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
  #281  
Old 04-04-2018, 9:59 AM
MASTERLAB's Avatar
MASTERLAB MASTERLAB is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bed Sheet and Sofa Cushion Fort
Posts: 863
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Did oral arguments end? I looked at the live stream but it seemed to be a different case
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 04-04-2018, 10:11 AM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,984
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

This is the essence of Progressive/Leftist governance - the entire thing is an experiment whereby our betters (auto/technocrats) run our lives for us because we're too stupid to do so in an enlightened (meaning according to their dictates) way.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 04-04-2018, 10:25 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,283
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

The state also, unsurprisingly, reiterated their argument that "It's not infringing on anyone's rights, because there are still some handguns left on the roster".
__________________
DOJ has only processed 20% of 69k BBRAW apps. Your pending app will take ... "definitely between 2 weeks and 2 years." -Discogodfather

If DOJ visits you regarding your RAW application: Avoid opening your door if they don't have a warrant. Don't consent to a search. Don't "talk your way out of it". Assert your right to remain silent until you have a lawyer present.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 04-04-2018, 10:32 AM
FlyingShooter FlyingShooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 283
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Stick a fork in it, we’re done fellas They have had 5 years for their ‘little experiment’ and still no dual microstamped gun technology exists. That should have been enough time to experiment, yet they seem to want to continue it. The 2nd is dead here in this state...
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 04-04-2018, 11:35 AM
ojisan ojisan is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFV
Posts: 10,475
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

Let's see how the judges rule before throwing in the towel.
Yes, I know the courts are against us but until we get the decision we won't know.

Experiments?
With rights?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 04-04-2018, 12:33 PM
FlyingShooter FlyingShooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 283
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

How long is the ruling expected to take?
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 04-04-2018, 12:37 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,283
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingShooter View Post
How long is the ruling expected to take?



There's no set timeframe that a ruling has to be issued in, but it typically seems to happen between 9-24 months with 2a-related matters.
__________________
DOJ has only processed 20% of 69k BBRAW apps. Your pending app will take ... "definitely between 2 weeks and 2 years." -Discogodfather

If DOJ visits you regarding your RAW application: Avoid opening your door if they don't have a warrant. Don't consent to a search. Don't "talk your way out of it". Assert your right to remain silent until you have a lawyer present.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses


Last edited by cockedandglocked; 04-04-2018 at 12:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 04-04-2018, 12:40 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,283
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

For reference - Pena Vs Cid, the other roster case, was argued 13 months ago, and we still haven't heard anything.

So don't start holding your breath just yet.
__________________
DOJ has only processed 20% of 69k BBRAW apps. Your pending app will take ... "definitely between 2 weeks and 2 years." -Discogodfather

If DOJ visits you regarding your RAW application: Avoid opening your door if they don't have a warrant. Don't consent to a search. Don't "talk your way out of it". Assert your right to remain silent until you have a lawyer present.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 04-04-2018, 12:43 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,746
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
For reference - Pena Vs Cid, the other roster case, was argued 13 months ago, and we still haven't heard anything.

So don't start holding your breath just yet.
CA courts are much quicker than federal courts from what I've read.
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 04-04-2018, 12:52 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,283
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
CA courts are much quicker than federal courts from what I've read.
I keep forgetting this one is in a different court system, I think you're correct
__________________
DOJ has only processed 20% of 69k BBRAW apps. Your pending app will take ... "definitely between 2 weeks and 2 years." -Discogodfather

If DOJ visits you regarding your RAW application: Avoid opening your door if they don't have a warrant. Don't consent to a search. Don't "talk your way out of it". Assert your right to remain silent until you have a lawyer present.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 04-04-2018, 1:15 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 311
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingShooter View Post
How long is the ruling expected to take?
No more than three months.
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 04-04-2018, 1:26 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 964
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
No more than three months.
If that a rule? No more than 3 months?
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 04-04-2018, 1:27 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 311
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BennyAdeline View Post
Judges seemed to understand the point that microstamping isnít possible.

CA advocated that it doesnít matter and the de facto ban the impossible requirement creates is a grand experiment.
If this grand experiment" is the argument presented (I didn't listen in), then it would be predicated on an admission that the existing tech does not comply with the statutory requirements, and that the AG's certification was in fact fraudulent because the technology does not actually exist.

The argument that the statute is a "technology forcing statute" (as presented by the Law School Amici brief) is outside the parameters of the issues to be decided as framed by the court. To refresh, the issues the Court agreed to review were 1) whether the AG's certification was subject to judicial review [the DOJ arguing from the trial court on that it was not], and if it is subject to review 2) what is the standard of review in the trial court? Therefore, the Court could quite properly decline to address this issue at all. On the other hand, this is a question of law to be decided by a court, and is reviewable on appeal "de novo" (literally "of new" or more colloquially, from scratch). Personally, I do not think it is a winner. First, it is a "Hail Mary", and obviously so, and second, the statute is not framed as a technology forcing issue. IT did not simply impose the requirement and then leave it to the manufacturers to comply, it instead does not impose the requirement UNTIL the AG certifies that the technology exists that will stamp a casing with a unique identifier in two locations. Since the technology--apparently admittedly--does not exist, the prerequisites of the statute have not been met.

Last but not least, the argument that the requirement being omposed now does not violate the Constitutional rights because guns still exist on the Roster is irrelevant and not likely to be reached. Courts will, as a matter of policy, not reach constitutional issues if the case can be resolved without reference to such issues.
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 04-04-2018, 1:33 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 311
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
If that a rule? No more than 3 months?
I'd actually have to look it up to see if it applies to the Supreme Court. It most certainly applies to all trial courts and the courts of appeal. The law specifies that each judge must certify under oath each month that he/she/they have no matters pending that were submitted for decision more than 90 days ago in order to receive his or her pay check. Technically, a case is not "submitted" in the courts of appeal until the court says it is, or upon the completion of oral argument. Most cases in the courts of appeal are submitted on the briefs; all cases in the Supreme Court are argued. In my experience in the Court of Appeal, cases are usually decided before oral argument, and I suspect the same is true for the Supreme Court. The odds of changing their minds is quite low absent a spectacular policy argument.
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 04-04-2018, 3:20 PM
redline redline is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Mateo, CA
Posts: 248
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Found this little nugget in that online rag, sfgate:

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/...a-12806379.php
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 04-04-2018, 3:40 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,283
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redline View Post
Found this little nugget in that online rag, sfgate:

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/...a-12806379.php
This is cringe-worthy:

Quote:
Firearms manufacturers say microstamping is still beyond the range of modern technology. They’ve refused to sell new models of the handguns in the state since the law took effect
They misspelled "They're prohibited from"
__________________
DOJ has only processed 20% of 69k BBRAW apps. Your pending app will take ... "definitely between 2 weeks and 2 years." -Discogodfather

If DOJ visits you regarding your RAW application: Avoid opening your door if they don't have a warrant. Don't consent to a search. Don't "talk your way out of it". Assert your right to remain silent until you have a lawyer present.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 04-04-2018, 3:43 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,283
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Not that facts are SFgate's strong suit... but the article does say "The court will rule on the case within 90 days," for what that's worth.
__________________
DOJ has only processed 20% of 69k BBRAW apps. Your pending app will take ... "definitely between 2 weeks and 2 years." -Discogodfather

If DOJ visits you regarding your RAW application: Avoid opening your door if they don't have a warrant. Don't consent to a search. Don't "talk your way out of it". Assert your right to remain silent until you have a lawyer present.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 04-04-2018, 7:28 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
SeŮor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 31,275
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ojisan View Post
Let's see how the judges rule before throwing in the towel.
Yes, I know the courts are against us but until we get the decision we won't know.
The Pasadena/LA court is not as bad as many others.
The current makeup is 5-5... 5 from Bush, 1 from Clinton, and 4 from Obama, with 3 vacancies.

The thought of Trump flipping the Southern District court to 8-5 makes me smile.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just gov't will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just gov't. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 04-04-2018, 8:11 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 706
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
This is cringe-worthy:

They misspelled "They're prohibited from"
Thatís likely a coordinated talking point as the same language appears on the smartgunlaws (now Giffords center) website.
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 04-05-2018, 7:45 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,283
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
Thatís likely a coordinated talking point as the same language appears on the smartgunlaws (now Giffords center) website.
Probably the only "resource" the editor read to research their article.
__________________
DOJ has only processed 20% of 69k BBRAW apps. Your pending app will take ... "definitely between 2 weeks and 2 years." -Discogodfather

If DOJ visits you regarding your RAW application: Avoid opening your door if they don't have a warrant. Don't consent to a search. Don't "talk your way out of it". Assert your right to remain silent until you have a lawyer present.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #301  
Old 04-06-2018, 8:49 AM
nikonmike5 nikonmike5 is online now
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 36
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Was the court video of the oral arguments posted anywhere? I looked on the court website but all I found was up to March.
Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 04-06-2018, 10:44 PM
Deschoots Deschoots is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 34
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikonmike5 View Post
Was the court video of the oral arguments posted anywhere? I looked on the court website but all I found was up to March.
Same here. I bet it takes them a few days or so to post the recordings...
Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 04-12-2018, 5:17 PM
wchutt's Avatar
wchutt wchutt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Shasta County
Posts: 466
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Anyone found the video or audio?
__________________
www.jeffersonstatelaser.com
Make it personal.
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 04-16-2018, 8:33 AM
stlegion4 stlegion4 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 14
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Still no video to the website even after maintenance. I don't know if they're even going to update.
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 04-18-2018, 7:10 PM
Deschoots Deschoots is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 34
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stlegion4 View Post
Still no video to the website even after maintenance. I don't know if they're even going to update.
Wonder if we can contact them and as for a link to the recording? I may try when I get a chance.
Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 04-20-2018, 1:44 AM
GunsInMyEyes GunsInMyEyes is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 232
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 04-20-2018, 1:03 PM
HarryS HarryS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 237
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Perhaps this failure to post is not a mistake, and CA looks too stupid to allow the proles to see it?
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 04-24-2018, 1:43 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 964
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I watched the arguments and I think the NSSF loses. But I also think the Ninth Circuit is waiting on the outcome of this case to decide Pena. If we lose at the Supreme Court we win there and vice versa
Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 04-24-2018, 10:17 AM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 364
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
I watched the arguments
Can you supply a link?
Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 04-24-2018, 11:43 AM
warbird's Avatar
warbird warbird is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: backing up into Nevada
Posts: 1,381
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

