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 > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 04-26-2018, 1:54 PM
eswrite's Avatar
eswrite eswrite is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 463
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
All you have to do is prove that it's not an infringement.

The argument of "we get our guns therefore nothing has been infringed" shows that you don't understand what "infringed" means in legal sense. (We should also completely drop any references to "inconvenience" as it just seems to muddy the discussion.)
The text says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Feel free to lean back on whatever legal sophistry you think gets you around the rather obvious fact that if you can keep and bear arms, nothing has been infringed. It just doesn't pass the giggle test.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 04-26-2018, 3:14 PM
Phalanx20mm's Avatar
Phalanx20mm Phalanx20mm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: America
Posts: 616
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

OP is that you Gavin?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 04-26-2018, 3:20 PM
LBDamned's Avatar
LBDamned LBDamned is offline
Made in the USA
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Free in AZ!!! yes, it's worth the Pain to make it happen!
Posts: 17,334
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deedle View Post
**crickets**
Happy now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by superdave50 View Post
'round and 'round and 'round it goes...
Never ending and never advancing.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MachineGuntongue View Post
Music is magic - Wisdom is golden - Learning to navigate life better as we age is amazing and a choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
It only has as much power as you give it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LBDamned
I know some things about a lot of things - and a lot of things about some things - but I don't know everything about anything
Quote:
Originally Posted by WartHog View Post
GET OFF MY CACTUS!
-----------------------------
"RIGHT POWER!"
http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w558/LBDamneds/Misc/III_zpsofbisb36.jpg
-----------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 04-26-2018, 3:40 PM
rugershooter rugershooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,804
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eswrite;21571230[B
]The text says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[/B] Feel free to lean back on whatever legal sophistry you think gets you around the rather obvious fact that if you can keep and bear arms, nothing has been infringed. It just doesn't pass the giggle test.
Then you should stop trying to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
Stop trying to do the anti's job for them.
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 04-26-2018, 4:10 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 14,176
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eswrite View Post
You make an unsubstantiated (and demonstrably false) assertion, then follow it up by an emoji-crowned ad hominem, and declare victory? Come on. Surely you have better quality ammunition than that.

As to the merits of the proposal being an inconvenience vs. an infringement, anyone who has registered to vote would see little difference in the inconvenience level when compared to the practical proposal offered earlier in this thread. Surely we can do much better than pretend voter registration is an infringement. And there, the state has your name and address, if not also your political affiliation! By contrast, the UBC proposal stated earlier in this thread records no personal information.

Now, reasonable people can discuss the efficacy of the UBC to prevent this or that other misuse of firearms. Some good points have been raised in this thread. But calling the proposed scheme an infringement when it amounts to little more than an inconvenience? How ridiculous do we want to sound?

I'll repeat: We cheapen freedom and liberty when we conflate inconvenience with infringement.
The emoji / personal attack crap is getting old. It's simply that posts which make no sense tend to get reactions. Don't like it??...Think before posting.

Like getting a drivers license, voter registration has zero to do with acquiring a gun.

I'll ask again...why are states with strict gun laws notable for high rates of gun crime? Simply because criminals do not obey gun laws, existing or new.

You can also note that states with the highest rates of gun crime are typically controlled by democratic majorities at the city, county, and state levels.

Try posting your "reasonable, common-sense" background check stupidity on any other gun forum and see how long it takes you to get banned.


Quote:
Originally Posted by eswrite View Post
Not sure why you are putting words in my mouth. I am saying in fact that they are different and that they should not be conflated. I am point out that the UBC scheme alluded to earlier in this thread, while inconvenient, is not an infringement. We law abiding citizens get our guns, and thus, nothing has been infringed, even if we have been inconvenienced. Again, note how in the voting registration example, inconvenience facilitates our constitutional right rather than infringe upon it.
In the AW registration period that ended in 2001, DOJ estimated only 8-10% of AW owners actually registered the weapon(s).

That said, don't attempt to get us to believe that everyone uses an ffl to obtain a weapon. Those of us who are law abiding can and may make the choice of a private party transaction not involving a licensee; not to mention carry a concealed weapon without a California CCW license. That is not necessarily my recommendation(s).


Quote:
Originally Posted by eswrite View Post
I'm afraid you took the wrong bale of hay and ran with it because in the case of the UBC (as proposed in this thread) I am pointing out there is no list at all!!!

The point of the comparison was to show how inconvenience does not equate with infringement, and the list reference was a pointer (apparently missed) to how voter registration, if anything, is more inconvenient than the proposed UBC scheme. The former, after all, is used to call us for jury duty...
You can play with word games, but the fact remains that states that allow PTP gun sales without a licensee continue to have lower rates of gun crime, and higher rates of using a gun to avoid or stop a criminal act.
__________________
True wealth is time. Time to enjoy life.

Life's journey is not to arrive safely in a well preserved body, but rather to slide in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "holy schit...what a ride"!!

Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain

A man's soul can be judged by the way he treats his dog. Charles Doran

Last edited by -hanko; 04-26-2018 at 5:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 04-26-2018, 4:22 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,491
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eswrite View Post
The text says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Feel free to lean back on whatever legal sophistry you think gets you around the rather obvious fact that if you can keep and bear arms, nothing has been infringed. It just doesn't pass the giggle test.
A fundamental flaw in your argument is the portion I placed in bold.

Infringement is not solely defined as the elimination of the right or even a partial elimination of the right.

It is not sophistry, but simple definition, to point out that "infringement" is: A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; a violation of a law, regulation, contract, or right.
  • Does an UBC 'break into' the right?
  • Does an UBC 'trespass' on the right?
  • Does an UBC 'encroach upon' the right?
  • Would an UBC 'violate' a law? (Be careful. It very easily could, depending on how it is formulated, implemented, and used.)
  • Would an UBC 'violate' a regulation?
  • Would an UBC 'violate' a contract? (Again, be careful. The Constitution is a form of contract.)
  • Does an UBC 'violate' a right?

You have to address ALL of those questions, not simply whether the right would be eliminated or even partially so.

Bear in mind, regardless of what actually happens in Court, your answers will also have to address the 'strict scrutiny' standard already cited; even if not in Court, then in the public's perception.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 04-26-2018, 6:36 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 14,603
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eswrite View Post
You make an unsubstantiated (and demonstrably false) assertion, then follow it up by an emoji-crowned ad hominem, and declare victory? Come on. Surely you have better quality ammunition than that.

As to the merits of the proposal being an inconvenience vs. an infringement, anyone who has registered to vote would see little difference in the inconvenience level when compared to the practical proposal offered earlier in this thread. Surely we can do much better than pretend voter registration is an infringement. And there, the state has your name and address, if not also your political affiliation! By contrast, the UBC proposal stated earlier in this thread records no personal information.

Now, reasonable people can discuss the efficacy of the UBC to prevent this or that other misuse of firearms. Some good points have been raised in this thread. But calling the proposed scheme an infringement when it amounts to little more than an inconvenience? How ridiculous do we want to sound?

I'll repeat: We cheapen freedom and liberty when we conflate inconvenience with infringement.
I suppose we should again remember voting is a statutory privilige and not a right. That invidious discrimination be avoided and equal application of be law met is the standard with voting.

The fundamental disagreement we have is that I and most others here would at the least require the state to demonstrate a public safety benefit with respect to imposing limits on rights. The UBC scheme you suggest would prohibit the private, non-commercial transfer of firearms between all non-licensed individuals and a prohibition on 18 to 20 year olds exercising a right to self defense in the home as afforded by Heller, yet no quantifiable public safety result is offered. That is the crux of the matter. Without substantiation of a public benefit you prefer the tie goes to the state, that the individual must prove they are worthy. This amounts to a prior restraint on the exercise of the right, a version of guilty until proven innocent.

People would not accept such a situationwith respect to the 1st, 4th, 5th or 6th. I'm not sure why we'd propose it for the 2nd. Actually, we do accept it for the 1st and that may be a reason why it's not in the best of condition.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 04-26-2018, 6:41 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 14,603
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eswrite View Post
The text says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Feel free to lean back on whatever legal sophistry you think gets you around the rather obvious fact that if you can keep and bear arms, nothing has been infringed. It just doesn't pass the giggle test.
Your position is very close to that of a former CA AG whose office asserted that if an individual posseses (possess but not own) a single functional firearm in the home for self-defense the core right of the 2nd Amendment is satisfied. Is that your position with respect to the 2nd Amendment?
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 04-26-2018, 6:42 PM
Deedle Deedle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: America
Posts: 1,147
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eswrite View Post
Actually, the burden of proof is on the first claimant, namely, those who from the beginning of this thread have asserted that even though a registry is not involved and even though law abiding citizens get their guns, an infringement occurs. Please explain why or how.
OK, claimant: Explain how a registry free UBC scheme can be enforced. Go.
__________________
"No personal computer will ever have gigabytes of RAM" - Scott Nudds
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 04-26-2018, 6:45 PM
eswrite's Avatar
eswrite eswrite is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 463
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rugershooter View Post
Then you should stop trying to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
Stop trying to do the anti's job for them.
Do you think that repeating the same erroneous statement over and over again finally makes it correct. Run, don't walk to the nearest library and look up "Argument by Repetition."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 04-26-2018, 6:49 PM
eswrite's Avatar
eswrite eswrite is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 463
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
Your position is very close to that of a former CA AG whose office asserted that if an individual posseses (possess but not own) a single functional firearm in the home for self-defense the core right of the 2nd Amendment is satisfied. Is that your position with respect to the 2nd Amendment?
No! My position is that if you satisfy the UBC scheme explained earlier (much earlier now, see link, item #4) in this thread, you get to buy any number of guns you want. As much as comparing me to that nemesis AG may comfort you, watch all the straw fly.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 04-26-2018, 6:51 PM
eswrite's Avatar
eswrite eswrite is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 463
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deedle View Post
OK, claimant: Explain how a registry free UBC scheme can be enforced. Go.
Self-enforcing: without the UBC-generated anonymous approval code, the FFL will deny your purchase.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 04-26-2018, 6:51 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 32,373
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eswrite View Post
I suppose because I don't conflate inconvenience with infringement. And, from my perspective, mild inconvenience at that.
But not everyone lives in a metropolitan area within a couple of miles of an FFL that can perform the transfer.

Even in California, a good percentage of the population has to drive for an hour or more to reach an FFL.
Outside of California? Drive several hours each way?

Not a "mild inconvenience"... more than a "major inconvenience"... absolutely a serious infringement.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 04-26-2018, 6:54 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 32,373
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eswrite View Post
Self-enforcing: without the UBC-generated anonymous approval code, the FFL will deny your purchase.
And PPT?

If there is no registration, there is no way to enforce the law, and guns will continue to be bought and sold in the Walmart parking lot, just as they are today.

What is Oregon's compliance on the new UBC law? 10%? 20%?
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 04-26-2018, 7:00 PM
floogy's Avatar
floogy floogy is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 2,742
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eswrite View Post
Self-enforcing: without the UBC-generated anonymous approval code, the FFL will deny your purchase.


That’s not enforcement. That’s simply a denied purchase. How do you actually enforce violations? Again, resources are required to enforce laws, not just enact them which is practically free. Very few 4473 violations are ever prosecuted under the current system, so please, explain.

Still waiting for days for the answer to this and other questions you’ve conveniently ignored. But you’d have to go back pages to find those.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 04-26-2018, 7:01 PM
eswrite's Avatar
eswrite eswrite is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 463
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
I suppose we should again remember voting is a statutory privilige and not a right. That invidious discrimination be avoided and equal application of be law met is the standard with voting.
That's not how the language of the 15th amendment reads: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." (emphasis mine)

Since all citizens are of some race/color or another, this applies not only to free slaves, but to all citizens. It is a right as clearly stated.

Quote:
The fundamental disagreement we have is that I and most others here would at the least require the state to demonstrate a public safety benefit with respect to imposing limits on rights. The UBC scheme you suggest would prohibit the private, non-commercial transfer of firearms between all non-licensed individuals and a prohibition on 18 to 20 year olds exercising a right to self defense in the home as afforded by Heller, yet no quantifiable public safety result is offered. That is the crux of the matter. Without substantiation of a public benefit you prefer the tie goes to the state, that the individual must prove they are worthy. This amounts to a prior restraint on the exercise of the right, a version of guilty until proven innocent.
Fair comment. Let's amend the original proposal to satisfy private sales. This could be accomplished through an FFL, or by the private seller being able to check the approval code. Not a very tough technical hurdle to jump given all the connectivity we have these days.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 04-26-2018, 7:03 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 14,603
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eswrite View Post
Actually, the burden of proof is on the first claimant, namely, those who from the beginning of this thread have asserted that even though a registry is not involved and even though law abiding citizens get their guns, an infringement occurs. Please explain why or how.
You proposed that UBC can be done without registration, you bear the burden of specifically showing how that can be accomplished. You haven't. Which shouldn't be too disappointing because the US Congress couldn't either.

You haven't commented on what to do about the 300 million or so unregistered guns that would exist in a UBC world - do you consider a UBC system that has such a gap valuable law? If I supported gun control I'd consider it a substantial deficiency. If, to use the weak sort of logic that goes with it, we required "national cell phone registration" but let slip all the phones currently in use - I'd say that's not much of a system.

Been a while since my college days, but I learned that unenforceable laws or those routinely ignored encourage disrespect or injury to the rule of law and that it is to be avoided. 300 million - that's alot of little loopholes.

Suffice to say some law abiding individuals would not get their guns - the 18 to 20 year old, perhaps those who can't make it to a gun store or with limited funds. I wonder where an older person in San Francisco might be able to lawfully get a gun? Or a person who may be ill, weak or homebound. Tough luck for them I suppose.
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 04-26-2018, 7:07 PM
eswrite's Avatar
eswrite eswrite is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 463
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by floogy View Post
That’s not enforcement. That’s simply a denied purchase. How do you actually enforce violations? Again, resources are required to enforce laws, not just enact them which is practically free. Very few 4473 violations are ever prosecuted under the current system, so please, explain.

Still waiting for days for the answer to this and other questions you’ve conveniently ignored. But you’d have to go back pages to find those.
Well, grenade throwing is fun... and easy. Coming up with solutions is sometimes harder, but not particularly in this case. If you're willing to ponder instead of nay-say. FFLs get random-audited: must show approval codes against each weapon sold.

The next grenade can be diffused too. But go ahead. Keep throwing them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 04-26-2018, 7:13 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 32,373
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eswrite View Post
Well, grenade throwing is fun... and easy. Coming up with solutions is sometimes harder, but not particularly in this case. If you're willing to ponder instead of nay-say. FFLs get random-audited: must show approval codes against each weapon sold.
FFLs already do background checks on purchases of new guns.

The problem is PPT, which are unregulated, and unregulatable.

Criminals don't care about the law. Even if "Joe Law Abiding Citizen" is willing to comply with the infringement and drive 3 hours to meet his buyer at an FFL....

"Joe Gang Banger" is going to continue obtaining and disposing of guns like he does today.

UBC will have ZERO functional impact on crime.
It will actually increase crime by making many otherwise law abiding citizens unknowing criminals because they will continue to BST without being aware of the UBC law.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 04-26-2018, 7:19 PM
floogy's Avatar
floogy floogy is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 2,742
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eswrite View Post
Well, grenade throwing is fun... and easy. Coming up with solutions is sometimes harder, but not particularly in this case. If you're willing to ponder instead of nay-say. FFLs get random-audited: must show approval codes against each weapon sold.



The next grenade can be diffused too. But go ahead. Keep throwing them.


What are you talking about? Throwing grenades? If your proposed solution is so great then answer the question instead of dodging questions you know don’t have a good answer.

How do you enforce the law when people do not follow the law and transfer a firearm without utilizing a background check? How? Not the FFL, but a criminal intent on buying a weapon illegally, regardless of how they circumvent the system.

You won’t answer it though. Because you know the answer undermines your entire argument and you’ve got too much ego invested.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 04-26-2018, 7:24 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 14,603
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eswrite View Post
That's not how the language of the 15th amendment reads: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." (emphasis mine)

Since all citizens are of some race/color or another, this applies not only to free slaves, but to all citizens. It is a right as clearly stated.



Fair comment. Let's amend the original proposal to satisfy private sales. This could be accomplished through an FFL, or by the private seller being able to check the approval code. Not a very tough technical hurdle to jump given all the connectivity we have these days.
Ah yes, the 15th Amendment reference to a right not enumerated in the Constitution nor specifically stated in any previous amendment. There is a difference, referencing vs specifically creating. Recall in Gore v Bush SCOTUS specifically stated there is no individual right to vote in a presidential election.

https://democracyjournal.org/magazin...right-to-vote/

Let's set that aside though, it's complicated enough for a separate thread.

Going through an FFL prohibits law abiding 18 to 20 year olds from exercising their rights under Heller. It may as a practical matter infringe on others I mentioned elsewhere who may lawfully possess firerms. To eliminate firearms sales all a city would need to do is zone them out - how far should a person have to travel to exercise a right?

With respect to "checking an approval code" - OK. But a record of the transaction must be kept and it must be readily available to law enforcement. Because as I and others have stated, compliance with UBC transaction requirements by persons allowed by law to possess firearms is the issue. Not that you and I are law abiding, but that I checked out you (or vice versa) when doing the transaction. That, and those 300 million already out there guns, is where it falls apart.
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 04-26-2018, 7:32 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 14,603
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokebottle View Post
FFLs already do background checks on purchases of new guns.

The problem is PPT, which are unregulated, and unregulatable.

Criminals don't care about the law. Even if "Joe Law Abiding Citizen" is willing to comply with the infringement and drive 3 hours to meet his buyer at an FFL....

"Joe Gang Banger" is going to continue obtaining and disposing of guns like he does today.

UBC will have ZERO functional impact on crime.
It will actually increase crime by making many otherwise law abiding citizens unknowing criminals because they will continue to BST without being aware of the UBC law.
While not definitive I would note that in the closing of Heller, Scalia specifically referenced restrictions on "commercial" sales of firearms. I am inclined to believe such specificity was meant to exclude non-commercial sales or transfers, that engaging in business is treated differently than private behavior. That wouldn't be an unusual position for the court. There are of course other passages in Heller that could be used to assert restrictions on private sales, but that commercial sales alone was carved out as acceptable seemed a curious bow to allowing truly private sales of private property, which ultimately is all that guns are - plain old private property.
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 04-26-2018, 8:09 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 14,603
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eswrite View Post
Well, grenade throwing is fun... and easy. Coming up with solutions is sometimes harder, but not particularly in this case. If you're willing to ponder instead of nay-say. FFLs get random-audited: must show approval codes against each weapon sold.
Checking an FFL is minor stuff.

I'm out hunting, how does Fish & Game verify that the 1930's made Browning Auto 5 bought by my father was given to me in 1976, or that I bought it after UBC went into effect without complying with the law?

I get into a car accident and am carrying an older Smith 36 - how does the cop verify the gun was aquired lawfully by me before UBC or illegally at the local gun club after UBC?

Conversely, a bad guy bought his gun after UBC but asserts "I've had it for 10 years" - how does the cop show otherwise?

There are thousands of permutations on the above and along with my "black market" observation causes a problem for UBC.

Last edited by dfletcher; 04-26-2018 at 9:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 04-26-2018, 8:53 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,784
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eswrite View Post
Do you think that repeating the same erroneous statement over and over again finally makes it correct. Run, don't walk to the nearest library and look up "Argument by Repetition."
You calling something erroneous does not make it so. Run, don't walk, to your nearest library and have someone read you the definition of the word "opinion".
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: ‘I can’t wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!’

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Peace, love, and heavy weapons. Sometimes you have to be insistent." - David Lee Roth
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 04-26-2018, 9:00 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 17,587
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eswrite View Post
The text says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Feel free to lean back on whatever legal sophistry you think gets you around the rather obvious fact that if you can keep and bear arms, nothing has been infringed. It just doesn't pass the giggle test.
Sophistry? You are provably wrong.

I'll give you an example. Rosa Parks could ride the same bus as everyone else, get there at the same time as everyone else and enjoy the ride on the same quality seat as everyone else. She just didn't want to *walk* a few steps. That's all. A few steps. If someone claimed that they didn't want to do UBC because they didn't want to *walk* a few steps to the computer, would that pass your giggle test? In real world, infringement doesn't work based on your giggle test, but a set of legal standards that are well defined.

Even the dictionary definition of "infringement" says: "2.the action of limiting or undermining something," not "banning" and certainly not "preventing."

I've given you a legal case, I've given you a real life example, I've given you a common language definition. Please feel free to quadruple down. Just remember that this thread and these posts are not for me or you to win or lose the argument, but for close to three thousand readers who have seen the posts and had a chance to read.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 04-26-2018, 9:05 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 17,587
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eswrite View Post
Coming up with solutions is sometimes harder, but not particularly in this case.
You haven't come up with any solutions. You haven't even been able to define the problem correctly, i.e., what objective function that represents a compelling government interest are UBCs maximizing. Heck, you won't even accept the basic definition of "infringement" in any objective form.

Reminds me of ACLU stating "we disagree with the decision in Heller, we maintain that 2A is a collective right." At least they get paid by their donors for such a statement...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 04-26-2018, 9:07 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,784
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
You haven't come up with any solutions. You haven't even been able to define the problem correctly, i.e., what objective function that represents a compelling government interest are UBCs maximizing. Heck, you won't even accept the basic definition of "infringement" in any objective form.

Reminds me of ACLU stating "we disagree with decision in Heller, we maintain that 2A is a collective right." At least they get paid by their donors for such a statement...
Didn't you get the memo? His random unproven opinion is fact. He even uses fancy words to say so.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: ‘I can’t wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!’

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Peace, love, and heavy weapons. Sometimes you have to be insistent." - David Lee Roth
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 04-26-2018, 9:13 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,491
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Even the dictionary definition of "infringement" says: "2.the action of limiting or undermining something," not "banning" and certainly not "preventing."
As I pointed out above, even the legal definition...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
...Infringement is not solely defined as the elimination of the right or even a partial elimination of the right.

It is not sophistry, but simple definition, to point out that "infringement" is: A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; a violation of a law, regulation, contract, or right....
Which is why strict scrutiny is supposed to be applied when dealing with a fundamental right; i.e., by definition, any law placing a restriction or requirement on a fundamental right is an 'infringement,' thus a compelling state interest, narrowly tailored, and least restrictive must be the context for that restriction/requirement. Which, I believe, was your earlier point...

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC
And I'll repeat that infringement has NOTHING TO DO with inconvenience.

Not sure why you would be doubling and tripling down on the argument that the level of inconvenience is in any way an indicator of infringement. It's not. Again, (for the n-th time in various threads), the infringement is based on (1) compelling government interest, (2) being narrowly tailored and (3) being the least restrictive way of achieving the interest. There are other ways to look at it, but the above, the "strict scrutiny" works well as a starting point to separate this nonsense about "inconvenience." There are laws that are not inconvenient at all, yet they are an infringement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC
The argument of "we get our guns therefore nothing has been infringed" shows that you don't understand what "infringed" means in legal sense.
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 04-26-2018, 9:16 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 17,587
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eswrite View Post
Actually, the burden of proof is on the first claimant, namely, those who from the beginning of this thread have asserted that even though a registry is not involved and even though law abiding citizens get their guns, an infringement occurs. Please explain why or how.
Whether citizens get their guns or not is NOT a determining factor of infringement any more than whether Rosa Parks got to her destination at the same time as the rest of the passengers was a determining factor in evaluation of the constitutionality of segregation.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 04-26-2018, 9:35 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 14,176
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Sophistry? You are provably wrong.

.........................

I've given you a legal case, I've given you a real life example, I've given you a common language definition. Please feel free to quadruple down. Just remember that this thread and these posts are not for me or you to win or lose the argument, but for close to three thousand readers who have seen the posts and had a chance to read.
As one of those close to 3000 readers, it's one of the larger piles of shat I've seen.

And I clean up after a number of horses every morning.



Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
Didn't you get the memo? His random unproven opinion is fact. He even uses fancy words to say so.
Writing pedantically, attempting to prove a negative argument, and unusual sentence structure do not make up for fancy words...a true sign of a BS'er.

You are right-on about his "here's what I think we need to do" stuff having no rhyme nor reason for helping to lower crimes involving firearms. I've asked twice with no response as to why cities and states with high gun violence issues are all run by Democrat / Libtard / Progressives from a city council up to, in most cases, the governor and legislature.

No answer, as the question may be perhaps a bit touchy...or maybe even as terrible as a "personal attack".



Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Whether citizens get their guns or not is NOT a determining factor of infringement any more than whether Rosa Parks got to her destination at the same time as the rest of the passengers was a determining factor in evaluation of the constitutionality of segregation.
Well said. TKS
__________________
True wealth is time. Time to enjoy life.

Life's journey is not to arrive safely in a well preserved body, but rather to slide in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "holy schit...what a ride"!!

Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain

A man's soul can be judged by the way he treats his dog. Charles Doran
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 04-26-2018, 9:57 PM
Battosai1 Battosai1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 228
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kinkarcana View Post
Jesus Christ guys the cognitive dissonance in this thread is unbelievable, its understandable to be mad that quid pro quo isnt happening right now as it relates to firearms legislation but you have to understanding we are losing the war in terms of public perception and maybe we need to offer an olive branch to show that we are reasonable and the opposition isnt. Within that olive branch would be the UBC as op recommends but tied in with it would be Suppressors removed from the NFA and open/concealed carry restored to California along with maybe repealing the Hughes amendment. Who knows but as it stands right now we will never have majority public approval and enough political capitol to even think about doing any of that along with the fact that states are getting bluer and bluer with every election cycle. Christ its like you guys never want to own modern giggle switch firearms without having to get a ****ing FFL again or even just repealing the stupid handgun roster rofl.
We have been giving them olive branches, they hand us back a bag of ****.
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 04-26-2018, 11:26 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,784
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -hanko View Post
As one of those close to 3000 readers, it's one of the larger piles of shat I've seen.

And I clean up after a number of horses every morning.




Writing pedantically, attempting to prove a negative argument, and unusual sentence structure do not make up for fancy words...a true sign of a BS'er.

You are right-on about his "here's what I think we need to do" stuff having no rhyme nor reason for helping to lower crimes involving firearms. I've asked twice with no response as to why cities and states with high gun violence issues are all run by Democrat / Libtard / Progressives from a city council up to, in most cases, the governor and legislature.

No answer, as the question may be perhaps a bit touchy...or maybe even as terrible as a "personal attack".




Well said. TKS
Its an election cycle. This is to be expected. I used to debate these clowns, but I'm done with that. They come here, say the exact same thing as the previous clown, which we refute with same facts as before, they skulk off, rinse, lather, repeat next election cycle.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: ‘I can’t wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!’

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Peace, love, and heavy weapons. Sometimes you have to be insistent." - David Lee Roth
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 04-27-2018, 1:37 AM
Noble Cause Noble Cause is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California
Posts: 2,633
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
Its an election cycle. This is to be expected. I used to debate these clowns, but I'm done with that. They come here, say the exact same thing as the previous clown, which we refute with same facts as before, they skulk off, rinse, lather, repeat next election cycle.
Your not wrong in your prediction.

However, I don't think eswrite is one of the them.

I think he is trying to help, albeit from our perspective, in a stubborn,
Don Quixote "tilting at windmills" sort of way.

Consider:

His link provides his real name, or at the very least, his DBA moniker:
http://www.eduardosuastegui.com/abou...rdo-suastegui/
Most Anti-Gun Left Wing Shills/Trolls hide their identity, not Post it.

Following the Internet Breadcrumbs, eswrite, aka author Eduardo
Suastegui
has made statements like:

Quote:
Read the Declaration of Independence one more time, and you’ll notice
something very interesting (especially when it comes to healthcare). Rights
are a pre-existing condition. They come before government, not from it.

Now look at every other non-enumerated right we are calling “rights” these
days. They all come or derive from government. They all go away with a vote
and a stroke of a pen, or they fizzle when the budget blows up. That’s not the
kind of right I want. I don’t want my rights to be so easily taken away.
Do you?

Thankfully, rights are transcendent, inherent, not a human creation, and
certainly not handed out by government as feel-good candy.

Short-short: the progressive movement has swindled us with a very fine
game of conflation, murkying the difference between rights and benefits.
Source:
https://medium.com/@eduardoauthor/is...s-eee0e11db44b


And This:


Anti-Gun Liberals Have Failed to Protect Our Kids.
It’s Time to Try Something New.

GUNGUY TV
https://gunguy.tv/2018/03/09/anti-gu...something-new/

Quote:
In the Articles Comment section:

Eduardo Suastegui says:
March 12, 2018 at 10:27 pm

Joel – I totally resonate with your comments, especially this one: “For those who consistently argue that teachers would be too frightened or cowardly to actually protect the kids, I would remind them of the number of teachers who have given their lives to protect their students during active shooter incidents.”

As a slight counterpoint, I would note the countless shrill, warlike comments of many 2nd amendment defenders, which are then picked up and amplified by the leftist media to prove what a bunch of nutjobs want guns. That sort of apologetic is not helpful in promoting productive, constructive dialog on gun rights. I admire that you don’t fall into this category, even if at times your frustration (as is mine) is all too transparent. ��


That doesn't sound like a disguised Anti-Gun Progressive to me,
it sounds like someone who is concerned about Gun Rights, but has
also absorbed some of the subtle Anti Gun bias the media spews out.

Many on this board have studied the issue for years, if not decades,
and when someone comes along that has been inundated with Anti Gun
Propaganda for Decades, I think its hard for them to adjust to Actual
Reality, as provided by the many Senior Members posting here.


Its still a good exercise for all concerned, and as always, the real benefit
is to the thousands of people reading this thread.

Although at this point, I don't think there is very much more to say except
maybe the proverbial "agree to disagree".


Noble

Last edited by Noble Cause; 04-27-2018 at 2:12 AM.. Reason: forgot to post link
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 04-27-2018, 1:43 AM
Noble Cause Noble Cause is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California
Posts: 2,633
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Sophistry? You are provably wrong.

I'll give you an example. Rosa Parks could ride the same bus as everyone else, get there at the same time as everyone else and enjoy the ride on the same quality seat as everyone else. She just didn't want to *walk* a few steps. That's all. A few steps. If someone claimed that they didn't want to do UBC because they didn't want to *walk* a few steps to the computer, would that pass your giggle test? In real world, infringement doesn't work based on your giggle test, but a set of legal standards that are well defined.

Even the dictionary definition of "infringement" says: "2.the action of limiting or undermining something," not "banning" and certainly not "preventing."

I've given you a legal case, I've given you a real life example, I've given you a common language definition. Please feel free to quadruple down. Just remember that this thread and these posts are not for me or you to win or lose the argument, but for close to three thousand readers who have seen the posts and had a chance to read.


Another quote I am going to Abscond with for Future Use ...


Noble
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 04-27-2018, 2:54 AM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,784
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noble Cause View Post
Your not wrong in your prediction.

However, I don't think eswrite is one of the them.

I think he is trying to help, albeit from our perspective, in a stubborn,
Don Quixote "tilting at windmills" sort of way.

Consider:

His link provides his real name, or at the very least, his DBA moniker:
http://www.eduardosuastegui.com/abou...rdo-suastegui/
Most Anti-Gun Left Wing Shills/Trolls hide their identity, not Post it.

Following the Internet Breadcrumbs, eswrite, aka author Eduardo
Suastegui
has made statements like:


Source:
https://medium.com/@eduardoauthor/is...s-eee0e11db44b


And This:


Anti-Gun Liberals Have Failed to Protect Our Kids.
It’s Time to Try Something New.

GUNGUY TV
https://gunguy.tv/2018/03/09/anti-gu...something-new/





That doesn't sound like a disguised Anti-Gun Progressive to me,
it sounds like someone who is concerned about Gun Rights, but has
also absorbed some of the subtle Anti Gun bias the media spews out.

Many on this board have studied the issue for years, if not decades,
and when someone comes along that has been inundated with Anti Gun
Propaganda for Decades, I think its hard for them to adjust to Actual
Reality, as provided by the many Senior Members posting here.


Its still a good exercise for all concerned, and as always, the real benefit
is to the thousands of people reading this thread.

Although at this point, I don't think there is very much more to say except
maybe the proverbial "agree to disagree".


Noble
The anti 2A crowd uses the same language to defend all sorts of things. Having the same perspective on where "rights" originate does not neccessarily correlate to similarity of ideologies. How many use the "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" argument to say their right to life outweighs my right to defend myself? The argument about freedom of religion vs equal protection under law used in the cake baking case is one that immediately springs to mind as a similar situation. You can't say that simply because both sides agree on the fact that both sides have pre-existing rights means that both sides agree on the issue. Those are separate concepts.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: ‘I can’t wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!’

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Peace, love, and heavy weapons. Sometimes you have to be insistent." - David Lee Roth
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 04-27-2018, 4:16 AM
rugershooter rugershooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,804
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eswrite View Post
Do you think that repeating the same erroneous statement over and over again finally makes it correct. Run, don't walk to the nearest library and look up "Argument by Repetition."
It's not erroneous. You're just too stupid to realize it. Like all anti gun people, you're not very smart.
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 04-27-2018, 6:33 AM
Mute's Avatar
Mute Mute is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Diamond Bar
Posts: 8,091
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eswrite View Post
For a moment, let us set aside the "not one more inch" stance, and let us put on our thinking caps. Could we design a UBC that addresses societal safety concerns while preserving constitutional rights? If so, what provisions, safeguards, and procedures would such a UBC framework implement?
We have UBC in CA. What, exactly, has that accomplished? What, exactly, are you suggesting?
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle & Refuse To Be A Victim Instructor

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


NRA Memberships at Discounted fee
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 04-27-2018, 7:24 AM
floogy's Avatar
floogy floogy is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 2,742
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noble Cause View Post
Your not wrong in your prediction.

However, I don't think eswrite is one of the them.

I think he is trying to help, albeit from our perspective, in a stubborn,
Don Quixote "tilting at windmills" sort of way.

Consider:

His link provides his real name, or at the very least, his DBA moniker:
http://www.eduardosuastegui.com/abou...rdo-suastegui/
Most Anti-Gun Left Wing Shills/Trolls hide their identity, not Post it.

Following the Internet Breadcrumbs, eswrite, aka author Eduardo
Suastegui
has made statements like:


Source:
https://medium.com/@eduardoauthor/is...s-eee0e11db44b


And This:


Anti-Gun Liberals Have Failed to Protect Our Kids.
It’s Time to Try Something New.

GUNGUY TV
https://gunguy.tv/2018/03/09/anti-gu...something-new/





That doesn't sound like a disguised Anti-Gun Progressive to me,
it sounds like someone who is concerned about Gun Rights, but has
also absorbed some of the subtle Anti Gun bias the media spews out.

Many on this board have studied the issue for years, if not decades,
and when someone comes along that has been inundated with Anti Gun
Propaganda for Decades, I think its hard for them to adjust to Actual
Reality, as provided by the many Senior Members posting here.


Its still a good exercise for all concerned, and as always, the real benefit
is to the thousands of people reading this thread.

Although at this point, I don't think there is very much more to say except
maybe the proverbial "agree to disagree".


Noble
I agree. Quixotic is a perfect descriptor. He won't recognize that UBC is not a compromise, but rather the framework required to create a universal registration system. It's just one more step once that's in place. There's also the reality that violations of the current background check system in place are so rarely prosecuted, it's insignificant. Making a new "better" system will be enforced just as poorly without some sort of huge amount of funding, which could then be used against law abiding gun owners.

Also, there is no reasonable compromise with the anti gun people. There just isn't. Name one compromise reached that expanded our rights rather than restricting them.
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 04-27-2018, 7:36 AM
eswrite's Avatar
eswrite eswrite is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 463
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 04-27-2018, 7:44 AM
eswrite's Avatar
eswrite eswrite is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 463
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noble Cause View Post
Your not wrong in your prediction.

However, I don't think eswrite is one of the them.

I think he is trying to help, albeit from our perspective, in a stubborn,
Don Quixote "tilting at windmills" sort of way.
Thank you for taking the time to follow the bread crumbs instead eating your own.

Here's one bread crumb for you (the one that elaborates on my sig block):
Needs, Rights, and the iPhone vs. the AR-15

{Got a thumbs-up from Dana Loesch, BTW}
__________________

Last edited by eswrite; 04-27-2018 at 7:47 AM..
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 2:22 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy