been exempted from the APA.
Is this really what you think an "express statutory exemption" from APA rulemaking provisions is?
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 03-05-2009, 8:57 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Is this really what you think an "express statutory exemption" from APA rulemaking provisions is?
This is an example of an "express statutory exemption" from the APA rulemaking provision:

Quote:
12276.5 (b) (2) Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Division 3 of
Title 2 of the Government Code, pertaining to the adoption of rules
and regulations, shall not apply to any list of assault weapons
promulgated pursuant to this section.
Is that really not what you think it is?

If you're answer is yes, I question your legal training or understanding.

-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
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 03-05-2009, 9:10 PM
oaklander oaklander is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Deep East Oakland
Posts: 11,105
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Is this really what you think an "express statutory exemption" from APA rulemaking provisions is?
Fabio - what difference does all this make? I'm still trying to figure out how you came to the conclusion that the bullet button is not legal.

Please explain it to us, if you can.

I'm starting to think that you are just trolling us. Also, do you have a legal background, or are you an amateur?

Last edited by oaklander; 03-05-2009 at 9:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 03-05-2009, 9:17 PM
CHS's Avatar
CHS CHS is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 11,329
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander View Post
I'm starting to think that you are just trolling us. Also, do you have a legal background, or are you an amateur?
He's quite clearly just trolling.

We say BB is legal.
He says it's not.

We back up what we say with our proof.
He refuses to even give us his line of reasoning.

Calguns: 1
Troll: 0
__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki
Quote:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 03-05-2009, 9:17 PM
Cypren Cypren is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Irvine
Posts: 293
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 03-05-2009, 9:18 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If you don't already know what statutory exemption I could have been talking about there is no need to say any more on that topic.

I'm not going to argue the bullet button here. Are you interested in a wager on the OAL petition or not?
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 03-05-2009, 9:21 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
I'm not going to argue the bullet button here. Are you interested in a wager on the OAL petition or not?
You keep trying to wager on the OAL petition with stakes that the OAL is not going to rule on.

I'm willing to bet that if OAL accepts the petition then it is either 280'ed by DOJ or OAL calls Alison's letter an underground regulation.

If my two outcomes above come to pass, you owe me a nice M1. If it's not rejected, I'll spend about $700 on your new surfboard.

-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
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 03-05-2009, 9:21 PM
leelaw leelaw is offline
Junior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Contra Costa
Posts: 10,458
iTrader: 57 / 100%
Default

So pretty much it is

Gene: This is what we think, this is our reasoning

Fabio: This is what I think, but you've gotta guess my reasoning (if any).

Fabio - you're getting dangerously close to trolling.

Last edited by leelaw; 03-05-2009 at 9:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 03-05-2009, 9:23 PM
oaklander oaklander is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Deep East Oakland
Posts: 11,105
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
If you don't already know what statutory exemption I could have been talking about there is no need to say any more on that topic.

I'm not going to argue the bullet button here. Are you interested in a wager on the OAL petition or not?
OK - Gene said he's willing to bet you. Now spill the beans.
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 03-05-2009, 9:25 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
If you don't already know what statutory exemption I could have been talking about there is no need to say any more on that topic.
Though DOJ usually enjoys a prosecutor's privilege it doesn't when its promulgating rules of generally applicability under a statute that it has been delegated to interpret and enforce.

The APA applies to any ruling DOJ makes now that AB-2728 mooted their one statutory exemption from the APA.

If another statutory exemption existed, then why didn't they claim it on the permanence underground regulation?

-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
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 03-05-2009, 9:29 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander View Post
Fabio - what difference does all this make?
The statutory exemption stuff? None at all.

You guys are illustrating the futility of arguing about stuff here. I'm trying to figure out a fun way to get the issue in front of an experienced, fair, neutral decision maker, without the acrimony and name calling that we're starting to see. I'm not sure I've got all the answers, but confident enough that I'm willing risk losing a nice Garand over it. It will be worth it to me even if the argument gets tested and fails then we all would be more certain about the Bullet Button.
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 03-05-2009, 9:35 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

FGG,

If I could get a well recognized law prof to mediate a "moot arbitration" on the legality of the bullet button, would you do that?

I'm still unclear why you will not have the debate in private...

-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
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 03-05-2009, 9:39 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
You keep trying to wager on the OAL petition with stakes that the OAL is not going to rule on.

I'm willing to bet that if OAL accepts the petition then it is either 280'ed by DOJ or OAL calls Alison's letter an underground regulation.
Those are likely outcomes. I realize there's no need for OAL to squarely decide whether the competing interpretation has any merit which makes it difficult to come up with a bet about it.
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 03-05-2009, 9:47 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Those are likely outcomes. I realize there's no need for OAL to squarely decide whether the competing interpretation has any merit which makes it difficult to come up with a bet about it.
And then absent your unicorn interpretation, Alison is left with nothing to say but to quote the law and the CCR when manufacturers, DAs, or others inquire about the law and bullet buttons.

