Calguns.net  

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

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #281  
Old 01-02-2014, 9:42 PM
Funtimes's Avatar
Funtimes Funtimes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 946
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

On a side note - we did ask for them to give us an open carry permit.

The standard is greater than a concealed permit. I would have to justify an exceptional case (for a permit), and then demonstrate an urgency and need for them to give a open carry exemption.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor.
Sig Certified Handgun / Active Shooter Instructor.

2L Student. Nothing is legal advice, just simply my 2 cents worth of opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 01-02-2014, 10:01 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,633
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
You could be right, but I'm not so sure.

There will be a whole lot of market factors at play and one could find that behaviors in more rural areas could slip into some of the more fascist areas over time.
Absent evidence of that happening with regard to other things, I can't give that possibility as much weight as I might wish to.


Quote:
There are a number of local merchants who have had a lot of business from me over the years. I'm on good terms with managers and such. If a few others like me should call those merchants and tell them that if there is a "No Guns" sign on the door they will get no further business - they are going to know that their business will suffer.

And I really doubt that there are a whole lot of folk who will really avoid going into a store unless there is a "No Guns" sign on the door.
This depends entirely on what the "norm" is. If the norm is, as I expect will be the case in anti-liberty strongholds, for "no guns" signs to exist, then I think you'll see that very thing.

Of course there are going to be some people who just don't care. But such people are not a concern for businesses as regards this issue.


Quote:
Seriously, the absence of a sign is not a pro-RKBA statement. A "No Guns" sign is a clear anti-RKBA statement.

Net effect is that the absence of a "No Guns" statement is non-political whereas the presence of the "No Guns" sign is a political statement. So the net effect is that the non-political store is going to likely just not put up a sign unless their insurer tells them they must.
But this misses the point entirely. It's not at all about politics as such. It is about whether or not the person who is entering a store is comfortable in doing so. Someone who doesn't care will be comfortable entering either one. Someone who is afraid of guns will find greater comfort in a "no guns" store. And someone who favors the right to keep and bear arms and understands it will find greater comfort in a store that lacks the sign.

This is why the timing is the most critical part of the issue. If the signs go up quickly enough, as one should expect with the state and local governments "helping" that process along, then the burden falls upon those who are put off by "no guns" signs to somehow convince the businesses in question that their decision really is bad for their business. But that is something the businesses in question can discover for themselves easily enough, because they know how well they were doing prior to carry becoming a right, so they have a baseline to work from.


There are lessons to be learned from the civil rights movement experience that bear on this. It took anti-discrimination legislation to force businesses to allow colored people to shop there before those businesses relented. Prior to that, market forces alone were insufficient to deal with the issue, precisely because it was a matter of comfort for both the business owners and their clientele. Why should we expect the situation with public carry to be any different?


Quote:
But at this time there are too many unknowns for anyone to make a well-informed guess as to how it will sort out. Too much depends on how any relevant case and/or legislation comes about, the timing, and the publicity.

You don't know and I don't know.
That is true as regards the specific outcome. However, what we can do is logically determine the general situational characteristics required for a given outcome. Based on the logic I used previously, it looks to me that the outcome we desire here is one that requires situational characteristics that will be very difficult to achieve, particularly once the inevitable government meddling is factored in. Barring something unforeseen, I see no logical reason to believe, therefore, that the most likely outcome is anything other than the one that results in the practical destruction of the right.


Quote:
But one must remember one other dynamic which may work in our favor. If Open Carry becomes the norm in the more rural areas, then when the fascist city dwellers go up into the mountains for skiing or other recreation they may find themselves in stores in which they are surrounded by folk who are openly carrying. They won't get shot and may eventually even feel more secure in such an environment - and you may find their attitude toward a store which is apolitical is no longer negative. So even if they find a "No Guns" sign to be mandatory at first, it may not be after a while.
Maybe. Or maybe they'll come home and think that they were "lucky". Worse, if the income that they and other fascist city dwellers bring to the more rural areas represents the bulk of the income to the specific businesses you speak of, then those businesses could easily wind up putting up "no guns" signs of their own in order to appease their primary customers (the fascist city dwellers).

Furthermore, transforming those people into "don't care" types isn't really sufficient to upset the balance -- they'll give business to the "no guns" locations regardless. They have to be converted into pro-rights people, i.e. people who will actively refuse to enter "no guns" locations. The mechanism you describe here isn't enough to achieve that.

