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 > How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 05-02-2019, 11:21 AM
Mayor McRifle's Avatar
Mayor McRifle Mayor McRifle is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 6,340
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Oh you lean socialist I see. It actually has nothing to do with your statement.

What it tells me is that DOJ doesn’t have its **** together when doing background checks. A retired cop with credentials would have had his creds taken if he was in trouble
Ironic, since the system I described represented Stalinism in George Orwell's Animal Farm. You're not a communist . . . are you?
__________________
Anchors Aweigh

Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 05-02-2019, 11:43 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,974
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kemasa View Post
What should happen isn't the same as what does happen. You are correct that there is clearly a problem with the background checks. One aspect is that they look at old charges and have an issue if there isn't an outcome, ignoring the fact that if the person was convicted then that would be documented. If it is over 10 years old, it would have been resolved by now.

What he said was correct and not socialist. There shouldn't be special rules and exemptions, especially based on the job the person used to do.
Perhaps but its still whiny.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 05-02-2019, 8:29 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 6,730
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I spent a fairly good part of my state career reviewing, writing and analyzing legislation. I would suggest that the question isn’t what does the word “may” mean in the dictionary or court cases, but what did the Legislature think (and what was it told) the word meant in enacting the language of PEN 28220(e)(4)?
Quote:
(4) If the department is unable to ascertain the final disposition of the arrest or criminal charge, or the outcome of the mental health treatment or evaluation, or the purchaser's eligibility to purchase a firearm, as described in paragraph (1), within 30 days of the dealer's original submission of purchaser information to the department pursuant to this section, the department shall immediately notify the dealer and the dealer may then immediately transfer the firearm to the purchaser, upon the dealer's recording on the register or record of electronic transfer the date that the firearm is transferred, the dealer signing the register or record of electronic transfer indicating delivery of the firearm to that purchaser, and the purchaser signing the register or record of electronic transfer acknowledging the receipt of the firearm on the date that the firearm is delivered to him or her.
{Note: AB 500 contained language in Section 8 which was different than this language which was carried in Section 8.1 of the bill. AB 500 was triple-joined with AB 538, which contained language requiring FFLs to provide copies of DROS to purchasers and to provide and obtain signatures on transfer, and SB 683, regarding the FSC. The net effect of this triple-joining was the language in Section 8 was dropped for the language in Section 8.1.}

So, does “may” mean it is now left entirely up to the discretion of the FFL to transfer the firearm?

Or, does “may” simply mean that the provisions of the statute which allow the withholding of transfer are no longer in force for this transaction and it may proceed, no longer encumbered by the review process of the law, so long as the FFL complies with the tri-joined language, “...may then immediately transfer the firearm to the purchaser upon....”)

Basically, “What the heck did they think they were doing?”

To answer that, we need to understand what the Legislature was being told would happen in passing this bill, upon which they would base their intent.

To assess the Legislative intent, there are two major documents which need to be reviewed: The Legislative Counsel’s Summary of the bill (which EVERYBODY reads), and the policy committee report which details for the legislative members what the bill would do. (Staff and Caucus members use this for their boss’ talking points.)

First, the Legislative Counsel’s summary of Ammiano’s AB 500 in 2013.
Quote:
If the department is unable to ascertain the final disposition of the arrest or criminal charge, the outcome of the mental health treatment or evaluation, or whether the purchaser is ineligible to purchase the firearm because he or she is attempting to purchase more than one firearm within a 30-day period, within 30 days of the dealer’s submission of purchaser information, the bill would require the department to notify the firearms dealer, and would authorize the dealer to then immediately transfer the firearm to the purchaser. The bill would also enact similar provisions additionally requiring, among other things, the dealer and the purchaser to sign the register or record of electronic transfer, to take effect if AB 538 is enacted and amends Section 28160 of the Penal Code.
That set the stage for the concept that everybody thought the 30-day deadline without clearance was a de facto authorization to release. Although the Leg Counsel’s Digest of the bill is a summary of what the bill would do in the eyes of the Legislature’s Attorney, and isn’t statute, it’s written by the Legislature’s lawyers, and it seems to indicate the “may” provision is coupled to the signature provisions. (i.e.: The FFL may release the firearm only upon doing the following...).

This appears to follow the concepts provided in the Senate Public Safety Committee, July 2013: analysis, (Click on link, then “Bill Analysis”, then “7/01/2013 Senate Public Safety”, Page 11/12:
Quote:
4. Waiting Period Extension
The Department of Justice has a legal obligation to do background checks or the state faces tort liability for premature release. (Braman v. State of California, (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 344.). Because of the volume of transactions, the Department of Justice is concerned about their ability to complete all necessary background checks within the 10-day waiting period, as required by current law.

To address this issue, this bill would allow DOJ to take up to 30 days to complete the background check in those cases in which a preliminary record check shows that the purchaser has previously been taken into custody and placed in a facility for mental health treatment or evaluation or has been arrested for a crime and DOJ is unable to ascertain within the normal 10-day waiting period the final disposition of such an arrest or detention and whether the purchaser is prohibited from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm.

This bill would require the dealer to provide the purchaser with information about the manner in which he or she may contact the department regarding the delay and would require DOJ to notify the purchaser by mail regarding the delay and explain the process by which the purchaser may obtain a copy of the criminal or mental health record the department has on file for the purchaser. Upon receipt of that criminal or mental health record, the purchaser shall report any inaccuracies or incompleteness to the department on an approved form.

