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 > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-30-2022, 1:40 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 43,280
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default DC - suit filed to allow CCW on public transportation

Darn ScribD https://www.scribd.com/document/5805...as-Filed-Metro

Angelo et al vs District of Columbia and CoP MPD

Civil Action 22-cv-1878

Contests things which CA wants to implement with SB 918.

See also https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/r...public-transit

Last edited by Librarian; 07-01-2022 at 2:02 PM.. Reason: fixed number from 28 to 78
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-30-2022, 4:28 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 9,624
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Another DOMINO falling due to gravity created by Bruen.

A small domino in the big scheme of things. But all rights count. Big and small.

I have a friend who is a Det Sgt with LASD Transportation Bureau. The tales he tells.

NO WAY IN HELL would I get on an LA Metro train unarmed.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-30-2022, 9:08 PM
Dan_Eastvale's Avatar
Dan_Eastvale Dan_Eastvale is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 5,780
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I’m surprised liberals even come to Utah where you can even carry in our International Airport pre TSA.
And practically nobody has a mask.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-01-2022, 2:39 AM
Baja Daze Baja Daze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Republik of Kaliforniastan
Posts: 865
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
It's going to be so much pleasurable fun watching NY, CA, MA, MD, HI, NJ and DC have outright public aneurisms when the public starts angling to carry their lawfully owned handguns on public transit.

The memes will be priceless..

Well D.C. is already shall-issue and Delaware, home of Potato Joe is still a may-issue state...

However public transit will most likely be hotly contested across the nation in regard to whether or not it's considered a "sensitive location" and thus subject to carry bans.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-01-2022, 4:23 AM
Oxnard_Montalvo's Avatar
Oxnard_Montalvo Oxnard_Montalvo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: NorCal
Posts: 1,019
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
It's going to be so much pleasurable fun watching NY, CA, MA, MD, HI, NJ and DC have outright public aneurisms when the public starts angling to carry their lawfully owned handguns on public transit.

The memes will be priceless..

Not that it will matter to these knuckleheads but you CAN point out to them that the situation that they are facing now is the same that Illinois faced their loss in Moore v. Madigan in 2012 and how Chiraq [aka Chicago] did NOT turn into the 'wild west' after implementing 'shall issue' in the state.

A thought on the 'wild west' thing, it IS a 'wild west' city [receipt below] but it is in no way because of legal firearm residents, it is because of Mayor Lightweight's 'say yes to crime' initiatives and 'progressive' D.A.'s such as as Kim Foxx, who really made a name for herself in the Jussie Smollett case.

This means the continuing crime waves that occur AFTER implementation of Bruen will almost certainly be blamed on new ccw holders even though they will have absolutely nothing to do with it and woe betide whoever is the first person who has to legally defend themselves because the NYCDOJ will be, as they say, up their a## with a ham sandwich looking for ANY way they can blame it on the ccw holder...

Receipt for Chiraq...

https://heyjackass.com/

I highly recommend looking at the 'shot in the junk o meter' and the 'shot in the *** o meter'
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-01-2022, 8:24 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 15,992
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

"Sensitive places" laws from Excremento will end CCW on any public transport here.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-01-2022, 8:43 AM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 2,014
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Pretty sure that public transit will be off-limits, but the courts may require TSA-style sterile zones to enforce it. Given the choice to spend on security, I’d guess they’ll fold and not pursue the limitations.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-01-2022, 8:48 AM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,037
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

It seems highly unlikely that public transport will be a “sensitive place”.

Either sensitive places are very limited, as indicated by Heller and Bruen, or an anti-self-defense state can change the definition of sensitive place to mean anything at all. Does making “everywhere” a sensitive place seem to be in accord with Bruen?

If a sensitive place can mean anywhere a state wants, what is the point of using such a specific term of art as “sensitive place”?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-01-2022, 8:53 AM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 2,014
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
It seems highly unlikely that public transport will be a “sensitive place”.

Either sensitive places are very limited, as indicated by Heller and Bruen, or an anti-self-defense state can change the definition of sensitive place to mean anything at all. Does making “everywhere” a sensitive place seem to be in accord with Bruen?

If a sensitive place can mean anywhere a state wants, what is the point of using such a specific term of art as “sensitive place”?
You then have to contend with the existing prohibition of firearms on planes and boats, per fedlaw. Either they are all wrong, or they will find a way to make them coexist with Bruen.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-01-2022, 8:57 AM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,037
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Planes are different than boats or subway, but I think most people see a difference.

