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
  #1561  
Old 05-12-2021, 5:30 PM
marcusrn's Avatar
marcusrn marcusrn is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Oceanside
Posts: 808
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Godspeed! If not now,when?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1562  
Old 05-14-2021, 11:21 PM
pacrat pacrat is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,527
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
GO GET EM WOLFIE!
Reply With Quote
  #1563  
Old 05-17-2021, 2:42 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,096
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

So what does this mean? I assume SCOTUS wouldn't handle this as a separate case, but would combine it somehow with the NY case? IANAL, so I don't know how these things can go.
__________________
"Weakness is provocative."
Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024

Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered.

Last edited by CCWFacts; 05-20-2021 at 10:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1564  
Old 05-21-2021, 12:53 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 656
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A document purporting to be the Young petition was published on the internet on May 11, 2021. The Supreme Court's docket does not yet include a cert petition for Young. However, the Court's docket does include petitions filed as recently as May 17, 2021.

I do not know what this means.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c
Reply With Quote
  #1565  
Old 05-22-2021, 3:53 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,796
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
A document purporting to be the Young petition was published on the internet on May 11, 2021. The Supreme Court's docket does not yet include a cert petition for Young. However, the Court's docket does include petitions filed as recently as May 17, 2021.

I do not know what this means.
I'm assuming there wouldn't be a fake petition going around so my guess is that since the petition was applied for in light speed (only weeks after the CA9 ruling) that SCOTUS is behind in putting up the page for whatever reason, possibly to allow the state the normal time for a response or possibly they just weren't expecting it. WAG on my part.
It would usually be 90 days from judgment or mandate, plus another month or so for the state to respond.
Reply With Quote
  #1566  
Old 05-22-2021, 6:55 PM
gunuser17 gunuser17 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 93
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Once in a while a brief won't get posted to the docket right away - often that is due to some minor technicality that results in the Court Clerk rejecting the brief. The appellant can refile the brief to correct the error usually. No clue if that has happened here.
Reply With Quote
  #1567  
Old 05-25-2021, 8:25 AM
gumby gumby is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Westminster, Orange County
Posts: 2,266
iTrader: 88 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Thank you 👍
Reply With Quote
  #1568  
Old 05-25-2021, 5:24 PM
pacrat pacrat is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,527
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....c/20-1639.html

Quote:
Thank you 👍
gumby; when/where did "wolfwood" post this link?

I searched and could not find it.
Reply With Quote
  #1569  
Old 05-25-2021, 7:45 PM
gumby gumby is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Westminster, Orange County
Posts: 2,266
iTrader: 88 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Quote:





gumby; when/where did "wolfwood" post this link?

I searched and could not find it.
A few minutes before I quoted it. It's missing now, don't know why.
Reply With Quote
  #1570  
Old 05-25-2021, 10:19 PM
pacrat pacrat is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,527
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gumby View Post
A few minutes before I quoted it. It's missing now, don't know why.
Possibly wolfwood decided to maintain a low profile online considering the magnitude of this case.
Reply With Quote
  #1571  
Old 05-26-2021, 7:38 AM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 656
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Link to Young petition for cert

In case prior links get deleted, here's the link to the Young petition for cert.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c
Reply With Quote
  #1572  
Old 05-26-2021, 7:51 AM
gumby gumby is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Westminster, Orange County
Posts: 2,266
iTrader: 88 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
In case prior links get deleted, here's the link to the Young petition for cert.
That's the one!
Reply With Quote
  #1573  
Old 05-27-2021, 8:15 AM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 117
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Now it is just time............
Reply With Quote
  #1574  
Old 05-28-2021, 9:42 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,096
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkwater34 View Post
Now it is just time............
Until the next round of utter disappointment.
Reply With Quote
  #1575  
Old 05-28-2021, 2:09 PM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 843
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
Until the next round of utter disappointment.
Proverbs 17:22, A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones.

I don’t see how we cannot be hopeful, at least there is a chance!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nFTRwD85AQ4
Reply With Quote
  #1576  
Old 06-09-2021, 11:26 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,221
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The state gets an extension to respond from June 24 to July 26. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....c/20-1639.html
__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.
Reply With Quote
  #1577  
Old 06-10-2021, 6:27 PM
TiggyTiger TiggyTiger is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 9
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Is this the case where the 9th Circuit cites a 13th century edict by the King of England limiting swords in public squares to justify infringing on the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms?
Reply With Quote
  #1578  
Old 06-11-2021, 11:03 AM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 288
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So what are the possible outcomes of the cert petition?

1: Cert is denied: Then is that the end of the road for Young, regardless of the outcome of NYSRPA vs Corlett even if Corlett is decided in favor of plantiffs? Seems like a denial of cert would take the ‘G’ out of GVR, so then there’s no V & R either? Could Young file for a re-hearing with the 9th if there was new precedent set in a Corlett decision for plaintiffs?

2: Cert is granted: Then would it be consolidated with Corlett given the plea for relief is so similar? Or would it be held until there is a decision on Corlett and then GVR’d?

My hope (yes, hope) is that the conservative bloc granted cert of Corlett because they know they have the five votes already and they are going to write a strong opinion that finally eviscerates the “rational basis masquerading as intermediate scrutiny” game played by the 9th circuit (and others) over the past decade with all 2nd amendment cases. The 9th circuit’s butchery of Heller with the Young en banc opinion was such an egregious twisting of history and precedent that it screams for a SCOTUS slap down. I’m hoping the court takes Young … consolidated, whatever … just so Thomas can write a juicy section to the opinion that repudiates the whole thought process of the 9th circuit to serve notice to all of the liberal circuits.

Last edited by dawgcasa; 06-11-2021 at 1:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1579  
Old 06-11-2021, 1:15 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 683
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcasa View Post
So what are the possible outcomes of the cert petition?

1: Cert is denied: Then is that the end of the road for Young, regardless of the outcome of NYSRPA vs Corlett even if Corlett is decided in favor of plantiffs? Seems like a denial of cert would take the ‘G’ out of GVR, so then there’s no V & R either? Could Young file for a re-hearing with the 9th if there was new precedent set in a Corlett decision for plaintiffs?

2: Cert is granted: Then would it be consolidated with Corlett given the plea for relief is so similar? Or would it be held until there is a decision on Corlett and then GVR’d?

My hope (yes, hope) is that the conservative bloc granted cert of Corlett because they know they have the five votes already and they are going to write a strong opinion that finally eviscerates the “rational basis masquerading as intermediate scrutiny” game played by the 9th circuit (and others) over the past decade with all 2nd amendment cases. The 9th circuit’s butchery of Heller with the Young en banc opinion was such an egregious twisting of history and precedent that it screams for a SCOTUS slap down. I’m hoping the court takes Young … consolidated, whatever … just so Thomas can write a juicy section to the opinion that repudiates the whole thought process of the 9th circuit to serve notice to all of the liberal circuits.
Cert won't be denied, Young is too closely related to NYSRPA v Corlett. It will either be granted and consolidated with Corlett(best scenario) or put on ice then GVR'd as you already mentioned. Consolidation would be the best option for us because it would potentially widen the question presented in Corlett and/or hasten the process in the 9th.
Reply With Quote
  #1580  
Old 06-11-2021, 1:28 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,064
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I also think that cert will be granted, whether or not it is consolidated with Corlett because the decision by the Ninth that there is no 2A right outside the home, whether or not there are conflicts among the circuits, raises an issue of such fundamental public policy and a clear question under the Constitutions that threatens to deprive millions of people of their rights along the coast and in Hawaii that the question simply cannot be ignored. It cannot wait for more years to roll by for another case or cases to raise the same issue. For example, if today the California legislature decided to eliminate the concealed carry law and a lawsuit was filed tomorrow, it will take several years before a petition could be presented to the Supreme Court.
Reply With Quote
  #1581  
Old 06-17-2021, 10:56 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,096
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
the question simply cannot be ignored..
Just watch them.
Reply With Quote
  #1582  
Old 06-19-2021, 4:16 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,796
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiggyTiger View Post
Is this the case where the 9th Circuit cites a 13th century edict by the King of England limiting swords in public squares to justify infringing on the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms?
Yep. The Statute of Northampton. CA9 is twisting it to fit their world view. The statute was basically a law against going armed to terrify the king's subjects. The law wasn't used to punish those simply going armed peacefully.
Even so, the earliest US state cases refute CA9's interpretation, so it's almost a moot point.
CA9's interpretation makes the Heller passage of sensitive places useless. The two cannot stand together.
Reply With Quote
  #1583  
Old 06-19-2021, 9:12 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,408
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
Just watch them.
Agreed. There is nothing the CA9 cannot (or must) do.
__________________
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." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #1584  
Old 06-20-2021, 6:59 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,796
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Agreed. There is nothing the CA9 cannot (or must) do.
The legal gymnastics for CA9 would be unbelievable in the scenario we expect and that is that NY loses at SCOTUS.
They've taken a more extreme position than that of the 2nd Circuit. How would they come back and say that a ban is OK if SCOTUS says may-issue isn't?
I'll predict that this case doesn't get consolidated by SCOTUS. It'll be sent back to CA9 who may in turn kick it down to the district court where the judge will basically rule Young is entitled to a permit of some sort.
Reply With Quote
  #1585  
Old 06-20-2021, 4:38 PM
TiggyTiger TiggyTiger is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 9
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Yep. The Statute of Northampton. CA9 is twisting it to fit their world view. The statute was basically a law against going armed to terrify the king's subjects. The law wasn't used to punish those simply going armed peacefully.
Even so, the earliest US state cases refute CA9's interpretation, so it's almost a moot point.
CA9's interpretation makes the Heller passage of sensitive places useless. The two cannot stand together.
I still don't understand the relevance of a 700 year-old British edict to limiting an American citizen's rights, I mean the whole revolutionary war, Declaration of Independence, Constitution, etc. seems kind of lost on the liberal progressive justices in the 9th circuit.

Imagine Paul Revere riding around Lexington and Concord pleading "to arms, to arms, the British are coming," and the local citizens respond "well, I'm sorry, Mr. Revere, but according to the Statute of Northampton in 1328, we do not have any arms that we are allowed to bear."

Last edited by TiggyTiger; 06-20-2021 at 6:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1586  
Old 06-21-2021, 1:24 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,064
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
Just watch them.
Yes, SCOTUS can do what it wants, and often has, but this case is so fundamental to the application of the 2A that I cannot see at least four justices feeling compelled to address the issue head on.
Reply With Quote
  #1587  
Old 06-21-2021, 7:28 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,096
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Yes, SCOTUS can do what it wants, and often has, but this case is so fundamental to the application of the 2A that I cannot see at least four justices feeling compelled to address the issue head on.
They flatly ignored just as fundamental issues just a year ago.
Reply With Quote
  #1588  
Old 06-21-2021, 8:11 PM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 288
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
They flatly ignored just as fundamental issues just a year ago.
And just a year ago there were four staunch liberals on the court with Roberts having become clearly unreliable on the 2nd amendment (or any conservative/originalist based opinion). Roberts is now more concerned with protecting his ‘legacy’ than he is with protecting the Constitution. It was a 4-1-4 court. The four conservatives would not vote for cert with the potential of Roberts joining the liberal group to unwind Heller or permanently wound it. Now, with ACB replacing RBG, Roberts is no longer a ‘swing’ vote who alone can tip the scales to eviscerate Heller, or blunt any attempt at a firm originalist opinion to reinforce Heller. Roberts is now irrelevant. Today it is a 5-1-3 court.
Reply With Quote
  #1589  
Old 06-21-2021, 10:17 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,096
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Prepare to be disappointed. 5-1-3 or not, they ain’t rocking the boat.
Reply With Quote
  #1590  
Old 06-22-2021, 1:00 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,919
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Amicus brief of Hawaii Rifle Association submitted.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPD...us%20Brief.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #1591  
Old 06-25-2021, 5:04 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,919
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Bunch more amicus briefs,

Quote:
Jun 24 2021 Amicus brief of Mountain States Legal Foundation Center to Keep and Bear Arms submitted.
Jun 24 2021 Amicus brief of Louisiana, Arizona, Montana, and Eighteen Other States submitted.
Jun 24 2021 Amicus brief of Hawaii Firearms Coalition submitted.
Jun 24 2021 Amicus brief of Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, Heller Foundation, Virginia Citizens Defense League, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Restoring Liberty Action Committee submitted.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...c/20-1639.html
Reply With Quote
  #1592  
Old 06-25-2021, 11:00 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,919
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Jun 25 2021 Amicus brief of Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation submitted.
Another amici from FPC.
Reply With Quote
  #1593  
Old 07-17-2021, 8:46 AM
Fyathyrio's Avatar
Fyathyrio Fyathyrio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Free 'Murica
Posts: 946
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Stephen P. Halbrook dissects the Young decision in a well written piece here. Opening paragraph . . .

Quote:
The Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in Young v. State of Hawaii (2021) holding that no
“right of the people to . . . bear arms” exists under the Second Amendment could perhaps win a
contest for the most faux histoire of any judicial decision on a Bill of Rights guarantee.1 The
Ninth Circuit previously held that no right exists to carry a concealed weapon.2 It now extends
its ruling to the only other way to bear arms – open carry. Without any linguistic analysis of the
text of the Second Amendment, the majority essentially holds that the right to bear arms is
outside “the historical scope” of the right to bear arms.3
__________________
"Everything I ever learned about leadership, I learned from a Chief Petty Officer." - John McCain
"Use your hammer, not your mouth, jackass!" - Mike Ditka
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Earl Jones
The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose.

Last edited by Fyathyrio; 07-17-2021 at 8:49 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1594  
Old 07-26-2021, 10:26 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,221
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Jul 26 2021 Brief of State of Hawaii, et al. in opposition submitted.
Now we wait for it to get DISTRIBUTED for a Conference. (The Long Conference on Sept 27?)

__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

Last edited by Paladin; 08-10-2021 at 7:23 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1595  
Old 07-26-2021, 12:03 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,919
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brief of State of Hawaii
openly carry small, concealable arms in public
they're being very specific about the type of arms. I don't think Young cares if it's small and concealable.

they rely on the same defect the judges relied on.
Reply With Quote
  #1596  
Old 07-27-2021, 10:43 AM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,064
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
they're being very specific about the type of arms. I don't think Young cares if it's small and concealable.

they rely on the same defect the judges relied on.
The brief is a redux of the opinion, and as such, falls into the same analytical errors as the opinion. I haven't read it in a few years, but I recall that Heller covered the same historical European sources and came to a very different conclusion about the nature of the right. I have to think that the failings of the en banc's analysis, which is so bad that an attorney could face Rule 11 sanctions for filing such crap, has to count for something in the determination of the petition.
Reply With Quote
  #1597  
Old 08-11-2021, 9:04 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,221
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Young just got Distributed for the Long Conference, just like Russell.

Quote:
Aug 11 2021 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....c/20-1639.html

__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.
Reply With Quote
  #1598  
Old 08-19-2021, 8:24 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,096
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

That was a badly written petition.

And such a weak sauce in NY case.

We will lose all of this.
Reply With Quote
  #1599  
Old 08-19-2021, 8:40 AM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 843
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

The Young cert petition seems cover the issues, not sure what you think is wrong with it?

If the People lose these cases it will be because the Supreme Court has abandoned the Constitution and decided that the 2nd Amendment should be erased.
Reply With Quote
  #1600  
Old 08-23-2021, 3:46 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,919
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...c/20-1639.html

Quote:
Aug 23 2021 Reply of George K. Young, Jr. submitted.
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 8:44 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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