You raise an interesting possibility here, but I have trouble seeing how it will prove to be a major determining factor in the outcome.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 01-02-2014 at 10:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 01-03-2014, 11:44 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,776
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Herding the sheep. However, those living in poor, high density urban areas fail when educating themselves on laws, rights and politics that don't provide for them. They also have a dismal record when it comes to voting.

If they really knew the facts, they would be pro gun IMHO. Unfortunately, their view on guns is that of illegal, life taking problems that ONLY LE can help with but won't. In their opinion.
Well, fwiw I hope I'm wrong..

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...xt%7CFRONTPAGE
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 01-04-2014, 2:09 PM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,595
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
You cannot expect the free market to fix this problem.... the % of people who carry are not significant enough for companies to worry about compared to (possibly only perceived) liability issues and/or PR fallout for being "pro gun".



That is a ridiculous thing to say.

Having looked at the arguments of kcbrown & OleCuss, all I have to add is that even here in the PRK, we still had Starbucks.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 01-04-2014, 2:31 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,633
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
Having looked at the arguments of kcbrown & OleCuss, all I have to add is that even here in the PRK, we still had Starbucks.
One sample does not make a trend.

But in any case, like I said, you should not ignore the very real effects of malevolent meddling on the part of state and local government. What could they do to destroy the right in the face of a declaration by the courts that open carry in public is a right? Many things.

For instance, they could pass a law making it a crime to step onto someone else's private property with a gun unless the property owner had a sign allowing guns onto their property (or some other express permission on the part of said owner), thus turning OleCuss's political statement argument on its ear. They might even create a stratified law with one penalty for violating the above and a harsher penalty for violating a "no guns" sign. Even if the former such law were eventually ruled Unconstitutional by the courts, that will take so much time that the damage will be long done by the time the final ruling is handed down. There is essentially no chance that a "no guns" sign law will be struck down by the courts, most especially by the time the case challenging the law gets to the Supreme Court. By that time, at least one of the Heller 5 will be long retired, replaced by a rabid anti-liberty justice.

These are just the things I can think of off the top of my head. I have no doubt that the enemy is capable of thinking of many more (in addition to the above), because I do not presume stupidity on the part of the enemy. And each one will have to be contested in the courts. It will be decades by the time it's all over with, and it only takes one victory on their part to destroy the right in its tracks. We have to win everything in order to win at all.

My reasons for being pessimistic (but not overly so, hence you should not mistake my pessimism for lack of realism) are very real and very valid. The long term probabilities are very much against us, particularly with the demographic trends that are now in place.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 01-04-2014 at 2:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 01-06-2014, 6:00 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,595
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
One sample does not make a trend.

But in any case, like I said, you should not ignore the very real effects of malevolent meddling on the part of state and local government. What could they do to destroy the right in the face of a declaration by the courts that open carry in public is a right? Many things.

For instance, they could pass a law making it a crime to step onto someone else's private property with a gun unless the property owner had a sign allowing guns onto their property (or some other express permission on the part of said owner), thus turning OleCuss's political statement argument on its ear. They might even create a stratified law with one penalty for violating the above and a harsher penalty for violating a "no guns" sign. Even if the former such law were eventually ruled Unconstitutional by the courts, that will take so much time that the damage will be long done by the time the final ruling is handed down. There is essentially no chance that a "no guns" sign law will be struck down by the courts, most especially by the time the case challenging the law gets to the Supreme Court. By that time, at least one of the Heller 5 will be long retired, replaced by a rabid anti-liberty justice.

These are just the things I can think of off the top of my head. I have no doubt that the enemy is capable of thinking of many more (in addition to the above), because I do not presume stupidity on the part of the enemy. And each one will have to be contested in the courts. It will be decades by the time it's all over with, and it only takes one victory on their part to destroy the right in its tracks. We have to win everything in order to win at all.

My reasons for being pessimistic (but not overly so, hence you should not mistake my pessimism for lack of realism) are very real and very valid. The long term probabilities are very much against us, particularly with the demographic trends that are now in place.

I don't dispute the danger. I do dispute that all is lost.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 01-06-2014, 4:09 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,633
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
I don't dispute the danger. I do dispute that all is lost.
Yep, I agree, all is not lost yet. We don't reach that point until victory is literally impossible. As long as there's a chance of victory, all is not lost.