If the department is unable to ascertain the final disposition of the arrest or criminal charge, or the outcome of the mental health treatment or evaluation within 30 days of the dealer’s original submission of purchaser information to the department pursuant to this section, the department shall immediately notify the dealer and the dealer may transfer the firearm to the purchaser, upon the dealer’s recording on the register or record of electronic transfer the date that the firearm is transferred.[/B]
Again, the analysis seems to indicate that the “may” permissive is linked to a requirement that the FFL undertake the (now) legal requirements for signatures put in place by AB 538. It doesn’t appear to convey to the FFL a discretionary ability to halt the transfer solely on the lack of DOJ approval.

That seems to confirm that, after 30 days, the firearm can move, but only if the FFL follows the new signatory provisions of AB 538.

But what did normal, everyday folks think about it? The same analysis also included the Brady anti-gun group’s (I know, they aren’t normal, everyday folk....) input as:
Quote:
5. Argument in Support
The California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence state:
[...] Specifically, the bill requires DOJ to immediately notify a dealer to delay the transfer of a firearm if the department is unable to determine the outcome of an arrest or criminal charge or mental health evaluation. If DOJ is unable to determine the final disposition of these cases within thirty days, then DOJ must notify the firearms dealer and the transfer of the firearm would proceed.
The transfer would proceed. The BRADYS thought you’d get the gun in 30 days, unless you were denied! And the BRADYS were ok with that!

But what of opposition? What did the analysis tell us about the FFL industry?

The analysis tells us:
Quote:
The California Association of Firearms Retailers states:

The California Association of Firearms Retailers believes that this bill would needlessly add to the reporting requirements and restrictions already in effect for firearms retailers.
That’s it. Administrivia.

They didn’t express concern that the statute would unfairly put the FFLs in jeopardy for potentially releasing a firearm to an unauthorized person, or jeopardizing their FFL license, or taking away the FFLs’ discretion and due diligence in transferring a firearm to an individual. They expressed concern that the FFL “may” only release the gun to the buyer ”upon” the completion of the reporting required by the FFL.

I am neither a lawyer, nor a judge, so you’ll have to draw your own conclusions as to whether the above information would be supportive of an FFL who denies release and charges a restocking fee solely on the basis that DOJ didn’t clear the purchase in 30 days. The “may” release is seems to simply be* predicated “upon” the FFL doing the paperwork. No personal or professional discretion appears to be* involved.

Best.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."

Last edited by Dvrjon; 05-03-2019 at 7:36 AM.. Reason: Clarifications noted by “*” combined with italics
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 05-03-2019, 1:03 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,869
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Dvrjon

Thank you, for again bringing into discussion AB-500 which was the legislation that created the "undetermined 30 day release" status in 28220. And a concise, thorough evaluation of the issue. Going back to 2013. The complete bill analysis is a very insightful read.

I was not aware that even the Brady Bunch approved of an "authorized release" after a 30 day delay.

Though I fear it will again be ignored by the Kamala supporting nay sayers. Even after Chewy said this in post 54.

Quote:
[3]...Somehow I got the idea that if the meaning of a statute was unclear, it helped to look to the intent of the law makers, if it can be ascertained.
Yet he failed doing any "due diligence". And as usual, conveniently ignored the post where I quoted "original" wording of AB-500. And provided a link to it in entirety. The subtle change from [authorize to may] in pc-28220. Then Kamala's Big Lie on the DOJ website. Falsely bestowing discretion, where none is granted in the statute.


Quote:
Again, the analysis seems to indicate that the “may” permissive is linked to a requirement that the FFL undertake the (now) legal requirements for signatures put in place by AB 538. It doesn’t appear to convey to the FFL a discretionary ability to halt the transfer solely on the lack of DOJ approval.
Quote:
The transfer would proceed. The BRADYS thought you’d get the gun in 30 days, unless you were denied! And the BRADYS were ok with that!
Quote:
The “may” release is simply predicated “upon” the FFL doing the paperwork. No personal or professional discretion involved.
Your legislative analysis reaches the same conclusion, as my less thorough searches of same did.

Would you care to comment on this quote?

Quote:
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/May

Quote:
Quote:
may

v. a choice to act or not, or a promise of a possibility, as distinguished from "shall" which makes it imperative. 2) in statutes, and sometimes in contracts, the word "may" must be read in context to determine if it means an act is optional or mandatory, for it may be an imperative. The same careful analysis must be made of the word "shall."

Non-lawyers tend to see the word "may" and think they have a choice or are excused from complying with some statutory provision or regulation. (See: shall)

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

MAY. To be permitted; to be at liberty; to have the power.
2. Whenever a statute directs the doing of a thing for the sake of justice or the public good, the word "may is the same as shall. For example, the 23 H. VI. says, the sheriff may take bail, that is construed he shall, for he is compellable to do so. Carth. 293 Salk. 609; Skin. 370.
3. The words SHALL and MAY in general acts of the legislature or in private constitutions, are to be construed imperatively;
Obvious by anyone versed in structuring of statutes and structural usage and context of same.

