Calguns.net  

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

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #401  
Old 12-31-2019, 5:02 PM
AKSOG's Avatar
AKSOG AKSOG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nevada
Posts: 4,138
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAsubject View Post
This thing on ice now or what?
Reply With Quote
  #402  
Old 12-31-2019, 5:54 PM
GetMeCoffee's Avatar
GetMeCoffee GetMeCoffee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 416
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I just saw this come through:

A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked a new California labor law from impacting more than 70,000 independent truckers


This was Judge Benitez. I suspect he's been balls to the wall on this one to get an order out before 1/1. Hopefully we'll see progress on our case soon!
Reply With Quote
  #403  
Old 12-31-2019, 6:00 PM
CaliforniaCowboy's Avatar
CaliforniaCowboy CaliforniaCowboy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 1,469
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GetMeCoffee View Post
I just saw this come through:

A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked a new California labor law from impacting more than 70,000 independent truckers


This was Judge Benitez. I suspect he's been balls to the wall on this one to get an order out before 1/1. Hopefully, we'll see progress on our case soon!
I was wondering when that would happen because I could not believe that this would be allowed to be placed upon independent truckers. It would be absolutely devastating to these jobs. Truckers had the following options, Give up being a free owner-operator and become an employee of a carrier and take a HUGE pay cut, Like a 75% pay cut. Sell your truck and get out of trucking because you would not be able to pay on your truck/expenses on the pay cut, give up trucking. Or, Move out of state and do not do any California loads. I believe you can bring a load into California as an independent, but you can NOT take a load OUT as an independent, You would have to leave the state without a load every time you came in and no trucker is going to do that ****. I was amazed that truckers were not given an exemption on this law on day one. Many out of state companies have already mailed out notices to the independent truckers they work with on a regular basis stating that they will no longer be able to hire those drivers as long as they live in California, they are suggesting that if these truckers wich to continue working for the carriers that they move out to another state. Move out of California or we can not hire you any longer. That is fked up. Thanks, Governor Newscum. For every job trump creates in California, the Dems will kill 2.
__________________
https://thedeplorablepatriot.com/

"A Holocaust survivor dies of old age, when he gets to heaven he tells God a Holocaust joke. God says, That isn't funny. The Old man tells God, well, I guess you had to be there."

Last edited by CaliforniaCowboy; 12-31-2019 at 6:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #404  
Old 01-01-2020, 5:05 PM
Ishooter's Avatar
Ishooter Ishooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 835
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaCowboy View Post
I was wondering when that would happen because I could not believe that this would be allowed to be placed upon independent truckers. It would be absolutely devastating to these jobs. Truckers had the following options, Give up being a free owner-operator and become an employee of a carrier and take a HUGE pay cut, Like a 75% pay cut. Sell your truck and get out of trucking because you would not be able to pay on your truck/expenses on the pay cut, give up trucking. Or, Move out of state and do not do any California loads. I believe you can bring a load into California as an independent, but you can NOT take a load OUT as an independent, You would have to leave the state without a load every time you came in and no trucker is going to do that ****. I was amazed that truckers were not given an exemption on this law on day one. Many out of state companies have already mailed out notices to the independent truckers they work with on a regular basis stating that they will no longer be able to hire those drivers as long as they live in California, they are suggesting that if these truckers wich to continue working for the carriers that they move out to another state. Move out of California or we can not hire you any longer. That is fked up. Thanks, Governor Newscum. For every job trump creates in California, the Dems will kill 2.
Many truckers and other drivers will lose jobs if new CA law become effective. CA just want to collect taxes from the people.
Reply With Quote
  #405  
Old 01-01-2020, 5:56 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,475
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ishooter View Post
Many truckers and other drivers will lose jobs if new CA law become effective. CA just want to collect taxes from the people.
What is stopping the truckers (and any other formerly independent. contractors) from setting up a LLC and then contracting out their services as the LLC?

Edit: LLC = Limited Liability Company

Last edited by aBrowningfan; 01-01-2020 at 5:57 PM.. Reason: See Edit: above
Reply With Quote
  #406  
Old 01-02-2020, 7:04 AM
Hornman Hornman is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 30
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Long story short...I am a freelance musician and AB 5 totally kills the gig economy for a musician who plays primarily one off concerts. The thing that killed me the most is when the local union didn’t have our back on it. I know a ton of musicians who are both conservative and liberal and they are livid that the legislature did this to us.

Part of me wishes Benitez had not intervened...I don’t know what it would take to swing the pendulum back the other way but it was pretty compelling to talk to my friends and let them know their representatives voted for that and didn’t take them into consideration. Most are already struggling in California as it is.
Reply With Quote
  #407  
Old 01-02-2020, 12:26 PM
TFA777 TFA777 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 323
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Benetiz needs to replace RBG on SCOTUS when she retires.
Reply With Quote
  #408  
Old 01-02-2020, 12:39 PM
Solidsnake87's Avatar
Solidsnake87 Solidsnake87 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 4,399
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Benitez is too old for lasting influence on scotus and is doing a great job where he is. Let him stay on the ninth and take senior status should he choose.
__________________
Quote:
Replying to craigslist for casual encounters is like pokemon with STDs. Gotta catch em all
Quote:
If Hell ever needed a operations manual all it would need is a copy of California's laws
.
Reply With Quote
  #409  
Old 01-02-2020, 2:25 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,370
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GetMeCoffee View Post
I just saw this come through:

A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked a new California labor law from impacting more than 70,000 independent truckers


This was Judge Benitez. I suspect he's been balls to the wall on this one to get an order out before 1/1. Hopefully we'll see progress on our case soon!
Here is the order

https://californiatruckingassoc.grow...nload/zLw1V4Mp
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #410  
Old 01-02-2020, 2:29 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 773
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TFA777 View Post
Benetiz needs to replace RBG on SCOTUS when she retires.
It's not going to happen. If Trump nominates another justice before he eventually leaves office it's going to be Amey Coney Barrett to replace Ginsburg or Amal Thapur to replace Breyer. Trump has been quoted in private conversations as saying he is "saving" Barrett for Ginsburg. Probably because she's female.
Reply With Quote
  #411  
Old 01-02-2020, 7:13 PM
Hornman Hornman is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 30
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm so mad right now...it looks like everybody else is getting their carvouts on this law except for the musicians because our union didn't have our backs on this. Unbelievable.
Reply With Quote
  #412  
Old 01-03-2020, 7:21 AM
mrdd mrdd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Somewhere Over The Rainbow
Posts: 1,996
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidsnake87 View Post
Benitez is too old for lasting influence on scotus and is doing a great job where he is. Let him stay on the ninth and take senior status should he choose.
Benitez is not on the Ninth Circuit Court, he is a U.S. District Court Judge. He assumed senior status two years ago.

https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges.aspx
Reply With Quote
  #413  
Old 01-03-2020, 7:23 AM
mrdd mrdd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Somewhere Over The Rainbow
Posts: 1,996
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I don't know why people are posting about AB5 in this thread. Start a new thread to discuss that.
Reply With Quote
  #414  
Old 01-03-2020, 3:27 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 10,220
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdd View Post
I don't know why people are posting about AB5 in this thread. Start a new thread to discuss that.
^^^THIS^^^

Labor Law has nothing to do with 2A
Reply With Quote
  #415  
Old 01-03-2020, 5:44 PM
Brentzig Brentzig is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Redding
Posts: 106
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdd View Post
I don't know why people are posting about AB5 in this thread. Start a new thread to discuss that.
Yes please.
Reply With Quote
  #416  
Old 01-03-2020, 6:57 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,969
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdd View Post
Benitez is not on the Ninth Circuit Court, he is a U.S. District Court Judge. He assumed senior status two years ago.

https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges.aspx
He seems pretty busy for a "senior status" judge. I'd hate to see a regular judge's case load.
Reply With Quote
  #417  
Old 01-03-2020, 10:31 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,475
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sputnik View Post
He seems pretty busy for a "senior status" judge. I'd hate to see a regular judge's case load.
That is what happens when vacancies are not filled.
Reply With Quote
  #418  
Old 01-04-2020, 4:31 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,969
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
That is what happens when vacancies are not filled.
Well, Trumps been busy. Maybe Judge B's load may ease off in the future? Somehow I doubt it will...the 9th is too big and needs to be broken into smaller pieces.
Reply With Quote
  #419  
Old 01-08-2020, 11:34 AM
GetMeCoffee's Avatar
GetMeCoffee GetMeCoffee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 416
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Schedule change

Just saw this. It doesn't say anything about the preliminary injunction. That can still be issued or denied in the meantime, right?

