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
  #1  
Old 01-19-2019, 8:46 AM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 41
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Linton v Becerra (US Dist Ct Nor Cal, 12/2018)

I seen this post at FPC I know it is a recently filed case, But has anybody else seen it apparently they are looking for similar clients.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-21-2019, 9:15 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 176
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A hearing is scheduled for tomorrow on the state's motion to dismiss:
Quote:
ORDER. The case management conference and the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 12, are continued to August 22, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. A joint case management statement is due August 15, 2019. Signed by Judge James Donato on 4/22/2019. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc1S, COURT STAFF)
For more about this case:

SAF Press Release

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and four other rights groups have joined in a lawsuit against the State of California for preventing individuals from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

Joining SAF are the Firearms Policy Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, the Madison Society Foundation and the Calguns Foundation. They are supporting individual plaintiffs Paul McKinley Stewart and Chad Linton, who contend that non-violent felony convictions years ago have been set aside or vacated, yet the State of California refuses to allow them to purchase firearms.

The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Named as defendants are California Attorney General Xavier Becerra; Martin Horan, the chief of the state Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms; and Deputy Attorney General Robert Wilson. The case is known as Linton v. Becerra.

“SAF took an interest in this case for the specific reason that California once again is trying to prevent or disqualify as many citizens as possible from exercising their Second Amendment rights,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “There doesn’t appear to be any other reason for the state to not recognize rights restorations to either Linton or Stewart even though their rights have been restored by courts in Arizona and Washington.”

Attorney George M. Lee, who represents the plaintiffs, observed, “The State (California) doesn’t get to pick and choose which judgments of other states it will honor, and which it will ignore, because it doesn’t approve of firearms ownership. Granting full faith and credit to other court judgments is part of the bargain of being one of these United States.”

The cases involving both individual plaintiffs happened decades ago, and have been cleared by courts the states in which they occurred. Both plaintiffs have been good citizens in their respective California communities.

“This is just another example of California’s animosity toward the Second Amendment,” Gottlieb said.

The complaint with exibits

This case is in the Northern District of California and is assigned to Judge Donato.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-22-2019, 6:22 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,288
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

here is the motion to dismiss

https://www.scribd.com/document/4227...ion-to-Dismiss


opposition by saf attorney George Lee
https://www.scribd.com/document/4227...ion-to-Dismiss

reply
https://www.scribd.com/document/4227...ion-to-Dismiss
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato

Last edited by wolfwood; 08-22-2019 at 6:38 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-22-2019, 9:16 AM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,864
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Taking cases with felons seems counterproductive when there's plenty of non-felons with 2A issues. Still got the stink of Miller lingering. It seems the courts has no problem handing onerous decisions against felons so why risk it?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-22-2019, 1:48 PM
homelessdude homelessdude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: inland empire
Posts: 1,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

ex felons. At least in the rest of the United States. Ca. makes it's own infringments.

Last edited by homelessdude; 08-22-2019 at 1:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-22-2019, 2:14 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 245
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I see this as important at helping contour the "long-standing" prohibitions outlined in Heller.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-23-2019, 12:41 PM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 41
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Does anyone know the out come of yesterday's hearing?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-23-2019, 5:40 PM
librarian72 librarian72 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 70
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
Taking cases with felons...
That's the point. The judgments have been set aside and/or vacated. They are not felons.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
US Circuit Courts of Appeal have no deadlines; they work on what they want, when they want. The 9th also seems sometimes to Make Stuff Up in their opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-23-2019, 6:22 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 176
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Civil Minutes:

Quote:
The motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 12, raises issues best addressed in summary judgment proceedings. The motion is terminated without prejudice so that the parties may pursue summary judgment. Fact discovery will close on April 22, 2020. Plaintiffs’ opening summary judgment brief is due by June 22, 2020. Defendant’s opposition is due by August 21, 2020.

The parties are directed to start settlement discussions.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-28-2019, 8:54 AM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 41
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So does this means that everything including 11th immunity was denied to the defendants and the plaintiffs can sue for their firearm rights returned and also monetary compensation?

It appears that defendants could be in violation of 241 and 242 of the Federal Statues.

