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
  #801  
Old 07-02-2013, 11:55 AM
Peaceful John's Avatar
Peaceful John Peaceful John is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 308
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Doesn't it seem like Gov. Quinn is testing limits? All our side has to do is . . . not do anything. The bill fails and we benefit enormously. The psyops about each little farming village crafting it's own unique set of gun laws is unrealistic. Which of them have the discretionary income to support the subsequent suit, let alone the consequences from the 7th C.A?
__________________
America -- once a country, now a game show.
Reply With Quote
  #802  
Old 07-02-2013, 12:00 PM
Rail's Avatar
Rail Rail is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 265
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dustoff31 View Post
It will be interesting to see if the legislature lets these restrictions ride or passes additional bills to fix them.

Either way, while they are nutty, I don't see them causing a problem with the fed court.
They will go for a full override.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/bill...1&SessionID=85

http://illinoissenatedemocrats.com/i...led-carry-veto
Reply With Quote
  #803  
Old 07-02-2013, 12:00 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,296
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaceful John View Post
Doesn't it seem like Gov. Quinn is testing limits? All our side has to do is . . . not do anything.
How do you figure? This is an amendatory veto, meaning that if the legislature does nothing the governor's gutted version of the bill becomes law.
Reply With Quote
  #804  
Old 07-02-2013, 12:41 PM
Rail's Avatar
Rail Rail is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 265
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
How do you figure? This is an amendatory veto, meaning that if the legislature does nothing the governor's gutted version of the bill becomes law.
If they do nothing, the bill dies.
Reply With Quote
  #805  
Old 07-02-2013, 12:48 PM
warthog1984 warthog1984 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 175
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dustoff31 View Post
It will be interesting to see if the legislature lets these restrictions ride or passes additional bills to fix them.

Either way, while they are nutty, I don't see them causing a problem with the fed court.
The inversion of carry zones WILL cause a problem in the 7th.
Reply With Quote
  #806  
Old 07-02-2013, 12:59 PM
ziegenbock ziegenbock is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 129
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rail View Post
If they do nothing, the bill dies.
No, if they do nothing, then the Governors changes will become law. If they override his veto, then the original bill will become law.
Reply With Quote
  #807  
Old 07-02-2013, 1:01 PM
dustoff31 dustoff31 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AZ
Posts: 8,220
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by warthog1984 View Post
The inversion of carry zones WILL cause a problem in the 7th.
Why?

A property owner has the right to allow or restrict guns on his or her property. He generally does this by posting a sign. Why would it matter to the court whether that sign that says "yes" or "no"?
__________________
"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." - Westbrook Pegler
Reply With Quote
  #808  
Old 07-02-2013, 1:04 PM
Rail's Avatar
Rail Rail is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 265
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziegenbock View Post
No, if they do nothing, then the Governors changes will become law. If they override his veto, then the original bill will become law.
Wrong.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/glossary.asp#V

Quote:
Veto, Amendatory
The Governor returns the bill to the General Assembly with specific recommendations for change. The General Assembly may do nothing and the bill dies, the General Assembly may override the veto, or the General Assembly may accept the Governor's proposed changes.
Reply With Quote
  #809  
Old 07-02-2013, 2:08 PM
Peaceful John's Avatar
Peaceful John Peaceful John is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 308
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
How do you figure? This is an amendatory veto, meaning that if the legislature does nothing the governor's gutted version of the bill becomes law.
You'd think so , but not in Illinois.

The legislature has to pass on the amended bill (50 votes +1 to make the amended bill law, 60 votes to over-ride the amendatory veto.) If the legislature does nothing the amended bill, which replaced the original bill, fails. Under those conditions there is no bill and Illinois has FOID carry.
__________________
America -- once a country, now a game show.
Reply With Quote
  #810  
Old 07-02-2013, 2:12 PM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 835
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

they had the votes but it'd be interesting to see what kind of fly on the wall conversations are occurring in madigans office..... her extension is growing short
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc
Reply With Quote
  #811  
Old 07-02-2013, 2:13 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,296
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaceful John View Post
The legislature has to pass on the amended bill (50 votes +1 to make the amended bill law, 60 votes to over-ride the amendatory veto.) If the legislature does nothing the amended bill, which replaced the original bill, fails. Under those conditions there is no bill and Illinois has FOID carry.
Thanks for the correction. This gives the governor monstrous amounts of power. No wonder conservatives can't get anywhere in IL even if they have a legislative majority.
Reply With Quote
  #812  
Old 07-02-2013, 2:18 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,892
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

All right, F*** him. Let's find out how he likes FOID carry.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #813  
Old 07-02-2013, 3:03 PM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,219
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default This will be interesting.

The amendments the governor added effectively gut the carry bill.

The Legislature actually fought really hard on this bill and IMHO, even the bill they did vote on may have some issues with the 7th circuit.

Still, I believe the 7th circuit would cut them some slack and make minor changes if any to what they sent to the Governor.

If Illinois politics live up to their reputation, there is going to be major fireworks here.

If the legislature does nothing, the state becomes "court ordered constitutional carry".

If "Illinois" becomes "constitutional carry" for any length of time, is there the possibility that they could find themselves in a situation to where they can't pass any type of carry licensing law that would pass court scrutiny?

Seems to me that the 7th may be getting tired of the game playing from Chicago, because at this point, their authority is being challenged and it seems to me, judges do not like people ignoring their rulings.

Who knows, then the US Supreme court may actually get to hear the "Moore case" after all.

Nicki
Reply With Quote
  #814  
Old 07-02-2013, 3:26 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,892
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
If the legislature does nothing, the state becomes "court ordered constitutional carry".
Is that still true? I did read somewhere that they need 50 votes to pass the amended bill, and 60 votes to override the veto. Perhaps doing nothing is an option. And they don't have much time to banter it about.

In any case, I don't see the legislature allowing FOID carry to happen. Look at the urgency with which they made sure to meet the deadline last time. We ended up with a vote count that would have been unimaginable a year prior.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #815  
Old 07-02-2013, 3:40 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,296
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
Is that still true? I did read somewhere that they need 50 votes to pass the amended bill, and 60 votes to override the veto. Perhaps doing nothing is an option.
See above. 51 votes to pass the amended bill, 60 votes to pass the original bill, otherwise the bill fails entirely.
Reply With Quote
  #816  
Old 07-02-2013, 3:59 PM
randomBytes's Avatar
randomBytes randomBytes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,165
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Partial veto? Makes as much sense as being a little bit pregnant
Reply With Quote
  #817  
Old 07-02-2013, 4:20 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

On budgets I actually like the idea of a "line item" veto. You can cut some of the garbage - although in practice I'm not so sure it works that well.

But an amendatory veto? I can understand it but I don't think I could come to think of it as a good idea. Maybe it makes good sense, but I agree that it seems to me to give unwarranted power to the governor.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #818  
Old 07-02-2013, 4:22 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,892
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
On budgets I actually like the idea of a "line item" veto. You can cut some of the garbage - although in practice I'm not so sure it works that well.

But an amendatory veto? I can understand it but I don't think I could come to think of it as a good idea. Maybe it makes good sense, but I agree that it seems to me to give unwarranted power to the governor.
Agreed. It places the governor in the legislature's position of actually writing the law instead of approving or disapproving it.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #819  
Old 07-02-2013, 4:33 PM
mdimeo mdimeo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 611
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
But an amendatory veto? I can understand it but I don't think I could come to think of it as a good idea. Maybe it makes good sense, but I agree that it seems to me to give unwarranted power to the governor.
Well, not really. It's just a formalization of the common procedure where a governor vetos it, but says "if you change it to say this, I'll sign it".

There's no extra power there. If the legislature doesn't want to pass what the governor sends back, they can either accept the veto (bill fails), or override it.

Or change it to something else entirely, and try again.

But this is going pretty far off-topic.
Reply With Quote
  #820  
Old 07-02-2013, 4:45 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,296
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdimeo View Post
Well, not really. It's just a formalization of the common procedure where a governor vetos it, but says "if you change it to say this, I'll sign it".
It does allow certain parliamentary shenanigans, if you think about it.
Reply With Quote
  #821  
Old 07-02-2013, 6:22 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdimeo View Post
Well, not really. It's just a formalization of the common procedure where a governor vetos it, but says "if you change it to say this, I'll sign it".

There's no extra power there. If the legislature doesn't want to pass what the governor sends back, they can either accept the veto (bill fails), or override it.

Or change it to something else entirely, and try again.

But this is going pretty far off-topic.
While in some cases it is more a formality than a reality, the committee process is actually a good one. It allows for discussion and testimony (sometimes even facts and sanity intrude). It should (in theory at least) then result in a more rational piece of legislation being constructed.

When you have a whole bunch of edits dumped into a law which has already gone through the whole political and legislative process and are then asked to again look at the bill as a whole (which it may no longer be) and again approve or deny it - you end up with a distortion of what should be a rational consideration process. You either have to muster either 50%+1 to now approve what is effectively a brand new bill without the same level of scrutiny being applied to the new bill - or you have to muster 60% to over-ride the amendments.

Net effect is that the governor gets to gut the committee consideration process. And I know that there will probably be a rule to discuss the governor's amendments, but the allotted time will likely be on the order of minutes to hours instead of the weeks to months that were spent crafting the original bill.

I can understand where others will disagree with me, but I think this is a power which a governor should not have.

They should be able to exercise an executive prerogative not to spend money by vetoing a line item. The over-ride for that veto should be a simple majority for each individual item.

Beyond that? I think they should have to veto or sign the entire bill. And I don't think they should be able to have a mechanism for letting a bill rot or to go into effect without either signing the thing or explicitly vetoing it. They should have to go on the record.

JMHO.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #822  
Old 07-02-2013, 6:46 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,796
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
It does allow certain parliamentary shenanigans, if you think about it.
Not much, though. The deadline is imposed by the *court*, so any games played will default to the FOID carry or Madigan having to file for cert.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #823  
Old 07-02-2013, 6:50 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,796
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
I can understand where others will disagree with me, but I think this is a power which a governor should not have.
The more difficult to create a new law the better. I only wish all new laws required a significant consensus, say 2/3 of the vote. That way, neither party would be able to push their underhanded agenda just because they have a few extra votes.

Look at Colorado - a simple majority and a major headache. When the tables are turned, we can expect the same to happen to what's near and dear to D-s, just to make a point. This is really bad for all the people in the center who just want to live their lives without anyone bugging them.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #824  
Old 07-02-2013, 7:18 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,240
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
The amendments the governor added effectively gut the carry bill.

The Legislature actually fought really hard on this bill and IMHO, even the bill they did vote on may have some issues with the 7th circuit.

Still, I believe the 7th circuit would cut them some slack and make minor changes if any to what they sent to the Governor.
The 7th Circuit has no legislative power. They can strike down provisions brought in front of them, and whether or not that has the effect of striking the entire law down depends on whether or not there's a severability clause in it. Without the severability clause, the law itself is struck in its entirety, if I understand things right.


Quote:
If Illinois politics live up to their reputation, there is going to be major fireworks here.

If the legislature does nothing, the state becomes "court ordered constitutional carry".
And that will instantly turn into a "home rule" minefield.


Why do you people who view "FOID carry" as a good thing insist on ignoring that?


Quote:
If "Illinois" becomes "constitutional carry" for any length of time, is there the possibility that they could find themselves in a situation to where they can't pass any type of carry licensing law that would pass court scrutiny?
Not really. In order for the laws/ordinances to get before the 7th circuit, they first have to be challenged, and would have to get past the various roadblocks that courts routinely raise in order to minimize the chance of a successful challenge. Then they would have to get past the district court, which could put the case on hold permanently (a la Palmer). And only then would the 7th even see it.

This means that, in practice, such laws will remain in place for at least a year after they are passed, if not substantially longer. Such laws have to be challenged in the anti-rights jurisdictions in which they are in place, which means the district courts in question will almost certainly


Quote:
Seems to me that the 7th may be getting tired of the game playing from Chicago, because at this point, their authority is being challenged and it seems to me, judges do not like people ignoring their rulings.
You'd think. But we won't really know until the 7th actually takes some sort of substantive action, something I very much doubt will happen.


Quote:
Who knows, then the US Supreme court may actually get to hear the "Moore case" after all.
Only if Madigan is an idiot of the highest order and appeals Moore. Anything's possible, but I have to regard this possibility as remote in the extreme.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #825  
Old 07-02-2013, 7:20 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
The more difficult to create a new law the better.
.
.
.
I mostly agree with you on this, but I'm not sure that is the best or only way to look at what happens in the case of an amendatory veto in Illinois.

In this case, the amendatory veto power of the governor makes it very easy for the governor to create bad new law.

It is now difficult for the legislature to create good law.

Another way of saying it? The amendatory veto doesn't make it difficult to create new law. It makes it difficult for the legislature (which is supposed to create the laws) to create laws - and easy for the governor (who is usually supposed to be the executor of the laws) to create new law.

I'd rather it be impossible for the governor to create new law - and difficult for the legislature to create new law.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #826  
Old 07-02-2013, 7:30 PM
ziegenbock ziegenbock is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 129
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rail View Post
I stand corrected...Thank you Rail!
Reply With Quote
  #827  
Old 07-02-2013, 7:32 PM
ziegenbock ziegenbock is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 129
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
All right, F*** him. Let's find out how he likes FOID carry.
I say they go with this!
Reply With Quote
  #828  
Old 07-02-2013, 7:46 PM
voiceofreason's Avatar
voiceofreason voiceofreason is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,782
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

I haven't read through the actual decision by the court, but I wonder about KCBrown's point regarding "home rule" in which cities and such could create their own ordinances.
__________________
"You will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it."
John Quincy Adams

"You will never know how little my generation has traded away our freedoms and rights for. I'm sorry and ashamed for what we've left to the following generations."
voiceofreason
Reply With Quote
  #829  
Old 07-03-2013, 8:14 AM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,179
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

In Illinois, as I understand it, state legislation must pass by a certain percentage to preempt local jurisdictions from creating more restrictive laws. If no state law is passed, then localities are obviously preempted from nothing. Therefore, without a preemptive statewide concealed-carry law, Illinois will get a confusing patchwork of local regulations, ranging from very permissive to dangerously restrictive.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #830  
Old 07-03-2013, 2:38 PM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
And that will instantly turn into a "home rule" minefield.
Why do you people who view "FOID carry" as a good thing insist on ignoring that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
This means that, in practice, such laws will remain in place for at least a year after they are passed, if not substantially longer. Such laws have to be challenged in the anti-rights jurisdictions in which they are in place, which means the district courts in question will almost certainly
Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
In Illinois, as I understand it, state legislation must pass by a certain percentage to preempt local jurisdictions from creating more restrictive laws. If no state law is passed, then localities are obviously preempted from nothing. Therefore, without a preemptive statewide concealed-carry law, Illinois will get a confusing patchwork of local regulations, ranging from very permissive to dangerously restrictive.
Where I see the "FOID Carry" approach as having some benefit (to all of us that don't travel to IL with any frequency) is that it would force the issue at the 7th Circuit sooner rather than later. Since municipalities are mere subdivisions of the State instead of wholly sovereign entities, the 7th Circuit holding is as binding on Chicago as it is on IL. If IL goes FOID carry, but Chicago bans it, they may well end up in the same case rather than requiring a new action to be brought.

Either way, there is a veto-proof majority in the legislature with enough votes to preempt home rule.
Reply With Quote
  #831  
Old 07-03-2013, 2:54 PM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,179
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

In the home-rule scenario, Chicago would simply enact a restrictive may-issue licensing law, which would presumably satisfy the Seventh Circuit’s order. Only total bans are off the table at this point.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #832  
Old 07-03-2013, 2:56 PM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
In the home-rule scenario, Chicago would simply enact a restrictive may-issue licensing law, which would presumably satisfy the Seventh Circuit’s order. Only total bans are off the table at this point.
I would rather have that tested quickly with the current Moore panel than roll the dice with a different panel in another Circuit (like Kachalsky).
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 3:23 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.