Quote:
MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt: Due to a conflict in the Court's calendar, the Mandatory Settlement Conference previously set for 2/14/2020 (ECF No. 27 ) is hereby RESET for 2/21/2020, at 9:00 AM in the chambers of Judge Burkhardt. The deadline to lodge confidential settlement statements with the Court is hereby RESET to 2/11/2020. This Order does not otherwise alter the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 27 ). (no document attached) (mjg) (Entered: 01/08/2020)
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...&order_by=desc

Last edited by GetMeCoffee; 01-08-2020 at 11:41 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #420  
Old 01-08-2020, 2:27 PM
FMBandit FMBandit is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 29
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Does this mean that Benitez is no longer overseeing the case, and if so, how does Burkhardt stand with the 2A?
Reply With Quote
  #421  
Old 01-08-2020, 2:44 PM
The Cable Guy's Avatar
The Cable Guy The Cable Guy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Chino Hills, CA
Posts: 1,277
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sputnik View Post
Well, Trumps been busy. Maybe Judge B's load may ease off in the future? Somehow I doubt it will...the 9th is too big and needs to be broken into smaller pieces.
Not sure why we're talking about the 9th Circuit. This is in District Court, it hasn't ben ruled on yet, so an appeal cannot be made yet, so it is not being sent to any Circuit court as of right now.
__________________

www.theshootersblog.com
Reply With Quote
  #422  
Old 01-08-2020, 2:49 PM
UCT UCT is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 375
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FMBandit View Post
Does this mean that Benitez is no longer overseeing the case, and if so, how does Burkhardt stand with the 2A?
Mandatory settlement conferences are usually handled by magistrate judges or lawyers, not the federal judge assigned to the case. Nothing unusual about this.
Reply With Quote
  #423  
Old 01-12-2020, 9:02 AM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 738
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I do not trust decisions made by magistrate's. These are appointed positions and they usually side with the State or State Official's more so if the latter are defendant's in the case. We will see maybe what happens here.
Reply With Quote
  #424  
Old 01-12-2020, 7:28 PM
psun786's Avatar
psun786 psun786 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 194
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkwater34 View Post
I do not trust decisions made by magistrate's. These are appointed positions and they usually side with the State or State Official's more so if the latter are defendant's in the case. We will see maybe what happens here.
I am pretty sure the judge at mandatory settlement conference has little to no power on the outcome.
Reply With Quote
  #425  
Old 01-12-2020, 7:43 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,475
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psun786 View Post
I am pretty sure the judge at mandatory settlement conference has little to no power on the outcome.
The settlement conference seems like such a waste of time. There is no room for compromise - the CA-DoJ is powerless to modify the law, so where is the room for compromise?
Reply With Quote
  #426  
Old 01-12-2020, 8:42 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,969
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cable Guy View Post
Not sure why we're talking about the 9th Circuit. This is in District Court, it hasn't ben ruled on yet, so an appeal cannot be made yet, so it is not being sent to any Circuit court as of right now.
My mistake. I seem to be rolling Federal District and Appeals all together. Clearly incorrect.

On that note, albeit off topic, how are district court judges appointed? Who does the appointing? Nevermind...the interwebz tell me that the President appoints Fed. District judges, as well.

Last edited by Sputnik; 01-12-2020 at 8:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #427  
Old 01-15-2020, 1:27 PM
prerunners4life prerunners4life is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 1,191
iTrader: 70 / 97%
Default

Any updates I dont know about on this one?
Reply With Quote
  #428  
Old 01-15-2020, 5:05 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

JOINT MOTION TO VACATE THE MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
Reply With Quote
  #429  
Old 01-15-2020, 10:05 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,475
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
Glad there was something both sides could agree on...
Reply With Quote
  #430  
Old 01-17-2020, 7:21 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

ORDER: (1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO VACATE MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; AND (2) VACATING MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
Reply With Quote
  #431  
Old 01-20-2020, 7:37 AM
One in the pipe's Avatar
One in the pipe One in the pipe is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 141
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

^^^ means what?
Reply With Quote
  #432  
Old 01-20-2020, 8:57 AM
jessdigs's Avatar
jessdigs jessdigs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Somerset ca
Posts: 472
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

It means they are not going to waste time and resources to hold a settlement conference to discuss the possibility of settlement.
The plantiffs know the law is unconstitutional, and the state believes it is. So having a conference go to argue these points is pointless.
No one is going to settle.

