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
  #121  
Old 05-11-2022, 7:56 PM
Prepped and ready Prepped and ready is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Bay Area, But almost Gone
Posts: 815
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gleam View Post
Should move this to general gun forums or CA legislative action forum.

I sometimes wonder if the Off-Topic brigade even remember there are 2nd Amendment and gun discussion forums on Calguns anymore.

---
I was going to put this in general gun discussion, but theres a lot more traffic here.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 05-11-2022, 9:05 PM
Batman's Avatar
Batman Batman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Mission Viejo (OC)
Posts: 1,848
iTrader: 173 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maulerrr View Post
Serious question - does this mean I can now PPT an 870 to my 19 y/o brother in law?
You could before. It was semi-automatics that were prohibited.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 05-12-2022, 6:43 AM
MeatyMac's Avatar
MeatyMac MeatyMac is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: A Banana Republic
Posts: 1,460
iTrader: 74 / 100%
Default

So if this 'sticks' can/will some enterprising, money-sucking, prima donna lawyer-critter file a class action suit against this Liberty forsaken State for denying youth their constitutional right 'To Keep and Bear Freedom" while they were 18-20 years old 'cause I have two of those youths that are now 21 and over that would LOVE to sign on to such a suit.
__________________
.

............... <a href=http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic165916_5.gif target=_blank>http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ic165916_5.gif</a>
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 05-12-2022, 7:30 AM
Russian Bot Russian Bot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Upland
Posts: 229
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gleam View Post
Should move this to general gun forums or CA legislative action forum.

I sometimes wonder if the Off-Topic brigade even remember there are 2nd Amendment and gun discussion forums on Calguns anymore.

---
Actually already a whole thread there.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 05-12-2022, 7:40 AM
FatCity67's Avatar
FatCity67 FatCity67 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,549
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

So still no semi-auto for under 21?
__________________
#FJB
#LetsGoBrandon
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 05-12-2022, 7:56 AM
Jedediah Munroe Jedediah Munroe is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 392
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

So now can I OPLAW AR lower to my 13 year old who has hunting license?
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 05-12-2022, 11:07 AM
The Gleam's Avatar
The Gleam The Gleam is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,204
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Bot View Post
Actually already a whole thread there.
I know.... the subtext was infused in sarcasm.

And that one that was once there is now here where it belongs.

---
__________________
-----------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
What compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)

If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 05-12-2022, 12:43 PM
JagerDog's Avatar
JagerDog JagerDog is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: South SF Bay Area
Posts: 10,929
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sigstroker View Post
So, to prove an AR-15 is legit, you have to hunt with it??
I really don’t have an issue with a modicum of safety prerequisite.

I know of no other current program that parallels the safety training without the hunting aspect included.

Not a particularly unique requirement.
__________________
You know it's cold outside when the socialists have their hands in their own pockets



#Blackolivesmatter
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 05-12-2022, 3:02 PM
9Cal_OC's Avatar
9Cal_OC 9Cal_OC is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: OC
Posts: 4,235
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JagerDog View Post
I really don’t have an issue with a modicum of safety prerequisite.

I know of no other current program that parallels the safety training without the hunting aspect included.

Not a particularly unique requirement.
Yet other states have no such requirement for purchasing a long gun…

And why do gun owners have to compromise? That’s how it starts abs they’ll just chip away more and more…
__________________
Freedom isn't free...

Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 05-12-2022, 3:44 PM
The Gleam's Avatar
The Gleam The Gleam is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,204
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JagerDog View Post
I really donít have an issue with a modicum of safety prerequisite.

I know of no other current program that parallels the safety training without the hunting aspect included.

Not a particularly unique requirement.
Maybe to secure the hunting license, as reasonable, considering the exposures of third-parties to hunting - but should not be a mandate to secure a hunting license as a requirement to be able to buy a firearm: because the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.