As used in PC-28220, the exact same usage/context apply both for Approved and Undetermined after 30 days.

Quote:
Quote:
the department shall immediately notify the dealer of that fact and the dealer may then immediately transfer the firearm to the purchaser,
Usage and context govern that "MAY", followed by "THEN IMMEDIATELY"

Make it an IMPERATIVE statement. Ergo a mandate. For both APPROVED & UNDETERMINED, AFTER 30 DAYS.
.................................................. ..............................................

Some here refuse to accept the fact that "usage and context" control the actual definition of given words that have multiple meanings. Such as "may".

And that LEGAL definitions, often vary from definitions given in everyday dictionaries.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 05-03-2019, 1:46 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,869
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default post 57 IRRELEVANT DEFLECTIONS

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdd
I read the law again in this area. The fact that they used "may" for both the approved and undetermined cases indicates that the FFL is not breaking the law by transferring the item to the transferee in either case.

The FFL is placed under no criminal legal jeopardy under state law by transferring the item.
DEFLECTIONs numbered

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
That isn't so. Even should the the status of the DROS application permits, the FFL may still risk criminal charges.

[1].... For example, if the FFL knows that the purchaser is only a straw man for another.

[2]....Another example would be if the FFL failed to discover a buyer's felony conviction,

[3]....a FFL who delivers with knowledge of that conviction can be prosecuted. 18 USC 922(d)(1).


[1]....A criminal act in itself. Nothing to do with "legal release" on undetermined.

[2]....False.....A FFL is under no "ONUS" to do BG checks. That is the DOJ's purview.... FFL cannot be held legally liable for any failure of DOJ.

[3]....mrdd specifically asked about state law. You first wrongly project legal onus on FFL in [2]. Then compound the defection in [2], by citing Fed law.

MAJOR IRRELEVANT DEFLECTION FAIL ON ALL 3


WHACK a MOLE........................
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 05-03-2019, 3:35 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,869
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

TAPER: THANKS FOR DROPPING IN.

my replies in bold

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Pacrat, JD is my attorney.

Yes, he did put out a memo on undetermined however, if an FFL does not complete the transfer, Jason said the FFL "may be subject to a civil suit for denying the trasfer".
.................................................. .................................................. ..


I have linked to his memo many times in various threads. And posted it in its entirety. Even my previous mentions in this thread. Referring to the "bweise" thread the day after he wrote it back in 2014.
"May" as you, and he, used it in that context, denotes "possibility". But "may" as used in pc28220 is not a discretionary definition. It is an "IMPERATIVE" when followed by "THEN IMMEDIATELY TRANSFER", as shown, linked, and proven in quoted LEGAL citations in this thread.

.................................................. .................................................. ...

If you asked him, he would also tell you that the FFL should and could also use their better judgment in each situation which can be different. I have asked him over the phone in different situations on how to proceed or not. He has given me different answers in each situation. In other words your reading of his memo isn't exactly boilerplate.
.................................................. .................................................. ...

I have no doubt "different situations" elicit differing answers. But the only SITUATION covered in the topic of this discussion, deals solely with "DELAY-UNDETERMINED RELEASE". With no extraneous legal circumstances. And that was also the sole intent and content of his 2-7-14 memo.

No matter how much deflective crap, others drag in to cloud the topic. Here is a quote of your reply to the original "bweise" thread of 2-8-14.


Quote:
The FFL is acting as an agent of the DOJ. All private parties (businesses) may or may not if they want to do anything with their business. If DOJ (state of CA) allows it, the FFL would be off the hook. FFL is NOT responsible for conducting a background check nor do they have the ability to do so. They can't be held liable for a states short comings especially when a right is involved.
I personally don't know if having a FFL makes one an "agent" of DOJ, so will not comment on that.
The rest of that post, I concur with totally. Some FFLs use phony threat of liability as justification for not adhering to pc-28220 as written. Which is diametrically counter to Mr Davis's memo.
And choose to believe Kamala's lie on the DOJ FAQ website. That he CAUTIONS AGAINST, without specifically naming it, in the memo
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Yep! However how do you not deliver to a retired Captain of a county Sheriff who still has credentials to carry loaded and concealed in this state with verification from that Sheriff? Yes, this actually happened lol
.................................................. .................................................. .......


AB-500 in 2013 was passed to resolve just such unjust instances. And was authored by a Dem from San Fran. Here's the link again.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...201320140AB500

Purpose of which was subverted by Kamala's Big Lie, on DOJ_FAQ.

That prompted Davis's Cautionary Memo to CAL-FFL regarding his words "IMPROPERLY DENY DELIVERY"
.................................................. .................................................. .......
Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Oh you lean socialist I see. It actually has nothing to do with your statement.

What it tells me is that DOJ doesn’t have its **** together when doing background checks. A retired cop with credentials would have had his creds taken if he was in trouble.
.................................................. .................................................. .......


DOJ rarely has its **** together on any of its responsibilities. The retired cop, and thousands of other Law Abiding Citizens. Should have gotten relief from crap such as that, back in 2014 when AB-500 went into effect. Kamala screwed them all. With the help of some ignorant FFLs, that choose to believe her FAQ Lie. Rather than Believe Mr Davis's memo

I can't even imagine how wet HER panties get. Every time one of her old cronies at DOJ. Tell her how many citizens were denied their 2A rights because of her FAQ scam.

