Calguns.net  

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

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #801  
Old 10-21-2018, 8:49 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaceful John View Post
If we're voting, I think the preferred conclusion would be that open carry is the enumerated right. We've seen much mischief in Florida when a sidearm is inadvertently exposed. On the other side, it's reasonable to believe that if open is the right, concealed cannot be far behind.
Concealed carry will follow close on only if the politicians determine that shaming and SWATting are insufficient to discourage people from exercising their right to open carry, and that it is preferable, in the interest of public safety, to allow for shall issue CCW. Best not to scare the sheep.

Personally, I think that SCOTUS should decide that "carry" is the right, and give states the choice (on a shall permit basis) on the manner in which carry, open only, concealed only, or both, will be regulated.
Reply With Quote
  #802  
Old 10-21-2018, 9:24 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,942
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Concealed carry will follow close on only if the politicians determine that shaming and SWATting are insufficient to discourage people from exercising their right to open carry, and that it is preferable, in the interest of public safety, to allow for shall issue CCW. Best not to scare the sheep.

Personally, I think that SCOTUS should decide that "carry" is the right, and give states the choice (on a shall permit basis) on the manner in which carry, open only, concealed only, or both, will be regulated.
SCOTUS in Heller, and all previous precedent cases it referenced and/or cited have already established KEEP (own/possess) AND BEAR (carry) as part of the right.

And they made it crystal clear, OC is the mode of exercise, CCW can be prohibited. But they also made it crystal clear the right can be regulated - that means its PARTICULARS as well.

Again, read Heller v. DC, read the list of precedent cases it references, pull up a dozen or so from the Guncite website...read 'em yourself.

Problem is, some states just don't care, (Florida and California) . . . SCOTUS enforcement power is only as good as the willingness of the system to respect their decision.

As I have stated many many times before - key politicians have to be booted out of office, key bureaucrats have to be fired/released before the rest return to their proper place.

That's the preferred revolution, . . . we'd rather not have the other kind.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #803  
Old 10-23-2018, 7:25 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 151
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What is the deadline for 9th circuit to grant/deny en banc?
Reply With Quote
  #804  
Old 10-23-2018, 9:21 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,953
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
What is the deadline for 9th circuit to grant/deny en banc?
They have to do it sometime before the sun explodes and consumes the planet.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #805  
Old 10-23-2018, 11:55 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 165
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
They have to do it sometime before the sun explodes and consumes the planet.
Which will conveniently moot the issue.
Reply With Quote
  #806  
Old 10-23-2018, 3:41 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,317
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
What is the deadline for 9th circuit to grant/deny en banc?
As I've said before, deadlines are what courts impose upon parties, not upon themselves.

My *guess* is sometime before New Years Day.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #807  
Old 10-28-2018, 12:34 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 543
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
As I've said before, deadlines are what courts impose upon parties, not upon themselves.

My *guess* is sometime before New Years Day.
What year?
Reply With Quote
  #808  
Old 10-28-2018, 2:57 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,317
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
What year?
This year.

Peruta took ~4 months to decide re. their sua sponte en banc request.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #809  
Old 10-29-2018, 9:29 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 543
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
This year.

Peruta took ~4 months to decide re. their sua sponte en banc request.
The response to the en banc petition isn't even due until November 8. Any particular reason(s) you think they'll render a decision in less that 7 weeks from that point?
Reply With Quote
  #810  
Old 10-29-2018, 10:47 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,167
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

The en banc process is extremely confusing and dependent on many contingencies. I'm looking at a decision re en banc around mid-February. I could be entirely wrong.

I would guess the process would proceed as follows:

Nov. 8--Young's response to en banc petition due.
Nov. 29--Due date for any judge to issue 5.4(b) call
Early December--Panel declines to rehear.
14-28 days from then (end of the year): judge can call a vote
21 days from vote (late January)--time to submit memoranda by judges.
14 days after that (mid February)--time to vote
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #811  
Old 10-29-2018, 11:05 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,040
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
The en banc process is extremely confusing and dependent on many contingencies. I'm looking at a decision re en banc around mid-February. I could be entirely wrong.