I know you know that, and likely agree - just a reminder to connect the dots on their real goal; it has nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with trying to limit the true meaning of private gun ownership, squashing a civil right by turning it into an allowance and luxury at government's acceptance tied to caveats, fees, and licensing.

---
__________________
-----------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
What compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)

If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?

Last edited by The Gleam; 05-12-2022 at 3:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 05-12-2022, 4:40 PM
tacticalcity's Avatar
tacticalcity tacticalcity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Danvile, California
Posts: 9,968
iTrader: 139 / 100%
Default

Nice to get a win.

U.S. appeals court overturns California ban on semiautomatic rifle sales to those under 21

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-appeals...224937406.html
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 05-12-2022, 6:07 PM
sbo80's Avatar
sbo80 sbo80 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,882
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JagerDog View Post
I really donít have an issue with a modicum of safety prerequisite.
But a hunting license has nothing to do with simply owning a firearm. Someone who has no intent of ever hunting must pay a fee to get a license, simply to own a gun? There's already a Firearm Safety Certificate required, so now you have to be doubly safe? If it really was about safety the rule would apply to all purchases not just for 18-21 year olds.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 05-12-2022, 6:43 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 9,194
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

This ruling, if allowed to stand by Slimy Sidney and his ever present "en banc" crew of 9th Circus clowns.

Should make overturning pc 27505 handgun ban for 18-20 yr old citizens a slam dunk.

Which is exactly why it will be en banc'd.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 05-12-2022, 6:43 PM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 407
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Exactly. The protected right is self defense, not hunting. All hunters must have a hunting license, all long gun owners are not hunters. and exactly, the FSC is already there to cover the safety aspect.

En-banc... I have to wonder, with ballsy SCOTUS literally throwing the gloves off and running into the ring, if the 9th may finally think twice about en-banc. <shrug>, we'll see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbo80 View Post
But a hunting license has nothing to do with simply owning a firearm. Someone who has no intent of ever hunting must pay a fee to get a license, simply to own a gun? There's already a Firearm Safety Certificate required, so now you have to be doubly safe? If it really was about safety the rule would apply to all purchases not just for 18-21 year olds.
__________________
GC: Yellow

6/29/21 App Received
7/29/21 Check Cashed
4/22/22 Livescan CA/FBI cleared
5/17/22 Interview
TBD Firearms

Last edited by mit31; 05-12-2022 at 6:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 05-12-2022, 8:11 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 18,331
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JagerDog View Post
I really donít have an issue with a modicum of safety prerequisite.

I know of no other current program that parallels the safety training without the hunting aspect included.

Not a particularly unique requirement.
Now, according to the 9th, an AR IS in fact useful for hunting too
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 05-12-2022, 9:21 PM
MajorSideburns's Avatar
MajorSideburns MajorSideburns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 991
iTrader: 56 / 100%
Default

They will just cheat and en banc to the cherry picked leftwing activist judges like every other case. We will never be able to push back until the Supreme Court grows a backbone and acknowledges the 2A.
__________________
If you are not familiar with the below sites, I encourage you to check them out and use them for cash back and great deals on ammo from Cabela's and such. Check the deals forum here on calguns and you will see a lot of us using these now. If you are kind enough to sign up through my below referral links, we both get instant bonus rewards. Thanks!

http://activejunky.com/invite/186564
http://www.swagbucks.com/p/register?rb=32948177
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 05-12-2022, 11:13 PM
cz74 cz74 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 513
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

9th Circus every time they go En Banc, always the liberals have majority, supposedly the picking is "random" for En Banc. Trump appointed 10 judges to the 9th, this "random" is skewed random.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 05-13-2022, 5:30 AM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 27,834
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maulerrr View Post
Serious question - does this mean I can now PPT an 870 to my 19 y/o brother in law?
Currently, there are no laws that prohibits the transfer of a pump-action shotgun to a non-prohibited person age 18+.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toro1 View Post
I know a 16 year old that wants her own gun. Will this allow that or is it 18 and older? One article was vague and the other said 18-21 if you get a hunting license.
Since 1968, Federal laws have prohibited a FFL from transferring a firearm to a person under the age of 21, with an exemption for a non-prohibited person age 18-20 and the firearm being transferred being a Title 1 Rifle or a Title 1 Shotgun. [18 USC 922(b)(1)]

CA laws prohibits a CA FFL dealer from transferring a firearm to a person under the age of 21 [PC 27510], with an exemption for a non-prohibited person age 18-20 that has a valid CA hunting license and the firearm being a shotgun or a rifle that is not a non-semi-auto centerfire rifle [PC 27510(b)(1)].
~The Court case (Jones v Bonta) is challenging the non-semi-auto centerfire rifle requirement to this CA law.

CA laws allows an immediate family member to gift a firearm to their immediate family member without having to utilize a CA FFL dealer [PC 27875(a)], as long as the transferee is a non-prohibited person age 18+ [PC 27875(a)(5)] and has a valid FSC [PC 27875(a)(4)].

CA laws allows a parent or legal guardian to grant temporary possession of a non-prohibited firearm to their minor for use in an exempt activity. [PC 29615]

Therefore, in order to be legal under Federal and CA laws...

The person must be a minimum of 18 years old, before they can legally acquire ownership of a firearm.

If the person is age 16-18, then their parent or legal guardian can grant them permission to temporarily possess a non-prohibited firearm for use in an exempt activity (competitive shooting, hunting, movie/tv production, etc).
__________________
Certified Glock Armorer

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.Ē - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).

Last edited by Quiet; 05-13-2022 at 12:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 05-13-2022, 6:53 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 2,939
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nedro View Post
That's weird. Because there's NOTHING in the 2nd amendment about hunting.
Not weird, just libtard nonsense. Furthermore, hunting is far from the only use of a long gun. How about trap, skeet, general target shooting, plinking and home defense! Was that not brought up?

Last edited by BAJ475; 05-13-2022 at 7:05 AM.. Reason: Added home defense
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 05-13-2022, 7:04 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 2,939
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JagerDog View Post
I really donít have an issue with a modicum of safety prerequisite.

I know of no other current program that parallels the safety training without the hunting aspect included.

Not a particularly unique requirement.
OK, so what modicum of prerequisites would you apply to exercising your 1st, 4th and 5th amendment rights? I have no problem with safety training to get a hunting license, but the 2A is not about hunting.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 05-13-2022, 7:11 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 2,939
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
...
Therefore, in order to be legal under Federal and CA laws...

The person must be a minimum of 18 years old, before they can legally acquire ownership of a firearm.

If the person is age 16-18, then their parent or legal guardian can grant them permission to temporarily possess a non-prohibited firearm for use in an exempt activity (competitive shooting, hunting, movie/tv production, etc).
Is there a federal law that prohibits a parent from giving, not lending, a firearm to their child who is under 18 years of age?
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 05-13-2022, 11:58 AM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 27,834
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
Is there a federal law that prohibits a parent from giving, not lending, a firearm to their child who is under 18 years of age?
Federal laws prohibits transfer of ownership of a handgun by any person to a person under the age of 18. [18 USC 922(x)(1)(A)]
There is no exemption to this that will allow a parent or legal guardian to legally give ownership of a handgun to their child that is under the age of 18.

Federal laws provides several exemptions that allows for the temporary transfer of possession from any person to a person under the age of 18. [18 USC 922(x)(3)]
^Most of these exemptions requires approval from the minor's parent/legal guardian as a condition to qualify for the exemption.

Federal laws prohibits the transfer of firearms between residents of different States unless a FFL is utilized. There is no exemption to this for intra-familial (parent-child) gift transfers. [18 USC 922(a)(3),(5)]
^This prohibits a parent that is a resident of State A from giving a firearm to their child that is a resident of State B and under the Federal minimum age requirements.
__________________
Certified Glock Armorer

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.Ē - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).

Last edited by Quiet; 05-13-2022 at 12:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 05-13-2022, 12:08 PM
DrewN DrewN is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,493
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

At least more hunting licenses sold is a positive, even though it's 100% a BS requirement. We need more active hunters in this state, I and all my peers are ageing out. Maybe some of the kids will figure "Well, I have a license already maybe I'll give hunting a try."
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 05-13-2022, 1:27 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,228
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
This ruling, if allowed to stand by Slimy Sidney and his ever present "en banc" crew of 9th Circus clowns.

Should make overturning pc 27505 handgun ban for 18-20 yr old citizens a slam dunk.

Which is exactly why it will be en banc'd.
Sidney Thomas is no longer the Chief Judge.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 05-13-2022, 1:31 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,267
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Sidney Thomas is no longer the Chief Judge.
What happens in this case? All 11 become random ?
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 05-13-2022, 3:14 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 9,194
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Sidney Thomas is no longer the Chief Judge.

That, I did not know. Thank you sir.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 05-13-2022, 5:07 PM
Fyathyrio's Avatar
Fyathyrio Fyathyrio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Free 'Murica
Posts: 983
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss . . . <SIGH>
__________________
"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.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 05-19-2022, 9:29 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 411
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Joint Motion for Extension of Time To File Petition for Panel Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc

Quote:
Filed text clerk order: The motion for an extension of time to file a Petition for Rehearing and/or Rehearing en Banc is granted.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 05-20-2022, 9:28 AM
Mute's Avatar
Mute Mute is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Diamond Bar
Posts: 7,694
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

Like clockwork. Since Peruta, the 9th has been batting 1.000 on going en banc for pro 2-A rulings.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle & Refuse To Be A Victim Instructor

American Marksman Training Group
Visit our American Marksman Facebook Page
Diamond Bar CCW Facebook Page


NRA Memberships at Discounted fee
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 05-20-2022, 3:06 PM
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Beyond the reach...
Posts: 3,907
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mute View Post
Like clockwork. Since Peruta, the 9th has been batting 1.000 on going en banc for pro 2-A rulings.
Right. For any case involving firearms they should just skip the three judge panel and go straight to the en banc.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 05-23-2022, 2:52 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,228
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
What happens in this case? All 11 become random ?
No. The Chief Judge is an administrative position that adds to the judges' already high workload. It is therefore an "appointment" that is passed around to the various judges. Currently, Judge Mary Murguia is serving in that capacity. She will be on the panel if rehearing is granted. The other ten are random, as always.
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 05-23-2022, 3:25 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,495
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mute View Post
Like clockwork. Since Peruta, the 9th has been batting 1.000 on going en banc for pro 2-A rulings.
This one's a little different. It isn't requesting en banc review. It's a joint motion asking to extend deadlines for filing pending NYSRPA to come out of SCOTUS.
Quote:
[...]up to and including Monday, July 25, 2022. The requested extension of time will permit the parties time to consider whether to file petitions for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc in this significant case, and to factor the U.S. Supreme Courtís anticipated decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol ***ín v. Bruen (NYSRPA), No. 20-843, which will address potentially related Second Amendment issues, into their decisions.
__________________
"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; 05-23-2022 at 3:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 05-29-2022, 9:51 PM
CALI-gula's Avatar
CALI-gula CALI-gula is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,206
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

They'll really be fighting it now with emotions on their side. After last week don't expect this to pan out in our favor.

.
__________________
------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 06-15-2022, 6:16 PM
AKSOG's Avatar
AKSOG AKSOG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nevada
Posts: 4,064
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

En banc death would be a great band name
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 06-22-2022, 5:20 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 527
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

One wonders if this case will generate precedents that will affect the current legislation being contemplated in the Senate for 18-year-old purchasers.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 06-25-2022, 8:54 PM
yacko yacko is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 271
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The militia was all able bodied males 17 years and older.

oops..... we demoncrats always said the 2a was about the militia.... oops!
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 1:13 PM.




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