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
  #1361  
Old 06-14-2020, 11:13 AM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,395
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
Snip...
The concept that the law’s implementation raises the price of ammunition also isn’t a part of the case filing. But, even if it were, increasing pricing isn’t unconstitutional. I suspect the case would need additional litigants who can show that any increase in price substantially negates their inability to purchase ammo.
A price increase provably not due to 2A constraints is likely constitutional. Things like powder shortages come to mind in support of this scenario. However, when the price increase can be shown to be based on the 2A constraints (e.g. $14/flat ($61.80 for a flat of 12 Gauge Gun Clubs out-of-state vs. $74.99 (+$1 BGC fee) in state) cheaper out-of-state), the constitutional argument is on real thin ice. Which is why Xavier's minions made the additional argument that the BGC is for the kids.
Reply With Quote
  #1362  
Old 06-14-2020, 11:24 AM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,395
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
That means she was limited before the law, right? She couldnít just walk into Bass Pro and have them put a pallet on her Prius. She would have been purchasing from out-of-state, which the law would allow her to do. But, there isnít any indication that she was denied clearance to purchase or receive the ammunition from out-of-state under the new statute.

The focus of her aspect of the complaint deals with shipment and importation of ammunition.
Economic injury as a basis for filing a civil action in U.S. District Court is $20 (7th amendment provision that amount in controversy exceeds $20). Before the law, she had one price that she paid for her trap ammunition. After the law became effective, she paid another price for her trap ammunition. At pallet-scale purchasing, I suspect Kim more than met the $20 threshold.
Reply With Quote
  #1363  
Old 06-14-2020, 11:45 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
A price increase provably not due to 2A constraints is likely constitutional. Things like powder shortages come to mind in support of this scenario. However, when the price increase can be shown to be based on the 2A constraints (e.g. $14/flat ($61.80 for a flat of 12 Gauge Gun Clubs out-of-state vs. $74.99 (+$1 BGC fee) in state) cheaper out-of-state), the constitutional argument is on real thin ice. Which is why Xavier's minions made the additional argument that the BGC is for the kids.
I missed that in the pleadings. Where is economic impact included as a cause for action?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Economic injury as a basis for filing a civil action in U.S. District Court is $20 (7th amendment provision that amount in controversy exceeds $20). Before the law, she had one price that she paid for her trap ammunition. After the law became effective, she paid another price for her trap ammunition. At pallet-scale purchasing, I suspect Kim more than met the $20 threshold.
OK, but thatís not in this case. When a civil action is filed, we can have a new thread.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.Ē
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."

Last edited by Dvrjon; 06-14-2020 at 11:49 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1364  
Old 06-14-2020, 1:09 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,395
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
I missed that in the pleadings. Where is economic impact included as a cause for action?
Page 2 & 3 Summary of Claims, 4. & 5.

Quote:
OK, but thatís not in this case. When a civil action is filed, we can have a new thread.
Check out the CV in the case number. CV denotes a civil action.
Reply With Quote
  #1365  
Old 06-14-2020, 4:23 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Page 2 & 3 Summary of Claims, 4. & 5.
The Sumary of claims doesn’t appear to state that Rhode is paying an enormous sum of money for vendors to store and transfer ammunition to her. The particulars presented on Rhode as a litigant don’t indicate a pecuniary imposition on her as part of her grievance. (In fact, since her sponsor is providing the ammunition, I would expect any monetary impact on her to be negligible. Page 4, Line 20: “Plaintiff Rhode also regularly has ammunition that she uses for marksmanship practice for shooting competitions and self-defense training shipped by her ammunition sponsor...”).
Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Check out the CV in the case number. CV denotes a civil action.
We know this is a civil case. By the nature of your previous comment, and the fact that the case doesn’t appear to have a monetary damage indicated for Rhode, I thought you were expecting a separate civil suit on her part, because this action doesn’t seem to carry that impact.

So, back to the original premise. It seems the OAG appears to be heavily weighting the state’s response on the concept that none of the named litigants have been shown to have been directly harmed by the statute.

I hope the judges don’t agree.

But, hope is not a strategy.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.Ē
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."

Last edited by Dvrjon; 06-14-2020 at 6:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1368  
Old 07-10-2020, 2:15 PM
Metal God's Avatar
Metal God Metal God is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,633
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Firearms Policy Coalition fund raising lies !