My bad here is the full description taken from the F.B.I website of the above post:

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Last edited by Librarian; 08-28-2019 at 11:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-08-2019, 6:47 PM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 41
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Looks like this case may only payoff for the plaintiffs. Just curious as how much the defendants would be willing to spend to keep them from going to prison. Also curious to what kind of price tag one puts on their 2A rights it is hard to phanthom but mine would be worth aan astronomical amount, I think a blank check is in order on this one. What ever the settlement agreament we may never know.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-08-2019, 8:38 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,891
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkwater34 View Post
Looks like this case may only payoff for the plaintiffs. Just curious as how much the defendants would be willing to spend to keep them from going to prison. Also curious to what kind of price tag one puts on their 2A rights it is hard to phanthom but mine would be worth aan astronomical amount, I think a blank check is in order on this one. What ever the settlement agreament we may never know.
The complaint is seeking the have the policy declared unconstitutional as it applies to the plaintiffs and others similarly situated....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-08-2019, 11:22 PM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 41
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Then this is very cool I am no longer totally disappointed. It looks like this could take up to a year before it goes back to court.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-08-2019, 11:28 PM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 41
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just saying it is cool that this case does not just benefit two individuals as in some cases it usually does.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-13-2019, 9:31 AM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 41
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Curious if the judge hands over an indictment to a gran jury in August 2020. We all know they are going to drag this out to the very end.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-14-2019, 7:27 PM
gunuser17 gunuser17 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 61
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Here, the criminal case is over and, as I understand it, this is a civil case seeking the restoration of rights. No indictment can come out of this case. First, judges do not indict anyone. A prosecutor presents a case to a grand jury and the grand jury either indicts or does not. A civil case like this has nothing to do with a criminal indictment. However, if during a civil case, the judge hearing the case believes that someone committed a crime, such as not telling the truth on the stand, the judge can refer that matter to the prosecutor for potential prosecution.

Last edited by gunuser17; 09-14-2019 at 7:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-15-2019, 8:50 AM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 41
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I stand educated thanks
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-21-2019, 1:14 AM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 41
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I noticed there is some new action in this case does anyone have any new information as the recent two filings by the defendants?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-22-2019, 6:59 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 176
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkwater34 View Post
I noticed there is some new action in this case does anyone have any new information as the recent two filings by the defendants?
Stipulation and Proposed Order: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...36229.27.0.pdf

Answer to Complaint: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...36229.28.0.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-23-2019, 12:09 AM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 41
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I am I wrong it looks like this may be over for the plaintiffs
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-23-2019, 9:07 AM
gunuser17 gunuser17 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 61
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I don't see that anything is over. The court has now set a scheduling order that calls for discovery and then motions for summary judgment next year. Apparently the parties and the court agree that there are no real issues as to any facts and that this is purely a legal fight over laws and constitutional issues. Unless motions are filed for summary judgment early, I would not expect any decision in less than about 18 months and then appeals after that.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-23-2019, 10:08 PM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 41
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I guesse it is best to standby and see what happens, But I think you are right about the appeals with the exception of this ending up being filed in the 9th District. Maybe by then Trump will have stacked the bench with more conservative Judges Like Bret Kavanaugh.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-12-2019, 2:34 PM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 41
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Looks like most definitely this case is going to be settled out of court considering the recent ruling in the case.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-12-2019, 2:42 PM
Dirtlaw Dirtlaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: OC
Posts: 751
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkwater34 View Post
I am I wrong it looks like this may be over for the plaintiffs

Depends on the Judge. I've only glanced at this but as I understand it he's encouraging motions for summary judgment by both sides. Let's face it -- those are never easy unless it's a clear cut case. So, he's thinking one side or the other can carry the burden? Fine. Which one does he favor? Tell me about the Judge.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-12-2019, 4:32 PM
Supersapper's Avatar
Supersapper Supersapper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 919
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

Fascinating how Becerra and his little posse want to count the felony conviction from the other state where it was committed as a bar to purchasing firearms in CA but refuse to recognize the restoration of those rights by that state.

Only the bad things count. I really hope that slug Becerra gets the legal smack down. Don't know how it would come, or in what form, but I hope it comes.

I'm curious: If the plaintiffs had their records expunged after doing their time, would that have changed the facts in the case?
__________________
"I see dumb people. They are walking around like regular people. They don't see each other. They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're dumb."

"How often do you see them?"

"All the time. They're everywhere." ***in tears***


Ask me about low cost Commander memberships to Frontsight!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
Don't attempt to inject common sense into an internet pissing contest.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-15-2019, 6:52 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 176
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint; Declaration of George Lee in Support of Motion; Proposed Order
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-16-2019, 8:46 PM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 41
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So now they may have one of their own effected by these ant-2nd amendment policies. Mr. Jones may lose his pension and any other benefits entitled to him for 30 years of service. I hope the plaintiffs prevail in this case.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-17-2019, 9:18 AM
Californio Californio is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 3,982
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

These non-violent Felonies are a Joke. Felonies are supposed to be violence against other Humans. Today almost everything you do in life is a Felony - Accidental Felon has real meaning today and most of us are guilty and we don't even know it. Not the reason my ancestors fought against King George, we may as well have King George and is "ordained by God Elites" back running the show.
__________________
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-18-2019, 8:21 PM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 41
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Sad but true.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-27-2019, 3:10 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 176
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-29-2019, 5:18 PM
ronlglock's Avatar
ronlglock ronlglock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,314
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Californio View Post
We may as well have King George and is "ordained by God Elites" back running the show.