This is an exercise in stupidity if you ask me. This technology does not advance any objective evidence that clearly shows who fired the weapon but only confirms that a particular weapon did the firing. That means a whole new division of tax paid workers to keep track of what we already know. I doubt one conviction in the foreseeable future will hinge on this technology. And what if criminals mix and match parts? Barrel stats say one gun and micro-stamping says another. That should raise reasonable doubt for the defense. Here we go again ladies and gentlemen down the rabbit hole of stupidity in california after our courts have dined on Peyote, marijuana, and maybe a little coke up the nose? Great state isn't it?
Reply With Quote
  #311  
Old 04-24-2018, 12:28 PM
alexisjohnson alexisjohnson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 531
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Warbird: It's actually pretty smart if you ask me. The goal is to ban guns...this is how its done....
Reply With Quote
  #312  
Old 04-24-2018, 12:59 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 964
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
Can you supply a link?
sorry I watched it live on the website
I don't know where to find a recording
Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old 04-24-2018, 2:08 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 311
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
I watched the arguments and I think the NSSF loses. But I also think the Ninth Circuit is waiting on the outcome of this case to decide Pena. If we lose at the Supreme Court we win there and vice versa
All you've said is that the NSSF had a "rough ride." Why do you think it loses?
Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 04-24-2018, 3:33 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 364
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by warbird View Post
but only confirms that a particular weapon did the firing.
Unless some enterprising criminal does some brass cleanup at the range and liberally sprinkles casings at the scene of a shooting. Imagine the nightmare of having to recover 100% of your spent brass. Then there's the issue of securely disposing of it.
Reply With Quote
  #315  
Old 04-25-2018, 5:51 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 964
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
All you've said is that the NSSF had a "rough ride." Why do you think it loses?
The justices questioned them much harder and appeared to not buy the premise that impossibility was a law rather than a aspirational maxim And even if it is it may have been overridden by the introduction of this law which overwrote it in this circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #316  
Old 04-26-2018, 2:51 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 311
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
The justices questioned them much harder and appeared to not buy the premise that impossibility was a law rather than a aspirational maxim And even if it is it may have been overridden by the introduction of this law which overwrote it in this circumstance.

That to me would be a strange way to read a statute that states the certification is not to occur until the AG certifies that the technology to comply with the statutory requirements is widely available to the industry. It simply is not available, at least not according to the evidence supplied by the DOJ. Do we allow the AG to rewrite the statute so as to become a "technology forcing" statute when it never was?

Well, we will see soon enough. Moreover, that issue appears beyond the issues accepted for review.
Reply With Quote
  #317  
Old 04-29-2018, 1:42 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 364
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The session on 4/3 was uploaded several days ago, but 4/4 still isn't up. It takes youtubers a couple hours to upload a video. What's up with the state taking a month+? This is ridiculous.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/35333.htm
Reply With Quote
  #318  
Old 05-02-2018, 4:57 PM
Deschoots Deschoots is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 34
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Here you go fellas, the 4/4 recording is now available:
http://jcc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer....12&clip_id=688

Last edited by Deschoots; 05-02-2018 at 5:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #319  
Old 05-02-2018, 5:40 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 364
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Thanks for the heads-up
Reply With Quote
  #320  
Old 05-02-2018, 10:01 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 311
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
The justices questioned them much harder and appeared to not buy the premise that impossibility was a law rather than a aspirational maxim And even if it is it may have been overridden by the introduction of this law which overwrote it in this circumstance.
I finally got to read the briefs, and this is a strange case indeed. Instead of arguing that the AG abused her discretion in certifying that the technology existed that was generally available that complied with the law, the NSSF instead mounted a facial challenge to the statute on the basis that complying with the technological mandate of stamping in two locations is impossible. Therefore, the argument goes, the statute is invalid since it requires an impossibility. According to the maxims of jurisprudence, the law can never require impossibilities. The court of appeal agreed. Now we have to see what the Supremes will do. But then, I do not think that the maxims of jurisprudence are "aspirational."
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 6:32 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.