Calguns.net  

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

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-06-2019, 2:08 PM
Redeyedrider's Avatar
Redeyedrider Redeyedrider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Placer Co.
Posts: 1,325
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Some BRILLIANT Snippets From The Duncan Ruling - 10 Round Ban UNCONSTITUTIONAL

From a public policy perspective, the choices are difficult and complicated. People may cede liberty to their government in exchange for the promise of safety. Or government may gain compliance from its people by forcibly disarming all. In the United States, the Second Amendment takes the legislative experiment off the table. Regardless of current popularity, neither a legislature nor voters may trench on constitutional rights.


---------------------------------------

Yet, the “solution” for preventing a mass shooting exacts a high toll on the everyday freedom of ordinary law-abiding citizens. Many individual robberies, rapes, and shootings are not prevented by the State. Unless a law-abiding individual has a firearm for his or her own defense, the police typically arrive after it is too late. With rigor mortis setting in, they mark and bag the evidence, interview bystanders, and draw a chalk outline on the ground. But the victim, nevertheless, is dead, or raped, or robbed, or traumatized.

------------------------------------------

All Californians, like all citizens of the United States, have a fundamental Constitutional right to keep and bear common and dangerous arms. The nation’s Founders used arms for self-protection, for the common defense, for hunting food, and as a check against tyranny.

----------------------------------------
Today, self-protection is most important. In the future, the common defense may once again be most important. Constitutional rights stand through time holding fast through the ebb and flow of current controversy. Needing a solution to a current law enforcement difficulty cannot be justification for ignoring the Bill of Rights as bad policy. Bad political ideas cannot be stopped by criminalizing bad political speech. Crime waves cannot be broken with warrantless searches and unreasonable seizures. Neither can the government response to a few mad men with guns and ammunition be a law that turns millions of responsible, law-abiding people trying to protect themselves into criminals. Yet, this is the effect of California’s large-capacity magazine law.

----------------------------------

Plaintiffs contend that there is no genuine dispute that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the individual right of every law-abiding citizen to acquire, possess, and keep common firearms and their common magazines holding more than 10 rounds – magazines which are typically possessed for lawful purposes. Plaintiffs also contend that the state of California has not carried its burden to demonstrate a reasonable fit between the flat ban on such magazines and its important interests in public safety. Plaintiffs contend that the state’s magazine ban thus cannot survive constitutionally-required heightened scrutiny and they are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief as a matter of law. Plaintiffs are correct.

------------------------------

Neither magazines, nor rounds of ammunition, nor triggers, nor barrels are specifically mentioned in the Second Amendment. Neither are they mentioned in Heller. But without a right to keep and bear triggers, or barrels, or ammunition and the magazines that hold ammunition, the Second Amendment right would be meaningless.

-----------------------------------

Under the simple test of Heller, California’s § 32310 directly infringes Second Amendment rights. It directly infringes by broadly prohibiting common firearms and their common magazines holding more than 10 rounds, because they are not unusual and are commonly used by responsible, law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as self-defense. And “that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.

--------------------------------

Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are used for self-defense by law-abiding citizens. And they are common. Lawful in at least 41 states and under federal law, these magazines number in the millions.

--------------------------------------

To the extent that magazines holding more than 10 rounds may be less common within California, it would likely be the result of the State long criminalizing the buying, selling, importing, and manufacturing of these magazines. Saying that large capacity magazines are uncommon because they have been banned for so long is something of a tautology. It cannot be used as constitutional support for further banning. See Friedman v. City of Highland Park, Illinois, 784 F.3d 406, 409 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Yet it would be absurd to say that the reason why a particular weapon can be banned is that there is a statute banning it, so that it isn’t commonly used. A law’s existence can’t be the source of its own constitutional validity.”)

--------------------------------------------

Over the last three decades, one of the most popular civilian rifles in America is the much maligned AR-15 style rifle. Manufactured with various characteristics by numerous companies, it is estimated that more than five million have been bought since the 1980s. These rifles are typically sold with 30-round magazines. These commonly owned guns with commonly-sized magazines are protected by the Second Amendment and Heller’s simple test for responsible, law-abiding citizens to use for target practice, hunting, and defense.

-----------------------------------------

Certainly, a gun when abused is lethal. A gun holding more than 10 rounds is lethal to more people than a gun holding less than 10 rounds, but it is not constitutionally decisive. Nothing in the Second Amendment makes lethality a factor to consider because a gun’s lethality, or dangerousness, is assumed. The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear down pillows and foam baseball bats. It protects guns and every gun is dangerous.

-------------------------------------------

California law presently permits the lethality of a gun with a 10-round magazine. In other words, a gun with an 11-round magazine or a 15-round magazine is apparently too lethal to be possessed by a law-abiding citizen. A gun with a 10-round magazine is not. Missing is a constitutionally-permissible standard for testing acceptable lethality. The Attorney General offers no objective standard. Heller sets out a commonality standard that can be applied to magazine hardware: is the size of the magazine “common”? If so, the size is constitutionally-protected. If the “too lethal” standard is followed to its logical conclusion, the government may dictate in the future that a magazine of eight rounds is too lethal. And after that, it may dictate that a gun with a magazine holding three rounds is too lethal since a person usually fires only 2.2 rounds in self-defense. This stepped-down approach may continue32 until the time comes when government declares that only guns holding a single round are sufficiently lacking in lethality that they are both “safe” to possess and powerful enough to provide a means of self-defense.

This is not baseless speculation or scare-mongering. One need only look at New Jersey and New York. In the 1990’s, New Jersey instituted a prohibition on what it would label “large capacity ammunition magazines.” These were defined as magazines able to hold more than 15 rounds. Slipping down the slope, last year, New Jersey lowered the capacity of permissible magazines from 15 to 10 rounds. See Firearms, 2018 N.J. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 39 (ASSEMBLY No. 2761) (WEST). At least one bill had been offered that would have reduced the allowed capacity to only five rounds. (See New Jersey Senate Bill No. 798

-----------------------------------------

If you judge for yourself that you will need more than 10 rounds, however, the crime is yours. And, too bad if you complied with the law but needed 11 rounds to stop an attacker, or a group of attackers, or a mob. Now, you are dead. By living a law-abiding, responsible life, you have just become another “gun violence” statistic. And your statistic may be used to justify further restrictions on gun lethality for future law-abiding citizens.

----------------------------------------

California’s law prohibiting acquisition and possession of magazines able to hold any more than 10 roundsplaces a severe restriction on the core right of self-defense of the home such that it amounts to a destruction of the right and is unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny.

-----------------------------------------

The criminalization of a citizen’s acquisition and possession of magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds hits directly at the core of the right of self-defense in the home. It is a complete ban on acquisition. It is a complete ban on possession. It is a ban applicable to all ordinary law-abiding responsible citizens. It is a ban on possession that applies inside a home and outside a home.

----------------------------------------

prohibition on selling firearm to marijuana card holder was not severe burden on core Second Amendment rights because the bar applied to “only the sale of firearms to Wilson —not her possessionof firearms”

---------------------------------------

§32310’s ban on common magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds flunks the simple Hellertest. Because it flunks the Hellertest, there is no need to apply some lower level of scrutiny.

--------------------------------------

Continued below
__________________
=TRUMP 2020=

Quote:
I try to frame my response to be useful to those observing, with little regard to convince the opponent of my awesomeness. - EM2
Quote:
The media silence says more than their filthy lies - MrFancyPants

Last edited by Redeyedrider; 04-06-2019 at 8:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-06-2019, 3:12 PM
Jeepergeo's Avatar
Jeepergeo Jeepergeo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arcata
Posts: 2,139
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Powerful Words

Powerful Words, that is for sure. No doubt the Dem/Lib/Union legislators are wringing their hands and wondering how they go about this again.
__________________
Life Member, National Rifle Association
Life Member, California Rifle and Pistol Association
Member, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-06-2019, 5:38 PM
bronco75a's Avatar
bronco75a bronco75a is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 584
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Great post.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-06-2019, 6:36 PM
Redeyedrider's Avatar
Redeyedrider Redeyedrider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Placer Co.
Posts: 1,325
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

The State argues that the Heller test is a non-issue because the Heller test does not apply to historically-accepted prohibitions on Second Amendment rights. Large capacity magazines have been the subject of regulations since the 1930s according to the State. Based on this view of history, the State asserts that magazine capacity regulations are historically accepted laws beyond the reach of the Second Amendment. If its historical research is accurate, the State would have an argument............. Courts ask whether the challenged law “falls within a ‘well-defined and narrowly limited’ category of prohibitions ‘that have been historically unprotected..... To determine whether a challenged law falls outside the historical scope of the Second Amendment, we ask whether the regulation is one of the presumptively lawful regulatory measures’ identified in Heller, or whether the record includes persuasive historical evidence establishing that the regulation at issue imposes prohibitions that fall outside the historical scope of the Second Amendment.

History shows, however, restrictions on the possession of firearm magazines of any size have no historical pedigree.

The oldest statute limiting the permissible size of a detachable firearm magazine, on the other hand, is quite young. In 1990, New Jersey introduced the first ban on detachable magazines, banning magazines holding more than 15 rounds.

To sum up, then, while detachable firearm magazines have been common for a century, government regulation of the size of a magazine is a recent phenomenon and still unregulated in four-fifths of the states

Faced with a dearth of magazine capacity restrictions older than 1990, the Attorney General pivots and tries a different route.

-----------------------------------------

It is interesting to note that during the Nation’s founding era, states enacted regulations for the formation and maintenance of citizen militias. Three such statutes are described in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Rather than restricting firing capacity, they required firing capacity. These statutes required citizens to equip themselves with arms and a minimum quantity of ammunition for those arms. None placed an upper limit of 10-rounds, as § 32310 does. Far from it.

---------------------------------------

Section 32310 runs afoul of the Second Amendment under the simple Heller test. It fails the Heller test because it criminalizes a law-abiding citizen’s possession of a common magazine that is used for lawful purposes and prohibits its use for self-defense in and around the home. It strikes at the core of the inalienable Constitutional right and disenfranchises approximately 39 million state residents.

--------------------------------------

This conclusion should not be considered groundbreaking. It is simply a straightforward application of constitutional law to an experimental governmental overreach that goes far beyond traditional boundaries of reasonable gun regulation.

--------------------------------------

California passed more and more gun regulations, constricting individual rights further and further, to the point where state undercover agents surveil California residents attending out-of-state gun shows, obtain search warrants for their homes, and prosecute those returning with a few thirty-round magazines.

------------------------------------

Under any level of heightened scrutiny, the ban fails constitutional muster.

------------------------------------

Most courts select intermediate scrutiny in the end. Intermediate scrutiny, in turn, looks for a “reasonable fit.” It is an overly complex analysis that people of ordinary intelligence cannot be expected to understand. It is the wrong standard. But the statute fails anyhow.

------------------------------------

When a person has fired the permitted 10 rounds and the danger persists, a statute limiting magazine size to only 10 rounds severely burdens that core right to self-defense.

----------------------------------

The ban on acquisition and possession on magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds, together with the substantial criminal penalties threatening a law-abiding, responsible, citizen who desires such magazines to protect hearth and home, imposes a burden on the constitutional rightthat this Court judges as severe.

------------------------------------

But describing as minor, the burden on responsible, law-abiding citizens who may not possess a 15-round magazine for self-defense because there are other arms permitted with 10 or fewer rounds, is like saying that when government closes a Mormon church it is a minor burden because next door there is a Baptist church or a Hindu temple.

------------------------------------

In a peaceful society, a 10-round limit may not be severe. When thousands of people are rioting, as happened in Los Angeles in 1992, or more recently with Antifa members in Berkeley in 2017, a 10-round limit for self-defense is a severe burden. When a group of armed burglars break into a citizen’s home at night, and the homeowner in pajamas must choose between using their left hand to grab either a telephone, a flashlight, or an extra 10-round magazine, the burden is severe. When one is far from help in a sparsely populated part of the state, and law enforcement may not be able to respond in a timely manner, the burden of a 10-round limit is severe. When a major earthquake causes power outages, gas and water line ruptures, collapsed bridges and buildings, and chaos, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe. When food distribution channels are disrupted and sustenance becomes scarce while criminals run rampant, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe. Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today’s litigation happens during the best of times. It may be the best of times in Sunnyvale; it may be the worst of times in Bombay Beach or Potrero. California’s ban covers the entire state at all times.

----------------------------------

California’s ban on magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds fails strict scrutiny. The State has not offered a compelling interest for the ban, arguing that intermediate scrutiny should be the test. If preventing mass shootings is the state’s interest, it is not at all clear that it would be compelling since such events are exceedingly rare. If the state’s interest is in forcing a “pause” during a mass shooting for a shooter to be apprehended, those events are even more rare.

---------------------------------

The § 32310 ban on possession applies to areas in the state where large groups gather and where no one gathers. It applies to young persons with long rap sheets and to old persons with no rap sheets. It applies to draft dodgers and to those who have served our country. It applies to those who would have 1000 large magazines for a conflagration and to those who would have one large magazine for self-defense. It applies to perpetrators as well as it applies to those who have been victims. It applies to magazines holding large, powerful rounds and to magazines holding small, more-impotent rounds. It applies to rifles with bump-stocks and pistols for purses.

Section 32310 is not narrowly tailored; it is not tailored at all. It fits like a burlap bag. It is a single-dimensional, prophylactic, blanket thrown across the population of the state. As such, §32310 fails strict scrutiny and violates the Second Amendment.
__________________
=TRUMP 2020=

Quote:
I try to frame my response to be useful to those observing, with little regard to convince the opponent of my awesomeness. - EM2
Quote:
The media silence says more than their filthy lies - MrFancyPants

Last edited by Redeyedrider; 04-06-2019 at 8:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-06-2019, 6:48 PM
Redeyedrider's Avatar
Redeyedrider Redeyedrider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Placer Co.
Posts: 1,325
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

In this case, the Attorney General identifies four State interests or objectives. Each is important. The State interests are: (1) protecting citizens from gun violence; (2) protecting law enforcement from gun violence; (3) protecting the public safety (which is like protecting citizens and law enforcement from gun violence); and (4) preventing crime. See Oppo. at 9; 17-18. The question then becomes, whether § 32310’s ban on acquisition and possession of firearm magazines holding more than 10 rounds is are a reasonable fit for achieving these important goals. This Court finds on the evidentiary record before it that §32310—the prohibition on magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds and the acquisition-possession-criminalization components of §32310—is not a reasonable fit.

---------------------------------

When considering whether to approve a state experiment that has,and will,irrevocably harm law-abiding responsible citizens who want for lawful purposes to have common firearms and common magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, this Court declines to rely on anything beyond hard facts and reasonable inferences drawn from convincing analysis amounting to substantial evidence based on relevant and accurate data sets.

----------------------------------

The State’s theoretical and empirical evidence is not persuasive. Why 10 rounds as a limit? The State has no answer.

---------------------------------------

On this evidence, § 32310 is not a reasonable fit. It hardly fits at all. It appears on this record to be a haphazard solution likely to have no effect on an exceedingly rare problem, while at the same time burdening the Constitutional rights of many other California law-abiding responsible citizen-owners of gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds

-----------------------------------

The only effect of § 32310 is to make criminals of California’s 39 million law-abiding citizens who want to have ready for their self-defense a firearm with more than 10 rounds.

------------------------------------

This is federal court. The Attorney General has submitted two unofficial surveys to prove mass shootings are a problem made worse by firearm magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Do the surveys pass the Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 403 test for relevance? Yes. Are the surveys admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 802? No. They are double or triple hearsay. No foundation has been laid. No authentication attempted. Are they reliable? No. Are they anything more than a selected compilation of news articles –articles which are themselves inadmissible? No. Are the compilers likely to be biased? Yes.

----------------------------------

Where are the actual police investigation reports? The Attorney General, California’s top law enforcement officer, has not submitteda single official police report of a shooting.Instead,the Attorney General relies on news articles and interest group surveys.

-----------------------------------

Obeisance to Heller and the Second Amendment is offered and then given Emeritusstatus, all while its strength is being sapped from a lack of exercise.

----------------------------------

This case is about a muscular constitutional right and whether a state can impinge and imprison its citizens for exercising that right.

----------------------------------

Strictly put, this case in not solely about legislative judgments because § 32310(c) and (d) are the products of a ballot proposition. No federal court has deferred to the terms of a state ballot proposition where the proposition trenches on a federal constitutional right.

-------------------------------------

The 2016 amendments to §32310 were added by ballot measure and are owed no legislative deference by this Court. The remaining part of §32310 is the product of ordinary legislation. Impinging on a federal constitutional right as it does, it is not insulated from meaningful judicial review.

----------------------------------

This kind of government experimentation, the Second Amendment flatly prohibits.

-----------------------------------

Congress tried for a decade the nationwide experiment of prohibiting large capacity magazines. It failed. California has continued the failed experiment for another decade and now suggests that it may continue to do so ad infinitum without demonstrating success. That makes no sense.

---------------

Imagine the crimes that could be solved without the Fourth Amendment. The state could search for evidence of a crime anywhere on a whim. Without the First Amendment, the state could better police the internet. The state could protect its citizens from child pornography, sex trafficking,and radical terrorists. The state could limit internet use by its law-abiding citizens to, say, 10 hours a day or 10 websites a day. Perhaps it could put an end to Facebook cyberbullying.

---------------

The bludgeon swings to knock large capacity magazines out of the hands of criminals. If the bludgeon does not work, then the criminals still clinging to their large capacity magazines will be thrown in jail while the magazines are destroyed as a public nuisance. The problem is the bludgeon indiscriminately hammers all that is in its path. Here, it also hammers magazines out of the hands of long timelaw-abiding citizens. It hammers the 15–round magazine as well as the 100–round drum. And it throws the law-abiding, self-defending citizen who continues to possess a magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds into the same jail cell as the criminal.

--------------

Gun violence to carry out crime is horrendous and should be condemned by alland punished harshly. Defensive gun violence may be the only way a law-abiding citizen can avoid becoming a victim.

---------------

The “fit” of § 32310 is, at best, ungainly and very loose. That is all that it takes to conclude that the statute is unconstitutional. The fit is like that of a father’s long raincoat on a little girl for Halloween. The problem of mass shootings is very small. The state’s “solution” is a triple extra-large and its untailored drape covers all the law-abiding and responsible of its 39 million citizens.

----------------

A reasonable fit to protect citizens and law enforcement from gun violence and crime, in a state with numerous military bases and service men and service women, would surely permit the honorably discharged member of the U.S. Armed Forces who has lawfully maintained a magazine holding more than 10 rounds for more than twenty years to continue to keep and use his or her magazine. These citizens are perhaps the best among us. They have volunteered to serve and have served and sacrificed to protect our country. They have been specially trained to expertly use firearms in a conflict. They have proven their good citizenship by years of lawfully keeping firearms as civilians. What possibly better citizen candidates to protect the public against violent gun-toting criminals.

-------------

Similarly, a reasonable fit would surely make an exception for a Department of Justice-vetted, privately-trained,citizen to whom the local sheriff has granted a permit to carry a concealed weapon, and who owns a weapon with a magazine holding more than 10 rounds. California’s statute does not except such proven, law-abiding, trustworthy, gun-owning individuals. Quite the opposite.

-------------

Ten years of a federal ban on large-capacity magazinesdid not stop mass shootings nationally. Twenty years of a California ban on large capacity magazines have not stopped mass shootings in California. Section 32310 is a failed policy experiment that has not achieved its goal.

--------------

Perhaps the irony of § 32310 escapes notice. The reason for the adoption of the Second Amendment was to protect the citizens of the new nation from the power of an oppressive state.

----------------

Because large capacity magazines lack identifying marks, law enforcement officers are not able to tell the difference between grandfathered magazines and more recently smuggled,or manufactured,illegal magazines.

---------------

Lawful arms do not become unprotected merely because they resemble unlawful arms.

------------------

The Government’s proposed prophylaxis –to protect against the violations of the few, we must burden the constitutional rights of the many –turns the Second Amendment on its head.

------------------

The State relies on expert witness, Professor Louis Klarevas. Professor Klarevas says that banning large capacity magazines will reduce violence and force shooters to take a critical pause. SeeDX-3. However, in a piece by Professor Klarevas dated 2011, he offers that the Tucson shooting would have likely still happened with a ban on high capacity magazines.

-----------------

What’s more, a person set on inflicting mass casualties will get around any clip prohibitions by having additional clips on his person........ or by carrying more than one fully loaded weapon.

----------------

It is the fact that they are commonly-possessed by these citizens for lawful purposes that places them directly beneaththe umbrella of the Second Amendment.

----------------

There is no convincing evidence that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are not characteristically used to protect one’s home. The large numbers in circulation and human nature suggests otherwise.

---------------

The right to bear arms enables one to possess not only the means to defend oneself but also the self-confidence—and psychic comfort—that comes with knowing one could protect oneself if necessary.

----------------

Even safer may be a large capacity magazine on an AR-15 type of rifle as it is likely to be more persuasive when brandished at criminal assailants than would a five-shot revolver.

----------------

the State has not identified one incident where a bystander was hurt from a citizen’s defensive gun use.

-----------------

The State argues that large-capacity magazines are disproportionately used against police, citing an undated, unsigned, document created by an organization named the Violence Policy Center... The document says nothing about violence against police.

---------------

In other words, the re-loading “pause” the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter, also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine. The need to re-load and the lengthy pause that comes with banning all but small-capacity magazines is especially unforgiving for victims who are disabled, or who have arthritis, or who are trying to hold a phone in their off-hand while attempting to call for police help. The good that a re-loading pause might do in the extremely rare mass shooting incident is vastly outweighed by the harm visited on manifold law-abiding, citizen-victims who must also pause while under attack

-----------------

So, how did California arrive at the notion that any firearm magazine size greater than a 10-round magazine is unacceptable? It appears to be an arbitrary judgment.

----------------

Second Amendment rights do not depend on how often the magazines are used. Indeed, the standard is whether the prohibited magazines are ‘typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

------------

This Court’s judgment is no longer preliminary. If this judgment is appealed, the Court of Appeals will have the opportunity to rule on the merits, for the first time.

------------

The State has not carried its burden to justify the restrictions on firearm magazines protected by the Second Amendmentbased on the undisputed material facts in evidence.

------------

To borrow a phrase, “[j]ust as it is the ‘proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence’ that we protect speech that we hate, [and] . . . the proudest boast of our free exercise jurisprudence that we protect religious beliefs that we find offensive,” it is the proudest boast of our Second Amendment jurisprudence that we protect a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms that are dangerous and formidable.
__________________
=TRUMP 2020=

Quote:
I try to frame my response to be useful to those observing, with little regard to convince the opponent of my awesomeness. - EM2
Quote:
The media silence says more than their filthy lies - MrFancyPants

Last edited by Redeyedrider; 04-06-2019 at 8:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-06-2019, 6:56 PM
Tarmy's Avatar
Tarmy Tarmy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Great post OP...
__________________
Wilson Protector .45, Springer 9mm Loaded, Franchi Instinct SL .12ga. and some other cool stuff for the kiddos...
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-06-2019, 7:09 PM
200Apples's Avatar
200Apples 200Apples is offline
- DVC - Mojave Lever Crew
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: the southern California sardine can
Posts: 3,190
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Outstanding!
__________________
.
"[The Left] will not accept the truth that if you take all the guns off the street you still will have a crime problem, whereas if you take the criminals off the street you will not have a gun problem." - Jeff Cooper

.Member NRA and Mojave Lever Crew | Stuck somewhere between Cowboy and Tactical | Bolts, levers, single actions and 1911s

.1A - 2A = -1A
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-06-2019, 7:22 PM
Redeyedrider's Avatar
Redeyedrider Redeyedrider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Placer Co.
Posts: 1,325
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by bronco75a View Post
Great post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarmy View Post
Great post OP...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 200Apples View Post
Outstanding!
Thank you

Benitez is a brilliant thoughtful judge. He deserves all the credit!
__________________
=TRUMP 2020=

Quote:
I try to frame my response to be useful to those observing, with little regard to convince the opponent of my awesomeness. - EM2
Quote:
The media silence says more than their filthy lies - MrFancyPants
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-06-2019, 7:52 PM
wonkavision42 wonkavision42 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: east bay - Democratic Peoples Republic of Kalifornistan
Posts: 29
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thank you for the time/effort to post those snippets.
Very interesting.

The State interests are:
(1) protecting citizens from gun violence;
— Firearm safety/respect training repeatedly in the education curriculums. Not the “guns are scarry bad” crap.
— Make that easily available for adults as well.
— Having citizens just as well (or better) armed than the criminals.
— Make protecting yourself, your family, your property or the lives of others less of a legal Catch-22.
(2) protecting law enforcement from gun violence;
— Get (back) to a point where there is mutual respect between LE and non-LE. Don’t ask me how ... read recently that Stockton PD(?) had made some progress on this.
— Complete transparency for body-cam footage and for LE criminal records.
— Training/education for gun owners explicitly focused on interactions with LE and not getting either side shot.
— Better equipment, training & procedures for LE. What risks can be addressed and/or reduced?
(3) protecting the public safety (which is like protecting citizens and law enforcement from gun violence);
— We already have plenty of laws for this. Obviously there are still those who break those laws. Always has been. And always will be. And not just where guns are concerned either.
(4) preventing crime.
— See response to #3.
— Uhm ... maybe focus on some of the causes or sources of the crime? Yeah ... can-o-worms ...
— In some cases, home security cameras/systems can help prevent rather than just record for posterity.

None of that is easy nor ‘cheap’.
What is easy and cheap (since he’s the state AG) is blaming guns and screwing the law abiding gun owners.

Last edited by wonkavision42; 04-06-2019 at 8:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-06-2019, 7:55 PM
creampuff creampuff is offline
Village idiot
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,187
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wow didn't realize there were that many pearls of truth from the ruling.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-06-2019, 7:59 PM
Erion929's Avatar
Erion929 Erion929 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: So. Orange County, CA.
Posts: 4,241
iTrader: 66 / 100%
Default

Benitez, common sense for Americans....whodda thunk?

Gawddamn.


.
__________________
Join Active Junky for online rebates....$10 to both you and me!

https://www.activejunky.com/invite/238017


—“Who, that fuggin’ nobody?

—“That fuggin’ nobody........was John Wick!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-06-2019, 9:08 PM
Redeyedrider's Avatar
Redeyedrider Redeyedrider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Placer Co.
Posts: 1,325
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

The (truly) honorable judge Benitez is a once in a generation type of mind. He's an all-star on the level of Thomas Jefferson, a legend in his own time!

__________________
=TRUMP 2020=

Quote:
I try to frame my response to be useful to those observing, with little regard to convince the opponent of my awesomeness. - EM2
Quote:
The media silence says more than their filthy lies - MrFancyPants

Last edited by Redeyedrider; 04-07-2019 at 2:31 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-06-2019, 11:52 PM
Marktallica's Avatar
Marktallica Marktallica is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: El Dorado County, State of Jefferson, USA
Posts: 350
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wow, great read! Thanks for taking the time, OP.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
__________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-07-2019, 10:14 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: 14,300
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

His opinion will be ignored by the 9th.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-07-2019, 10:35 AM
Dragginpanda Dragginpanda is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 497
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Best post ever
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-07-2019, 12:18 PM
k1dude's Avatar
k1dude k1dude is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: la Republika Popular de Kalifornistan
Posts: 8,999
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Thank you Redeyedrider!

__________________
“Show me a young conservative and I'll show you a man without a heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you a man without a brain.” - Sir Winston Churchill

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” - Senator Barry Goldwater
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-07-2019, 1:22 PM
kcstott kcstott is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 10,950
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

To borrow a phrase, “[j]ust as it is the ‘proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence’ that we protect speech that we hate, [and] . . . the proudest boast of our free exercise jurisprudence that we protect religious beliefs that we find offensive,” it is the proudest boast of our Second Amendment jurisprudence that we protect a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms that are dangerous and formidable.


best quote ever
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-07-2019, 1:45 PM
Ross Ross is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Driving the 49th POTUS.
Posts: 1,112
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Who get credit for, "All Californians, like all citizens of the United States, have a fundamental Constitutional right to keep and bear common and dangerous arms. The nation’s Founders used arms for self-protection, for the common defense, for hunting food, and as a check against tyranny."?
__________________


Got Zydrate?

Help, I'm having premonitions of future flashbacks.

"All Californians, like all citizens of the United States, have a fundamental Constitutional right to keep and bear common and dangerous arms. The nation’s Founders used arms for self-protection, for the common defense, for hunting food, and as a check against tyranny." Judge Benitez - March 2019
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-07-2019, 2:00 PM
seabee1's Avatar
seabee1 seabee1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,045
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

this one really makes sense,

Quote:
A reasonable fit to protect citizens and law enforcement from gun violence and crime, in a state with numerous military bases and service men and service women, would surely permit the honorably discharged member of the U.S. Armed Forces who has lawfully maintained a magazine holding more than 10 rounds for more than twenty years to continue to keep and use his or her magazine. These citizens are perhaps the best among us. They have volunteered to serve and have served and sacrificed to protect our country. They have been specially trained to expertly use firearms in a conflict. They have proven their good citizenship by years of lawfully keeping firearms as civilians. What possibly better citizen candidates to protect the public against violent gun-toting criminals.
__________________
Unless a law-abiding individual has a firearm for his or her own defense, the police typically arrive after it is too late. With rigor mortis setting in, they mark and bag the evidence, interview bystanders, and draw a chalk outline on the ground. But the victim, nevertheless, is dead, or raped, or robbed, or traumatized.

the Honorable Roger T. Benitez
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-07-2019, 3:15 PM
DesertDave100's Avatar
DesertDave100 DesertDave100 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Freedom at last
Posts: 388
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
His opinion will be ignored by the 9th.
They might, I can't predict the future. Buy I have some doubts they will be able to dismantle too many of the solid arguments that the Judge put into his ruling.

I'm glad he had the patience to put both his intelligence and his passion into such a fine document.
__________________
NRA Life Member CRPA Life Member

Registration is the first step towards confiscation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPimping View Post
Hunt them with Rottweilers and shotguns. Drive them underground into the sewers.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-07-2019, 4:07 PM
Redeyedrider's Avatar
Redeyedrider Redeyedrider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Placer Co.
Posts: 1,325
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertDave100 View Post
I'm glad he had the patience to put both his intelligence and his passion into such a fine document.
And his time....

NO DOUBT! He did not phone this one in.

This thing is a masterpiece, it almost reads like a novel..... BUT BETTER!
__________________
=TRUMP 2020=

Quote:
I try to frame my response to be useful to those observing, with little regard to convince the opponent of my awesomeness. - EM2
Quote:
The media silence says more than their filthy lies - MrFancyPants

Last edited by Redeyedrider; 04-07-2019 at 4:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-07-2019, 4:09 PM
Redeyedrider's Avatar
Redeyedrider Redeyedrider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Placer Co.
Posts: 1,325
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross View Post
Who get credit for, "All Californians, like all citizens of the United States, have a fundamental Constitutional right to keep and bear common and dangerous arms. The nation’s Founders used arms for self-protection, for the common defense, for hunting food, and as a check against tyranny."?
I believe that this part of the ruling was his own words. He was obviously referencing Heller by inserting "common and dangerous".
__________________
=TRUMP 2020=

Quote:
I try to frame my response to be useful to those observing, with little regard to convince the opponent of my awesomeness. - EM2
Quote:
The media silence says more than their filthy lies - MrFancyPants
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-07-2019, 6:50 PM
dave1947's Avatar
dave1947 dave1947 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: san diego,ca
Posts: 267
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I wonder how great of a ccw application could be written copying for his decision and changing 10 rounds magazine to ccw ? wonder what Gore's crew would have top say reading the request.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-10-2019, 12:20 PM
Redeyedrider's Avatar
Redeyedrider Redeyedrider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Placer Co.
Posts: 1,325
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave1947 View Post
I wonder how great of a ccw application could be written copying for his decision and changing 10 rounds magazine to ccw ? wonder what Gore's crew would have top say reading the request.
Great point!
__________________
=TRUMP 2020=

Quote:
I try to frame my response to be useful to those observing, with little regard to convince the opponent of my awesomeness. - EM2
Quote:
The media silence says more than their filthy lies - MrFancyPants
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-10-2019, 2:23 PM
SoCalSig1911's Avatar
SoCalSig1911 SoCalSig1911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 590
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Is there a copy of a legal document out there that we can keep with our standard cap mags for when we take them to the range, in case we get pulled over or anything so we can show law enforcement who are not informed about the 3/29-4/5 stay on the ban?
__________________
"Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it"
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-10-2019, 3:34 PM
Redeyedrider's Avatar
Redeyedrider Redeyedrider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Placer Co.
Posts: 1,325
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalSig1911 View Post
Is there a copy of a legal document out there that we can keep with our standard cap mags for when we take them to the range, in case we get pulled over or anything so we can show law enforcement who are not informed about the 3/29-4/5 stay on the ban?
This one isn't bad. Not a legal document, but should suffice.

https://crpa.org/news/blogs/crpa-ale...-ordered-stay/
__________________
=TRUMP 2020=

Quote:
I try to frame my response to be useful to those observing, with little regard to convince the opponent of my awesomeness. - EM2
Quote:
The media silence says more than their filthy lies - MrFancyPants
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-10-2019, 4:17 PM
SoCalSig1911's Avatar
SoCalSig1911 SoCalSig1911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 590
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redeyedrider View Post
This one isn't bad. Not a legal document, but should suffice.

https://crpa.org/news/blogs/crpa-ale...-ordered-stay/
Thanks, I went to that link and got this link for the stay from Benitez and printed page 1 and page 86 of the document.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ntiffs-MSJ.pdf

Then the stay on the stay, Pages 1 and 6. Which is really all I think you would need to properly inform someone as to why you can legally own and posses standard cap mags.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ing-Appeal.pdf

States that anyone who purchased between 3/29-4/5 are exempt from the standard cap magazine ban.
__________________
"Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it"
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-10-2019, 4:44 PM
rm1911's Avatar
rm1911 rm1911 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Soviet Socialist Republic of Kalifornia
Posts: 4,081
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

He lays out an outstanding argument that clearly leaves no wiggle room.

Then issues a stay.

What a douche.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
NRA Life Member since 1990

They're not liberals, they're leftists. Please don't use the former for the latter. Liberals are Locke, Jefferson, Burke, Hayek. Leftists are progressives, Prussian state-socialists, fascists. Liberals stand against the state and unequivocally support liberty. Leftists support state tyranny.

Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-10-2019, 4:53 PM
Dano3467 Dano3467 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: 85 mi south of Oregon
Posts: 6,777
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Thanks OP..this post is timely, & was much needed in America, little alone CA
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-10-2019, 5:19 PM
ojisan ojisan is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFV
Posts: 10,893
iTrader: 56 / 100%
Default

California's 2019 instant winner of the "Most Man Crushes" award goes to Judge Benitez.
Nobody is going to top him.
Many will love him for years to come.
(No homo, bro!)

rm1911, you may not like the stay but it is part of the long game here.
Benitez has set this up for a Supreme Court win should the 9th Circus dare to let it go that far.
We all hate the never ending and slow legal process, I'm with you on that, but the end result will be worth it.
And for now, we legally have 11+ round mags.
That's a great first move in this game.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-10-2019, 5:39 PM
seabee1's Avatar
seabee1 seabee1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,045
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1911 View Post
He lays out an outstanding argument that clearly leaves no wiggle room.

Then issues a stay.

What a douche.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
it was gonna get stayed one way or another...at least he carved out some protections for people who chose to exercise their rights during freedom week
__________________
Unless a law-abiding individual has a firearm for his or her own defense, the police typically arrive after it is too late. With rigor mortis setting in, they mark and bag the evidence, interview bystanders, and draw a chalk outline on the ground. But the victim, nevertheless, is dead, or raped, or robbed, or traumatized.

the Honorable Roger T. Benitez
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-10-2019, 5:48 PM
BajaJames83's Avatar
BajaJames83 BajaJames83 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: North West SD county
Posts: 5,328
iTrader: 342 / 100%
Default

Thank you for posting that
I've been wanting to read it and that just did it for me.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-10-2019, 6:02 PM
SoCalSig1911's Avatar
SoCalSig1911 SoCalSig1911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 590
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1911 View Post
He lays out an outstanding argument that clearly leaves no wiggle room.

Then issues a stay.

What a douche.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Had the ninth circuit issued the stay for Basura, they would have made us all felons. Benitez did you a solid.
__________________
"Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it"
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-10-2019, 7:33 PM
rm1911's Avatar
rm1911 rm1911 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Soviet Socialist Republic of Kalifornia
Posts: 4,081
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalSig1911 View Post
Benitez did you a solid.


Yes, by demonstrating our unqualified constitutional rights are subject to judicial whim, revocable at any time. Benitez giveth and taketh away. That’s some serious power.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
NRA Life Member since 1990

They're not liberals, they're leftists. Please don't use the former for the latter. Liberals are Locke, Jefferson, Burke, Hayek. Leftists are progressives, Prussian state-socialists, fascists. Liberals stand against the state and unequivocally support liberty. Leftists support state tyranny.

Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-10-2019, 9:09 PM
bohoki's Avatar
bohoki bohoki is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 92688
Posts: 18,824
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

hmm trying to think like a liberal


so this is the lib reasoning i can come up with

by the fact of thinking one needs a gun ; that mindset obviously is evidence in the lack of trust toward the state and the ownership of a firearm thereby shows a mental deficiency to own a large capacity magazine

of course if you do not own a firearm or lack a want to own a firearm you are well adjusted and are free to buy any high capacity magazine you want
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-10-2019, 9:24 PM
Redeyedrider's Avatar
Redeyedrider Redeyedrider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Placer Co.
Posts: 1,325
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1911 View Post
He lays out an outstanding argument that clearly leaves no wiggle room.

Then issues a stay.

What a douche.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
You have ZERO understanding of the way the court system works if you think he is a douche for PARTIALLY staying the order (with protections).

Because of this "douche", none of us are criminals for Buying, selling, importing or manufacturing the SCMs & LCMs that have been flooding this state, and some retailers are still processing and shipping orders as I type this.

Would you rather have the 9th circus issue a FULL stay, criminalizing everyone that ordered mags during freedom week..... That's your only other option. Figure it out before you make an ignorant comment

This may not be the Utopia that we all wish we lived in, But Goddammit this is America and this is the best system the world has ever seen, and it happens to be working for us at the moment. You obviously understand the other options you have (if you wish to leave this great country) based on your sig pic. Don't let the door hit you on the way out! I hear the weather is nice in N Korea & Venezuela this time of year.

MAGA!!!
__________________
=TRUMP 2020=

Quote:
I try to frame my response to be useful to those observing, with little regard to convince the opponent of my awesomeness. - EM2
Quote:
The media silence says more than their filthy lies - MrFancyPants

Last edited by Redeyedrider; 04-10-2019 at 9:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-10-2019, 9:44 PM
Rickrock1's Avatar
Rickrock1 Rickrock1 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Inland Empire
Posts: 4,967
iTrader: 53 / 100%
Default

Should be framed.

Thanks
__________________


“Silence makes cowards out of the best of men” –Abraham Lincoln

🇺🇸 ⚔️ 🦅


Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we shouldn’t be in such a hurry to surrender our Right to Bear Arms.
Without the Second Amendment we have no way to defend ourselves and our families.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-10-2019, 11:35 PM
SoCalSig1911's Avatar
SoCalSig1911 SoCalSig1911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 590
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1911 View Post
Yes, by demonstrating our unqualified constitutional rights are subject to judicial whim, revocable at any time. Benitez giveth and taketh away. That’s some serious power.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
You missed the boat? Didn't get any mags or something? He made it possible for you to turn all your 10/30's into 30's until Basura was going to have the 9th step in and take them away from you.
__________________
"Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it"
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-11-2019, 11:05 AM
Undertaker's Avatar
Undertaker Undertaker is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 36
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So how can the state prove a purchase date? Asking for a friend.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-11-2019, 11:37 AM
Redeyedrider's Avatar
Redeyedrider Redeyedrider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Placer Co.
Posts: 1,325
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertaker View Post
So how can the state prove a purchase date? Asking for a friend.
Some mags have MFG date stamped on them. If they are MFG after 4/5 I'd assume that it could be used to prove an illegal acquisition.
__________________
=TRUMP 2020=

Quote:
I try to frame my response to be useful to those observing, with little regard to convince the opponent of my awesomeness. - EM2
Quote:
The media silence says more than their filthy lies - MrFancyPants
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 1:51 AM.




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