I contend that the probability of victory is very low at this point, but that does not relieve us of our obligation to fight until the bitter end.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 07-24-2018, 10:57 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,065
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

FYI I just won this case

https://www.scribd.com/document/384590619/Young-Opinion
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 07-24-2018, 11:03 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,668
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Congratulations!!
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 07-24-2018, 11:08 AM
Syntax Error's Avatar
Syntax Error Syntax Error is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 캘리포니아인민공화국
Posts: 3,110
iTrader: 61 / 100%
Default

lol, quite a turnaround to the OP's original post, nearly five years later. Congrats to wolfwood for the win in the Appeals Court, much less the Ninth Circus!
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 07-24-2018, 9:18 PM
2Aallday 2Aallday is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 244
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
https://gfycat.com/selfreliantwarybear
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 07-24-2018, 9:35 PM
BrassCase's Avatar
BrassCase BrassCase is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: San Ramon
Posts: 2,360
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Congratulations, but you know it's really not over yet. Keep prevailing.
__________________
I'd agree with you but then we'd both be wrong...
NRA Certified:

Chief Range Safety Officer
Instructor: Basic Pistol Shooting
Instructor: Personal Protection Inside the Home
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 07-25-2018, 1:46 AM
Sactown7 Sactown7 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Congratulations!
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 07-25-2018, 10:47 AM
JDoe JDoe is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,836
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post


Congratulations!

When are “the right people” going to offer their congratulations?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 07-25-2018, 11:01 AM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,516
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Where’s the op?

One serving of crow, and it’s getting cold.

Would you call him “qualified” now, Clarence Darrow?

What are YOUR qualifications to bloviate from the sidelines?

Sound off like you got a pair.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lear60man View Post
My transvestite analogy stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Didn't realize. I try not to be political.
XXXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 07-25-2018, 11:04 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,692
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
Where’s the op?

One serving of crow, and it’s getting cold.

Would you call him “qualified” now, Clarence Darrow?

What are YOUR qualifications to bloviate from the sidelines?

Sound off like you got a pair.
Nichols is unqualified (as am I, I'm not an attorney). Young got a "dream panel" and won, and Nichols was backed up behind Young. Nichols case is far from over, in fact Young is also not over. There are opportunities for a clown like Nichols to find a way to foreclose our right to bear arms here forever and I'm sure he's looking for such a way. He tells himself he's not but the goal of such people is to lose heroically and get attention, not to win.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 07-25-2018, 11:15 AM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,516
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
Nichols is unqualified (as am I, I'm not an attorney). Young got a "dream panel" and won, and Nichols was backed up behind Young. Nichols case is far from over, in fact Young is also not over. There are opportunities for a clown like Nichols to find a way to foreclose our right to bear arms here forever and I'm sure he's looking for such a way. He tells himself he's not but the goal of such people is to lose heroically and get attention, not to win.
So he backed into this win through no work of his own, and his goal is to lose?

Do you have anything to back this up?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lear60man View Post
My transvestite analogy stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Didn't realize. I try not to be political.
XXXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 07-25-2018, 11:24 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,692
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
So he backed into this win through no work of his own,
Yes basically. I don't consider his rambling briefs to be "work". And he just happened to be behind Young and Young just happened to get the dream panel of the 9th.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
and his goal is to lose?
Yes. If he wanted to actually win he would have an attorney write his briefs. Think about it. If I had cancer, and I wanted to be cured, I would go to a top oncologist. If I wanted to get attention and sympathy by dying from cancer, I would go to some clown without a medical license.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
Do you have anything to back this up?
Yes read his insane briefs. They are incoherent, rambling, devoting pages (including photos!) to the Black Panthers in the 60s.
__________________

Last edited by CCWFacts; 07-25-2018 at 11:42 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 07-26-2018, 1:07 AM
SWalt SWalt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Riverside
Posts: 5,805
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Definitely a Congrats is in order!
__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion.

NRA Patron Member
CRPA 5 yr Member

"...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 07-26-2018, 8:17 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,668
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
From a federal court filing this morning from Baker, currently pending before the 9th Circuit COA:



Well thank you very much ALAN BECK, AKA "wolfwood" on this forum, for arguing in FAVOR of a reduced standard of scrutiny for 2A cases. WHILE ARGUING ON THE SIDE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. Or did you forget which side you on? You sir are the perfect example of why unqualified attorneys should stay the hell away from 2A cases. You are a POX upon all law abiding gun owners.

I don't even know if you understand the significance of the point you have conceded, apparently you do not, but you have stabbed all of us in the back, and given an unfathomable pot of gold to anti-gun advocates. Congratulations. I can't even believe you did this, and I've seen the other garbage you filed. This is truly a new low. Shame. Quite frankly I think there is something wrong with our legal system that you could even get a bar card, let along have such an enormously negative impact on such an important right, at such a critical time. I need a drink.
I’m putting this here as a reminder that being a fanboy of a certain Lawyer or 2A group or opposing views is short sighted for all of us. (Not pointing out anyone)

The OP, in this case was abosolutely biased and did not have the intellect or reasoned ability to make the above claim. It’s actually sad how those wanting 2A equality seem to eat their own for profit, fame and personal gain.
Reply With Quote
  #301  
Old 07-26-2018, 8:24 AM
SpookyWatcher SpookyWatcher is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 71
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post



Yes. If he wanted to actually win he would have an attorney write his briefs. Think about it. If I had cancer, and I wanted to be cured, I would go to a top oncologist. If I wanted to get attention and sympathy by dying from cancer, I would go to some clown without a medical license.

And sometimes you have to go with the rogue who turns the established "way of doing things" on it's head. Think T-cell therapy. Many a good doctor lamented that it was/is pure quackery. These so called experts are blinded by their hubris.

The big orgs are no different. They feel they know best are blinded by their hubris when in fact their failings have stacked higher than their egos.

Wolfwood did an excellent job and was derided every step of the way by both the big orgs and the whiney little b####es here simply because you/they thought knew better and didn't like the fact that open carry is the right. One could even start to wonder if the big orgs even want to really win because then they would be obsolete.

So many here need to eat their helping of crow with side of a bag of d##ks.

Like him or not... Nichols is right. Period! And no matter how much the little armchair Perry Masons on here try to intellect joust otherwise, They Are Wrong.

And as a side note...i survived cancer 22 years now because of a rogue.

Great Job Wolfwood!. I pray Your work and house is blessed immensely.

Spooky
Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 07-26-2018, 9:12 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,357
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
Yes basically. I don't consider his rambling briefs to be "work". And he just happened to be behind Young and Young just happened to get the dream panel of the 9th.



Yes. If he wanted to actually win he would have an attorney write his briefs. Think about it. If I had cancer, and I wanted to be cured, I would go to a top oncologist. If I wanted to get attention and sympathy by dying from cancer, I would go to some clown without a medical license.



Yes read his insane briefs. They are incoherent, rambling, devoting pages (including photos!) to the Black Panthers in the 60s.
Nichols at least had the cojones and did the work to bring the case that the right people didn't bring.Your cancer analogy is false. While one would go to the top onocologist, if there only option was to see a general practioner that is what most would do. He is a licensed attorney.
Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 07-26-2018, 11:39 AM
Packy14's Avatar
Packy14 Packy14 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: socal
Posts: 4,761
iTrader: 127 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Congrats. Where is that ******* tincon when you need him.
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member

If you buy a gun from me and fail to pass background, I will keep at least 50% of the sale price to compensate me for the time you've wasted of mine (sale and failed sale pickup), so if you're in doubt, don't buy my guns.
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 07-26-2018, 12:08 PM
Scratch705's Avatar
Scratch705 Scratch705 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 10,794
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Packy14 View Post
Congrats. Where is that ******* tincon when you need him.
who knows, he hasn't logged in since 2017.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by leelaw View Post
Because -ohmigosh- they can add their opinions, too?
Proof we can all comment on whatever we want if it's at all related to the topic at hand!
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 08-01-2018, 5:00 PM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,954
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
I’m putting this here as a reminder that being a fanboy of a certain Lawyer or 2A group or opposing views is short sighted for all of us. (Not pointing out anyone)

The OP, in this case was abosolutely biased and did not have the intellect or reasoned ability to make the above claim. It’s actually sad how those wanting 2A equality seem to eat their own for profit, fame and personal gain.
Thanks for saying that.

__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 08-12-2018, 3:34 PM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,595
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post

OUT-FRAKKING-STANDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Soon, we will all be eating lamb in Paradise.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30

Last edited by Mulay El Raisuli; 08-12-2018 at 5:15 PM..
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 9:21 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.