The ordained God elites are running the show — at least in CA.
__________________

NRA Patron, CRPA Life, SAF Life, GSSF Life, NRA RSO and pistol instructor, ILEETA instructor. Stop me before I join something else!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-30-2019, 1:57 PM
Californio Californio is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 3,982
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

The Cult of Marx does not believe in God. Remember Karl called Religion the Opioid of the People. They ordain themselves which is just as bad as Totalitarian George.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ronlglock View Post
The ordained God elites are running the show — at least in CA.
__________________
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-30-2019, 8:25 PM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 1,164
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

So after 39 36 years, CA DOJ decides this gentleman is prohibited, despite being a LEO at some point for 30 years? I can't imagine why Basura would be opposed to him joining this lawsuit....

Quote:
The proposed first amended complaint would add Kendall Jones as a plaintiff. (Pls.’ Not.
& Mot. for Leave to File Am. Compl. (Pls.’ Mot.) 4–5, Nov. 15, 2019, ECF No. 30; see also
Proposed First Am. Compl. (Proposed FAC), Nov. 15, 2019, ECF No. 31-1.) Mr. Jones sustained
a felony conviction in Texas in 1980 that was later set aside. (Pls.’ Mot. 4; Proposed FAC
¶¶ 55–56.) He moved to California after the set aside and became a law enforcement officer who
possessed firearms. (Proposed FAC ¶¶ 54, 56–59.) In February 2019, the Department of Justice
Bureau of Firearms informed Mr. Jones that he was not eligible to own or possess a firearm. (Id.
¶ 61.)
__________________

Last edited by ajb78; 11-30-2019 at 8:40 PM.. Reason: Read the other document
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-01-2019, 10:48 PM
Section 101's Avatar
Section 101 Section 101 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 214
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajb78 View Post
So after 39 36 years, CA DOJ decides this gentleman is prohibited, despite being a LEO at some point for 30 years? I can't imagine why Basura would be opposed to him joining this lawsuit....
Is this the same Kendall Jones that was range master at the Sacramento gun club and was a CA DoJ Certified instructor?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-02-2019, 6:31 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 176
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

ORDER. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint is granted but no new parties or claims may be added after this date without a showing of good cause and the Court's approval. Plaintiffs' unopposed request to update the name of a corporate plaintiff is granted. Plaintiffs' request for substitution of an official defendant is moot, as the current head of the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms was automatically substituted as a defendant in his official capacity pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). Signed by Judge James Donato on 12/2/2019
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-03-2019, 12:44 AM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 41
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is what happens when you cast a wide net you do not know who is going to get caught up in it. This new plaintiff sheds a whole different light on how CALIFORNIA DOJ implements policy. No telling who else they caught up in this net. I think the reason why A.G. Becerra did not want this plaintiff added is because he could just simply reinstate him without the court ever knowing that CAL DOJ ever made this mistake. Now the Honorable James Donato knows just how harmful this policy is. And hopefully throws the book at them. I say lock all of the defendants up. Maybe an out of court settlement comes earlier than the August 2020 deadline. This new defendant adds an embarrassment to the defendants defense. Among reasons for A.G. Becerra not wanting him added to the case.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-03-2019, 1:08 AM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 41
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So also it does not matter to CAL DOJ when the felony conviction was vacated and the reinstatement of firearm possession was taken care of.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-03-2019, 7:04 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,288
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

ORDER. Plaintiffs' 34 motion for leave to file an amended complaint is granted but no new parties or claims may be added after this date without a showing of good cause and the Court's approval. Plaintiffs' unopposed request to update the name of a corporate plaintiff is granted. Plaintiffs' request for substitution of an official defendant is moot, as the current head of the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms was automatically substituted as a defendant in his official capacity pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). Signed by Judge James Donato on 12/2/2019. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2019) (Entered: 12/02/2019)


here is the amended complaint

https://www.scribd.com/document/4381...All-Defendants
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato

Last edited by wolfwood; 12-03-2019 at 7:56 PM..
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 11:21 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.