Got this in a email from FPC yesterday .

Quote:
Originally Posted by FPC
Recent events have placed our amicus brief in Rhode v. Becerra in jeopardy. And we have to course correct before July 16 or it's all over.

As you know, FPC has made repeal of California's new ammo restrictions a top priority. That's why we hope to join this critical fight.
They are not even part of the litigation which I didn't realize at the time . When I received this email I started freaking out . I thought we were doing pretty good then to see there's a good chance we loose everything in 6 days WTF FPC

That quote is completely misleading and borderline criminal IMO . I'm not going to go into detail but there email is full of untruths just to scare us into giving them money . We have a hard enough time dealing with the anti's completely fabricating info to mislead the public . Now we have it from with in , sad day for our side . I do know this has changed my thinking on the FPC and now I can't trust anything they have to say and will never give them my hard earned money . so sad
__________________
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
  #1369  
Old 07-10-2020, 3:13 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,156
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal God View Post
Got this in a email from FPC yesterday .



They are not even part of the litigation which I didn't realize at the time . When I received this email I started freaking out . I thought we were doing pretty good then to see there's a good chance we loose everything in 6 days WTF FPC

That quote is completely misleading and borderline criminal IMO . I'm not going to go into detail but there email is full of untruths just to scare us into giving them money . We have a hard enough time dealing with the anti's completely fabricating info to mislead the public . Now we have it from with in , sad day for our side . I do know this has changed my thinking on the FPC and now I can't trust anything they have to say and will never give them my hard earned money . so sad

It sounds like what they're saying is that there is some kind of deadline on July 16 which would prevent them from filing an amici brief .. Most of these organization have taken a funding hit related to the pandemic like everyone else, so maybe they can't pay their lawyers to write the brief.
Reply With Quote
  #1370  
Old 07-10-2020, 7:56 PM
Metal God's Avatar
Metal God Metal God is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,633
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yeah but they always say the sky is falling but this time it hit home and pissed me off . I know there’s always some marketing involved in those types of things but this one was flat out manipulation . When you do that to the people that are on your side , it’s a blow to low . Playing on peoples fears should be left to the anti’s , we have the facts on are side .
__________________
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
  #1371  
Old 07-11-2020, 9:28 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,156
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ5&G23 View Post
I decided years ago to never donate to FPC after they threw the middle finger at calguns.net. There are much better 2A places to donate to.
I don't recall the exact details, but I think they also tried to stop the original Duncan case because they had a competing case.
Reply With Quote
  #1372  
Old 07-11-2020, 9:47 AM
Limeman's Avatar
Limeman Limeman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: NorCal - Voted for Trump!!
Posts: 840
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ5&G23 View Post
I decided years ago to never donate to FPC after they threw the middle finger at calguns.net. There are much better 2A places to donate to.
Who would you rather donate to?
Reply With Quote
  #1373  
Old 07-11-2020, 10:08 AM
n8vrmind's Avatar
n8vrmind n8vrmind is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 585
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal God View Post
Yeah but they always say the sky is falling but this time it hit home and pissed me off . I know thereís always some marketing involved in those types of things but this one was flat out manipulation . When you do that to the people that are on your side , itís a blow to low . Playing on peoples fears should be left to the antiís , we have the facts on are side .
I will not be renewing my FPC membership. Instead, that money will go to CRPA
Reply With Quote
  #1374  
Old 07-11-2020, 12:05 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,395
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Limeman View Post
Who would you rather donate to?
CRPA?
Reply With Quote
  #1375  
Old 07-11-2020, 10:55 PM
Baja Daze Baja Daze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Republik of Kaliforniastan
Posts: 760
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Limeman View Post
Who would you rather donate to?
Really, you have to ask???

How about the Second Amendment Foundation?
They do the majority of litigating in regards to our RKBA!

How about the CRPA here in Kaliforniastan?
They are fighting the battle directly here in our dystopian state!

How about donating to the NRA Political Victory Fund? You don't even have to join the NRA and this money is directed towards political action and candidates!

How about donating to the NRA Institute for Legislative Action?
Again, you don't even have to join the NRA and this money is directed towards supporting pro-RKBA legislation and defeating anit-RKBA legislation!

How about joining the NRA or upgrading your existing membership?

How about joining the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL)? They have done outstanding work supporting the RKBA in Arizona, including the passage of Constitutional Carry! However they need our help and I personally view Arizona as somewhat of a firewall in regards to our RKBA and they are our neighbor!

