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 > CONCEALED CARRY/LICENSE TO CARRY > Concealed Carry Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Concealed Carry Discussion General discussion regarding CCW/LTC in California

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 12-18-2013, 7:09 AM
Nopal Nopal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,038
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HighLander51 View Post
No one of this forum can know how many permits are denied. That would only be know to the issueing agency, and they don't share that with other agencies, or publish that data. And once again, there is no shall issue in CA, it's may issue. Everything you say is based on a 'few people' you know, and not based on the thousands that have been approved, for this county and every other county. And the 'few' people that you claim to know that have been denied were not given a reason for denial. Since you don't know how many have been denied, there is no way to know the rejection rate or percentage of overall applicants approval/denial.

But one thing is for sure, there are only 4 kinds of people here.

The kind with CCW permits

The kind without CCW permits

The kind that have applied

The kind that have been denied

Which are you???
You can look up my past posts if you're interested to learn more about me. Otherwise, excuse me if I don't play your game but you have a history of bullying those that you disagree with, as well as an inability to handle cognitive dissonance.

As far as the actual matter under discussion, I told you what my source was for the current denial rates in San Bernardino. If you missed that, I suggest you re-read my post.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-18-2013, 8:20 AM
HighLander51 HighLander51 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What bullying? It's a simple honest question, why can't you just answer it? "cognitive dissonance" What are you? an English teacher or social psychologist? Your 'souce' lacks any dependent variable data, google that.

Last edited by HighLander51; 12-18-2013 at 8:23 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-18-2013, 10:05 PM
Nopal Nopal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,038
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You mean "independently verifiable data?" Yes, I know, which is why I stated that it appears the denial rate is double.

As far as the rest of your "honest question," you know what I'm talking about. You know that your posts a couple of weeks back were so abrasive and aggressive they were deleted by admin. Well, I don't want this thread to go down the toilet as well. We owe the other members of this forum better. Think of me what you will. I won't change your mind anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-19-2013, 7:43 AM
HighLander51 HighLander51 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You know, pal, that attitude is going to show thru in the interview. Cops are really, really good about picking up on stuff. So keep in mind, it's may issue. If you want to get thru your process, I would strongly recommend that you support the Sheriff's current policies, or move to Kern county....

And yea, I remember the posts being delelted, including yours.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-19-2013, 8:22 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,441
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
While the number of denials is still small, going from under 1% to over 2% is at least double. That 1% can potentially translate into hundreds of denials that other places would grant.
Or it's a rounding error and statistically insignificant.

JR
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-20-2013, 6:51 AM
Nopal Nopal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,038
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
Or it's a rounding error and statistically insignificant.

JR
We're not dealing with a statistical study that involves a sample percent which is subject to statistical errors. We're talking actual approval rate numbers (100% applicants, 100% confidence interval) so there is no statistical error. I was being somewhat generous about the difference (in reality, it's probably more around 2-3%, closer to triple the denial rate as other counties).

Again, if you think that 2% or so is insignificant, are you willing to say the same about any other activity which may be constitutionally protected? Are you OK of 1%, 2% or even 3% less of the people is allowed to vote in one county versus another, or to choose which religion to follow?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-20-2013, 7:27 AM
Sunday Sunday is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Shasta Co.
Posts: 5,381
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

A photo copy of the second amendment of the constitution shakes them up a bit .You know the one they took an oath to uphold and protect.
__________________
California the only state in the union where the idiot gun owners vote in anti gun politicians and wonder where their gun rights have gone.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-20-2013, 8:48 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,441
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
We're not dealing with a statistical study that involves a sample percent which is subject to statistical errors. We're talking actual approval rate numbers (100% applicants, 100% confidence interval) so there is no statistical error.
Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about off-hand comments and unvalidated statements on an Internet message board.
QFT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
I spoke to Deputy Hendrix a few months back and she said that their approval rate was nearly 98%, which is pretty good, but other places in this forum cite approval ratings from other sheriffs above 99%. While the number of denials is still small, going from under 1% to over 2% is at least double. That 1% can potentially translate into hundreds of denials that other places would grant.
I did not understand those to be "actual" approval rate numbers. I consider them to be out-of-context statements and apocryphal musings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
I was being somewhat generous about the difference (in reality, it's probably more around 2-3%, closer to triple the denial rate as other counties).
. I am becoming more confused by this. Please help me to understand. So, Hendrix says almost 98% approval rate, and you're now asserting that is 2-3% below other counties? 97.9% + 3% = 100.9%. I don't think this means what you think it means. Flawed basis + flawed analysis = flawed result.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
Again, if you think that 2% or so is insignificant, are you willing to say the same about any other activity which may be constitutionally protected? Are you OK of 1%, 2% or even 3% less of the people is allowed to vote in one county versus another, or to choose which religion to follow?
I would ask you to not mis-represent what I have said. I did not say a 2% (or so) variance was "insignificant". I said, if the variance was caused by a rounding error, it would be statistically insignificant. That's a distinction with a difference, and since you appear to understand it, I would ask that you stop mis-representing it, please.

Look. I don't necessarily disagree with your premise. I merely don't believe your data are immediately supportive of your conclusion.

Your data input is the offhand comment of a worker's recollection compared to Internet musings. A 2% variation may or may not be significant. My point, which you missed, is that your computation of the variance might have been caused by a rounding error, making it less significant than a 2% variation derived from a full statistical study.

How many of the denials are folks with some element of questionable behavior in their recent histories? None of us know.

Since this is a "may" issue state, there will always be a variance between issuing agencies. One agency may deny based upon a DUI in the past 5 years; another may deny with a DUI in the past 7 years.

If one agency does more extensive checks on residency, including interviewing neighbors, that agency may have a higher denial rate due to residency issues than another which does not interview.

The point is, we don't know the true variance rate and we don't know the causative factors influencing that rate. Because of this, the 2% alleged variance means little.

To attempt to use it to prove a comparative point between issuing agencies is entertaining, but not persuasive.

Cheers.

JR

Oh, and your baiting about other constitutional issues? Also irrelevant to this discussion. This is not about Constitutional protections; it's about the use of sloppy mathematics.

Best,
JR
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-20-2013, 9:18 AM
Nopal Nopal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,038
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about off-hand comments and unvalidated statements on an Internet message board.
QFT:

I did not understand those to be "actual" approval rate numbers. I consider them to be out-of-context statements and apocryphal musings.
. I am becoming more confused by this. Please help me to understand. So, Hendrix says almost 98% approval rate, and you're now asserting that is 2-3% below other counties? 97.9% + 3% = 100.9%. I don't think this means what you think it means. Flawed basis + flawed analysis = flawed result.

I would ask you to not mis-represent what I have said. I did not say a 2% (or so) variance was "insignificant". I said, if the variance was caused by a rounding error, it would be statistically insignificant. That's a distinction with a difference, and since you appear to understand it, I would ask that you stop mis-representing it, please.

Look. I don't necessarily disagree with your premise. I merely don't believe your data are immediately supportive of your conclusion.

Your data input is the offhand comment of a worker's recollection compared to Internet musings. A 2% variation may or may not be significant. My point, which you missed, is that your computation of the variance might have been caused by a rounding error, making it less significant than a 2% variation derived from a full statistical study.

How many of the denials are folks with some element of questionable behavior in their recent histories? None of us know.

Since this is a "may" issue state, there will always be a variance between issuing agencies. One agency may deny based upon a DUI in the past 5 years; another may deny with a DUI in the past 7 years.

If one agency does more extensive checks on residency, including interviewing neighbors, that agency may have a higher denial rate due to residency issues than another which does not interview.

The point is, we don't know the true variance rate and we don't know the causative factors influencing that rate. Because of this, the 2% alleged variance means little.

To attempt to use it to prove a comparative point between issuing agencies is entertaining, but not persuasive.

Cheers.

JR

Oh, and your baiting about other constitutional issues? Also irrelevant to this discussion. This is not about Constitutional protections; it's about the use of sloppy mathematics.

Best,
JR
People usually round up or down decimals or whole numbers. 97.5 usually becomes 98, not 99, and 99.4 becomes 99, not 98. Obviously, depending on how things are rounded the differences can be in the teens perhaps close to 2, and with a department's tendency to want to state the numbers as positively as possible, it's not out of the question to believe that the differences can go to two. A denial rate of 0.6% means that double will only be 1.2%, and triple 1.8%. A denial rate of 0.5 means a triple rate of just 1.5%. I don't know where you get 3%.

You've gone from attributing the difference to statistical error to attributing it to rounding error to "it doesn't matter because counties are different," which means you've made your mind a priori. The difference in rates is very small, but my point is that it can still be at least double, but it doesn't appear to be just about numbers with you.

The "close to 98% approval rating" came from a discussion with a deputy working in the issuing department. Specifically what context do you need for a number?

Like I said originally, these numbers are indeed unverified (I don't know what you mean by "unvalidated") largely because issuing departments are not releasing data (in the case of the SBSD, they are very good about making their decision process as clear as mud). My comment was, at best, a rough statement of what could be happening. What portion of "appears to be" indicated to you that you were dealing with a peer reviewed study or something like that?

The rest of your post are just arguments for the sake of arguing. Obviously, we don't know all the factors play into denial rates, but my point is that there are factors which make up for these denial differences, and that some (such as the denial of applicants because of mere suspicion) are clearly not consistent with a sheriff that claims to be fully for the 2nd amendment and fully for RKBA. For example, is a 5-year old suspicion of DV that didn't go anywhere (no arrest, no charges) a good enough reason to deny CCWs? SBSD thinks so. Kern or Alpine don't appear to think so.

As far as the constitutionality of CCWs, well, that's up in the air but the point is that it's a constitutionality-relevant issue. Any other constitutionality-relevant issue would not get the pass that this does when it comes to differences in denial/approval rates.


EDIT: I see where you got the 3% from my previous post. I meant to say 2-3x (times). Thanks for catching that. Still, the rest of what I wrote in this post stands.

Last edited by Nopal; 12-20-2013 at 1:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-20-2013, 11:00 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,441
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
People usually round up or down decimals or whole numbers. 97.5 usually becomes 98, not 99, and 99.4 becomes 99, not 98. Obviously, depending on how things are rounded the differences can be in the teens perhaps close to 2, and with a department's tendency to want to state the numbers as positively as possible, it's not out of the question to believe that the differences can go to two. A denial rate of 0.6% means that double will only be 1.2%, and triple 1.8%. A denial rate of 0.5 means a triple rate of just 1.5%. I don't know where you get 3%.
You're kidding, right? Post 82:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
I was being somewhat generous about the difference (in reality, it's probably more around 2-3%, closer to triple the denial rate as other counties)

That's why I used it along with your "almost 98%" number to illustrate the impact of rounding errors. Use your new number of 97.5% and add your 3%. That's still an approval rate in excess of 100%.

Now you've switched from direct comparison of approval rates to comparisons of marginal increases in denial rates. That allows you to stay under the mathematical "ceiling" of 100%, but when we apply your 3% denial rate to it, we break your previously-established "floor" of "almost 98%" and drive down to 97%! (Of course, you're extrapolating your denial rates from the squishy approval "data" which simply compounds the risk of rounding errors.)

Beyond all of your diatribe and baiting, the point here is that you used a variance of 2% in approval rates and proclaimed it to be caused by an issuing agency's policy. I pointed out that it could also have been caused, or at least influenced, by a rounding error. That doesn't fit with your "a priori" causation, so you now want to deny your previous assertions and argue issues not relevant to that narrow structure. I won't play.

Have a lovely weekend, and a nice holiday season.

JR.

Last edited by Dvrjon; 12-20-2013 at 1:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 12-20-2013, 1:21 PM
Nopal Nopal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,038
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
You're kidding, right? Post 82:
Beyond all of your diatribe and baiting, the point here is that you used a variance of 2% and proclaimed it to be caused by an issuing agency's policy. I pointed out that it could also have been caused, or at least influenced, by a rounding error. That doesn't fit with your "a priori" causation, so you now want to deny your previous assertions and argue issues not relevant to that narrow structure. I won't play.

Have a lovely weekend, and a nice holiday season.

JR.
Post 82. Got it. Meant to say 2-3x (times, not percent).

There is a huge difference between "infuenced" and "caused." Even with rounding errors there are still differences greater than the rounding errors.

Now, thank you for your wishes. Best wishes to you and yours, too. If you can do me a favor and please tell me where I denied my previous assertions that rates can be double or even triple, that would be appreciated. Otherwise, have a merry Christmas.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-11-2014, 1:45 PM
River Jack River Jack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Riverside
Posts: 1,252
iTrader: 61 / 100%
Default

Nopal - You state that you know a few people that have been denied for things that will make you shake your head. Can you elaborate as to what those things were?
__________________
URL="http://www.nra.org/"][/url]NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-11-2014, 4:57 PM
QQQ's Avatar
QQQ QQQ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Chino Hills
Posts: 2,246
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I'm getting ready to apply in SB county. If anyone is familiar with this process, please send me a PM at your convenience. I have a few questions. Thanks!

(Sorry to go slightly off-topic)
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-25-2014, 9:06 PM
ROCKofGLOVE's Avatar
ROCKofGLOVE ROCKofGLOVE is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Inland Empire
Posts: 149
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I'll be applying soon. Thanks everyone.
__________________
"Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced." -Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-26-2014, 9:34 PM
IETonyR IETonyR is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: 91737
Posts: 87
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROCKofGLOVE View Post
I'll be applying soon. Thanks everyone.
Might be able to get the package documents online and then schedule the interview. Looks like they are using the CADOJ application:

http://cms.sbcounty.gov/sheriff/CCWFAQ.aspx

If anyone applies, can you confirm this?
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-27-2014, 9:39 AM
Jason25's Avatar
Jason25 Jason25 is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Socal
Posts: 1,209
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

I just picked up my license Friday. Yay me! Very simple and painless process. They're moving fast. I applied in November and already done with card in hand. Anyone procrastinating about doing it, stop being lazy!

Note- Don't bring any handguns with trigger work to range class!
My g27 with a fulcrum trigger was a no go but all the range masters and sheriff were in love with it
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-27-2014, 10:17 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,334
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
It's amazing how deeply they look
Right, because all the other 40+ states that issue CCWs and haven't implemented programs like this, it turned into a bloodbath, with shootouts over parking spaces.

The one good reason I can see for SB to do this is that a whole lot of LA residents might try to concoct a fake SB residency to apply, so by contacting people who know the applicant, they can make it nearly impossible for an LA resident to take advantage of SB's system.

But still, this all seems overly intrusive and unnecessary.
__________________
NRA life member

Exposing Leftists
Zomblog
The future of California?
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-27-2014, 12:17 PM
HighLander51 HighLander51 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason25 View Post

Note- Don't bring any handguns with trigger work to range class!
My g27 with a fulcrum trigger was a no go but all the range masters and sheriff were in love with it
you don't modify carry guns, period.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-27-2014, 12:22 PM
Jason25's Avatar
Jason25 Jason25 is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Socal
Posts: 1,209
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HighLander51 View Post
you don't modify carry guns, period.
Lesson learned. I'm going to drop the stock trigger back in it and add it on. Just a heads up for the others
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-27-2014, 12:56 PM
jaymz's Avatar
jaymz jaymz is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rancho Cucamomga
Posts: 6,211
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Nothing illegal about modifying a carry gun. It will likely create drama that you don't need should you ever be involved in a civil suit when the guy you shot (or his surviving family members) sues you, but it's perfectly legal.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 01-27-2014, 1:13 PM
NastyNate's Avatar
NastyNate NastyNate is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: RivKo, Peoples Republik of Kalistan
Posts: 2,366
iTrader: 78 / 100%
Default

What is the reasoning behind not modding EDC guns? I changed out sights and did trigger work on many of my carry guns.

NastyNate
__________________
-NN
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01-27-2014, 1:26 PM
Jason25's Avatar
Jason25 Jason25 is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Socal
Posts: 1,209
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaymz View Post
Nothing illegal about modifying a carry gun. It will likely create drama that you don't need should you ever be involved in a civil suit when the guy you shot (or his surviving family members) sues you, but it's perfectly legal.
That's what my instructor said... when and if a situation ever arose, they'd have a field day with me. He sat there holding the pistol for atleast 30 seconds, and finally said "I can't do it man". I was pretty bummed as I wanted it for my primary, but atleast I had another pistol to qualify with.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01-27-2014, 1:29 PM
Jason25's Avatar
Jason25 Jason25 is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Socal
Posts: 1,209
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NastyNate View Post
What is the reasoning behind not modding EDC guns? I changed out sights and did trigger work on many of my carry guns.

NastyNate
Sights are fine and a must IMO. I had the G27 set up ready to go and nope!
So now I get to start over with the XD.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 01-27-2014, 7:14 PM
HighLander51 HighLander51 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaymz View Post
Nothing illegal about modifying a carry gun. It will likely create drama that you don't need should you ever be involved in a civil suit when the guy you shot (or his surviving family members) sues you, but it's perfectly legal.
Well, for starters, the issuing agency, San Bernardino, will NOT approve modifications! Outside of sights and grips... Didn't you pay any attention to anything the deputies said in class?

NastyNate and jaymz, if you are SO sure this is not wrong, not illegal, but wrong, then just call up and tell the deputy you modified your carry gun with a trigger job, or aftermarket parts, and have them approve it....

Let everyone know how that works out for you. And if you don't care to report back, I will take care of it by calling Deputy H. and asking her!
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01-27-2014, 7:24 PM
Dirte's Avatar
Dirte Dirte is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Etiwanda
Posts: 589
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HighLander51 View Post
Well, for starters, the issuing agency, San Bernardino, will NOT approve modifications! Outside of sights and grips... Didn't you pay any attention to anything the deputies said in class?

NastyNate and jaymz, if you are SO sure this is not wrong, not illegal, but wrong, then just call up and tell the deputy you modified your carry gun with a trigger job, or aftermarket parts, and have them approve it....

Let everyone know how that works out for you. And if you don't care to report back, I will take care of it by calling Deputy H. and asking her!
Relax dude. You don't need to be all confrontational about it.
__________________


What is the NRA doing for YOU in YOUR local area? Click to find out.

"Be strong and let us fight bravely for our people and the cities of our God. The Lord will do what is good in his sight" -2nd Samuel 10:12

Stop worrying about the zombie apocalypse, it ain't gonna happen. The moron apocalypse has already begun though.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 01-27-2014, 8:25 PM
jaymz's Avatar
jaymz jaymz is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rancho Cucamomga
Posts: 6,211
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HighLander51 View Post
Well, for starters, the issuing agency, San Bernardino, will NOT approve modifications! Outside of sights and grips... Didn't you pay any attention to anything the deputies said in class?

NastyNate and jaymz, if you are SO sure this is not wrong, not illegal, but wrong, then just call up and tell the deputy you modified your carry gun with a trigger job, or aftermarket parts, and have them approve it....

Let everyone know how that works out for you. And if you don't care to report back, I will take care of it by calling Deputy H. and asking her!
Dude relax. I never said it was right or wrong. I said that it's not illegal. I have have three firearms listed on my permit. Nobody even asked if they'd been modified or not. And yes, I did pay attention in class, and FWIW, there was a good bit of misinformation presented. Nothing horrible, just some stuff presented as fact when it's merely opinion.
__________________
War is when your Government tells you who the enemy is......

Revolution is when you figure it out for yourself.
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 8:24 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.