Were firearms banned on the railroads or riverboats by federal or state law in the 1800’s? Not from my understanding.

Last edited by Elgatodeacero; 07-01-2022 at 8:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-01-2022, 8:59 AM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 2,014
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Which gets back to my earlier point. The courts may agree that subways, etc. are able to be regulated, but must be done so in the same fashion as air travel. This isn’t so much a common-sense issue as it is a legal one.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-01-2022, 9:02 AM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,037
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Trains and boats are nothing like an airplane full of passengers.

If the cockpit is taken or the pilots killed, everyone on plane dies when plane hits the ground.

If boat captain or train conductor dies, neither conveyance suffers catastrophic damage.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-01-2022, 9:04 AM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 2,014
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
Planes are different than boats or subway, but I think most people see a difference.

Were firearms banned on the railroads or riverboats by federal or state law in the 1800’s? Not from my understanding.
Didn’t railroads have special agents that were dedicated to fending off robberies? I do believe that patrons were allowed to carry for their own personal protection, but that was in the face of a large number of robbery attempts.

Someone else would have to do a more detailed analysis of the rules at the time, and probably will for the record in this case.

And those pointing to a distinction with planes need to square that with Bruen. What authority is given to restrict firearms on planes?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-01-2022, 9:10 AM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,037
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I do not think it is some crazy, unreasonable stretch of sensitive places to conclude the inside of a 777 at 30k feet as a sensitive place, but airplanes did not exist pre-1900’s.

Therefore, anti-self defense crowd will have to analogize to boats, trains and stage coaches.

I am pretty sure there were no federal or state laws outlawing possession of arms by citizens on boats, trains and stage coaches (and horseback since the horse was the predecessor to the automobile)…….. so unless an exception is made for airplanes due to high risk of causing crash by killing pilot, airplanes are probably not covered either.

I believe that trying to argue sensitive places does not include airplanes is a losing argument, but boats and trains seem clearly to not be sensitive places.

NY and CA seem to take the position that sensitive place is the same as “place where people go”, but that is not what sensitive place means. Sensitive place indicates something special about the activity going on inside the building. Also note, the Bruen and Heller cases talk about “in” sensitive places, not near them. The overreach of NY and CA with the 1000 foot or even 10ft buffer zones seems to contradict the Heller and Bruen language.

Last edited by Elgatodeacero; 07-01-2022 at 9:14 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-01-2022, 9:21 AM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 2,014
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

After 9/11, pilot access doors were reenforced and made “bullet-proof,” is my understanding. The likelihood that a discharging gun affects the pilot is small, but could be used to disable mechanical functions of the plane, resulting in a crash.

Certainly most would agree that a plane is a sensitive space, including myself, yet there are always guns in the cabin, be it from the flight crew or Air Marshals, or others exempt from TSA / Fed regulation. So, you can’t say that a blanket “no guns on planes” is even extant.

Hijacking is a concern, and one reason Air Marshals are allowed to carry. When they do, IIRC they have to use frangible ammunition or some reduced-power loads. If hijacking is a concern for Air Marshals, why isn’t is good enough reason to carry for an individual? That’s the same reason as given for trains. Simply require guns on planes to utilize the same ammo as an Air Marshal would use.

Of course I’m making this argument exaggerated and silly because whatever justification YOU can come up with for planes comporting with Bruen, can also be extended to any other form of mass transit.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-01-2022, 9:38 AM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,037
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I don’t agree, airplanes can easily crash and kill everyone if the pilot is disabled or killed.

Trains don’t crash when the conductor is killed, and boats do not sink when the captain is injured.

Being 30k feet in the air does seem a little different than a train or boat.

It will be interesting to see a summary of laws regulating carriage of guns on airplanes. I am guessing the rules did not exist until post-WW2, but I am just guessing.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-01-2022, 9:45 AM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
✰ VERY Special Agent
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 U.S. Code § 798
Posts: 15,662
iTrader: 66 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
... or Air Marshals, or others exempt from TSA / Fed regulation....one reason Air Marshals are allowed to carry. When they do, IIRC they have to use frangible ammunition or some reduced-power loads. If hijacking ....
This is not true.
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-01-2022, 9:48 AM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 2,014
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubermcoupe View Post
This is not true.
Good to know. Then that further puts in question how sensitive a plane really is.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-01-2022, 10:15 AM
ldsnet ldsnet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,236
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I am waiting for the federal suits against Post office and any government building (like a giftshop, restaurant or bathroom) in a National Park
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-01-2022, 10:55 AM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 2,014
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Went digging for the docket, and found that the actual docket number is: DC 1:2022cv01878.