How about joining the Idaho 2ND Amendment Alliance? When you need someplace to flee, they are keeping Idaho free! People think that Idaho is immune from the libtard crap and they are NOT! Help support the cause!

That's a brief start, please let me know if you need more organizations to either join or donate to!
Reply With Quote
  #1376  
Old 07-31-2020, 10:19 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 291
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Appellees’ Answering Brief
Reply With Quote
  #1377  
Old 08-01-2020, 2:47 AM
glockhead glockhead is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 78
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
I read the entire brief and the conclusion was:

"For the foregoing reasons, this Court should affirm the district court’s order."

Can someone explain what this means. I read it as Bacerra acted correctly.

Last edited by glockhead; 08-01-2020 at 2:58 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1378  
Old 08-01-2020, 5:55 AM
93chipper 93chipper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 259
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glockhead View Post
I read the entire brief and the conclusion was:

"For the foregoing reasons, this Court should affirm the district courtís order."

Can someone explain what this means. I read it as Bacerra acted correctly.
Basically they are trying to tell them to honor judge benetiezís order but in this land ruled by purple haired leftist they more than likely wonít go for it
Reply With Quote
  #1379  
Old 08-01-2020, 7:16 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 1,398
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glockhead View Post
I read the entire brief and the conclusion was:

"For the foregoing reasons, this Court should affirm the district courtís order."

Can someone explain what this means. I read it as Bacerra acted correctly.
These cases are hard to follow, no doubt. I made a post a little while ago trying to compare and contrast Duncan (LCM ban) and Rhode (ammo ďbcgĒ) here: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...5#post24202355

Since I made that post, the stay pending appeal of the preliminary injunction was upheld. The next step (the step relevant to the document you just looked at) is for a three-judge 9th circuit panel to determine if Benitez abused his discretion (in which case the PI will be overturned and the case will proceed on the merits before Judge Benitez with the ammo law in effect; this is basically where we are today, except such a decision would cement that nothing Benitez decides on the merits stands a chance of surviving 9th circuit review) or if he did not abuse his discretion (in which case the stay is lifted, the PI goes back into effect, and we are free to buy ammo while this case goes through the merits at the district court level, appeal to the 9th circuit, en banc, etc.)
Reply With Quote
  #1380  
Old 08-01-2020, 7:29 AM
kenl's Avatar
kenl kenl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: back home
Posts: 1,302
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I feel like the kid saying "are we there yet?"

Does anyone know when this will be heard? And what is the case timeline? From all of this foot dragging, it's obvious that the 9th doesn't want to lift the stay on the PI.
__________________


California, the once-great first world state striving to become a third world socialist cesspool.
Reply With Quote
  #1381  
Old 08-01-2020, 8:02 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 1,398
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kenl View Post
I feel like the kid saying "are we there yet?"

Does anyone know when this will be heard? And what is the case timeline? From all of this foot dragging, it's obvious that the 9th doesn't want to lift the stay on the PI.
Becerra has three weeks now to file a response to brief that was filed yesterday.
Reply With Quote
  #1382  
Old 08-01-2020, 10:26 AM
glockhead glockhead is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 78
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Thanks all for the explanations.
Reply With Quote
  #1383  
Old 08-01-2020, 11:27 AM
kenl's Avatar
kenl kenl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: back home
Posts: 1,302
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
Becerra has three weeks now to file a response to brief that was filed yesterday.


Thank you
__________________


California, the once-great first world state striving to become a third world socialist cesspool.
Reply With Quote
  #1384  
Old 08-01-2020, 4:15 PM
TFA777 TFA777 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 353
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Why 3?
I always thought it's... "In 2 weeks"
Reply With Quote
  #1385  
Old 08-02-2020, 11:48 AM
morthrane morthrane is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 869
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TFA777 View Post
Why 3?
I always thought it's... "In 2 weeks"
Inflation.
Reply With Quote
  #1386  
Old 08-02-2020, 2:40 PM
SandHill's Avatar
SandHill SandHill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,602
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
These cases are hard to follow, no doubt. I made a post a little while ago trying to compare and contrast Duncan (LCM ban) and Rhode (ammo “bcg”) here: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...5#post24202355