-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
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old 03-05-2009, 9:54 PM
oaklander oaklander is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Deep East Oakland
Posts: 11,105
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
The statutory exemption stuff? None at all.

You guys are illustrating the futility of arguing about stuff here. I'm trying to figure out a fun way to get the issue in front of an experienced, fair, neutral decision maker, without the acrimony and name calling that we're starting to see. I'm not sure I've got all the answers, but confident enough that I'm willing risk losing a nice Garand over it. It will be worth it to me even if the argument gets tested and fails then we all would be more certain about the Bullet Button.
I don't see much arguing. You've posted a lot of stuff that somehow implies that the DOJ doesn't have to follow the law, but when asked about it, you clam up.

Are you surprised that people are getting a bit impatient with you?

Also, it would be good to know your background, so that I/we can give your argument(s) the proper weight. Are you a lawyer?
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 03-06-2009, 12:54 AM
GunOwner GunOwner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 448
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

The DOJ is tyring to confuse things but this is pretty simple legal interpretation.

Ultimately all magazines are "detachable" from the weapon (and I have the tools to prove it)

SO under the existing law and regulations,

When looking at the same two weapons with the same qualifying evil features:

if the weapon is configured so that magazine is detachable WITHOUT TOOLS its an AW

if the weapon is configured so that magazine is detachable only WITH TOOLS its NOT an AW


Am I missing something?
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 03-06-2009, 10:01 AM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunOwner View Post
The DOJ is tyring to confuse things but this is pretty simple legal interpretation.

Ultimately all magazines are "detachable" from the weapon (and I have the tools to prove it)

SO under the existing law and regulations,

When looking at the same two weapons with the same qualifying evil features:

if the weapon is configured so that magazine is detachable WITHOUT TOOLS its an AW

if the weapon is configured so that magazine is detachable only WITH TOOLS its NOT an AW


Am I missing something?
Nope.

Especially when you consider that one of the comparable evil features is the weapon itself having the letters "SKS" on the side.

-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
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 03-06-2009, 2:20 PM
bombadillo's Avatar
bombadillo bombadillo is offline
Former Humboldtian
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: IDAHO and another proud member of the quitters club!
Posts: 13,999
iTrader: 78 / 100%
Default

Gene, are you a lawyer, or legal advisor, or what the heck do you do for a living anyway. You really seem to know your stuff when it comes to the P.C. and are amazing when it comes to law in general. Just a question?
__________________
http://mossbergmvp.com/index.php?forum/
If you have any questions on the MVP platform, ask me here or on the "other" site. Same handle there.
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 03-06-2009, 2:25 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bombadillo View Post
Gene, are you a lawyer, or legal advisor, or what the heck do you do for a living anyway. You really seem to know your stuff when it comes to the P.C. and are amazing when it comes to law in general. Just a question?
My CV is here.

I tend to start companies in super high regulatory regimes. One of my former co-founders is an expert on anti-trust and copyright and I've just learned by bringing and getting lots of Federal lawsuits. I won my first Federal copyright case before I could legally drink. My corporate outside counsel's firm calls me a para-lawyer...

-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
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 03-06-2009, 4:05 PM
bombadillo's Avatar
bombadillo bombadillo is offline
Former Humboldtian
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: IDAHO and another proud member of the quitters club!
Posts: 13,999
iTrader: 78 / 100%
Default

Man, quite the history there
__________________
http://mossbergmvp.com/index.php?forum/
If you have any questions on the MVP platform, ask me here or on the "other" site. Same handle there.
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 03-06-2009, 4:47 PM
Blackhawk556's Avatar
Blackhawk556 Blackhawk556 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: FresNO, Ca
Posts: 3,667
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default so in..

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
My CV is here.

I tend to start companies in super high regulatory regimes. One of my former co-founders is an expert on anti-trust and copyright and I've just learned by bringing and getting lots of Federal lawsuits. I won my first Federal copyright case before I could legally drink. My corporate outside counsel's firm calls me a para-lawyer...

-Gene
so in other words your rich
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 03-06-2009, 5:50 PM
bombadillo's Avatar
bombadillo bombadillo is offline
Former Humboldtian
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: IDAHO and another proud member of the quitters club!
Posts: 13,999
iTrader: 78 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by du9207 View Post
so in other words your rich
Bwaahahahahaha!


Did you really have to say it?
__________________
http://mossbergmvp.com/index.php?forum/
If you have any questions on the MVP platform, ask me here or on the "other" site. Same handle there.
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 03-06-2009, 5:51 PM
wash's Avatar
wash wash is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sillycon valley
Posts: 9,020
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Blog Entries: 13
Default

That's a very impressive ~resume.

I'm glad to know that such highly qualified people are on my side.
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 03-06-2009, 6:06 PM
diginit's Avatar
diginit diginit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Santa Clara,Ca
Posts: 3,344
iTrader: 77 / 100%
Default

Wow, And I though drinking all night with Lee Majors. And having Roy Orbison and Ray Conniff as close family friends was special. Impresive resume', Gene.
__________________
Anyone Can Get An Illegal Gun
.
We Cannot Leave Ourselves Defenseless!


The DOJ knows that two guys with semi autos that have a folding or collapsable stock, or pistol grip could take out California's entire police force, SWAT, and the National Guard. Jeeze, that pistol grip and stock are really dangerous...
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 03-06-2009, 6:22 PM
TonyM's Avatar
TonyM TonyM is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 3,055
iTrader: 85 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by du9207 View Post
so in other words your rich

Gene is probably the most down to earth "rich guy" you'll ever encounter. He's classy, yet not out of his element when it's time to get your hands dirty. Our paths have crossed and run parallel to each other over the years, but it took Calguns.net for me to actually meet him.

I love this place.

I think if you stick around long enough, you'll get to understand just who he is and what he's trying to do doing for the community.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCalK9.com View Post
Also dont worry if u have never built one once you go to a build party you will know everything and have a perfect functioning rifle.
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 03-06-2009, 6:41 PM
7x57's Avatar
7x57 7x57 is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 5,161
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

There are other wealthy businessmen working hard in the CA gun rights scene. At least in LA county, they could probably just donate enough money to the sheriff's election campaign to get a CCW and then do nothing else, so when there is a real personal commitment it's even more likely to be altruistic than it is for us serfs.

Remember, it is the left that insists that we see everything through a grid of economic class. We must judge people by who they are and what they do, and stay far away from their game.

Most of the founders, BTW, would fall into this precise category.

7x57
__________________


What do you need guns for if you are going to send your children, seven hours a day, 180 days a year to government schools? What do you need the guns for at that point?-- R. C. Sproul, Jr. (unconfirmed)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
I know every chance I get I'm going to accuse 7x57 of being a shill for LCAV. Because I can.
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 03-06-2009, 7:52 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

All I've done is worked very hard and read a lot and tried to listen.

To get back on topic in this thread, I've been trying to listen for an argument from Fabio, but it doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

FGG: I've offered up two scenarios. Which one would you like to take?

-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
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 03-06-2009, 10:32 PM
oaklander oaklander is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Deep East Oakland
Posts: 11,105
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
All I've done is worked very hard and read a lot and tried to listen.

To get back on topic in this thread, I've been trying to listen for an argument from Fabio, but it doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

FGG: I've offered up two scenarios. Which one would you like to take?

-Gene
Was it something I said?



OK Fabio, I'll be nice to you. . .
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 03-06-2009, 11:12 PM
JeffM JeffM is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 4,400
iTrader: 47 / 100%
Default

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 03-06-2009, 11:19 PM
oaklander oaklander is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Deep East Oakland
Posts: 11,105
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

FGG - it's safe to come back in the thread. . .

Just remember that we'd like some facts to back up your arguments. . .

Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 03-06-2009, 11:46 PM
7x57's Avatar
7x57 7x57 is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 5,161
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander View Post
Holy Moses, that picture is even more repulsive when it isn't the size of my thumbnail. It looks like Al Bundy in a wretchedly bad wig after a solid right cross to the nose. Where does this horrific image come from? How can we make it go away? Won't anyone think of the children?!?

7x57
__________________


What do you need guns for if you are going to send your children, seven hours a day, 180 days a year to government schools? What do you need the guns for at that point?-- R. C. Sproul, Jr. (unconfirmed)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
I know every chance I get I'm going to accuse 7x57 of being a shill for LCAV. Because I can.
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 03-06-2009, 11:54 PM
oaklander oaklander is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Deep East Oakland
Posts: 11,105
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7x57 View Post
Holy Moses, that picture is even more repulsive when it isn't the size of my thumbnail. It looks like Al Bundy in a wretchedly bad wig after a solid right cross to the nose. Where does this horrific image come from? How can we make it go away? Won't anyone think of the children?!?

7x57
http://www.ultimaterollercoaster.com...40199_01.shtml
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 03-07-2009, 12:04 AM
7x57's Avatar
7x57 7x57 is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 5,161
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander View Post
Well, and here I was wondering what getting "goosed" had to do with one's nose.

7x57
__________________


What do you need guns for if you are going to send your children, seven hours a day, 180 days a year to government schools? What do you need the guns for at that point?-- R. C. Sproul, Jr. (unconfirmed)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
I know every chance I get I'm going to accuse 7x57 of being a shill for LCAV. Because I can.
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 03-07-2009, 4:56 AM
383green's Avatar
383green 383green is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 4,320
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander View Post
Huh. He actually got hit by a goose. I always assumed that the picture was taken after he got punched for trolling about "I can't believe it's not butter" in the pro-butter forum.
__________________
Mark J. Blair, NF6X
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 4:14 PM.




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.