CourtListener hasn’t made it available yet, although it shows on Justia, and hence requires PACER access to get at the filings.

Justia is not so great, due to it not refreshing unless the underlying data is open on PACER. CourtListener is a lot better, and I’ll keep an eye out for when it hits there. In the meantime:

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/di...cv01878/244923
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-01-2022, 11:38 AM
Citizen_B's Avatar
Citizen_B Citizen_B is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,386
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

While the lower courts may not like THT, I don't see anything in it that could suggest public transportation can be considered a "sensitive place" subject to blanket carry bans.

If it goes up to the current SCOTUS, there's no way that would stand.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-01-2022, 1:06 PM
Oxnard_Montalvo's Avatar
Oxnard_Montalvo Oxnard_Montalvo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: NorCal
Posts: 1,019
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
Trains and boats are nothing like an airplane full of passengers.

If the cockpit is taken or the pilots killed, everyone on plane dies when plane hits the ground.

If boat captain or train conductor dies, neither conveyance suffers catastrophic damage.
You haven't seen what happened to the terminal in Silver Streak? I'd say that was pretty catastrophic...
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-01-2022, 2:17 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,069
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen_B View Post
While the lower courts may not like THT, I don't see anything in it that could suggest public transportation can be considered a "sensitive place" subject to blanket carry bans.

If it goes up to the current SCOTUS, there's no way that would stand.
Of course Public Transportation, any place that serves 50 or more, and all sorts of things you'd need to anticipate ahead of time, thus making carrying everyday impractical are sensitive places.

Well, until O'Scannlain or SCOTUS rules they aren't.

Unless or until you make these people pay personal costs, they're going to keep violating rights. There was no "magical open carry argument that liberals HAD to concede" that won the right, but raw political power. That's all it boils down to.

And unless or until you change things so that the political calculus changes, expect the status quo.

What discussions should be about these days aren't about arcane legal arguments about guns, but how 1983 actions, and other professional and personal harm can be baked into any further actions that are taken, and are part of any and all foregoing litigation, including personal harassment of Democrats that was common-cause during the Trump admin for staffers.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-01-2022, 7:18 PM
johndoe2150 johndoe2150 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 184
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_Eastvale View Post
I’m surprised liberals even come to Utah where you can even carry in our International Airport pre TSA.
And practically nobody has a mask.
My local airport has a warning sign reminding people to remove their pistols and put them in an appropriate carryon bag before going through TSA.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-03-2022, 5:46 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 223
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I can’t imagine many places where the need for self defense is more acute than the NYC subway system, especially during off peak hours. Living in NJ in the NYC media market, assaults on the subway are a daily occurrence. People are residing to go back to the office because they are afraid to get on the subway.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-03-2022, 6:33 AM
ronlglock's Avatar
ronlglock ronlglock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,397
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe2150 View Post
My local airport has a warning sign reminding people to remove their pistols and put them in an appropriate carryon bag before going through TSA.

I think you mean appropriate checked bag.
__________________


NRA/DOJ/ILEETA instructor, NRA RSO, Journalist
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-03-2022, 7:27 AM
Fastattack's Avatar
Fastattack Fastattack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: North Central Arizona (formerly So Cal)
Posts: 1,448
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_Eastvale View Post
I’m surprised liberals even come to Utah where you can even carry in our International Airport pre TSA.
And practically nobody has a mask.
Think of them as locusts, destroying what they have and moving on.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-03-2022, 4:20 PM
neuron neuron is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 221
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
Pretty sure that public transit will be off-limits, but the courts may require TSA-style sterile zones to enforce it. Given the choice to spend on security, I’d guess they’ll fold and not pursue the limitations.
Public transit (except for some federal carriers like AMTRAK where there are long standing regulations against carrying) should NOT be considered "sensitive places" where CCW is prohibited. California will need to argue why my CCW, which allowed me to carry on buses and BART (as well as in retail stores, parks, banks, hospitals, etc.) for more than 20 years suddenly is no longer valid in those places. I'm sure they will try to make this argument, but given the Bruen Decision, they will lose (eventually) in Court.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-03-2022, 5:03 PM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 2,014
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by neuron View Post
Public transit (except for some federal carriers like AMTRAK where there are long standing regulations against carrying) should NOT be considered "sensitive places" where CCW is prohibited. California will need to argue why my CCW, which allowed me to carry on buses and BART (as well as in retail stores, parks, banks, hospitals, etc.) for more than 20 years suddenly is no longer valid in those places. I'm sure they will try to make this argument, but given the Bruen Decision, they will lose (eventually) in Court.
Did you even finish reading my quoted post?