I would guess the process would proceed as follows:

Nov. 8--Young's response to en banc petition due.
Nov. 29--Due date for any judge to issue 5.4(b) call
Early December--Panel declines to rehear.
14-28 days from then (end of the year): judge can call a vote
21 days from vote (late January)--time to submit memoranda by judges.
14 days after that (mid February)--time to vote
The Defendants did not ask for panel rehearing just for en banc.

Last edited by wolfwood; 10-30-2018 at 7:32 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #812  
Old 10-30-2018, 8:39 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,317
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
The response to the en banc petition isn't even due until November 8. Any particular reason(s) you think they'll render a decision in less that 7 weeks from that point?
Frankly, I've forgotten my reasoning and didn't write it down. It does seem quick, given en banc request was not made until Sept. At this point, my *guess* is because I believe CA9 will GVR it and not take it en banc at this point.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #813  
Old 10-30-2018, 8:56 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,167
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
my *guess* is because I believe CA9 will GVR it and not take it en banc at this point.
I'm not an expert on appellate procedure, but how can CA9 GVR it? Doesn't that usually refer to SCOTUS granting cert and then vacating/remanding the case back?

I do agree with Paladin that the chances of this being taken en banc are actually pretty low. It'd be setting up a catastrophic defeat for gun controllers to take it up en banc, reverse the panel, and then go up to SCOTUS.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #814  
Old 10-31-2018, 2:29 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 165
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
. It'd be setting up a catastrophic defeat for gun controllers to take it up en banc, reverse the panel, and then go up to SCOTUS.
SCOTUS certainly changed for the better since the petition had been filed.
Reply With Quote
  #815  
Old 11-07-2018, 3:39 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,040
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
I'm not an expert on appellate procedure, but how can CA9 GVR it? Doesn't that usually refer to SCOTUS granting cert and then vacating/remanding the case back?

I do agree with Paladin that the chances of this being taken en banc are actually pretty low. It'd be setting up a catastrophic defeat for gun controllers to take it up en banc, reverse the panel, and then go up to SCOTUS.
The options are to take it en banc or not.
If the case does not go en banc we may need to wait for some disents.
If the case goes en banc expect an opinion unless something extremely odd happens.
There is a appellate version of gvr which is called summary affirmance (also related summary disposition) but that is not applicable at the en banc state.

If the en banc Court is okay with the Young panel the opinion will simply stand as do most opinion and the case will remand back to the district court unless the State files a cert petition with the SUpreme Court
Reply With Quote
  #816  
Old 11-08-2018, 5:27 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,040
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Response filed

https://www.scribd.com/document/3926...-With-Addendum
Reply With Quote
  #817  
Old 11-08-2018, 8:05 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,545
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

@wolfwood if you're ever near Fairfield, you have a cold one with your name on it! Thanks for all your work.
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

Voting "Yes" on a California bond measure is like giving a degenerate gambler more money because he says he has the game figured out....

John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #818  
Old 11-08-2018, 9:22 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 543
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Not being an attorney, I can't evaluate the quality of the legal arguments, but as a person who despises the liars who make and enforce and now defend Hawaii's obviously totally unconstitutional violation of my rights, I delight in seeing the liars bull**** legal arguments characterized as "hogwash" and "Alice in Wonderland".
Reply With Quote
  #819  
Old 11-08-2018, 9:48 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 165
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Am I reading it right that the response argues that all sorts of “good cause” regulations are OK, as long as “some” form of carry is allowed as not a “complete” ban.
Actually defending Massachusetts regime?

We are screwed.

It HAS to be a should issue OPEN carry request. Everything else will remain a de facto ban in counties like mine. How people keep not understanding that.

So bad.
Reply With Quote
  #820  
Old 11-08-2018, 9:58 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 165
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

In any case. All I want is an en banc denial. Then we will wish good luck to Mr. Nichols.
Reply With Quote
  #821  
Old 11-08-2018, 10:50 AM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 34
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

@Offwidth, probably the biggest reason why they cite MA (my home state) is probably that the application process is at a town/city level, not county, such that de facto bans are not as easily seen *and* that you can technically OC or CCW (if you get "No Restrictions"). While “good cause” varies, self defense is considered an acceptable answer (in some places, at least). See here for more information:

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1467171

If this case is overturned, then Hawaii has shot themselves in the foot by doubling-down.

Will read the response when I am not at work.

Last edited by BryMan92; 11-08-2018 at 10:53 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #822  
Old 11-08-2018, 12:46 PM
ritter ritter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 123
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Nicely done, wolfwood. I appreciate your frankness, even if the court doesn't. Enough is enough, indeed.
Reply With Quote
  #823  
Old 11-08-2018, 12:59 PM
phdo's Avatar
phdo phdo is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,370
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
@wolfwood if you're ever near Fairfield, you have a cold one with your name on it! Thanks for all your work.


Same if you’re ever in San Jose.
__________________
WTB:
2.5" Smith & Wesson Model 19
2.5" Smith & Wesson Model 66
4" Smith & Wesson Model 19
3.5" Smith & Wesson Model 29
Marlin 1894C
Colt Python
Colt Series 70
Sig Sauer P228
HK USP9c
Reply With Quote
  #824  
Old 11-08-2018, 5:13 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,040
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Last thing is on the 18th amicus briefs will be filed
The following groups will be filing briefs.
Hawaii Firearms Coalition
Madison Society
SAF
Hawaii Rifle Association
San Diego County Gun Owners
Gun Owner's of America

So 6 total.

Last edited by wolfwood; 11-08-2018 at 5:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #825  
Old 11-08-2018, 9:50 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,317
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Last thing is on the 18th amicus briefs will be filed
The following groups will be filing briefs.
Hawaii Firearms Coalition
Madison Society
SAF
Hawaii Rifle Association
San Diego County Gun Owners
Gun Owner's of America

So 6 total.
The NRA isn't filing?
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #826  
Old 11-08-2018, 10:01 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,953
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
The NRA isn't filing?
Maybe one if those is the NRA affiliate for Hawaii? Sort of like our crpa? Just guessing, I didn't Google it.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #827  
Old 11-08-2018, 10:06 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,953
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Ok I just googled. Hawaii rifle association is the NRA affiliate for Hawaii. So essentially, NRA did file.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #828  
Old 11-09-2018, 9:15 AM
adamkdoiron adamkdoiron is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Quincy, CA
Posts: 156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

so does that mean en banc is denied?
Reply With Quote
  #829  
Old 11-09-2018, 9:47 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,040
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adamkdoiron View Post
so does that mean en banc is denied?
No it means the time for the judges to decide whether to go en banc starts now.
Reply With Quote
  #830  
Old 11-15-2018, 5:42 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,040
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This just got filed.


https://www.scribd.com/document/3933...-File-en-Banc-
Reply With Quote
  #831  
Old 11-15-2018, 7:25 PM
homelessdude homelessdude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: inland empire
Posts: 893
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Sounds like a rehash of all their original bull crap. The fact that no one but a few security guards can get one kind of says it all.
Reply With Quote
  #832  
Old 11-15-2018, 8:39 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 543
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Can you cite precedent to file a reply to the reply to the reply?

And what's a "causal comparison"? Is that in contrast to a "correlative comparison"? /sarc

By the way, in response to my UIPA request, the state wanted to charge me $930 to provide the documents about how they decided to hire outside counsel and how much it was going to cost taxpayers of Hawaii. They included a list reasons why many documents wouldn't be provided, even at that cost, e.g. "attorney-client privilege", etc. So we don't know how much we're paying these expensive East Coast attorneys to misspell "casual" as "causal" , etc.