Since I made that post, the stay pending appeal of the preliminary injunction was upheld. The next step (the step relevant to the document you just looked at) is for a three-judge 9th circuit panel to determine if Benitez abused his discretion (in which case the PI will be overturned and the case will proceed on the merits before Judge Benitez with the ammo law in effect; this is basically where we are today, except such a decision would cement that nothing Benitez decides on the merits stands a chance of surviving 9th circuit review) or if he did not abuse his discretion (in which case the stay is lifted, the PI goes back into effect, and we are free to buy ammo while this case goes through the merits at the district court level, appeal to the 9th circuit, en banc, etc.)
Champu, thanks for a really succinct and helpful breakdown of the status of the case. "Abuse of discretion" is a really high standard. Even the most ferociously anti-gun panel of the 9th is going to have to go through contortions to find abuse of discretion. For the near term, this case is teed up about as well as you could hope for. It seems to me likely that the panel will not be able to find abuse of discretion and we will get another shot at ordering online without background checks, while the case winds its way through the system. I guess I am less optimistic about our chances when that happens, but if we get a few years of online ammo purchases before they shut it down for good, well, that's better than a sharp stick in the eye as they say.
__________________
Roza Shanina and Mosin-Nagant. Two of the finest flowers Mother Russia ever conceived. Unfortunately, only one was mass produced.
Reply With Quote
  #1387  
Old 08-04-2020, 1:04 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,395
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SandHill View Post
Champu, thanks for a really succinct and helpful breakdown of the status of the case. "Abuse of discretion" is a really high standard. Even the most ferociously anti-gun panel of the 9th is going to have to go through contortions to find abuse of discretion. For the near term, this case is teed up about as well as you could hope for. It seems to me likely that the panel will not be able to find abuse of discretion and we will get another shot at ordering online without background checks, while the case winds its way through the system. I guess I am less optimistic about our chances when that happens, but if we get a few years of online ammo purchases before they shut it down for good, well, that's better than a sharp stick in the eye as they say.
They will do it if they want to. Because they can. SCotUS isn't going to stop them, so it is all upside.
Reply With Quote
  #1388  
Old 08-05-2020, 9:33 AM
TFA777 TFA777 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 353
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
They will do it if they want to. Because they can. SCotUS isn't going to stop them, so it is all upside.
Yeeep. You 'know for dam.n sure if it hit scotus they'd use 'rational basis' as the test despite Heller's strict scrutiny.

The scary part is how Stephens regrets his Heller decision and thinks 2A is a collective right (like 1A only applies if u gather in a group?).
Reply With Quote
  #1389  
Old 08-05-2020, 10:12 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 6,839
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TFA777 View Post
Yeeep. You 'know for dam.n sure if it hit scotus they'd use 'rational basis' as the test despite Heller's strict scrutiny.

The scary part is how Stephens regrets his Heller decision and thinks 2A is a collective right (like 1A only applies if u gather in a group?).
It's no really so scary. Stevens was a fairly moderate justice. But he's been retired for a decade now, is recently deceased, and no longer votes on any cases.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #1390  
Old 08-05-2020, 10:54 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
It's no really so scary. Stevens was a fairly moderate justice. But he's been retired for a decade now, is recently deceased, and no longer votes on any cases.
Heís only been dead a little over a year...If RBGís doctors can get hold of him....
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.Ē
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #1391  
Old 08-05-2020, 11:17 AM
EM2's Avatar
EM2 EM2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Prather, CA
Posts: 2,177
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
It's no really so scary. Stevens was a fairly moderate justice. But he's been retired for a decade now, is recently deceased, and no longer votes on any cases.
That ain't gonna stop him from voting in the upcoming election.
__________________
Quote:
"The 'Spray and Pray' system advances triumphantly in law enforcement. In a recent case in a southwestern city...a police officer, when threatened with a handgun, emptied his 15 shot pistol at his would-be assailant, achieving two peripheral hits. The citizen was charged with brandishing a firearm, but the cop was not charged with anything, lousy shooting not being a diciplinary offense."
--- Jeff Cooper, June 1990

Quote:
Originally Posted by EM2
Put you link where your opinion is.
Reply With Quote
  #1392  
Old 08-05-2020, 11:54 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 6,839
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EM2 View Post
That ain't gonna stop him from voting in the upcoming election.
Touche Sir, Touche...

You win the interwebs for the day.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
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 2:25 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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 2002-2020, 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.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical