Calguns.net  

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

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 12-25-2015, 6:28 PM
bohoki's Avatar
bohoki bohoki is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 92688
Posts: 18,459
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

when judges are emotionless robots with no internal agenda or politics
  #42  
Old 12-25-2015, 9:48 PM
baggss's Avatar
baggss baggss is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Eastern Ventura County
Posts: 3,103
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
but will continue to post what I know to be right when I feel it is warranted. One thing I do know is that if something is right it's not just right because a court agreed with it but it was right along the court agreeing just paves the way for that which was already right to be implemented.
That right is where you derail your own argument. Much like the anti-2A crowd you seem to want to pick and choose which parts of the constitution you like and ignore the ones you don't. It doesn't work that way. If you suscribe to the idea of a constitutional republic (What we are supposed to be) then you take the good with the bad and accept the status of the document as it is currently legally interpreted. You don't have to like and you can work to change it by all means that are open to you and legal but you need to either accept the whole document and its current status or not. Arguing that you know better than the founders or SCOTUS is nothing but hubris on your part and makes you look silly. Don't mix up passion and ignorance, be passionate but be smart. Educate yourself.

On a separate note, you obviously have a problem with the recent SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage and probably the 14th amendment itself. I recommend you educate yourself on the 14th and the due process clause. Once you understand it I think you will understand the decision better. 7ou may still disagree with it, that's ok, but I think you might come to appreciate what that particular amendment accomplishes.
__________________
"The best gun is the one you'll have on you when you need it the most, the one you know how to use, the one that goes BANG every single time you pull the trigger. Whether that gun cost you $349 or $1,100 it's worth every penny if it saves your life, or the life of someone you love.” -Tim Schmit, CCW Magazine July 2015


  #43  
Old 12-25-2015, 10:56 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,779
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
Those are some of the problems with expanding the Court. Cases would be heard by an abbreviated panel of the full Court, just like at the Circuit level. But then we'll get the petitions for en banc re-review, and complaints that not enough cases go to the full Court.

So there would be no recourse beyond the Circuit Court of Appeals level, and we would have no tribunal to resolve disparate rulings at the Circuit level?
Obviously, well-written and good response.

For the first part: it sounds like a greater effort needs to be made making circuit courts as political as SCOTUS nominations. Fact sheets, background digging, a record of votes to know where they stand, etc.

For the second part: if that's what SCOTUS did with consistency and as a rule, then obviously we'd be fine. However, SCOTUS can ignore issues where over half of circuits have weighed in, one circuit has, and ignore the right to carry when every circuit but one, iirc, has weighed in. SCOTUS, as a small court of 9 members, has guidelines, but very few rules governing conduct and what they must do. The power to reject or deny cases based on their desire to answer questions, coupled with the lack of compulsion to answer questions with a severe split undermines the argument that SCOTUS is there for that alone.

Either the power needs to be shared, or the power needs to be curbed via compulsion to answer questions after a certain point. Further, it sounds like we need to take the fight on circuit judges to the extremes of SCOTUS as they have to be approved by congress.
  #44  
Old 12-26-2015, 12:24 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,776
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

SCOTUS's complete and utter failure to enforce Heller (or even some semblance of inter-Circuit consistency) has nothing to do with limited man power.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
  #45  
Old 12-26-2015, 9:00 AM
wpage's Avatar
wpage wpage is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,276
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Since all the folks in and behind the law are sworn to uphold the Constitution to begin with...

The position the plaintiffs are in to begin with.

Its a catch 22 deal. In other words. Get your wallet out and prepare to enter the twilight zone of US Justice!
__________________
God so loved the world He gave His only Son... Believe in Him and have everlasting life.
John 3:16

United Air Epic Fail Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u99Q7pNAjvg
  #46  
Old 12-26-2015, 9:09 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,779
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
SCOTUS's complete and utter failure to enforce Heller (or even some semblance of inter-Circuit consistency) has nothing to do with limited man power.
Great. What does that DO to help us? Calling the supreme court a bunch of dickless wimps doesn't help us, doesn't give us a strong enough rallying cry to get things done, doesn't showcase a strategy, and doesn't make us more sympathetic.

Further, there's many OTHER issues besides Heller that matter. Look at everyone who says they're moving out of state, there's not ONE person I found who clearly said "I'm moving out because of the gun laws, everything else is perfect/good enough for me". I wish there were to make a point and rallying cry, but guns aren't a big enough or egregious enough infringement yet that people are moving out of state.

What IS an issue is that SCOTUS is able to take 1% of applications a year. 1%. That's egregious, a historical low, and not how the court operated for most of their history. They were forced to answer questions they didn't wanna. Nowadays they don't have to.

Also, notice that I said perhaps we need to rally to politicize circuit court appointments to the same level of SCOTUS. Make NO appointments get done that we aren't 100% on. Strain the court system to the breaking point, and try to hold the circuits hostage til SCOTUS gives us what we want. I'm not saying that's an OPTIMAL strategy, but its a STRATEGY- which is more than you're proposing.

Give me a strategy that can work with multiple people, or one that you can enact on your own. Tell us you're in the kcbrown camp for an article V. If it means an armed raid on SCOTUS, then have the courage of your convictions and go ahead and get your raid on Harper's ferry on. But don't propose things that require a mass movement that will never happen, or use extremist rhetoric you're not willing to back up.

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 12-26-2015 at 9:12 AM..
  #47  
Old 12-26-2015, 11:58 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,776
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

IMO our only peaceful hope is to make defending ALL of the bill of rights a non-partisan issue.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
  #48  
Old 12-26-2015, 12:11 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,779
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
IMO our only peaceful hope is to make defending ALL of the bill of rights a non-partisan issue.
That's a feeling, not a strategy. Try again.

There's nothing actionable, or things to do; just a "we should X, because yeah"

A strategy looks something like, "We try to convince X to join with the CRPA and NRA and FPC to use their combined voting/lobbying/shaming power to attack politicians A,B,C to gain scalps to show there's a new power in town.

After than, we then try to convince Y to join us and further build a coalition, passing Z law that will do ABC."
  #49  
Old 12-26-2015, 12:25 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,776
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

1) Non-NRA organizations should try their hardest to reach out to organizations like the ACLU and engage libertarian leaning left voters, especially younger voters in demographics likely to have interest in firearms (gamers etc).
2) They should engage politicians to convince them that NOT being anti-gun is not a liability. We need to change the "default" action of the average politician from "vote for anti gun laws" to "at least abstain".
3) Influencing judicial appointments would be great, but I'm fairly sure that in CA at least, that procedure is impenetrably corrupt. However, a start might be to educate and build awareness of how broken things are, rather than the blind trust that the court system is filled with ethical, honest people.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 12-26-2015 at 12:31 PM..
  #50  
Old 12-26-2015, 12:57 PM
R Dale R Dale is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,456
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baggss View Post
That right is where you derail your own argument. Much like the anti-2A crowd you seem to want to pick and choose which parts of the constitution you like and ignore the ones you don't. It doesn't work that way. If you suscribe to the idea of a constitutional republic (What we are supposed to be) then you take the good with the bad and accept the status of the document as it is currently legally interpreted. You don't have to like and you can work to change it by all means that are open to you and legal but you need to either accept the whole document and its current status or not. Arguing that you know better than the founders or SCOTUS is nothing but hubris on your part and makes you look silly. Don't mix up passion and ignorance, be passionate but be smart. Educate yourself.

On a separate note, you obviously have a problem with the recent SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage and probably the 14th amendment itself. I recommend you educate yourself on the 14th and the due process clause. Once you understand it I think you will understand the decision better. 7ou may still disagree with it, that's ok, but I think you might come to appreciate what that particular amendment accomplishes.
Please show me where I said I have a problem with the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage because I don't and I doubt I said I did and if so it was a mis print. I compared the ruling on gay marriage to what is going on in the gun rights fight and said the Federal gov could enforce gun laws the same way they did with forcing the states to issue marriage lic to gays.
  #51  
Old 12-26-2015, 4:05 PM
bandook bandook is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Ex-Oakland
Posts: 1,228
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
Please show me where I said I have a problem with the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage because I don't and I doubt I said I did and if so it was a mis print. I compared the ruling on gay marriage to what is going on in the gun rights fight and said the Federal gov could enforce gun laws the same way they did with forcing the states to issue marriage lic to gays.

What gun law would you want them to enforce?
(Please be specific)
  #52  
Old 12-26-2015, 6:14 PM
R Dale R Dale is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,456
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bandook View Post
What gun law would you want them to enforce?
(Please be specific)
The SCOTUS could strike down all gun laws that are to restrictive on a nationwide basis if they wanted to like the gun laws in CA,NJ, and NY,DC to name a few.
  #53  
Old 12-26-2015, 11:27 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,779
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
The SCOTUS could strike down all gun laws that are to restrictive on a nationwide basis if they wanted to like the gun laws in CA,NJ, and NY,DC to name a few.
Based off what? SCOTUS can do pretty much whatever they want. They could do it with or without the 2nd amendment.

Just because they can doesn't mean they will. SCOTUS has the power to do a lot of things. Any arguments you have on why they are compelled to do anything needs to take into account SCOTUS can choose to reject or take any case they want.

If congress passed a law taking away the speech rights of Muslims or anyone else, if SCOTUS chose not to take the case, the law would stand. That's the way the system works. Even if you *feel* that something is obviously unconstitutional, until the system goes along the ordained paths it's not unconstitutional in any way that will protect you, so it functionally is constitutional until declared not by SCOTUS. And they can choose to not hear a case even if they believe it is unconstitutional but don't want to deal with it.
  #54  
Old 12-27-2015, 8:27 AM
OCShooter100 OCShooter100 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 61
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Just how would you propose using the Constitution as a defense?

As of right now, the Constitution only guarantees the right to possess certain types of firearms within the home (Heller as made applicable to states through McDonald).

Really? I musta missed the "within the home" part of Madison's Second Amendment. I do remember the "...keep and bear arms..."

The United States Supreme Court is political. If it metes out justice, it's coincidental with political agenda.

We need to start voting out congressmen who are derelict in their duties by not impeaching activist (read: political) justices.
  #55  
Old 12-27-2015, 8:28 AM
OCShooter100 OCShooter100 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 61
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

BTW, we haven't been a constitutional republic since 1913.
  #56  
Old 12-27-2015, 9:44 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,720
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCShooter100 View Post
Really? I musta missed the "within the home" part of Madison's Second Amendment. I do remember the "...keep and bear arms..."

The United States Supreme Court is political. If it metes out justice, it's coincidental with political agenda.

We need to start voting out congressmen who are derelict in their duties by not impeaching activist (read: political) justices.
You didn't miss the part about "within the home" in Second Amendment. It's not in there. But then, you already knew that.

What you missed was the part about "within the home" contained in the Heller decision interpreting the Second Amendment.

You can't believe in the Constitution without also believing in it's provisions for the courts to interpret its content. The Constitution isn't "Burger King", you don't get to have it your way.
  #57  
Old 12-27-2015, 10:01 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,350
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
We're all entitled to hold our personal opinions of what the Constitution provides.

I personally agree with your opinion of what the Constitution provides, although I'm also confused about your point regarding local interpretation. Please keep in mind that the U.S. Constitution does not universally apply to the states. There has to be a judicial ruling making a portion of the Constitution apply to the states before it is so (like the McDonald case did).

But in the grand scheme of things, your opinion, and my opinion, are pretty meaningless. It's the sum of court opinions that really count.

That's why I'm asking you to cite any court opinion that applies the Constitution to firearms possession cases outside of the home.
Doesn't the Constitution provide the same right(s) whether the Court has spoken; (i.e. the right to bear extends outside the home or it does not, even thought SCOTUS has yet to interpret the C to that extent)?

Last edited by Chewy65; 12-27-2015 at 10:06 AM..
  #58  
Old 12-27-2015, 10:11 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,720
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
Doesn't the Constitution provide the same right(s) whether the Court has spoken; (i.e. the right to bear extends outside the home or it does not, even thought SCOTUS has yet to interpret the C to that extent)?
Chewy,

Good discussion point. I don't see how it could. That would create a condition where some actor (typically an LEO taking an enforcement action) would need to have certain knowledge of how the Supreme Court would rule on an issue, before the ruling is even made.

How could that be possible?
  #59  
Old 12-27-2015, 10:20 AM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,516
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

The constitution means what ever we want it to mean. Only when there is a dispute on meaning do the courts become involved.

Ultimately in a dispute it is the side with the most arms brought to bear that 'wins'.
__________________
My opinions are not legal advice ... more like pleas for help.Acronyms AR-15 Primer CA firearms laws timeline BLM land maps
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivanimal View Post
We have the time and the hammers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown
Study and learn our history and law as it is -- not as you would like it to be.
  #60  
Old 12-27-2015, 10:30 AM
dozer wright's Avatar
dozer wright dozer wright is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,739
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

This Judical system is bought and paid for sorry its true. I say it time and time again anyone who will stand and say the Constitution says anything other than it says or we interpret. Look up the definition of Interpret (explain the meaning of ) . The Constitution is Writen in layman terms not lawyer speak. Its written to stand for all time by the smartest,men who possibly ever lived. Any one who says the Constitution says anything other than what it says and trys to interpret the writings other than what it says in plain english has an agenda or is bought and payed for. As a American citizen If I was arrested for Ccw I would expect to stand in front of a judge and say the 2nd ammendment protects the right for me to keep and bear arms. Just as it protects the right to free speech and freedom of religon. But in this bought and paid for Judicail system that is far past broken. Not only can I not get a Ccw In the County I live in. But under the Second Ammendment should not need to even think of a need to apply for permisson from a bought and paid for politicain to keep and bear arms. The bought and paid for Politicains and Judges is exsactly what the ammendments where penned to protect us from a out of control over powered goverment who interpret as they see fit.

Last edited by dozer wright; 12-27-2015 at 10:32 AM..
  #61  
Old 12-27-2015, 10:52 AM
Ripon83's Avatar
Ripon83 Ripon83 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Modesto & Denio Junction
Posts: 6,723
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default IMO

The three key letters in your post IMO. Imagine this. You have an opinion. It's valid. I agree with it, but others do not. In fact vast numbers do not. You vote, I vote, but more of them vote. They win. We lose. Now we have to live within the rules they adopt. The rules are based on their opinions just like you preferred your opinion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
The Constitution says we have the right to keep and bear arms to me when it says we have a right to bear arms that IMO means we have a right to carry and not just to keep arms in our homes. IMO the bigger picture here is the fact that the Federal gov lets local LE interpret what the constitution means as they want in fact in some states it is very difficult to obtain or have a firearm in your home so the Constitution does not in fact guarantee us the right to have a firearm in our homes or to carry until its starts being enforced on a Federal level.
  #62  
Old 12-27-2015, 11:45 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 12,566
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It won't work as the SCOTUS decided to allow the states to make all the determinations of what the 2nd admendment means.

That's why we have 50 different versions of that admendment here in America. Add a few more for the terratories and possesions.

They have written yes, you can own a gun but everything else is left up to the states to decide.
  #63  
Old 12-27-2015, 12:29 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,735
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dozer wright View Post
...The Constitution is Writen in layman terms not lawyer speak. Its written to stand for all time by the smartest,men who possibly ever lived. Any one who says the Constitution says anything other than what it says and trys to interpret the writings other than what it says in plain english has an agenda or is bought and payed for. ...
Phooey!

It's fatuous to believe that even the Founding Fathers all agreed on exactly what they meant and how the Constitution would apply.

The reality was that although fifty-five delegates attended the Constitutional Convention in 1786-87, only thirty-nine signed the proposed Constitution. Thirteen left early without signing, and three refused to sign. There was then a bitter fight over ratification by the States. And it indeed looked like the Constitution would fail ratification until the Massachusetts Compromise was hashed out -- giving us the Bill of Rights after the Constitution was ratified without the Bill of Rights.

Indeed, the nature of politics is that people often disagree, and when people live and work together adjustments, compromises and accommodations need to be worked out. Politics is one way such things are worked out. Litigation is another.

The Founding Fathers well understood how people do disagree and how politics and litigation work. They were active, mostly successfully, in the commercial and political world of the time. Many were lawyers. A few were judges. Almost all were very well educated. They were generally politically savvy. Many were members at various times of their home colonial assemblies or were otherwise active in local government or administration. They were solidly grounded in the real world and knew how to make things work in the real world. That is why they were able to bring our nation into being.

And since they had their share of disagreements among themselves, in the Constitution they assigned the judicial power of the United States to the federal courts (Article III, Sections 1 and 2):
Quote:
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,...
The exercise of judicial power and the deciding of cases arising under the Constitution necessarily involves interpreting and applying the Constitution to the circumstances of the matter in controversy in order to decide the dispute. Many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers and well understood what the exercise of judicial power meant and entailed.

The interpretation of the Constitution and how it applied was a matter for dispute almost as soon as the ink was dry. Hylton v. United States in 1796 appears to be the first major litigation involving a question of the interpretation and application of the Constitution. Then came Marbury v. Madison decided in 1803; and McCulloch v. Maryland was decided 10 years later, in 1813.

So notwithstanding your apparent belief that the Founders left no doubt about what they meant in the Constitution, it appears that questions about what they meant wound up in court even while many of them at least were still alive.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
  #64  
Old 12-27-2015, 12:42 PM
OCShooter100 OCShooter100 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 61
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Happy New Year, Rick,

Rick,

You cannot accept the court's interpretation of anything without recognizing that its interpretations are products of justices' political ideologies. We can all cite really stupid decisions of the court such as Dred Scott, Plessy, Miranda, Mapp v. Ohio, Roe, etc. Justices ought to immediately impeached the second they usurp Article I of the US Constitution. Only congress has power to create law. The court has no such power.

Oh yeah, how stupid was the court's desegregation scheme? Who bestowed the court with sufficient omniscience to determine the correct structure of our society? Those idiot justices should have been arrested and thrown in jail, or taken for involuntary psychiatric commitment as dangers to others. I know a woman who was adversely affected by those morons' decision. Her parents moved her out of LA County because of it.

I believe in the constitution. I believe we haven't followed it since 1913. I believe that the supreme court does not follow the constitution. I believe that the supreme court advances political agenda, which ought not be confused with justice. I believe that the brightest legal minds in our country do not sit on the supreme court.

Earl Warren was, arguably, the most corrupt justice to ever sit on the court. He made stuff up out of depths of his vacuous noggin. He was a megalomaniac who thought Eisenhower cheated him out of the presidency, and that he was brighter than our Founding Fathers as evidenced by his ridiculous Baker v. Carr decision. Apparently Warren wanted to transform our country from a republic to a democracy.

It's been argued that Warren's bizarre behavior on the court was his attempt to compensate for his most severe legal abomination. He wrote law that accorded our government to unlawfully detain America citizens in internment camps during WWII.

Regardless, Warren was a whack job who was more committed to behaving like a criminal than interpreting the United States Constitution.

There is a very valid reason why Americans have such a dismal view of our justice system. Every judge in America must be stripped of immunity. They must be held civilly and criminally liable for their stupidity while sitting on benches.

If we lose our right to keep and bear arms, it will assuredly be the product of a pettifogger advancing his agenda as opposed to abiding by Madison's Second Amendment.

Sorry, Rick, but I calls 'em likes eyes sees 'em, and as I see our court system today, it's listing, taking on water, and is about to plummet to the abyss of hell.
  #65  
Old 12-27-2015, 12:47 PM
OCShooter100 OCShooter100 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 61
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

We do not need any court to interpret the Second Amendment for us. We're perfectly capable of interpreting it ourselves. Pettifoggers have attempted to intellectually argue that Madison didn't mean the Second Amendment literally. But such pettifoggers never mention Madison's The Federalist No. 46 in which he unequivocally explicated the foundation for his Second Amendment.

We need to start impeaching activist judges. If they do not know what, "...shall not be infringed," means, they're in way over their pay grades.
  #66  
Old 12-27-2015, 1:01 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,735
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCShooter100 View Post
...You cannot accept the court's interpretation of anything without recognizing that its interpretations are products of justices' political ideologies. We can all cite really stupid decisions of the court such as Dred Scott, Plessy, Miranda, Mapp v. Ohio, Roe, etc.....
Nonetheless, the decisions of the courts are what matter. Pretty much every decision ever handed down by a court was stupid to some people and brilliant to others.

The opinions of courts on matters of law affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinions on such matters and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.


Quote:
Originally Posted by OCShooter100 View Post
...I believe in the constitution....
You might believe in your reading of the Constitution, but so what? The Founding Fathers assigned to the federal courts, not you, the job of deciding cases arising under the Constitution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCShooter100 View Post
...I believe we haven't followed it since 1913. I believe that the supreme court does not follow the constitution. I believe that the supreme court advances political agenda, which ought not be confused with justice. I believe that the brightest legal minds in our country do not sit on the supreme court....
And your beliefs mean exactly squat.

What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCShooter100 View Post
... I calls 'em likes eyes sees 'em, ...
So what?
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
  #67  
Old 12-27-2015, 1:32 PM
ScottyXbones's Avatar
ScottyXbones ScottyXbones is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 894
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

There is a lot of great info in this thread, thank you guys, I've learned quite a bit today about incorporation by the states.

Since everyone is thinking out loud here, what about the argument that the second amendment is different from the rest? Bear with me, pun intended.

Other amendments in the bill of rights describe the way govt will treat people, no testifying against yourself, no rules against your religion, etc. The 2A describes a natural right, self defense, which arguably is the basis for your continued pursuit of life, liberty and prosperity, in addition to the necessity of protecting your free state. The founding fathers recognized this by including language unique to the 2A: "infringed." While other rights are not "unlimited," and can be abridged in the face of a govt need or as I'm sure the anti crowd would argue, "public interest", the 2A specifically states that RKBA even at its fringe uses is protected. In Heller SCOTUS recognized the "core" of the right as gun ownership in the home, regardless of type as I believe Heller was about a handgun. Well what about the mantle (lol) of the right or the fringes of the right? Well by stated definition, those are protected too. Outside the fringes of the RKBA, would maybe include negotiations with foreign powers or something else reserved for congress, they could ban a militia from making an agreement with Mexico and not run afoul of 2A.

Before someone tells me is not the way it works, I know, it has to be won in court first. We're just exploring reasoning like mine in this thread. Stranger things have been said and won in court, like microstamping.

Tl:dr 2A has the word "infringed" so it's different.


On another note, did anyone else notice we have the enumerated right to go fishing in CA?
__________________

Last edited by ScottyXbones; 12-27-2015 at 1:39 PM..
  #68  
Old 12-27-2015, 1:41 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,720
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCShooter100 View Post
We do not need any court to interpret the Second Amendment for us. We're perfectly capable of interpreting it ourselves. Pettifoggers have attempted to intellectually argue that Madison didn't mean the Second Amendment literally. But such pettifoggers never mention Madison's The Federalist No. 46 in which he unequivocally explicated the foundation for his Second Amendment.

We need to start impeaching activist judges. If they do not know what, "...shall not be infringed," means, they're in way over their pay grades.
OK, Let's run with your thought here.

First off, you're right that we are capable of interpreting the Constitution for ourselves. The document isn't particularly long, and its use of the English language is pretty clear.

But if you create a situation where everyone interprets the document according to their own standards, then you've just violated the Constitution. The Constitution gives that prerogative to the judiciary, not to every Tom, Dick and Harry on the street.

When it comes to the folks that actually have to uphold the Constitution, they need clear and consistent guidance as to the content. Just how much consistency would we have if everyone gave their own interpretation to the Constitution. There has never been a Supreme Court decision that everyone has agreed with. But once we have a decision, then we're on the road to the necessary consistency to make the decision work.

If everyone did the Constitution "their way", then we'd pretty much have anarchy. Bad idea.

If I respond to a call at Tom's house, do I follow his view of the Constitution? What about the next call to Sally's house? Do I have to follow Sally's rules? What if her view is different than Tom's? What happens when the dispute is between Tom and Sally and they're following different views of the Constitutional rules. Which rules do I follow in handling their dispute call?

No, having everyone interpret the Constitution for themselves isn't a very good idea.

You'll always find judicial officers that fall short. You'll also always find some LEOs, lawyers, doctors and teachers that fall short. As long as you put human beings in those roles, that's gonna happen. But you're not gonna find a better alternative.

We do have processes in place to remove bad judges (and also bad cops, lawyers, and others). The bar is kinda high in order to prevent malcontents from misusing the systems. Check out U.S. Representative Alcee Hastings (D-Florida). He was a not-so-good Federal Judge and was impeached and removed from office for taking a $150,000 bribe (then the fine folks in Florida elected him to Congress). If you view certain judges as being so bad as to warrant removal, then work to exercise the removal process. If your opinion is founded, then you get a critical mass of support and the process works (and we may get another new member of Congress). But if you don't get a critical mass of support, then you gotta accept that opinion, standing alone, just isn't worth much.
  #69  
Old 12-27-2015, 2:14 PM
OCShooter100 OCShooter100 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 61
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Happy New Year, Rick,

No. You will always follow the constitution.

We must interpret the Constitution as it was written, not as some scurrilous judge demands. Lest we do sink to Third World nation status, we must take immediate and aggressive action against all judges who think that they have power to legislate.

On many of your calls, constitutional issues probably did not arise. What probably did arise was officer discretion which liberals want to strip from cops. Where constitutional issues develop, one has to follow the constitution as written, not what some pettifogger thinks the Founders meant.

There is nothing in any of our founding documents about innocent until proven guilty. Some unknown and otherwise unremarkable judge opined it, and now it's parroted as though it were gospel.

The Florida judge was a no-brainer. He committed a felony. I'm talking about justices that usurp legislative authority. They ought to be impeached.

Article III of our constitution was written in plain language.

We have sunken to the depths of Third World nations. We have allowed pettifoggers and morons cloaked in shear black nylon sell us snake oil so that they could illegally change the US Constitution to suit their agendas. De facto, that means that we have no constitution. We have political agendas foisted upon us in the guise of justice.

We all know justice. We know what is fair. A cop who does violate the Fourth Amendment for whatever reason and seizes the only inculpatory and conclusive evidence should be disciplined. However, it is unjust and abjectly stupid to exclude that evidence from proving the truth of the matter. If the exclusionary rule allows a murderer to walk, justice is denied. We might as well call ourselves Columbia North. The difference is that our cartels call themselves lobbyists & PAC's.

There is nothing in the US Constitution about Warren's exclusionary rule. He legislated that one himself. Apparently he was unable to discern to separate issues: what might have been a bad act of a cop (search & seizure has become intentionally convoluted thereby according lawyers phantom issues to argue), and that justice demands that relevant evidence is introduced to prove the truth of the matter. Excluding that evidence for any reason is to imply that within our organic law is a mysterious provision that allows gross injustice because Warren thought it did. To answer that question all we'd have to do is ask a simple question: would our Founding Fathers have wanted a murderer to walk free because evidence was seized in a manner that was inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment?

Warren was in over his head when he was admitted to CA state bar.

Scurrilous judges have been able to legislate urban legend in to law. That's not justice. That's political agenda.

Article III provides for only one supreme court justice. Perhaps that's where we oughta go. One honest man who knows how to read, comprehend, and apply. We could probably get a janitor to do it, and he'd probably do a better job than many who have done it and do it.
  #70  
Old 12-27-2015, 2:27 PM
King of the 109ers King of the 109ers is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 337
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyXbones View Post
So CA can order soldiers to be quartered in our homes because we havent won a supreme court case on the 3rd amendment?
Bingo! One of the major failings is that the Govt can freely violate any and all of your rights, and its up to you to spend literally millions and wait literally years, and MAYBE a court will say "Ok, they were sorta wrong" and nothing changes.

On the other hand, an appointed court with an agenda can run wild taking away your rights.

Remember when our Govt decided to make up new cute names for POWs, so the Govt could break its own laws and mistreat them?

PS-We did the same in WW2, forgot what we called them. IIRC, in Korea and 'Nam we turned them over to another Govt, knowing POW laws wouldn't be followed, which seems even worse because we then signed off on unlimited abuse.

Last edited by King of the 109ers; 12-27-2015 at 2:31 PM..
  #71  
Old 12-27-2015, 2:36 PM
R Dale R Dale is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,456
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dozer wright View Post
This Judical system is bought and paid for sorry its true. I say it time and time again anyone who will stand and say the Constitution says anything other than it says or we interpret. Look up the definition of Interpret (explain the meaning of ) . The Constitution is Writen in layman terms not lawyer speak. Its written to stand for all time by the smartest,men who possibly ever lived. Any one who says the Constitution says anything other than what it says and trys to interpret the writings other than what it says in plain english has an agenda or is bought and payed for. As a American citizen If I was arrested for Ccw I would expect to stand in front of a judge and say the 2nd ammendment protects the right for me to keep and bear arms. Just as it protects the right to free speech and freedom of religon. But in this bought and paid for Judicail system that is far past broken. Not only can I not get a Ccw In the County I live in. But under the Second Ammendment should not need to even think of a need to apply for permisson from a bought and paid for politicain to keep and bear arms. The bought and paid for Politicains and Judges is exsactly what the ammendments where penned to protect us from a out of control over powered goverment who interpret as they see fit.
You have a good understanding of how the system works and I agree with you.
  #72  
Old 12-27-2015, 9:08 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,735
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCShooter100 View Post
....Article III provides for only one supreme court justice. Perhaps that's where we oughta go. One honest man who knows how to read, comprehend, and apply. ...
Actually, it does no such thing. It appears that you have never read Article III, or even though it's written in plain English you can't understand it.
  1. So let's look at exactly what Article III says:

    1. Section 1 of Article III reads:
      Quote:
      Section 1.
      The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
      Where does Section 1 say anything about there being only one Supreme Court justice. It says that there will be only one Supreme Court, but it says nothing about how many justices shall sit on that court. There's a difference.

    2. Section 2 reads:
      Quote:
      Section 2.
      The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

      In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

      The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
      That Section is all about the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the original and the appellate jurisdictions of the Supreme Court. There's nothing at all in this Section 2 about numbers of justices or judges.

    3. Section 3 of Article III reads:
      Quote:
      Section 3.
      Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

      The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
      Section 3 defines the crime of treason and sets a standard for the conviction of someone accused of treason. There's nothing there about numbers of justices or judges.

  2. So I see nothing in Article III which could possibly be interpreted as providing for only one justice to sit on the Supreme Court.

So you don't seem to understand Article III. What else don't you understand?
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
  #73  
Old 12-28-2015, 12:47 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,350
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Chewy,

Good discussion point. I don't see how it could. That would create a condition where some actor (typically an LEO taking an enforcement action) would need to have certain knowledge of how the Supreme Court would rule on an issue, before the ruling is even made.

How could that be possible?
I wrote something entirely different, until I read the several responses and argument with fiddltowne. Other than in the most extreme circumstances, I believe that while our judicial system is far from perfect it is far better than permitting each of us to interpret the Constitution for ourselves. I don't recall what it is called when LEO's refuse to enforce laws they think to be unconstitutional, even in the face of binding precedence, and I don't know what can be done about it, but it is wrong except in perhaps extreme cases. by that I mean something like the massacre at Malmedy.

Last edited by Chewy65; 12-28-2015 at 1:11 AM..
  #74  
Old 12-28-2015, 6:34 AM
dozer wright's Avatar
dozer wright dozer wright is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,739
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default Thank you

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
You have a good understanding of how the system works and I agree with you.
Thank you sir .
  #75  
Old 12-28-2015, 9:55 AM
OCShooter100 OCShooter100 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 61
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

fiddletown,

Thomas Jefferson is considered the most intelligent of the conglomeration of the most intelligent men ever assembled, outside of religion, of course. Why would you suppose that Thomas Jefferson did not trust judges?

“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so . . . and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” (Letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)

Wait. It gets better: http://www.robgagnon.net/JeffersonOnJudicialTyranny.htm

I'll bet that you weren't taught Jefferson's disposition of the judiciary in law school, now were you?

Get five despots on the court, and we'll have no liberty. Would you be parroting your affinity for the court then?

The court that you love and that your law school has taught you to elevate above God has sanctioned what would otherwise be first degree premeditated murder. And you're good with that?
  #76  
Old 12-28-2015, 9:57 AM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,735
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCShooter100 View Post
...There's your so what.
Whatever! Your whole screed boils down to is that you don't like things as they are. Too bad.

The reality is the we live in a pluralistic, political society, and not everyone thinks as we do. People have varying beliefs, values, needs, wants and fears. People have differing views on the proper role government. So while we may be using the tools the Constitution, our laws and our system give you to promote our vision of how things should be, others may and will be using those same tools to promote their visions.

The Constitution, our laws, and our system give us resource and remedies. We can associate with others who think as we do and exercise what political power that association gives us to influence legislation. We have the opportunity to try to join with enough other people we can elect legislators and other public officials who we consider more attuned to our interests. And we can seek redress in court. And others who believe differently have the same opportunities.

As educated and politically sophisticated people the Founding Fathers understood the sort of friction common to any organized society as differing beliefs, values, needs, wants, and fears rubbed against each other. Our Founders left us with a particular framework and process for managing that friction embodied in the Constitution of the United States of America, setting out:
  1. A system of checks and balances achieved through a separation of powers among the Congress (legislative), the President (executive) and the Courts (judicial);

  2. Of these three branches of government, the legislative was most directly subject to the influence of the body politic, and the judicial was the least subject to the direct influence of the body politic;

  3. Judicial power vested in a Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress might establish, and this judicial power would extend to all cases arising under, among other things, the Constitution and the laws of the United States;

  4. A Constitution that could be changed, albeit with difficulty.

The primary concern of many of us here on this board is that we're not getting the results many of us would prefer. But no system in a world populated by humans can be guaranteed to produce results that are completely satisfactory to everyone all the time. The Constitution, our laws, and our system give us resource and remedies. We can associate with others who think as we do and exercise what political power that association gives us to influence legislation. We have the opportunity to try to join with enough other people we can elect legislators and other public officials who we consider more attuned to our interests. And we can seek redress in court. And others who believe differently have the same opportunities.

So in the final analysis, if we're not getting the results we'd like, it means that we're not being successful at winning enough other people over to our way of thinking.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
  #77  
Old 12-28-2015, 10:08 AM
OCShooter100 OCShooter100 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 61
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
Whatever! Your whole screed boils down to is that you don't like things as they are. Too bad.
And this is how you sum up injustice. If I don't like it, too bad. Is that what you learned in law school? "Respond with, 'too bad' to legitimate criticism of bad behavior."

So if 5 morons were to sit on the court and opine that the Second Amendment does not accord We, the People, the right to own guns, you'd be good with, "Too bad?"

My response is to impeach the bastards in a manner consistent with the constitution while nullifying the court's illegal decision.

Now explain to me your defense of Roe. Before you embark upon your journey of knowledge, please access Bork's treatise on the abomination of Roe. Tell me, fiddletown, if the court can make otherwise first degree murder of the most innocent among us legal, why could it not sanction the indiscriminate murder of others that it decides have no right to life?

I guess, "Too Bad," is taught in third year rarefied court decisions.
  #78  
Old 12-28-2015, 10:12 AM
OCShooter100 OCShooter100 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 61
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

fiddletown,

BTW, there is nothing in your post that defends the court's illegal and despotic opinions.

Were we to accept the immoral, were good people to do nothing while bad things were occurring, we'd become the sheeple that so many disdain.
  #79  
Old 12-28-2015, 10:28 AM
dozer wright's Avatar
dozer wright dozer wright is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,739
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

To Fiddletown when the first word you say is WHATEVER You lose . May as well say WHAT Does it Matter . As you contradict yourself yes the was designed on checks and balances. The problem being in our broken, bought and payed for system Is exactly that. Checks and balances do not work when every one has a checking account they want filled and favors they want done. Look at our political elite go into office as wealthy some miliionares come out billionaires Diane Feinstein is a perfect example of this . Look at Hilary should be serving jail time nope .Obama by passes congressional law and trades a deserter for 5 Taliban . Look locally Lee lend Yee the perfect example wants to ban any and every firearm whats he get busted for Oh Firearms dealing ,firearms trafficing ,coruption taking bribes for favors .How does a Justice system work when he may get probation and You or I would be sitting in a cell for years to come . All this Crap Starts at the bottom and works it's way up and gets worse and worse the higher up the ladder you go . I will also add this how does a California Politician tell us Firearm owners I want to ban ,make very hard to get ,or I have to have a special permit to own a firearm which Federally is Legal .But in the same Breath say I can go down to some b.s. Doctor with no credentials and get a Medical Pot card . And buy Pot which is Federally illegal .
Why they want the money one way or another . If they didn't get their pockets filled personally they will with more taxes to spend .

Last edited by dozer wright; 12-28-2015 at 10:44 AM..
  #80  
Old 12-28-2015, 10:30 AM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,735
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCShooter100 View Post
.... If I don't like it, too bad. ...
Yes indeed. Everything you've posted in this thread has been a discourse, in extravagant rhetoric, on how the way things are offends your personal sensibilities.

But it's not all about you. You don't get to decide everything for everyone else.

You're of course free to indulge in your tantrums. You're even free to believe that your rants mean something. But at the end of the day, such bellowing and ranting does nothing to affirmatively further our interests, and they are and will remain, "...full of sound and fury signifying nothing."
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:50 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.