Last edited by surfgeorge; 11-15-2018 at 8:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #833  
Old 11-15-2018, 11:09 PM
scbauer's Avatar
scbauer scbauer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 674
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Anybody able to translate that from Lawyer into English for us common folk?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #834  
Old 11-16-2018, 1:51 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,834
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scbauer View Post
Anybody able to translate that from Lawyer into English for us common folk?
Their response is essentially:

1) The (3 judge) Panel Badly Misconstrued Hawaii’s Open-Carry Law.

The open carry licenses are not limited to "Security Guards", despite the fact that nobody but security guards have been issued open carry licenses.

2) The Panel’s Decision Splits From The Decisions Of At Least Four Circuits.

Other circuits have determined that the open carry is not the core of the 2A, so it doesn't jive with what everyone else has said.

3) The (3 judge) Panel Flouted The EnBanc Court’s Decision In Peruta.

They claim that Peruta indicated the there is no right to bear outside the home, which is a mischaracterization of what Peruta actually said.

4) This Issue Is Profoundly Important.

It is super-duper important for public safety to keep firearms off the streets, so, you have to reverse the 3 judge panels decision.



That about covers it.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #835  
Old 11-16-2018, 2:27 PM
scbauer's Avatar
scbauer scbauer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 674
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
Their response is essentially:

1) The (3 judge) Panel Badly Misconstrued Hawaii’s Open-Carry Law.

The open carry licenses are not limited to "Security Guards", despite the fact that nobody but security guards have been issued open carry licenses.

2) The Panel’s Decision Splits From The Decisions Of At Least Four Circuits.

Other circuits have determined that the open carry is not the core of the 2A, so it doesn't jive with what everyone else has said.

3) The (3 judge) Panel Flouted The EnBanc Court’s Decision In Peruta.

They claim that Peruta indicated the there is no right to bear outside the home, which is a mischaracterization of what Peruta actually said.

4) This Issue Is Profoundly Important.

It is super-duper important for public safety to keep firearms off the streets, so, you have to reverse the 3 judge panels decision.



That about covers it.
Perfect. Thanks!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #836  
Old 11-16-2018, 4:03 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,040
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

First Amicus Brief filed. Its a history brief by San Diego County Gun Owners


https://www.scribd.com/document/3934...s-Amicus-Brief

SD Gun owners is a small local group Yet they stepped up and filed a very important historical brief to refute the Everytown brief. Please consider donating a couple dollars to them. A Big Thanks to Attorney John Dillon and SD County Gun Owners President Michael Schwartz for lending aid.

As a San Diego resident I really appreciate their help.

Last edited by wolfwood; 11-17-2018 at 8:27 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #837  
Old 11-16-2018, 9:18 PM
Metal God's Avatar
Metal God Metal God is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,497
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wolfwood is there another link that does not require us to sign up to read the brief ?
__________________
Tolerate
allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

Anyone else find it sad that those who preach tolerance CAN'T allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that they do not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

If you have the time check this out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY
Reply With Quote
  #838  
Old 11-16-2018, 9:38 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,040
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal God View Post
Wolfwood is there another link that does not require us to sign up to read the brief ?
sorry that is my only way of putting up the briefs. Give it a few days and Chuck will have the briefs up on his website.
Reply With Quote
  #839  
Old 11-16-2018, 10:39 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 34
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The response to Young seems like an ad hominem, not a rebuttal. I’m glad SD amici is using the Heller history and tradition test; seems the proper test, not the two-point test which is perfect for SCOTUS.
Reply With Quote
  #840  
Old 11-16-2018, 11:49 PM
Metal God's Avatar
Metal God Metal God is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,497
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
sorry that is my only way of putting up the briefs. Give it a few days and Chuck will have the briefs up on his website.
No problem , thanks for the reply
__________________
Tolerate
allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

Anyone else find it sad that those who preach tolerance CAN'T allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that they do not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

If you have the time check this out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY
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 2:26 AM.




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.