Last edited by pacrat; 05-05-2019 at 3:20 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 05-03-2019, 6:11 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 6,730
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Your legislative analysis reaches the same conclusion, as my less thorough searches of same did.
As I stated in the closure of the analysis, “...you’ll have to draw your own conclusions....” I believe the nuances between the analysis presented (not concluded) and your asserted position preclude characterizing them as, “...the same.” But such a discussion has no value, here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Would you care to comment on this quote?
No.

Some clarification is (apparently) needed.

As I noted in my post, the focus of the analysis is constrained to the question of what the Legislature was told, in an attempt to understand what they thought they were doing. Anything outside of that, including dictionary definitions is irrelevant. The analysis also doesn’t address case law on definitions of “may” for two reasons. Case law isn’t discussed in the legislative history as an informing issue, although Second Amendment considerations were (and aren’t relevant to the instant issue) and I am unaware of any case law since the passing of this statute which concerns itself with the definition of “may” in this statute.

I would also ask that my comments not be parsed out of context, as they need to be viewed as a whole, not as individual “facts”. They are meant as a narrative to advance the story, but should never BE the story. They aren’t “dicta”, so don’t present them as such. My statements aren’t “proof” of anything, so don’t offer them as proof. The facts of the legislative history speak well enough for themselves.

I do intend to clean up some statements, as my intent was to display the appearance of what may have been some insights to guide the discussion, but colored some musings with my own opinion. To that end, as in all communication, there may arise confusion in how I’ve presented something. If so, post it and I’ll try to clarify.

Finally, it isn’t my intent to take sides in, or participate in, the character battles going on here. My work is my work; the analysis is the analysis. The intent is to use it for discussion and understanding, not to play “gotcha”.

Best.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."

Last edited by Dvrjon; 05-03-2019 at 7:28 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 05-03-2019, 7:29 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,869
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
I believe the nuances between the analysis presented (not concluded) and your asserted position precludes characterizing them as, “...the same.” But such a discussion has no value, here.
No.

Some clarification is (apparently) needed.

As I noted in my post, the focus of the analysis is constrained to the question of what the Legislature was told, in an attempt to understand what they thought they were doing. Anything outside of that, including dictionary definitions is irrelevant. The analysis also doesn’t address case law on definitions of “may” for two reasons. Case law isn’t discussed in the legislative history as an informing issue, although Second Amendment considerations were (and aren’t relevant to the instant issue) and I am unaware of any case law since the passing of this statute which concerns itself with the definition of “may” in this statute.

I would also ask that my comments not be parsed out of context, as they need to be viewed as a whole, not as individual “facts”. They are meant as a narrative to advance the story, but should never BE the story. They aren’t “dicta”, so don’t present them as such. My statements aren’t “proof” of anything, so don’t offer them as proof. The facts of the legislative history speak well enough for themselves.

I do intend to clean up some statements, as my intent was to display the appearance of what may have been some insights to guide the discussion, but colored some musings with my own opinion. To that end, as in all communication, there may arise confusion in how I’ve presented something. If so, post it and I’ll try to clarify.

Finally, it isn’t my intent to take sides in, or participate in, the character battles going on here. My work is my work; the analysis is the analysis. The intent is to use it for discussion and understanding, not to play “gotcha”.

Best.
Thank You, I appreciate your candor.

For clarity, it was not my intent to deflect in any way from your "overall analysis". Apologize for that impression. It in hindsight, would have likely been more correctly stated by me. To have said that, our separate analysis, are very "similar". Even though mine did not include the depth of citations that you included.

And the parsing was not done as a "siding issue" or a "gotcha". There has been a plethora of that type entertainment value, with those that insist on irrelevant "what ifs".
Simply to point out those similarities or parallels. NOT present them "out of context". I consider "context" extremely important in such discussions. And have mentioned the importance of "context" repeatedly in this thread.
I didn't consider the point you brought up. Until you brought it up. Since MY post immediately followed YOUR post. I fully expected members to have finished reading yours in its entirety. Immediately "before" mine.

I respect your choice to not comment on "definitions", for the reason you stated. Which does not parallel my opinion. Which IMO, is a crux of this discussion. Due to what amounts to IMO, an intentional misrepresentation of same as a justification.

Again, thank you for the contributions to the discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 05-03-2019, 1:16 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,737
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
CA PC 28220 (f)(4) If the department is unable to ascertain the final disposition of the arrest or criminal charge, or the outcome of the mental
health treatment or evaluation, or the purchaser's eligibility to purchase a firearm, as described in paragraph (1), within 30 days of the dealer's original submission of purchaser information to the department pursuant to this section, the department shall immediately notify the dealer and the dealer may then immediately transfer the firearm to the purchaser, upon the dealer's recording on the register or record of electronic transfer the date that the firearm is transferred, the dealer signing the register or record of electronic transfer indicating delivery of the firearm to that purchaser, and the purchaser signing the register or record of electronic transfer acknowledging the receipt of the firearm on the date that the firearm is delivered to him or her.
Dvrjon didn’t get into statutory construction for good reason. Statutory interpretation is not done absent ambiguity. The legislature is presumed to know how to make itself clear That the legislature made it abundantly clear that a dealer may not deliver where there is no compliance with registry requirements fails to otherwise limit the dealer’s exercise of discretion. Had the legislature wished to so limit that discretion, it would say “must” and not “may”.
__________________
This is neither legal advice nor a legal opinion.
Being on “inactive status” with the State Bar of California I cannot practice law. Were I "active", you would not be entitled to rely on my posts because you are not my client.
Were I practicing, an attorney client relationship could only be created in a writing by both the client and myself. Not by a post, private message, or email.
I never practiced criminal nor firearms law.Do not rely on my post, but consult your own attorney.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 05-03-2019, 3:53 PM
eXcision's Avatar
eXcision eXcision is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 182
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Week 3 and it's still delayed.

Last chance is next Saturday, So we'll see how it goes.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 05-03-2019, 4:52 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,737
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Did the dealer indicate before you bought that if you found to be undetermined it would not let you have the gun and a restocking or cancellation fee, whatever the charge is called, would be deducted from the amount to be refunded. For instance, they may claim to have done so in writing on a charge slip, on the receipt they gave you, by something that was said, or on on posted signage not to say any or all of that creates a legal relationship. Anything concerning what would happen, whether it was because you were not approved, your status was undetermined, or anything similar. The governing code section refers to what happens if the DOJ "is unable to ascertain the final disposition of the arrest or criminal charge, (or) the outcome of the mental health treatment or evaluation,.

Unless they have a basis for alleging that you agreed to the restocking fee deduction, I wouldn't pay a second DROS fee. It is likely that the result will be another undetermined. I would tell them that I want a full refund and if I don't get it I will take them to small claims court. What they told you after they made the sale doesn't mean a thing. It's what you agreed to when you entered into the purchase that counts. If all they have is some verbage on a charge slip, it likely won't be held against you if you didn't read that, if you just thought you were signing a charge slip or even if you read it, but it only talked about a fee should you not be approved and you thought that meant if you weren't approved because you were a convicted felon, but not because for some secret reason the department neither approved nor disapproved your application.

Whatever you do, keep it civil.
__________________
This is neither legal advice nor a legal opinion.
Being on “inactive status” with the State Bar of California I cannot practice law. Were I "active", you would not be entitled to rely on my posts because you are not my client.
Were I practicing, an attorney client relationship could only be created in a writing by both the client and myself. Not by a post, private message, or email.
I never practiced criminal nor firearms law.Do not rely on my post, but consult your own attorney.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 05-03-2019, 7:35 PM
eXcision's Avatar
eXcision eXcision is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 182
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
Did the dealer indicate before you bought that if you found to be undetermined it would not let you have the gun and a restocking or cancellation fee, whatever the charge is called, would be deducted from the amount to be refunded. For instance, they may claim to have done so in writing on a charge slip, on the receipt they gave you, by something that was said, or on on posted signage not to say any or all of that creates a legal relationship. Anything concerning what would happen, whether it was because you were not approved, your status was undetermined, or anything similar. The governing code section refers to what happens if the DOJ "is unable to ascertain the final disposition of the arrest or criminal charge, (or) the outcome of the mental health treatment or evaluation,.

Unless they have a basis for alleging that you agreed to the restocking fee deduction, I wouldn't pay a second DROS fee. It is likely that the result will be another undetermined. I would tell them that I want a full refund and if I don't get it I will take them to small claims court. What they told you after they made the sale doesn't mean a thing. It's what you agreed to when you entered into the purchase that counts. If all they have is some verbage on a charge slip, it likely won't be held against you if you didn't read that, if you just thought you were signing a charge slip or even if you read it, but it only talked about a fee should you not be approved and you thought that meant if you weren't approved because you were a convicted felon, but not because for some secret reason the department neither approved nor disapproved your application.

Whatever you do, keep it civil.
Unfortunately, I did sign to a 15% restocking fee as they always ask you to sign that for any purchase/transfer (Got some lowers from PSA and I had to sign that too).

I don't hesitate to sign that because my record is clean and I have never had a problem, Now I need to think twice about that, Especially on a purchase where you lose $150 just because.

If I don't get approved, I do want to try 1 more time, with my new FSC # to see if that had anything to do with it, I'd rather take a $35 loss to find out, than to take a $150 loss right off the bat.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 05-03-2019, 8:01 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 6,730
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
Dvrjon didn’t get into statutory construction for good reason.
I would greatly appreciate it if all would refrain from inferring that I have done, or not done, anything more than what I have done. To state a knowledge of a reason for my actions, other than what I have stated is ludicrous.

Let me AGAIN clarify. The purpose of the analysis was solely to look at what the Legislature was being told at the time. I didn’t get into statutory construction, or statutory interpretation (pick one?)...neither of which can be done before the statute is passed...simply because it’s irrelevant to the purpose of the analysis.

Run your own agendas and have your cat fights, but leave me out.

Thanks.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 05-03-2019, 9:03 PM
ugimports's Avatar
ugimports ugimports is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Fremont, CA
Posts: 4,246
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eXcision View Post
Unfortunately, I did sign to a 15% restocking fee as they always ask you to sign that for any purchase/transfer (Got some lowers from PSA and I had to sign that too).

I don't hesitate to sign that because my record is clean and I have never had a problem, Now I need to think twice about that, Especially on a purchase where you lose $150 just because.

If I don't get approved, I do want to try 1 more time, with my new FSC # to see if that had anything to do with it, I'd rather take a $35 loss to find out, than to take a $150 loss right off the bat.
FSC would not be the reason for an undetermined. If it had to do with a denial they would have specified that.
__________________
us on facebook
UG Imports - Fremont, CA FFL - Transfers, New Gun Sales
Closure Schedule: http://ugimports.com/closed
web: http://ugimports.com/calguns / email: sales@ugimports.com
twitter: http://twitter.com/ugimports / phone: (510) 371-GUNS (4867)
FB: http://facebook.com/ugimports
NorCal Range Maps: http://ugimports.com/rangemaps

I AM THE MAJORITY!!!
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 05-03-2019, 10:01 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,737
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
I would greatly appreciate it if all would refrain from inferring that I have done, or not done, anything more than what I have done. To state a knowledge of a reason for my actions, other than what I have stated is ludicrous.

Let me AGAIN clarify. The purpose of the analysis was solely to look at what the Legislature was being told at the time. I didn’t get into statutory construction, or statutory interpretation (pick one?)...neither of which can be done before the statute is passed...simply because it’s irrelevant to the purpose of the analysis.

Run your own agendas and have your cat fights, but leave me out.

Thanks.
I believe I now see what you wished to contribute regarding "what the heck did they (the Legislature) think they were doing". It is often necessary to ferret out Legislative intent in order to determine the meaning of statutes, but this is not such a case. It is usually irrelevant to interpretation where the meaning of language is plain and unambiguous. Were it ambiguous, an understanding of the legislative purpose would be helpful.

Even had it been relevant, it seems that the purpose of adding the final clause could merely be to clarify that the permissive to deliver was only granted upon compliance with register requirements.
__________________
This is neither legal advice nor a legal opinion.
Being on “inactive status” with the State Bar of California I cannot practice law. Were I "active", you would not be entitled to rely on my posts because you are not my client.
Were I practicing, an attorney client relationship could only be created in a writing by both the client and myself. Not by a post, private message, or email.
I never practiced criminal nor firearms law.Do not rely on my post, but consult your own attorney.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 05-05-2019, 3:11 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,869
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eXcision View Post
Unfortunately, I did sign to a 15% restocking fee as they always ask you to sign that for any purchase/transfer (Got some lowers from PSA and I had to sign that too).

I don't hesitate to sign that because my record is clean and I have never had a problem, Now I need to think twice about that, Especially on a purchase where you lose $150 just because.

If I don't get approved, I do want to try 1 more time, with my new FSC # to see if that had anything to do with it, I'd rather take a $35 loss to find out, than to take a $150 loss right off the bat.
eXcision;

The agreement to a restocking fee is worthless. Because as was shown in post 18 of this thread. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ighlight=Davis

Quote:
A 30 day delay followed by "undetermined status' is an unequivocal authorization from the DOJ, mandated by state law, to transfer the firearm.
As myself, and others including member "taperxz", who is a well respected FFL here on CG. Have repeatedly shown, since PC 28220 was changed to include the "undetermined" verbiage in 2014.

APPROVED and UNDETERMINED statuses. Are EXACTLY, the same. Because the statutory wording is EXACTLY the SAME.

The FIREARM you purchased. Became "YOUR LEGAL PROPERTY" the moment that the FFL accepted your payment for it.

If they go "against" the LAW AS WRITTEN. And refuse to deliver "YOUR LEGAL PROPERTY", based solely on an undetermined status. They are doing so, without legal sanction.

Any "DISCLAIMER" written, "such as you signed", which contradicts THE LAW AS WRITTEN. Is MOOTED, by its lack of legal standing, and still leaves the FFL who refused to FOLLOW the LAW. Facing CIVIL LIABILITY, if sued.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,
IMHO, the only reason that there is no "case law" as member Dvrjon pointed out. Is that buyers believe they are bound by worthless disclaimers. Because the FFL lied to them. Using Kamala's LIE on the FAQ page of DOJ as a justification.

And buyers just give up, and pay the FFL for lying. Rather than file a claim against lying FFLs in Small Claims Court.

Which in essence, is rewarding an FFL for lying to you, and screwing you, out of the $150 in this instance. Then they will resell the same firearm. And pray the next buyer, again get an undetermined status from DOJ.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,

Were it me, I would refuse any offer of a refund, less any "extra legal" fees which would include those paid for the DROS, that they arbitrarily, refused to complete. And politely demand delivery of my property, if it goes "undetermined".

If they refuse. I would make it also firmly, yet politely clear, that to not do so, WILL RESULT in a LAW SUIT! Quoting the verbiage of PC 28220 as grounds.

If your "delayed status" goes the full 30 days. And becomes "undetermined". And the, as yet, unnamed crooked FFL refuse to deliver YOUR PROPERTY to you. And you file suit against them, which would be Small Claims Court.

As the preeminent PRO 2A online forum. It is customary for members to "Name FFLs" that operate in a manner detrimental to 2A. Because other gun buyers need to be warned of who to avoid.

I give you, as a fellow "Brother UBC Member", my solemn promise that I will reimburse your filing fees. And assist you in preparing your suit.

As to the underlined in your above quote. You found out exactly why [I believe] member "taperxz" said this.
Quote:
What it tells me is that DOJ doesn’t have its **** together when doing background checks. A retired cop with credentials would have had his creds taken if he was in trouble.

Last edited by pacrat; 05-05-2019 at 5:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 05-05-2019, 8:36 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 6,730
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
IMHO, the only reason that there is no "case law" as member Dvrjon pointed out.
I am beginning to wonder if it is your intent to knowingly skew information to suit your argument or if you are simply sloppy in your use of information. Regardless, I grow weary of your mis-attributions. I didn’t, “...point(ed) out...,” that there is no case law. What I said was,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
... I am unaware of any case law since the passing of this statute which concerns itself with the definition of “may” in this statute.
That’s a statement of my ignorance, not an assertion of fact. There’s a difference. (Although my wife often asserts my ignorance is a fact). Please don’t claim that I hold knowledge which I have stated I don’t have.

Thanks.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 05-06-2019, 12:56 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,869
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
IMHO, the only reason that there is no "case law" as member Dvrjon pointed out.
Nit picking semantics appears to be your goal. Not furthering the discussion. After 5 yrs post the 28220 changes, enactment. EVERYONE here at CG, after years of exhaustive searches, shares your ignorance. The most likely supposition for that fact. Is that none exists.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I am beginning to wonder if it is your intent to knowingly skew information to suit your argument or if you are simply sloppy in your use of information. Regardless, I grow weary of your mis-attributions. I didn’t, “...point(ed) out...,” that there is no case law. What I said was,

Your seemingly derogatory opening sentence is noted. I have not intended or endeavored to "skew information". As shown by my repetitive willingness to provide external citations, and quotes, from reliable legal sources, not just "what ifs or I said so" in support of my assertions. If truly weary of what you claim as "mis-attributions" you can simply choose to not respond.
Sloppy, would depend on your "subjective" opinion. I've been called worse on many occasions

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
... I am unaware of any case law since the passing of this statute which concerns itself with the definition of “may” in this statute.
Yeah, we the collective, are aware of your shared ignorance with us all.

That’s a statement of my ignorance, not an assertion of fact. There’s a difference. (Although my wife often asserts my ignorance is a fact). Please don’t claim that I hold knowledge which I have stated I don’t have.

Thanks.
Since you have again chosen to cast aspersions. Lets review your previous claim of [paraphrased] "out of context usage by parsing". You claimed "analysis" of what was presented to legislature. To further the discussion of the 28220 changes. Then try to shut down any interpretation of the analysis differing from your own. Even to the point of not claiming any conclusions.

Quote:
As I stated in the closure of the analysis, “...you’ll have to draw your own conclusions....” I believe the nuances between the analysis presented (not concluded) and your asserted position preclude characterizing them as, “...the same.” But such a discussion has no value, here.
Yet your first post #83 presenting the "analysis". Also includes statements by you that are definitely conclusory. Which as presented by yourself give the definite impression of agreement, with parallel conclusions I made. Then you said:

Quote:
I do intend to clean up some statements, as my intent was to display the appearance of what may have been some insights to guide the discussion, but colored some musings with my own opinion. To that end, as in all communication, there may arise confusion in how I’ve presented something. If so, post it and I’ll try to clarify.
Your "clean up" included making attempts at "contextual changes" to comply with your new, no conclusions narrative. Example

Quote:
The “may” release is simply predicated “upon” the FFL doing the paperwork. No personal or professional discretion involved.
Became

Quote:
The “may” release is seems to simply be* predicated “upon” the FFL doing the paperwork. No personal or professional discretion appears to be* involved.
Those "clean ups" appear as blatant attempts to change the very context of your original conclusory statement. Which you previously accused me of. Yet even with the changes. Just maybe you didn't realize that striking IS, And adding "SEEMS TO" doesn't change it from a conclusory statement. It only softens the conclusory assertion of a fact or truth.

Quote:
seems...definition;
used to suggest in a cautious, guarded, or polite way that something is true or a fact.
Considering that you would include yourself in the definition of "EVERYBODY" in the next quote. And that the quote is yours. That is also a conclusory statement.

Quote:
That set the stage for the concept that everybody thought the 30-day deadline without clearance was a de facto authorization to release.
I parse quotes for clarity of discussion. Not to present them out of context. You don't like it, too bad, suck it up. This is an internet discussion forum. Get used to it!
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 05-06-2019, 7:40 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 6,730
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
I parse quotes for clarity of discussion. Not to present them out of context. You don't like it, too bad, suck it up.
You stated I posted a specific statement of fact when I didn’t. You were wrong. Suck it up.

Since you’ve now decided to take issue with my postings, and attribute to me a profound and universal ignorance, let me now conclude, unequivocally, that everything you post is absolutely correct.

Bye.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 05-06-2019, 2:51 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,869
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
[1]....You stated I posted a specific statement of fact when I didn’t. You were wrong. Suck it up.

[2]....Since you’ve now decided to take issue with my postings, and attribute to me a profound and universal ignorance,
let me now conclude, unequivocally, that everything you post is absolutely correct.

Bye.
Sir, I will again thank you for posting your analysis and the included cites, links, and quotes.

I learned from it. Something I try to do every day. Especially that the "change of wording" in AB-500 in relation to PC 28220. [Authorized to May]. Was due to AB-500...AB-538...SB-683 being combined. Prior to your informative post. I was under the incorrect impression. That that was due to the DOJ. Which has a history of "doctoring" legislation, when enacted into regulations, to suit agendas where 2A is concerned. Example... DOJ-FAQ page Re "undetermined".

[1]....Which you strongly inferred was an "intentional" misrepresentation of YOUR claim of ignorance. Which as I explained, was not my intent.

[2]....Sir, reread your posts. It was YOU that initiated the "taking issue" with postings. Rather than a discussion of issues, you became defensively adversarial.
Even after this quote in YOUR second post. In which you had already initiated the "taking issue," earlier in the post. Where you "INVITED DISCUSSION" as to any confusion in your presentation. Rather than "clarify", you attacked.

Quote:
I do intend to clean up some statements, as my intent was to display the appearance of what may have been some insights to guide the discussion, but colored some musings with my own opinion. To that end, as in all communication, there may arise confusion in how I’ve presented something. If so, post it and I’ll try to clarify.
I also find your claim that ["attribute to me a profound and universal ignorance,"] is incorrect and disingenuous. And gives the appearance of a Butt Covering Exit Strategy.
As anyone who reads this thread already know. YOU proclaimed your own ignorance of ANY CASE LAW. Re suits on the topic of "undetermined". All I did was make the factual assertion that your assertion was shared by Everyone on CG.

I did no such thing as to imply, infer, or claim any "Universal Ignorance" on your part.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 05-06-2019, 3:09 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,737
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

__________________
This is neither legal advice nor a legal opinion.
Being on “inactive status” with the State Bar of California I cannot practice law. Were I "active", you would not be entitled to rely on my posts because you are not my client.
Were I practicing, an attorney client relationship could only be created in a writing by both the client and myself. Not by a post, private message, or email.
I never practiced criminal nor firearms law.Do not rely on my post, but consult your own attorney.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 05-06-2019, 4:10 PM
eXcision's Avatar
eXcision eXcision is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 182
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I don't know what's going on guys, I just want my gun.

hehe.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 05-06-2019, 4:57 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,869
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eXcision View Post
I don't know what's going on guys, I just want my gun.

hehe.
And I understand that Bro. You bought it, You paid for it, It is yours. Since you are NOT a prohibited person, you should LEGALLY be allowed to take possession of it.

And some Dick at a gun store is telling you, that you can't, "BECAUSE HE SAID SO!" Which is NOT supported by law.

Only the Dick at the store, and some Kamala supporters here on CG think that is in any way fair or legal.

Read my last post addressed to you. #96........I will help any way I can. If you exercise your right to sue the bastards.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 06-11-2019, 6:11 AM
ShockBros's Avatar
ShockBros ShockBros is offline
Entry Level Thread Killer
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Sandy Eggo Republic of Kalifornistan
Posts: 201
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

When the lawsuit happens, I'm ready to be a plaintiff.
Undetermined off and on for 15 years or so.
Thank God never happened with a PPT.
This last time it's 3 in a row, did a live scan in between didn't change anything.
I know fed is good too. Received AZ permit during this period also.

Wheres the "Sticky" of good FFl's that release undetermined?

Too bad turners has such good deals sometimes.
__________________
"Revolution is not a spectator sport"

"Paranoia is only good thinking when everyone is out to get you"

Who is John Galt?
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 06-11-2019, 6:15 AM
ShockBros's Avatar
ShockBros ShockBros is offline
Entry Level Thread Killer
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Sandy Eggo Republic of Kalifornistan
Posts: 201
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
I suppose for future purposes I should do an eligibility check and try to clear up the mess.
I tried that. It comes back "Undetermined" also...

Those guys at the doj must think they're really funny
__________________
"Revolution is not a spectator sport"

"Paranoia is only good thinking when everyone is out to get you"

Who is John Galt?
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 06-12-2019, 1:38 PM
foothillman's Avatar
foothillman foothillman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: El Dorado County
Posts: 197
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
I suppose for future purposes I should do an eligibility check and try to clear up the mess.

I tried that. It comes back "Undetermined" also...

Those guys at the doj must think they're really funny
Do the live scan, they have no idea why you are asking for one.

What if the DOJ gets it wrong?

"I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. I expressly authorize the Department of Justice to perform firearms eligibility checks of all relevant state and federal databases as permitted under the law. I also understand that if I currently possess/own firearms and the results of this check reveal that I am ineligible to lawfully either possess or purchase firearms, I must relinquish any and all firearms in my possession."

12. I currently own firearms and want to know if I can purchase another firearm. If the results of my PFEC indicate I am ineligible to either possess or purchase firearms, can I keep the firearms I own?

◦No. If you are found to be ineligible to either possess or purchase firearms as a result of the PFEC, you must relinquish any firearms you may have in your possession to a law enforcement agency or designate a power of attorney to take control and possession of them for you. Furthermore, firearms may not stay in the constructive possession of a prohibited person (e.g. you may not transfer possession to a person sharing the same household). The Power of Attorney, pdf form can be downloaded from this website.

Go to a FFL that will release. Do not give the CADOJ the power to make you prove they are wrong.
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 12:50 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.