Calguns.net  

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

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-12-2011, 11:34 AM
imtheomegaman's Avatar
imtheomegaman imtheomegaman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,352
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default OC Ban Proceeding

http://www.sgvtribune.com/ci_17826220
  #2  
Old 04-12-2011, 11:43 AM
The Shadow's Avatar
The Shadow The Shadow is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,213
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Portantino
"You don't need a side arm in order to buy a cheeseburger."

Portantino seems to either be unaware of, or is intentionally ignoring the mass shooting at McDonald's in San Ysidro, and the mass shooting at Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Tx.

Portantino, law enforcement representatives and others argued that the practice of carrying unconcealed weapons in public escalates tensions, increases the chances of violence and wastes already tight law enforcement resources.

Easy remedy, make CCWs shall issue. DUUUUHHHHH!

Last edited by The Shadow; 04-12-2011 at 11:46 AM..
  #3  
Old 04-12-2011, 12:00 PM
tleeocinca tleeocinca is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 903
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is a great example of "If you do not exercise your right, you will lose it". Law makers will not loosen the current CCW laws and now they will get UOC banned.
  #4  
Old 04-12-2011, 12:10 PM
imtheomegaman's Avatar
imtheomegaman imtheomegaman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,352
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

yeah, I love the smug "you don't need a side arm..." what a jack*****
  #5  
Old 04-12-2011, 12:14 PM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
★ Junior G Man ✈
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 USC Section 798
Posts: 12,681
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

With the other thread discussing JB's opinion/feeling about firearms, what would happen if this made it to his desk???
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------

Last edited by Ubermcoupe; 04-12-2011 at 12:18 PM..
  #6  
Old 04-12-2011, 12:18 PM
Baconator's Avatar
Baconator Baconator is offline
Bacon makes it better
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 9,383
iTrader: 58 / 100%
Default

How many other states have legal loc?

And wouldn't an outright ban on oc make ccw shall issue much easier?


Sent while watching 45David and boberama get it on.

Last edited by Baconator; 04-12-2011 at 12:30 PM..
  #7  
Old 04-12-2011, 12:19 PM
wash's Avatar
wash wash is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sillycon valley
Posts: 9,020
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Blog Entries: 13
Default

Quote:
This is a great example of "If you do not exercise your right, you will lose it". Law makers will not loosen the current CCW laws and now they will get UOC banned.
No, this is an example of people exercising their rights too visibly and getting it banned because soccer moms at Starbucks complained.

Don't try to blame people who didn't poke a stick at the hornet nest.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander
Dear Kevin,

You suck!!! Your are wrong!!! Stop it!!!
Proud CGF and CGN donor. SAF life member. Former CRPA member. Gpal beta tester (it didn't work). NRA member.
  #8  
Old 04-12-2011, 12:22 PM
QQQ's Avatar
QQQ QQQ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Chino Hills
Posts: 2,246
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wash View Post
No, this is an example of people exercising their rights too visibly and getting it banned because soccer moms at Starbucks complained.

Don't try to blame people who didn't poke a stick at the hornet nest.
...as opposed to not exercising them at all?
  #9  
Old 04-12-2011, 12:24 PM
Coded-Dude's Avatar
Coded-Dude Coded-Dude is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,709
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

wouldn't banning OC make reversing such decisions as Peruta much easier? its good and bad. really depends on how adamant you are about open carry.
__________________
x2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadbolt View Post
watching this state and country operate is like watching a water park burn down. doesn't make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama
Team 6 showed up in choppers, it was so cash. Lit his house with red dots like it had a rash. Navy SEALs dashed inside his house, left their heads spinning...then flew off in the night screaming "Duh, WINNING!"
  #10  
Old 04-12-2011, 12:27 PM
tleeocinca tleeocinca is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 903
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

That makes no sense at all.. "Exercising your rights to visibly"...Ha Ha Ha, LMAO... That is the funniest thing I have heard all day. Maybe we can argue that people who exercise freedom of speech should whisper instead of voicing our opinions and then they will leave the sheep alone.
  #11  
Old 04-12-2011, 12:35 PM
J.D.Allen J.D.Allen is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Surprise surprise
__________________
"Who is the more foolish? The fool, or the fool that follows him?"-Obi Wan Kenobi

the question here is not whether the carrying of arms is a good idea—the question is
whether carrying arms is constitutionally protected. Objective standards and due process—not
Defendants’ philosophy or personal beliefs about the value of this activity—must carry the day-Alan Gura
  #12  
Old 04-12-2011, 12:36 PM
Rossi357's Avatar
Rossi357 Rossi357 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sandy Eggo County
Posts: 1,229
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Do you need a gun while buying a cheeseburger?
Maybe, maybe not.
Do you need a gun while the cheeseburger joint is being robbed?
DUH!
  #13  
Old 04-12-2011, 12:38 PM
wash's Avatar
wash wash is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sillycon valley
Posts: 9,020
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Blog Entries: 13
Default

Well, I should take that back, it's not exercising a right.

Our right is to keep and bear arms and that means functional arms.

Do not take the anti-gun position that an unloaded gun is a functional arm.

Exercising what was left (after the LOC ban and GFSZs) is what is going to get UOC banned and trying to blame that on people who didn't UOC is stupid.

All this is going to do is make our fight for LOC more difficult.

Do you understand that?

Our case for shall issue CCW does not rely on the second amendment protecting carry, it relies on equal protection which a UOC ban has no legal impact on.

Trying to justify the ban with some imagined legal effect is almost as stupid as blaming the ban on people who didn't UOC.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander
Dear Kevin,

You suck!!! Your are wrong!!! Stop it!!!
Proud CGF and CGN donor. SAF life member. Former CRPA member. Gpal beta tester (it didn't work). NRA member.
  #14  
Old 04-12-2011, 12:52 PM
Coded-Dude's Avatar
Coded-Dude Coded-Dude is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,709
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wash View Post
Well, I should take that back, it's not exercising a right.

Our right is to keep and bear arms and that means functional arms.

Do not take the anti-gun position that an unloaded gun is a functional arm.

Exercising what was left (after the LOC ban and GFSZs) is what is going to get UOC banned and trying to blame that on people who didn't UOC is stupid.

All this is going to do is make our fight for LOC more difficult.

Do you understand that?

Our case for shall issue CCW does not rely on the second amendment protecting carry, it relies on equal protection which a UOC ban has no legal impact on.

Trying to justify the ban with some imagined legal effect is almost as stupid as blaming the ban on people who didn't UOC.
Didn't the Peruta ruling go "south" for us because the Judge felt UOC was enough(no need for shall issue when uoc is an option)?
__________________
x2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadbolt View Post
watching this state and country operate is like watching a water park burn down. doesn't make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama
Team 6 showed up in choppers, it was so cash. Lit his house with red dots like it had a rash. Navy SEALs dashed inside his house, left their heads spinning...then flew off in the night screaming "Duh, WINNING!"
  #15  
Old 04-12-2011, 12:57 PM
Barkoff Barkoff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Central CA
Posts: 498
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubermcoupe View Post
With the other thread discussing JB's opinion/feeling about firearms, what would happen if this made it to his desk???

That will be interesting since many made claim that JB is a friend to firearm owners.

Personally I think those dumb-asses will take away their biggest argument against "shall issue". I know it has always been the standard reply anytime I have called a democrat's office.
  #16  
Old 04-12-2011, 12:58 PM
wash's Avatar
wash wash is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sillycon valley
Posts: 9,020
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Blog Entries: 13
Default

Yes but that was a bad case that Peruta forced us to handle.

We could win that on appeal but we will probably win in Richards first.

Face it, the judge in Peruta wanted to punt. She used UOC as an excuse (even though it's not legal in 95% of urban areas due to GFSZs).
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander
Dear Kevin,

You suck!!! Your are wrong!!! Stop it!!!
Proud CGF and CGN donor. SAF life member. Former CRPA member. Gpal beta tester (it didn't work). NRA member.
  #17  
Old 04-12-2011, 1:00 PM
Decoligny's Avatar
Decoligny Decoligny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle, OK
Posts: 10,593
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi357 View Post
Do you need a gun while buying a cheeseburger?
Maybe, maybe not.
Do you need a gun while the cheeseburger joint is being robbed?
DUH!
Maybe he needs to ask the patrons of the McDonald's in San Ysidro! Oh Wait, He Can't, They're Dead! They really needed a gun while ordering their cheeseburgers!
__________________

If you haven't seen it with your own eyes,
or heard it with your own ears,
don't make it up with your small mind,
or spread it with your big mouth.
  #18  
Old 04-12-2011, 1:01 PM
Barkoff Barkoff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Central CA
Posts: 498
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Do you need a gun to buy a cheeseburger? Hmm, let's ask this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BODWU...layer_embedded
  #19  
Old 04-12-2011, 1:11 PM
tleeocinca tleeocinca is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 903
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkoff View Post
Do you need a gun to buy a cheeseburger? Hmm, let's ask this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BODWU...layer_embedded
Look at all the sheep just standing there watching it happen. I counted 7 guys standing there while one guy is getting the **** beaten out of him.. That makes me sick
  #20  
Old 04-12-2011, 1:16 PM
Alan Block Alan Block is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,708
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You definitely need one to buy tacos in Rialto.
  #21  
Old 04-12-2011, 1:17 PM
tleeocinca tleeocinca is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 903
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Or one to by Chinese take out in Oakland California
  #22  
Old 04-12-2011, 1:23 PM
Coded-Dude's Avatar
Coded-Dude Coded-Dude is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,709
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tleeocinca View Post
Look at all the sheep just standing there watching it happen. I counted 7 guys standing there while one guy is getting the **** beaten out of him.. That makes me sick

my thoughts exactly. I was hoping the business manager/owner would've at least retreated to get a weapon(even a bat or knife), but he just ran behind the counter.
__________________
x2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadbolt View Post
watching this state and country operate is like watching a water park burn down. doesn't make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama
Team 6 showed up in choppers, it was so cash. Lit his house with red dots like it had a rash. Navy SEALs dashed inside his house, left their heads spinning...then flew off in the night screaming "Duh, WINNING!"
  #23  
Old 04-12-2011, 1:27 PM
thrasherfox thrasherfox is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,325
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wash View Post
No, this is an example of people exercising their rights too visibly and getting it banned because soccer moms at Starbucks complained.

Don't try to blame people who didn't poke a stick at the hornet nest.


Seriously, I am not an UOC advocate, however, if you cant excercise the right then whats the differance if it is banned or made illegal?

anyone who is against UOC becuase you think it just draws undue attention, then you might as well keep your mouth shut when we have one more right taken from us.

This is a prime example of you dont use it you lose it.

People have not excercised the right in so long, now when people try to excercise it they will now lose that right.

So what if soccor mom is offended, the police need to tell the soccor mom it is legal and the persons right, not harrrasing the person UOC.


This reminds of one time when I used to bounty hunt and my partner and I went into a house and got a guy, police were called. we showed the officers our paper work

The guys wife was screaming at us and the police officers. after the officer looked at our paper work and saw everything was in order he told us to go ahead and do our job.

My partner went to cuff the guy and the wife jumped in front of her husband.

One of the officers grabbed the guys wife and physically slammed her up against the wall and told her if she tried that again he was going to arrest her for interfering with what we were doing because we had the legal right to do what we were doing.

This was about 20 years ago.

what happend to law enforcement? what happened to officers standing up for the rights of law abiding citizens and putting people back in their places who try to infringe on our rights.

No one should be getting upset at ANYONE who UOC. I dont do it and never wanted to, personally I dont want to become a target for someone. But if someone wants to they should be able to. LEO's should support them.

This state is screwed up beyond belief and I am sorry to see what kind of mentality this state has bread into our LEO's. Fortunately not all LEO's are against citizens. but also just as unfortunate, laws are allowed to be passed that forces these good LEO's to have to enforce laws alot of them dont believe in.
__________________
1 Peter 3:15

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect

2 Corinthians 3:3
You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
  #24  
Old 04-12-2011, 1:29 PM
Us3rName Us3rName is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Orange County
Posts: 661
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

very well put thrasherfox
  #25  
Old 04-12-2011, 1:41 PM
turbosbox turbosbox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Norcal
Posts: 376
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

A misguided law to correct the actions of a misguided few
  #26  
Old 04-12-2011, 1:45 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,665
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrasherfox View Post
Seriously, I am not an UOC advocate, however, if you cant excercise the right then whats the differance if it is banned or made illegal?

anyone who is against UOC becuase you think it just draws undue attention, then you might as well keep your mouth shut when we have one more right taken from us.

This is a prime example of you dont use it you lose it.

People have not excercised the right in so long, now when people try to excercise it they will now lose that right.

So what if soccor mom is offended, the police need to tell the soccor mom it is legal and the persons right, not harrrasing the person UOC.


This reminds of one time when I used to bounty hunt and my partner and I went into a house and got a guy, police were called. we showed the officers our paper work

The guys wife was screaming at us and the police officers. after the officer looked at our paper work and saw everything was in order he told us to go ahead and do our job.

My partner went to cuff the guy and the wife jumped in front of her husband.

One of the officers grabbed the guys wife and physically slammed her up against the wall and told her if she tried that again he was going to arrest her for interfering with what we were doing because we had the legal right to do what we were doing.

This was about 20 years ago.

what happend to law enforcement? what happened to officers standing up for the rights of law abiding citizens and putting people back in their places who try to infringe on our rights.

No one should be getting upset at ANYONE who UOC. I dont do it and never wanted to, personally I dont want to become a target for someone. But if someone wants to they should be able to. LEO's should support them.

This state is screwed up beyond belief and I am sorry to see what kind of mentality this state has bread into our LEO's. Fortunately not all LEO's are against citizens. but also just as unfortunate, laws are allowed to be passed that forces these good LEO's to have to enforce laws alot of them dont believe in.
You're entire argument is flawed in that you believe UOC is a protected right, which it is clearly not. UOC is merely something legally allowed with a firearm by the state that has no bearing on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Banning it does not affect the right to keep arms, as you will still be able to own them and have them at home without UOC. Banning UOC will not have an affect on the right to bear arms, as bearing arms means its loaded.

Flaunting UOC has just made it a target to be banned, and when we get the right to Bear loaded Arms in California again, it will very likely still include a ban on open carry thanks to the people who aren't looking at the big picture.

We could have had Shall Issue CCW AND UOC, and then maybe LOC later. Thanks to the UOCers we'll likely end up with only Shall Issue CCW. Thanks a lot.

Again, UOC is not and was never a "right" that needs to be exercised to be kept. To argue otherwise is pretty ridiculous.

Last edited by stix213; 04-12-2011 at 1:47 PM..
  #27  
Old 04-12-2011, 1:49 PM
wash's Avatar
wash wash is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sillycon valley
Posts: 9,020
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Blog Entries: 13
Default

I'm more concerned with expanding my rights than being ideologically pure.

I do some things I shouldn't have to do because it will make things better and I refrain from doing dome things that I should be able to do for the same reason.

You should look at the situation and realize that laws like these get passes because the majority of CA voters are not opposed to violating your rights and they elect people who will do it for them. Those are the same people at the Starbucks.

How do you think an empty gun on your side while you order a latte is going to change their mind?

It's probably not impossible to change their mind but that's not the way to do it, especially since our rights are so vulnerable at this time.

Many people have been telling UOC activists that their actions are going to get UOC banned. You can't blame that on people who didn't do it.

It's pretty simple cause and effect but evidently that's too hard for some people to understand.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander
Dear Kevin,

You suck!!! Your are wrong!!! Stop it!!!
Proud CGF and CGN donor. SAF life member. Former CRPA member. Gpal beta tester (it didn't work). NRA member.
  #28  
Old 04-12-2011, 2:28 PM
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 8,389
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=384326
  #29  
Old 04-12-2011, 2:29 PM
CHS's Avatar
CHS CHS is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 11,329
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wash View Post
Well, I should take that back, it's not exercising a right.
UOC *IS* about exercising a right. However, it's not the right that the UOC folk claim to be exercising.

UOC is about exercising the 1st amendment right. Not the 2nd.

I'm here to fight for the 2nd. The 1st is already well cared for.
__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki
Quote:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
  #30  
Old 04-12-2011, 3:21 PM
wash's Avatar
wash wash is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sillycon valley
Posts: 9,020
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Blog Entries: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdsmchs View Post
UOC *IS* about exercising a right. However, it's not the right that the UOC folk claim to be exercising.

UOC is about exercising the 1st amendment right. Not the 2nd.

I'm here to fight for the 2nd. The 1st is already well cared for.
Well said.

But actually we are fighting that fight in Nordyke. UOC bans might just screw up what we win in that case.

I wanted to do the UOC march at the Alameda County Fair Grounds but that might get outlawed before we have a chance.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander
Dear Kevin,

You suck!!! Your are wrong!!! Stop it!!!
Proud CGF and CGN donor. SAF life member. Former CRPA member. Gpal beta tester (it didn't work). NRA member.
  #31  
Old 04-15-2011, 8:20 AM
oldfireguy oldfireguy is offline
Junior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

South Bay Open Carry agrees.....the ultimate goal IS concealed carry in California.
  #32  
Old 04-15-2011, 9:03 AM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,762
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coded-Dude View Post
Didn't the Peruta ruling go "south" for us because the Judge felt UOC was enough(no need for shall issue when uoc is an option)?
It went south in the sense that they felt UOC was good enough.

It had a hidden gem in that they acknowledged that some form of carry must exist
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
  #33  
Old 04-15-2011, 9:58 AM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 3,896
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wash View Post
No, this is an example of people exercising their rights too visibly and getting it banned because soccer moms at Starbucks complained.

Don't try to blame people who didn't poke a stick at the hornet nest.
Wash, you really do have an axe to grind. You've posted vehemently anti-UOC comments literally dozens of times in multiple threads just in the last couple of days. That's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

But what you should consider is this. AB1934 was barely defeated last year. But it was guaranteed to be reintroduced again this year, and AB144 is it. Even if every single UOCer stopped carrying last year, and even publicly pronounced that they destroyed all their guns and would never carry again, AB144 would still have been introduced. So you really are flogging a dead horse here. It doesn't really matter what the UOCers do or don't do at this point. There's no point in you increasing your blood pressure over it.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:17 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.