Any place can be deemed a “sensitive area / place,” but what is required to enforce that is actual screening to prevent weapons from entering the space. This has been a normal affair since magnetometers made detection quick and easy.

Now, what we will have to see is the history of how prohibitions on carriage have progressed since the founding. A stage coach could be roughly analogous to a taxi cab (given the occupancy), and may have been chartered, so sometimes “public,” but they were still private owners that could probably say you couldn’t carry on their coach.

Ships have a fairly robust history of captains’ standing orders for how passengers need to behave. If they said no weapons, that probably would have been sufficient. Again, most were private carriers, not the government.

When we start to get into trains: there weren’t public trains until the first streetcars and subways, about 150 years ago, and clearly after the reconstruction era. Since private carriers could prohibit weapons on vehicles, is it in some way justifiable that public transit could as well, or at least force carriage in locked and cased firearms?

As stated, we already have federal regulations for passenger ships and planes as needing to transport them cased and locked. What enables that is the agreement of sensitivity and aforementioned inspections to prevent weapons, and a sterile area.

If, IF, the court agrees to holding public transit in the same vein as planes and boats, then they will say, yes, they are sensitive places, now go and set up sterile zones so that it can be actualized.

I don’t think NYC, Chicago, Boston, etc. would be able, let alone financially capable of creating sterile zones for subways, busses and streetcars. That’s why I said that the court may rule such, but the likelihood that it can be practically enforced is doubtful. Without inspections for enforcement, it would abridge rights and be unlawful.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-03-2022, 6:12 PM
DolphinFan DolphinFan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,839
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

During the oral argument Chief Justice Robert’s commented he saw the need for self defense in Time square more necessary than in nature or on top of a mountain.
NY just deemed Time Square a “sensitive place”.

Same for CA in SB 918, contradicts the SCOTUS decisions.
My hope is it doesn’t take too long to resolve, “What is a Sensitive Place”
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-04-2022, 4:06 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,920
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baja Daze View Post
Well D.C. is already shall-issue and Delaware, home of Potato Joe is still a may-issue state...

However public transit will most likely be hotly contested across the nation in regard to whether or not it's considered a "sensitive location" and thus subject to carry bans.
DE, although statutorily may-issue CCW, doesn't exercise discretion and acts shall-issue in practice. They're also unlicensed open carry, and they have a fair amount of reciprocity with other states, so they're way ahead of DC.

This will definitely be a hot issue. It's a coin flip in my mind.Government property will always be a tough one, but obviously someone poor who can't afford a vehicle would essentially be disarmed to and from work.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-04-2022, 7:13 AM
Gun Kraft's Avatar
Gun Kraft Gun Kraft is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 591
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
If hijacking is a concern for Air Marshals, why isn’t is good enough reason to carry for an individual? That’s the same reason as given for trains. Simply require guns on planes to utilize the same ammo as an Air Marshal would use.
"Simply use the same ammo as an Air Marshal" is a very naive and simplistic view. Airplane cabins are very tight quarters with lots of people inside. The Air Marshal pistol qual reflects that and is the most difficult qual I know.

The qual uses the FBI Q target and most published versions of it get the scoring wrong. Hits inside the center rectangle are 5 points, hits outside the rectangle but inside the bottle are 2 and any shot outside the bottle is an instant DQ. Furthermore while officially 80% is needed to pass, I've been told by a retired Air Marshall that anyone who scored below 85% (maybe 90%; I forget) was required to get remedial training to bring that score up.
__________________
SF Bay Area firearm training
www.gunkraft.com
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-04-2022, 7:37 AM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 2,014
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Of course it’s simplistic and the line of argument wasn’t to diminish the training of the Marshals, rather to determine where the line exists to prevent ordinary people from carrying.

In regards to a plane full of people and trying to not hit innocents: a packed subway is worse in that regard.

Maybe what we need is a special car for CCW holders. Like Japan has for women so they aren’t harassed.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-05-2022, 1:09 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,331
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Subways are not always crowded, especially at 2 in the morning.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-30-2022, 8:00 PM
N0b0dy's Avatar
N0b0dy N0b0dy is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: CA
Posts: 20
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Brief filed by Bonta and the usual anti 2A states….

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/atta...us%20Brief.pdf
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 10:46 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical