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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #761  
Old 05-22-2018, 3:13 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,015
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
That entire transcript was amazing. I cannot wait for a recording.

THE COURT: THEY USUALLY COME IN WITH MANY WEAPONS.
AND SO NOW THE ARGUMENT IS GOING TO COME AND THE STATE IS GOING
TO COME IN AND THE STATE IS GOING TO SAY, LOOK, JUDGE, WE NEED
TO PASS A LAW, AND THE LAW IS YOU CAN'T OWN MORE THAN -- PICK A
NUMBER -- 10 GUNS BECAUSE IF YOU GOT MORE THAN 10 GUNS, THE
CHANCES ARE YOU'RE GOING TO KILL AND INJURE MORE PEOPLE,
ASSAULT MORE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND SO ON. WE'RE GOING
TO GET DOWN, DOING THE SAME PROGRESSION, UNTIL WE'RE AT THE
POINT WHERE YOU HAVE MAYBE ONE GUN WITH ONE ROUND, AND YOU
BETTER HOPE TO HECK THAT WHOEVER IS BREAKING INTO YOUR HOUSE TO
RAPE YOUR WIFE OR RAPE YOUR DAUGHTER THAT YOU CAN HIT HIM OR
HER WITH THAT ONE ROUND AND HIT HIM CENTER MASS.
there is no recordings for trial court which is why 112 dollars was spent for the transcript
Reply With Quote
  #762  
Old 05-22-2018, 3:14 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,015
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
That is spectacular! For some reason I don't remember hearing any that when I watched the arguments live, it's good to read the transcript for a refresher. It's full of good stuff!
this is a different argument. The one you saw was at the Ninth Circuit. This is for the trial court which is having hearings at the same time.
Reply With Quote
  #763  
Old 05-22-2018, 3:19 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,734
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
this is a different argument. The one you saw was at the Ninth Circuit. This is for the trial court which is having hearings at the same time.
Oh, thank you, that explains why a lot of it seemed unfamiliar
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #764  
Old 05-22-2018, 5:48 PM
nicky c nicky c is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 388
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I wondered when we'd get a Judge who would link Caetano, Heller, Miller, and McDonald together...

That transcript is quite the entertaining read.
Reply With Quote
  #765  
Old 05-22-2018, 5:53 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 297
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It is a great read. The only thing the state has is intermediate scrutiny, then everything flows from that. Not a Good fit, so what. All of our studies are just conclusions without data, so what don't need it. Logical holes larger than a 50rd drum mag, don't care, doesn't apply.

The best part is where the judge goes and says can I not only toss the grandfathering under the bus but how about the new acquisition ban as well. Of course our side says yes.

If this does go our way I'm sure none of itwill survive the ninth. But if the gun grabbers see that incrementalism doesn't work as each new law can get old ones tossed then they might think twice.
Reply With Quote
  #766  
Old 05-22-2018, 6:19 PM
nicky c nicky c is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 388
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

One thing they danced around was why does Law Enforcement need large capacity magazines when the citizenry does not? Why do LEO's end up having absurdly high round counts in LE involved shootings?

Was the average number of rounds used in LE shooting included as part of the record?

That's one area that the Plaintiff and the Judge missed out on and the state's answer would be interesting when contrasted with the citizens' need for self defense in the home setting. What's the practical difference? The majority of LE involved shootings involve a single subject.
Reply With Quote
  #767  
Old 05-22-2018, 6:27 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 24
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I also have some questions:

1) If this Judge issued the initial PI why was he back on the case?
2) Did CA provide the proper answer to the proper scrutiny especially with Fyoc?
Reply With Quote
  #768  
Old 05-23-2018, 6:11 AM
Bunyfofu69 Bunyfofu69 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 136
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicky c View Post
One thing they danced around was why does Law Enforcement need large capacity magazines when the citizenry does not? Why do LEO's end up having absurdly high round counts in LE involved shootings?

Was the average number of rounds used in LE shooting included as part of the record?

That's one area that the Plaintiff and the Judge missed out on and the state's answer would be interesting when contrasted with the citizens' need for self defense in the home setting. What's the practical difference? The majority of LE involved shootings involve a single subject.
I'd like to know what statistics your referring to. Or does it come from your experience watching the news and conversations with others?

"Absurdly high round counts"

I am a proponent of allowing standard capacity magazines to law abiding citizens.

Go execute a warrant in South Central LA with a 10 round magazine, or conduct a high-risk traffic stop with one. These situations do not correlate with the general public's "defense", as these are enforcement measures. There is a need for the good gear in the LE line of work.

Basic principles of your argument apply to "if bad guys don't wear body armor, then neither should we".



Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #769  
Old 05-23-2018, 8:36 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 297
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunyfofu69 View Post
I'd like to know what statistics your referring to. Or does it come from your experience watching the news and conversations with others?

"Absurdly high round counts"

I am a proponent of allowing standard capacity magazines to law abiding citizens.

Go execute a warrant in South Central LA with a 10 round magazine, or conduct a high-risk traffic stop with one. These situations do not correlate with the general public's "defense", as these are enforcement measures. There is a need for the good gear in the LE line of work.

Basic principles of your argument apply to "if bad guys don't wear body armor, then neither should we".



Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Which are all reasons to have larger magazines while on duty but I have yet to see a reason why off duty or even retired officers need more defense than other civilians.

I see no reason why a retired LEO need any more defense than anyone else. The judge pokes a huge hole through the training argument, which it self is off point. Ability isn't need.
Reply With Quote
  #770  
Old 05-23-2018, 9:00 AM
nicky c nicky c is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 388
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunyfofu69 View Post
I'd like to know what statistics your referring to. Or does it come from your experience watching the news and conversations with others?

"Absurdly high round counts"

I am a proponent of allowing standard capacity magazines to law abiding citizens.

Go execute a warrant in South Central LA with a 10 round magazine, or conduct a high-risk traffic stop with one. These situations do not correlate with the general public's "defense", as these are enforcement measures. There is a need for the good gear in the LE line of work.

Basic principles of your argument apply to "if bad guys don't wear body armor, then neither should we".



Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Poor word choice on my part perhaps. I'm not finding it at the moment, but there was an FBI study that touched on round counts anecdotally.

If that gang banger from South Central comes to my house with the intent to do harm; the state implies that a 10 round magazine in my Glock 17 is sufficient whereas the responding officer to my distress call is carrying 17 in the same pistol. Is his need for self defense more acute than mine? That is the position the state is taking.

Police officers carry firearms purely for defense of their person, fellow officers, and the public at large. Their defensive needs are no more acute than a citizens' when confronted by the same violent criminal.
Reply With Quote
  #771  
Old 05-23-2018, 9:21 AM
Bunyfofu69 Bunyfofu69 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 136
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicky c View Post
Poor word choice on my part perhaps. I'm not finding it at the moment, but there was an FBI study that touched on round counts anecdotally.

If that gang banger from South Central comes to my house with the intent to do harm; the state implies that a 10 round magazine in my Glock 17 is sufficient whereas the responding officer to my distress call is carrying 17 in the same pistol. Is his need for self defense more acute than mine? That is the position the state is taking.

Police officers carry firearms purely for defense of their person, fellow officers, and the public at large. Their defensive needs are no more acute than a citizens' when confronted by the same violent criminal.
Again, using your argument under 1 specific scenario. There are other functions, units and authorities that are beyond the scope of your patrol officer responding to a service call.

In your capacity as a citizen; you won't work as a Undercover Officer for that Drug Buy, work a remote stretch of the border with little to no assistance, execute that warrant on a house full of occupants, or attempt to stop a high speed pursuit on the 405. There is a need to have equipment.

The use of a firearm for defense is the same for oneself, officer and citizen alike. I draw the distinction for a greater need when an officer has to act to stop a crime, or actively work to encounter a specific threat; when a citizen can walk away and not act without repurcussion.

I hope one day you can have a magazine you deem appropriate in capacity.

But your argument of LE should only have access to the same equipment your average California citizen has; because the people they face are similarly equipped is flawed.

Perhaps we should similarly equip our military to fight on a level playing field with advesaries.






Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #772  
Old 05-23-2018, 11:59 AM
HarryS HarryS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Nobody in the world can tell me whether I will face worse odds than a LEO from violent criminals if attacked. Nobody can tell me I will never be attacked, or that I will.

The LEO distinction is a dodge by politicians to keep dissent down and political contributions from unions coming. Any idea that it relates to their safety or mine is night soil.

NYPD has a hit ratio of about 17%. I seem to recall a group of LEO's recently falling all over each other to shoot a guy, firing a total of 65 rounds for zero hits. Certainly there are some very competent officers out there (the TX traffic cop who took on two would-be jihadis with "assault weapons" and body armor with his .45 ACP Glock and won comes to mind) but they are not the norm.

If anything, I have a bigger incentive than a LEO to be careful about placing my rounds, since they have no liability at law except under the most unusual circumstances. I am not so situated, by the will of the same politicians.

The LEO exclusions can be rolled up into a tight little ball and inserted firmly, deeply, into the nether regions of Mr. Becerra et al.

I am happy the judge is doing his duty here. It's nice to see.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #773  
Old 05-23-2018, 12:06 PM
twidget1995 twidget1995 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: San Diego
Posts: 171
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default I think you're missing the point

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunyfofu69 View Post
Again, using your argument under 1 specific scenario. There are other functions, units and authorities that are beyond the scope of your patrol officer responding to a service call.

In your capacity as a citizen; you won't work as a Undercover Officer for that Drug Buy, work a remote stretch of the border with little to no assistance, execute that warrant on a house full of occupants, or attempt to stop a high speed pursuit on the 405. There is a need to have equipment.

The use of a firearm for defense is the same for oneself, officer and citizen alike. I draw the distinction for a greater need when an officer has to act to stop a crime, or actively work to encounter a specific threat; when a citizen can walk away and not act without repurcussion.

I hope one day you can have a magazine you deem appropriate in capacity.

But your argument of LE should only have access to the same equipment your average California citizen has; because the people they face are similarly equipped is flawed.

Perhaps we should similarly equip our military to fight on a level playing field with advesaries.
The point isn't that the police should have lower capacity magazines it's that the public should have the same capacity magazines as police.

Kinda like, how if smart guns are such a great idea, why aren't LEAs and the military clamoring for them? Why should the general public have less than the State has?
Reply With Quote
  #774  
Old 05-23-2018, 12:09 PM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 213
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Bunyfofu69... nicky c agreeing with you. You are reading his posts incorrectly.
Reply With Quote
  #775  
Old 05-23-2018, 12:15 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 516
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunyfofu69 View Post
your argument of LE should only have access to the same equipment your average California citizen has; because the people they face are similarly equipped is flawed.
Are you actually defending the state's bastardization of equal protection? I don't know why some of you people have such a hard-on for LEOs and place them on a saintly pure-2A pedestal above the unwashed masses who can't be trusted. The 2A was written precisely to ensure we were all on equal footing, and you celebrate the tilting of the board.
Reply With Quote
  #776  
Old 05-23-2018, 12:20 PM
Bunyfofu69 Bunyfofu69 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 136
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
Are you actually defending the state's bastardization of equal protection? I don't know why some of you people have such a hard-on for LEOs and place them on a saintly pure-2A pedestal above the unwashed masses who can't be trusted. The 2A was written precisely to ensure we were all on equal footing, and you celebrate the tilting of the board.
Perhaps you should read my post again, and the one before. I am all for law abiding citizens possessing SCMs.

But the argument put forth "I can't have it, so no one should either", I have a problem with.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #777  
Old 05-23-2018, 12:24 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunyfofu69 View Post
Perhaps you should read my post again, and the one before. I am all for law abiding citizens possessing SCMs.

But the argument put forth "I can't have it, so no one should either", I have a problem with.
Out of curiosity, where do you come down on large capacity magazines (e.g. magazines with capacity > 10 rounds)? By one definition (what qualifies to get on the list of CA-acceptable pistols) SCMs are those with a capacity of 10 rounds or less.
Reply With Quote
  #778  
Old 05-23-2018, 12:31 PM
Bunyfofu69 Bunyfofu69 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 136
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Standard capacity magazines. The same magazines you can get in the great state of Texas.

10,15,30,45 capacity to make you feel warm and fuzzy.

Belt-fed is another matter. Let's not go there.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #779  
Old 05-23-2018, 5:37 PM
malfunction's Avatar
malfunction malfunction is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: low crawling towards the state line...
Posts: 362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
there is no recordings for trial court which is why 112 dollars was spent for the transcript
Thanks so much for posting that wolfwood, it was 123 pages of pure joy.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
What we have in practice is a legal system, not a justice system.
Reply With Quote
  #780  
Old 07-01-2018, 6:57 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,706
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I'm watching the video now. The panel is NR Smith (Bush), Wallace (Nixon!), and Batts (Clinton). It should be a 2-1 outcome. I'm assuming the same panel that's dealing with the PI appeal would be hearing the case after the district court? If so we will win this and the other side will look at the game theory and not want to take the risk of asking for cert.

Curious, why is Batts, from New York, on this panel? I don't know how these things work.
__________________

Last edited by CCWFacts; 07-01-2018 at 7:12 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #781  
Old 07-01-2018, 8:35 AM
Steve1968LS2's Avatar
Steve1968LS2 Steve1968LS2 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 8,313
iTrader: 73 / 99%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Out of curiosity, where do you come down on large capacity magazines (e.g. magazines with capacity > 10 rounds)? By one definition (what qualifies to get on the list of CA-acceptable pistols) SCMs are those with a capacity of 10 rounds or less.
I'm not brainwashed so I don't consider 11+ rounds to be "large" capacity..

Large capacity would be MORE than what the gun was designed for.. so my Glock with 17 rounds would be STANDARD.. if I had a 25 rnd extended mag it would be large.

My AR would be standard with 30.. large with a 50 round drum..

50 rounds would be STANDARD in my PS90..

See where I'm going.. Don't fall into their nomenclature trap.. it's bad enough that many here call semi-auto AR-patterned rifles "assault weapons".. that was just more brainwashing.
__________________
"Unless we keep the barbarian virtues, gaining the civilized ones will be of little avail. Oversentimentality, oversoftness, washiness, and mushiness are the great dangers of this age and of this people." Theodore Roosevelt

Member: Patron member NRA, lifetime member SAF, CRPA, Guardian Front Sight
Reply With Quote
  #782  
Old 07-01-2018, 9:15 AM
adamkdoiron adamkdoiron is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Quincy, CA
Posts: 150
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
I'm watching the video now. The panel is NR Smith (Bush), Wallace (Nixon!), and Batts (Clinton). It should be a 2-1 outcome. I'm assuming the same panel that's dealing with the PI appeal would be hearing the case after the district court? If so we will win this and the other side will look at the game theory and not want to take the risk of asking for cert.

Curious, why is Batts, from New York, on this panel? I don't know how these things work.
what video are you watching?
Reply With Quote
  #783  
Old 07-01-2018, 9:33 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 37,441
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve1968LS2 View Post
I'm not brainwashed so I don't consider 11+ rounds to be "large" capacity..

Large capacity would be MORE than what the gun was designed for.. so my Glock with 17 rounds would be STANDARD.. if I had a 25 rnd extended mag it would be large.

My AR would be standard with 30.. large with a 50 round drum..

50 rounds would be STANDARD in my PS90..

See where I'm going.. Don't fall into their nomenclature trap.. it's bad enough that many here call semi-auto AR-patterned rifles "assault weapons".. that was just more brainwashing.
We lost that nomenclature 'battle' in 1999.

In a legal context, California recognizes just 2 classes of magazines: "large-capacity", those with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, is the only one named.

In ordinary conversation, use what you like; in a discussion of California law, refusal to use 'large-capacity' appropriately is the equivalent of refusing to use the word 'speed' in a vehicle code discussion.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

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.


Reply With Quote
  #784  
Old 07-01-2018, 2:14 PM
stator's Avatar
stator stator is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 816
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve1968LS2 View Post
I'm not brainwashed
Yes, you are brainwashed by common sense which is not allowed in California by the ruling party, and it's media elites.
__________________
**
3 Rules of Skeet: Head on the gun, eye on the target, and proper lead
M1a - If you can see it, you can hit it
Friends don't let friends vote demorat
Utah CCW permit holder
Reply With Quote
  #785  
Old 07-01-2018, 5:00 PM
Hooligan Hooligan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 307
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Boy, sure wish this line of questioning occurred before any laws were passed. Judges actually seems impartial, not outright adversarial to the 2nd.

What worries me most is the state legal guy so nonchalant about incremental legislation.and his thought on going from the previous law to this. Like the legislation duped law people into the first law and then get to go back and "fix" it.
__________________
On the firing line- depending on the day, determines which side of the line I'm supposed to stand on!
Reply With Quote
  #786  
Old 07-01-2018, 10:07 PM
Citizen_B's Avatar
Citizen_B Citizen_B is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 948
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adamkdoiron View Post
what video are you watching?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKa1Gz81sfk

Good arguments from counselors on both sides, but I give the nod to plaintiff. It seems like the taking clause issue has merit, regardless of the constitutional issue. Wallace seems to have some reservations about that, Smith seems onboard, Batts unknown.
Reply With Quote
  #787  
Old 07-01-2018, 10:21 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,241
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen_B View Post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKa1Gz81sfk

Good arguments from counselors on both sides, but I give the nod to plaintiff. It seems like the taking clause issue has merit, regardless of the constitutional issue. Wallace seems to have some reservations about that, Smith seems onboard, Batts unknown.
Not impressed with anyone involved when they are basing everything on some kind of payed for garbage study that concluded that large capacity magazines make some kind of difference in terms of public safety. That's not true and a joke in terms of physics and reality.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #788  
Old 07-01-2018, 10:59 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen_B View Post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKa1Gz81sfk

Good arguments from counselors on both sides, but I give the nod to plaintiff. It seems like the taking clause issue has merit, regardless of the constitutional issue. Wallace seems to have some reservations about that, Smith seems onboard, Batts unknown.
Net-net from CA9 to CA DoJ: Why are you wasting our time? You (CA DoJ) have a higher burden challenging a PI than for appeal if you lose. Plus, trial could moot the issue before the panel.

My Magic 8-Ball says the panel sits on the case until there is a ruling at DC, then issues a per curium ruling dismissing the appeal on the basis the matter before the court (the appeal of the PI) is moot.
Reply With Quote
  #789  
Old 07-02-2018, 7:21 AM
Citizen_B's Avatar
Citizen_B Citizen_B is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 948
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Net-net from CA9 to CA DoJ: Why are you wasting our time? You (CA DoJ) have a higher burden challenging a PI than for appeal if you lose. Plus, trial could moot the issue before the panel.

My Magic 8-Ball says the panel sits on the case until there is a ruling at DC, then issues a per curium ruling dismissing the appeal on the basis the matter before the court (the appeal of the PI) is moot.
I agree. Iím not really sure what the state is trying to do here. I didnít understand the logic in their explanation.
Reply With Quote
  #790  
Old 07-02-2018, 8:28 AM
Mesa Defense's Avatar
Mesa Defense Mesa Defense is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chasing Bears
Posts: 1,375
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Interesting video to watch, thanks for posting it...
Reply With Quote
  #791  
Old 07-02-2018, 9:09 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,706
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen_B View Post
I agree. Iím not really sure what the state is trying to do here. I didnít understand the logic in their explanation.
Yes, that's what it seemed like. The panel was like, "This is a PI appeal. Why are you wasting our time? We're just going to go over the whole argument again after DC." And the state was trying to say, "These things are really dangerous and it's not a taking, it's a police power!" And the the 9th was saying, "Ok, yeah, but like we just said... aren't those questions we're going to have to resolve after the DC?" "But... it's not a taking, it's a police power!" Etc.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #792  
Old 07-07-2018, 11:55 AM
DisgruntledReaper's Avatar
DisgruntledReaper DisgruntledReaper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,724
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

Can someone please give me a succinct current standing on this case please? Clarify the following?

1-the injuction still stands correct?

2- if the injunction stands then the 7-1-18 mag ban can't be implemented ,correct,since an injunction by definition means to stop or cease whatever action is to be taken(?).

3-if this case gets won,then whoever moved grandfathered mags out of state would be able to bring them back in,correct? Since the law was bogus anything affected,ownership, storage location,etc due to it is moot ,correct? Or would the state say uhuh,you moved them and are now trying to re- import them.....but if they remained in state because of the litigation and were ok to use again, could some turd ada,da,le say well you are still being charged with...because you kept them after the deadline..

Thanks just trying for a plain english cliff notes status.
__________________
'There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.'

'I have so many good karma points I am approaching Saint Hood'

"They tell you of a laundry detergent that takes out bloodstains- I'm thinking that if you have clothes covered in bloodstains-maybe laundry isn't your biggest problem"

[SIGPIC]http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic27069_2.gif[/SIGPIC]
Reply With Quote
  #793  
Old 07-07-2018, 12:33 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledReaper View Post
Can someone please give me a succinct current standing on this case please? Clarify the following?

1-the injuction still stands correct?
Yes, injunction still stands.

Quote:
2- if the injunction stands then the 7-1-18 mag ban can't be implemented ,correct,since an injunction by definition means to stop or cease whatever action is to be taken(?).
If you legally possessed mags with a capacity > 10 rounds when the injunction issued, you can continue to possess the mags.

Quote:
3-if this case gets won,then whoever moved grandfathered mags out of state would be able to bring them back in,correct? Since the law was bogus anything affected,ownership, storage location,etc due to it is moot ,correct? Or would the state say uhuh,you moved them and are now trying to re- import them.....but if they remained in state because of the litigation and were ok to use again, could some turd ada,da,le say well you are still being charged with...because you kept them after the deadline..
This is where there may be a grey area. Regardless of the outcome at DC, there will be an appeal. Depending on what happens during the period of the appeal, mags with a capacity > 10 rounds that were legally possessed before the DC case was filed may or may not be able to be possessed.
Reply With Quote
  #794  
Old 07-07-2018, 11:08 PM
DisgruntledReaper's Avatar
DisgruntledReaper DisgruntledReaper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,724
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

Ok,thank you for clarifying and confirming what i had thought was the current status. When reading the legal mumbo jumbo, having some stupid law usurped by a more stupid law,overlapping stuff,etc,can start to boggle the mind...

Now if there can be something done about the roster bs,aw-hate that media invented label-, and others......
__________________
'There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.'

'I have so many good karma points I am approaching Saint Hood'

"They tell you of a laundry detergent that takes out bloodstains- I'm thinking that if you have clothes covered in bloodstains-maybe laundry isn't your biggest problem"

[SIGPIC]http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic27069_2.gif[/SIGPIC]
Reply With Quote
  #795  
Old 07-15-2018, 10:39 AM
glockazine glockazine is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 22
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
I got the transcript from the Duncan MSJ hearing

https://www.scribd.com/document/3798...-05-10-Part-01
Apologies in advance for the long quote from the transcript, but it's worth it.

Thank you so much for providing the transcript. I read the entire thing last night and was thoroughly entertained and inspired. For the Calgunners that don't have time to read the entire thing, I implore you to read the final thoughts from the court (pp. 119 line 24 - 124 line 14) copied below in full. For me, this succinctly and deftly summarizes my frustration with the California legislature and the knee-jerk reaction it has to tragedies that result in the violation of a Constitutionally protected right. It's brilliantly stated, and seeing a judge (and one in the 9th Circuit to boot!) so carefully consider the impact of gun control laws upon law-abiding citizens, gives me hope that we'll see our rights restored even in this state.

Quote:
OKAY. LET ME -- THANK YOU. I THANK YOU BOTH. BY THE WAY, I THINK YOU BOTH HAVE DONE A WONDERFUL JOB. MR. ECHEVERRIA, YOU STOOD UP TO MY WHIP-SAWING YOU FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME THIS MORNING, AND I REALLY, REALLY APPRECIATE IT. IT'S A SERIOUS CASE, SOME SERIOUS ISSUES. I THINK I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHY IT IS THAT JUDGES ALMOST ALWAYS UPHOLD THE STATE'S RESTRICTIONS. WHO WANTS TO BE THE JUDGE WHO -- BY THE WAY, I CAN TELL YOU THAT I RECEIVE MAIL REGULARLY -- WELL, NOT SO MUCH ANYMORE -- PEOPLE TELLING ME THE BLOOD OF THESE CHILDREN WILL BE ON YOUR HANDS AND COMMENTS LIKE THAT. WHO WANTS TO BE THE JUDGE WHO ALLOWS PEOPLE TO CONTINUE TO OWN LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES OR ASSAULT WEAPONS OR MACHINE GUNS OR WHATEVER WHO WAKES UP IN THE MORNING AND FINDS OUT THAT SOME OTHER DERANGED PERSON OR SOME TERRORIST HAS KILLED A BUNCH OF YOUNG KIDS OR INNOCENT CHILDREN.

MY CONCERN, MY CONCERN IS THIS: THE BILL OF RIGHTS WASN'T ADOPTED BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME PEOPLE SITTING IN SOME THEORETICAL ROOM SOMEWHERE STROKING THEIR CHIN AND GOING: WELL, I'M GOING TO THINK BIG THOUGHTS TODAY. AND YEAH, I GOT AN IDEA. HEY, I TELL YOU WHAT. LET'S DO THIS. LET'S PASS AN AMENDMENT THAT SAYS THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT DISARM THE POPULATION. YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.

THAT'S NOT WHY IT HAPPENED AT ALL. IT HAPPENED BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE HAD JUST LIVED, THEY HAD JUST LIVED THROUGH AN EXPERIENCE WHERE THE GOVERNMENT, THE VERY GOVERNMENT -- MR. ECHEVERRIA, YOU'RE HERE REPRESENTING THE STATE -- THE VERY GOVERNMENT THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS WAS IN FACT ABUSING ITS CITIZENS, AND IT WAS DOING IT ALL UNDER THE PRETENSE OF LAW.

TAKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, THEY WERE USING SOMETHING CALLED THE WRIT OF ASSISTANCE IN ORDER TO COME INTO PEOPLE'S HOUSE WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE AND TO SEARCH AND ARREST AND HAUL PEOPLE AWAY. PEOPLE VERY OFTEN FORGET THAT THE FIRST BATTLE OF THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR WAS FOUGHT ON APRIL -- I BELIEVE IT WAS APRIL 19TH, 1775. AND IT WAS FOUGHT, WHY? BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT DECIDED IT WAS GOING TO DISARM, IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC, IT WAS GOING TO DISARM THE PUBLIC, THE COLONISTS. AND THEY MARCHED UPON LEXINGTON AND CONCORD TO DISARM THE POPULATION.

AND SO WHEN THEY WERE DRAFTING THE BILL OF RIGHTS, THESE PEOPLE WHO HAD JUST LIVED THROUGH THIS EXPERIENCE -- THIS WASN'T THEORETICAL. IT WASN'T HYPOTHETICAL. IT WASN'T SOME BIG THINK TANK MOVEMENT. THEY LIVED THROUGH THIS, AND THEY DECIDED, YOU KNOW, THERE'S CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE WANT TO TELL THE GOVERNMENT THAT THEY CANNOT DO. YOU CAN DO A LOT OF THINGS. YOU CAN TELL PEOPLE YOU CAN'T DRIVE CARS WITH TINTED WINDOWS. YOU CAN TELL PEOPLE THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A GFCI IN YOUR BATHROOM AND EVERY OTHER 20 FEET. YOU CAN TELL ME YOU MUST WEAR A SEATBELT. NONE OF THOSE THINGS ARE PROTECTED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

BUT THE PEOPLE WHO FOUNDED THIS COUNTRY -- WHO IN MY OPINION WERE SOME OF THE SMARTEST PEOPLE EVER ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET -- CAME UP WITH THIS IDEA, CAME UP WITH THIS EXPERIMENT, AND THEY WERE VERY MUCH AFRAID, VERY MUCH AFRAID THAT THEY MIGHT PERHAPS BE FACING IN THE FUTURE THE VERY SAME THING THEY JUST LIVED THROUGH, AND THEY DIDN'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN. THEY DID NOT WANT TO THE GOVERNMENT TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY COULD DO AND WHAT THEY COULD NOT DO WITH REGARDS TO CERTAIN THINGS.

NOW WE UNDERSTAND, REALLY, WE UNDERSTAND, OF COURSE, THAT IN THE REAL WORLD, YOU CAN'T HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS, AND YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOURTH AMENDMENT WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS. BUT JUST THINK ABOUT HOW MANY LIVES COULD BE SAVED IF WE SIMPLY SAID: FOURTH AMENDMENT, THAT'S A NICE THOUGHT, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO. THERE'S A GREATER PUBLIC INTEREST IN ALLOWING LAW ENFORCEMENT TO BARGE INTO PEOPLE'S HOUSE AND SEARCH THEIR HOUSES WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE. FIFTH AMENDMENT. THINK OF HOW MANY MORE CRIMES COULD BE SOLVED, HOW MANY PEOPLE COULD BE SAVED IF WE COULD COERCE CONFESSIONS FROM PEOPLE. YEAH, FIFTH AMENDMENT, YOU KNOW, IT'S A GREAT IDEA, BUT THE PUBLIC INTEREST OUTWEIGHS PEOPLE HAVING THE RIGHT TO NOT INCRIMINATE THEMSELVES.

SO I THINK THIS IS VERY, VERY DIFFICULT BECAUSE WHO WANTS TO SEE CHILDREN BEING SHOT AND KILLED OR OTHER PEOPLE BEING SHOT OR LAW ENFORCEMENT BEING SHOT. BUT SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE STATE GETS TO HAVE ITS WAY HOWEVER IT WANTS, WHENEVER IT WANTS, UNDER SOME RUBRIC THAT, WELL, YOU KNOW, IT'S A REASONABLE FIT. BECAUSE, AS I ASKED MR. ECHEVERRIA OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, WHEN IS IT NOT A REASONABLE FIT? HOW DO WE MAKE THAT DECISION?

AND MY QUESTION IS: ARE WE NOT THERE? LOOK AT ALL OF THE LAWS, ALL OF THE REGULATIONS. I'VE LOOKED AT ALL THIS EVIDENCE, AND FRANKLY, WITH ALL OF THE GUN LAWS THAT WE HAVE, AND WE HAVE MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY, HAVE WE REALLY DONE ANYTHING AT ALL TO SOLVE THE GUN VIOLENCE PROBLEM IN THE UNITED STATES? AND THE ANSWER IS NO. NO. WE JUST KEEP WHITTLING AWAY AT THE SECOND AMENDMENT, KEEP WHITTLING AWAY, WHITTLING AWAY UNTIL EVENTUALLY WE'LL GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE'LL BE WHERE PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO OWN ONE GUN WITH ONE ROUND OF AMMUNITION BECAUSE ANYTHING ELSE BEYOND THAT WILL BE A REASONABLE FIT.
Reply With Quote
  #796  
Old 07-15-2018, 11:21 AM
MJB's Avatar
MJB MJB is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 4,170
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Nice
__________________
One life don't blow it!
Reply With Quote
  #797  
Old 07-15-2018, 4:58 PM
Cincinnatus's Avatar
Cincinnatus Cincinnatus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: East Bay Area
Posts: 532
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Now we wait for another 30 and then ten days for a final, final, final decision?
__________________
Active Army 1976-1986, Army Reserve 2005-2015, Afghanistan 2010-2011

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Reply With Quote
  #798  
Old 07-15-2018, 5:56 PM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 223
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So if I understand correctly, we still have not had a trial on the merits, everything so far has been about preliminary injunctions and motions for summary judgement, correct?
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #799  
Old 07-16-2018, 4:31 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 152
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"NOW WE UNDERSTAND, REALLY, WE UNDERSTAND, OF COURSE, THAT IN THE REAL WORLD, YOU CAN'T HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS, AND YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOURTH AMENDMENT WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS. BUT JUST THINK ABOUT HOW MANY LIVES COULD BE SAVED IF WE SIMPLY SAID: FOURTH AMENDMENT, THAT'S A NICE THOUGHT, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO. THERE'S A GREATER PUBLIC INTEREST IN ALLOWING LAW ENFORCEMENT TO BARGE INTO PEOPLE'S HOUSE AND SEARCH THEIR HOUSES WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE. FIFTH AMENDMENT. THINK OF HOW MANY MORE CRIMES COULD BE SOLVED, HOW MANY PEOPLE COULD BE SAVED IF WE COULD COERCE CONFESSIONS FROM PEOPLE. YEAH, FIFTH AMENDMENT, YOU KNOW, IT'S A GREAT IDEA, BUT THE PUBLIC INTEREST OUTWEIGHS PEOPLE HAVING THE RIGHT TO NOT INCRIMINATE THEMSELVES.

SO I THINK THIS IS VERY, VERY DIFFICULT BECAUSE WHO WANTS TO SEE CHILDREN BEING SHOT AND KILLED OR OTHER PEOPLE BEING SHOT OR LAW ENFORCEMENT BEING SHOT. BUT SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE STATE GETS TO HAVE ITS WAY HOWEVER IT WANTS, WHENEVER IT WANTS, UNDER SOME RUBRIC THAT, WELL, YOU KNOW, IT'S A REASONABLE FIT. BECAUSE, AS I ASKED MR. ECHEVERRIA OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, WHEN IS IT NOT A REASONABLE FIT? HOW DO WE MAKE THAT DECISION?

AND MY QUESTION IS: ARE WE NOT THERE? LOOK AT ALL OF THE LAWS, ALL OF THE REGULATIONS. I'VE LOOKED AT ALL THIS EVIDENCE, AND FRANKLY, WITH ALL OF THE GUN LAWS THAT WE HAVE, AND WE HAVE MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY, HAVE WE REALLY DONE ANYTHING AT ALL TO SOLVE THE GUN VIOLENCE PROBLEM IN THE UNITED STATES? AND THE ANSWER IS NO. NO. WE JUST KEEP WHITTLING AWAY AT THE SECOND AMENDMENT, KEEP WHITTLING AWAY, WHITTLING AWAY UNTIL EVENTUALLY WE'LL GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE'LL BE WHERE PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO OWN ONE GUN WITH ONE ROUND OF AMMUNITION BECAUSE ANYTHING ELSE BEYOND THAT WILL BE A REASONABLE FIT."


This is word for word I have been telling many gun control advocates for many years. You can save more lives by suspending fourth and fifth. Saving few lives is not a good enough reason.

How some people, or politicians, or judges can argue against that with a straight face is beyond me.
Reply With Quote
  #800  
Old 07-16-2018, 7:13 PM
DisgruntledReaper's Avatar
DisgruntledReaper DisgruntledReaper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,724
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
"NOW WE UNDERSTAND, REALLY, WE UNDERSTAND, OF COURSE, THAT IN THE REAL WORLD, YOU CAN'T HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS, AND YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOURTH AMENDMENT WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS. BUT JUST THINK ABOUT HOW MANY LIVES COULD BE SAVED IF WE SIMPLY SAID: FOURTH AMENDMENT, THAT'S A NICE THOUGHT, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO. THERE'S A GREATER PUBLIC INTEREST IN ALLOWING LAW ENFORCEMENT TO BARGE INTO PEOPLE'S HOUSE AND SEARCH THEIR HOUSES WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE. FIFTH AMENDMENT. THINK OF HOW MANY MORE CRIMES COULD BE SOLVED, HOW MANY PEOPLE COULD BE SAVED IF WE COULD COERCE CONFESSIONS FROM PEOPLE. YEAH, FIFTH AMENDMENT, YOU KNOW, IT'S A GREAT IDEA, BUT THE PUBLIC INTEREST OUTWEIGHS PEOPLE HAVING THE RIGHT TO NOT INCRIMINATE THEMSELVES.

SO I THINK THIS IS VERY, VERY DIFFICULT BECAUSE WHO WANTS TO SEE CHILDREN BEING SHOT AND KILLED OR OTHER PEOPLE BEING SHOT OR LAW ENFORCEMENT BEING SHOT. BUT SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE STATE GETS TO HAVE ITS WAY HOWEVER IT WANTS, WHENEVER IT WANTS, UNDER SOME RUBRIC THAT, WELL, YOU KNOW, IT'S A REASONABLE FIT. BECAUSE, AS I ASKED MR. ECHEVERRIA OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, WHEN IS IT NOT A REASONABLE FIT? HOW DO WE MAKE THAT DECISION?

AND MY QUESTION IS: ARE WE NOT THERE? LOOK AT ALL OF THE LAWS, ALL OF THE REGULATIONS. I'VE LOOKED AT ALL THIS EVIDENCE, AND FRANKLY, WITH ALL OF THE GUN LAWS THAT WE HAVE, AND WE HAVE MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY, HAVE WE REALLY DONE ANYTHING AT ALL TO SOLVE THE GUN VIOLENCE PROBLEM IN THE UNITED STATES? AND THE ANSWER IS NO. NO. WE JUST KEEP WHITTLING AWAY AT THE SECOND AMENDMENT, KEEP WHITTLING AWAY, WHITTLING AWAY UNTIL EVENTUALLY WE'LL GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE'LL BE WHERE PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO OWN ONE GUN WITH ONE ROUND OF AMMUNITION BECAUSE ANYTHING ELSE BEYOND THAT WILL BE A REASONABLE FIT."


This is word for word I have been telling many gun control advocates for many years. You can save more lives by suspending fourth and fifth. Saving few lives is not a good enough reason.

How some people, or politicians, or judges can argue against that with a straight face is beyond me.
Wait a minute....are you saying you SUPPORT suspending the 4th and 5th ammendments!? IF you are ,you are either out of your frikkin mind or a socialist totalitarian suckup... You need to seriously go take a history refresher class.

If i have read your post wrong,you need to word your posts better...
__________________
'There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.'

'I have so many good karma points I am approaching Saint Hood'

"They tell you of a laundry detergent that takes out bloodstains- I'm thinking that if you have clothes covered in bloodstains-maybe laundry isn't your biggest problem"

[SIGPIC]http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic27069_2.gif[/SIGPIC]
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 3:26 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.