So we move on.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #433  
Old 01-20-2020, 9:33 AM
slosig slosig is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: San Luis Obispo
Posts: 44
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by One in the pipe View Post
^^^ means what?
It means the the mandatory settlement conference is no longer mandatory in the case. As stated, there is nothing to negotiate. As a result the settlement conference would be a waste of everyone’s time.
Reply With Quote
  #434  
Old 02-10-2020, 6:37 AM
kenl's Avatar
kenl kenl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: back home
Posts: 1,591
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Any updates? Are we still waiting for the 2-26 hearing?
__________________


California, the once-great first world state that is now a corrupt third world socialist cesspool.
Reply With Quote
  #435  
Old 02-12-2020, 7:17 AM
Metal God's Avatar
Metal God Metal God is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,836
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Any updates? Are we still waiting for the 2-26 hearing?
No updates at this time , Seems to be on a holding pattern . My understanding is there will be something to report in the near future or in calguns speak
__________________
Tolerate
allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

Anyone else find it sad that those who preach tolerance CAN'T allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that they do not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

I write almost everything in a jovial manner regardless of content . If that's not how you took it please try again
Reply With Quote
  #436  
Old 02-14-2020, 2:31 PM
GetMeCoffee's Avatar
GetMeCoffee GetMeCoffee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 416
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There's some movement. New document filed

Order Requesting Defendant to Update the Court on Ammunition Sales Background Check

The order specifies that an update be provided to the court by March 13, 2020. I'm guessing we won't be seeing a PI before then?

Retrieved from Michel & Associates case page: http://michellawyers.com/rhode-v-becerra/

Last edited by GetMeCoffee; 02-14-2020 at 2:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #437  
Old 02-14-2020, 3:44 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,844
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GetMeCoffee View Post
There's some movement. New document filed

Order Requesting Defendant to Update the Court on Ammunition Sales Background Check

The order specifies that an update be provided to the court by March 13, 2020. I'm guessing we won't be seeing a PI before then?
This suggests that the court will deny a PI if the state can get its act together. AS I recall, this is not the first time the Court has asked for an update. In other words, if the system actually works, the court may not believe that it presents an unconstitutional impediment to keeping and bearing arms, any more than the mandatory background check for purchasing a firearm.
Reply With Quote
  #438  
Old 02-14-2020, 4:07 PM
tankarian's Avatar
tankarian tankarian is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,192
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
This suggests that the court will deny a PI if the state can get its act together. AS I recall, this is not the first time the Court has asked for an update. In other words, if the system actually works, the court may not believe that it presents an unconstitutional impediment to keeping and bearing arms, any more than the mandatory background check for purchasing a firearm.
The State getting its act together?
Where and when did that ever happened before in Californistan?
__________________
BLACK RIFLES MATTER!
Reply With Quote
  #439  
Old 02-14-2020, 4:52 PM
wolfmann wolfmann is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SO KALI mountains
Posts: 466
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This tells me the Judge has plans,and we will all be doing this
Reply With Quote
  #440  
Old 02-15-2020, 9:56 AM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,475
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
This suggests that the court will deny a PI if the state can get its act together. AS I recall, this is not the first time the Court has asked for an update. In other words, if the system actually works, the court may not believe that it presents an unconstitutional impediment to keeping and bearing arms, any more than the mandatory background check for purchasing a firearm.
Big if. Conversely, if the data shows that the state has not been able to get its act together, the probability of a PI that stays the system gets closer to 1. Based on anecdotal feedback, I would say that the new submission by CA-DoJ is going to show continuing failure of the background check system.

Edit: I went back and reviewed the declaration of Mayra G. Morales submitted on 11/18/2019, and unless CA-DoJ have implemented some software updates, I don't see how they are going to convince Judge Benitez that their background check system is working. The main problem is with rejects due to mis-match on address between CA D/L and AFS. If AFS has your address as 123 Main Street and your D/L address is 123 Main St., you are going to be rejected. The mis-match can be fixed with a software revision, but absent the software revision being implemented, you are going to be rejected. An additional fix can occur via manual update (change Street to St. in the example) to the AFS database each time there is a reject that needs researching, but that is going to take time and I don't know whether CA-DoJ procedure/workflow allows for editing AFS records.

Edit: Net-net, absent updates to the software (or manual edits to AFS data), I don't think the picture will have changed much from Mayra's 11/18/2019 declaration to what gets submitted on 3/13/2020.

March 13, 2020 is less than a month away. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

Last edited by aBrowningfan; 02-15-2020 at 8:56 PM.. Reason: See Edit: above.
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 4:35 AM.




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