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
  #41  
Old 01-07-2019, 10:27 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 560
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/11/2019.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...ic/18-280.html
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-07-2019, 10:34 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,726
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
That means we should watch the Orders coming out on Monday, the 14th (and the docket).
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-07-2019, 10:42 AM
CalAlumnus's Avatar
CalAlumnus CalAlumnus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 754
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Looks like Peruta was first distributed for the conference of 3/24/17, but didn't get a decision until 6/26/17. It was distributed 12 times in total.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...-v-California/
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-07-2019, 11:00 AM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
🇺🇸 jack-booted gov thug
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 U.S. Code ß 798
Posts: 15,252
iTrader: 65 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
IIRC, anything after 2 distributions and the likelihood of cert drops off a cliff.

Continual distributions usually imply some type of worded response(s) will accompany the official announcement (i.e. in the case of a cert denial, a dissent).
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-07-2019, 11:08 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,793
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubermcoupe View Post
IIRC, anything after 2 distributions and the likelihood of cert drops off a cliff.

Continual distributions usually imply some type of worded response(s) will accompany the official announcement (i.e. in the case of a cert denial, a dissent).
This is what Iíve read as well, but Caentano was relisted 5 times. Itís possible this case is so egregious that there could be a summary judgement without oral arguments.

Even for the ďI support the 2nd amendment but...Ē crowd, this law doesnít make much sense. From my laymanís understanding they could reverse and not even address the 2A.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-07-2019, 12:04 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 560
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

They have a relist blog post talking about the statistics surrounding relists.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/10/re...end-to-others/
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-11-2019, 2:36 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 560
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

How does the conference vote go when they're missing a judge (i.e. RBG)?
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-13-2019, 11:27 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,726
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
That means we should watch the Orders coming out on Monday, the 14th (and the docket).
7 hours to go!



Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
How does the conference vote go when they're missing a judge (i.e. RBG)?
My guess is that RBG reads the briefs, etc ahead of time and can phone in, fax, or email her vote.

Or, since this is a private conference, she could do the prep and participate in the conference via conference call. (Will they hear her snoring on the other end of the line? )
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 01-14-2019 at 12:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-14-2019, 7:16 AM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 969
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Nothing on the order list dated 01/14/2019, what am I missing?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-14-2019, 7:49 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,726
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajb78 View Post
Nothing on the order list dated 01/14/2019, what am I missing?
Now we get to watch for when it's SCOTUS docket page is updated with its current status:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...ic/18-280.html
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01-14-2019, 8:00 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,439
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajb78 View Post
Nothing on the order list dated 01/14/2019, what am I missing?
You're not missing anything. It'll likely be listed for the next conference, possibly even today.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-14-2019, 8:15 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,726
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Jan 14 2019 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/18/2019.


Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
They have a relist blog post talking about the statistics surrounding relists.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/10/re...end-to-others/
Thanks. From that article:

Quote:
If a case has been relisted once, it generally means that the Court is paying close attention to the case, and the chances of a grant are higher than for an average case. But once a case has been relisted more than twice, it is generally no longer a likely candidate for plenary review, and is more likely to result in a summary reversal or a dissent from the denial of cert.

<snip>

(We are told by those who would know that rescheduling and relisting now serve similar purposes.)

... now that the Supreme Court once again has a full complement of justices, we expect that there may be a brief flurry of grants from the ranks of the relists, at least once Justice Brett Kavanaugh has had a chance to settle in and review them. After that, it is possible the relist trends will continue to zigzag as another justice’s preferences affect relist practices.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 01-14-2019 at 8:29 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-14-2019, 8:36 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,793
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

If we get another re-list I’m betting summary reversal. This case is pretty egregious and they could settle this case without addressing outside the home.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-14-2019, 8:46 AM
Prwterbird's Avatar
Prwterbird Prwterbird is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 87
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post



Thanks. From that article:
Another good snippet from that article:

Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-14-2019, 8:48 AM
Prwterbird's Avatar
Prwterbird Prwterbird is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 87
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
If we get another re-list Iím betting summary reversal. This case is pretty egregious and they could settle this case without addressing outside the home.
I think your right, even though it would be a great opportunity to confirm outside the home without getting into CC vs OC.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-14-2019, 10:27 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,793
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prwterbird View Post
I think your right, even though it would be a great opportunity to confirm outside the home without getting into CC vs OC.
Obviously Iím not a legal expert but it *feels* the way Caentano did. I suspect the ruling might have a little more teeth than Caentano did. Hopefully with summary reversal itíll be an indication they want to take a more import 2A case soon.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-14-2019, 2:09 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,439
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Obviously Iím not a legal expert but it *feels* the way Caentano did. I suspect the ruling might have a little more teeth than Caentano did. Hopefully with summary reversal itíll be an indication they want to take a more import 2A case soon.
This would require 6 justices, minimum, to sign off on.

What in this opinion would lead you to believe that?
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-14-2019, 2:50 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,793
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
This would require 6 justices, minimum, to sign off on.

What in this opinion would lead you to believe that?
Why do you say six justices? I was under the impression it only required five, but typically summary judgement is written per curciam.

They can reverse and remand this case without really expanding the scope of the second amendment. Free travel of a handgun from one residence to a second residence is pretty innocuous, even for some of the liberal justices.

Also I want to reiterate that I am talking about if I had to guess between summary judgement or dissent from denial of cert. They could still grant cert for all we know.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-15-2019, 2:47 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,439
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I thought per curiam needs 6, perhaps I'm wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-15-2019, 9:25 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,439
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Why do you say six justices? I was under the impression it only required five, but typically summary judgement is written per curciam.

They can reverse and remand this case without really expanding the scope of the second amendment. Free travel of a handgun from one residence to a second residence is pretty innocuous, even for some of the liberal justices.

Also I want to reiterate that I am talking about if I had to guess between summary judgement or dissent from denial of cert. They could still grant cert for all we know.
The plaintiffs also made commerce clause and right to travel arguments. So if a person curiam was coming it seems more likely to me to be via one of these routes, and not the 2A one.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 01-15-2019, 10:34 AM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 90
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Some other ramifications may also be the idea of state residency, too.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01-15-2019, 10:17 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,726
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I've only read the posts above, but if it is as an egregious decision as it sounds, I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS pulls another Caetano and delivers a relatively quick per curiam decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts
In case it does follow in Caetano's footsteps, I thought I'd refresh everyone's memory by posting some SCOTUS history of Caetano.

Quote:
Jul 2 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 28, 2015.
Jul 13 2015 Response Requested . (Due August 12, 2015)
Aug 10 2015 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 13, 2015.
Aug 11 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Arming Women Against Rape & Endangerment filed.
Aug 12 2015 Brief amicus curiae of Commonwealth Second Amendment filed.
Oct 13 2015 Brief of respondent Massachusetts in opposition filed.
Oct 27 2015 Reply of petitioner Jaime Caetano filed.
Oct 29 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 13, 2015.
Nov 16 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 24, 2015.
Nov 30 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 4, 2015.
Dec 7 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 11, 2015.
Dec 8 2015 Record Requested .
Dec 14 2015 Record received from the Supreme Judicial Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1 envelope).
Dec 28 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 8, 2016.
Jan 11 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 15, 2016.
Jan 19 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 22, 2016.
Feb 8 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 19, 2016.
Feb 29 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 4, 2016.
Mar 14 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 18, 2016.
Mar 21 2016 Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion). Justice Alito, concurring in the judgment. (Detached opinion).
More at:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search....s/14-10078.htm

If it does, even if you consider Caetano's real work to have started only in late Oct (vs early July), it still took >4.5 months for the opinion.

Best to load up on that popcorn, we may be still waiting for it in early June.

__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 01-15-2019 at 10:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01-16-2019, 4:04 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,439
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
Some other ramifications may also be the idea of state residency, too.
An earlier case did rule that an out of state resident does qualify for a NY permit if they own a second home in NY.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 01-18-2019, 9:10 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 163
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Roberts really is going to tank this case to avoid a "controversial" slam dunk case isn't he. If this one is denied cert there's almost no chance of us getting a gun rights case infront of court until we get another justice. This one was supposed to be easy, a slam dunk.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01-20-2019, 1:35 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,726
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

42 hours to go!
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 01-20-2019, 6:46 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 300
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

My hope is not up.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 01-21-2019, 12:10 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,439
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A very good chance this will be relisted again.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 01-21-2019, 3:57 AM
SWalt SWalt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Riverside
Posts: 5,812
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Tagged
__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion.

NRA Patron Member
CRPA 5 yr Member

"...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 01-21-2019, 10:15 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,726
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

8 hours and 15 minutes to go!
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 01-21-2019, 10:19 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,793
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
Roberts really is going to tank this case to avoid a "controversial" slam dunk case isn't he. If this one is denied cert there's almost no chance of us getting a gun rights case infront of court until we get another justice. This one was supposed to be easy, a slam dunk.
Meh, we don't know that yet. While Roberts has made some bad leftist decisions, he voted against gay marriage, for citizens united, and with both Heller and McDonald.

Last edited by wireless; 01-21-2019 at 10:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 01-22-2019, 6:35 AM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 969
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotus Blog
2 minutes ago
There is one new grant today, in the New York City gun rights case NY State Rifle and Pistol v. New York.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/01/l...d-opinions-37/
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 01-22-2019, 6:59 AM
CalAlumnus's Avatar
CalAlumnus CalAlumnus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 754
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Oh heck yeah!
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 01-22-2019, 7:08 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 163
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm genuinely shocked. For once there is actual hope
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 01-22-2019, 7:09 AM
selfshrevident's Avatar
selfshrevident selfshrevident is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 626
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

NICE!
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 01-22-2019, 7:38 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 300
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well, we might just get our locked and unloaded transportation. :/
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 01-22-2019, 7:45 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,726
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default



Next is the question of when will it be heard. In my notes I have “SCOTUS doesn’t take for that session any case after the Monday after MLK Day.” If that is correct, this case should be heard and decided this term (i.e., we should get a decision before 2019 July 01).


Last edited by Paladin; 01-22-2019 at 7:56 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 01-22-2019, 7:50 AM
CalAlumnus's Avatar
CalAlumnus CalAlumnus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 754
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post


Next is the question of when will it be heard. In my notes I have ďSCOTUS doesnít take for that session any case after the Monday after MLK Day.Ē If that is correct, this case May be heard and decided this term (i.e., we should get a decision before 2019 July 01).

I have to think next session is more likely, considering the potential significance.

Am I right in thinking that while the facts of the case are ďlocked and unloaded,Ē the Court could use this opportunity to define strict scrutiny as the appropriate standard of review for 2A?
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 01-22-2019, 8:00 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,726
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalAlumnus View Post
I have to think next session is more likely, considering the potential significance.
Frankly, I'd prefer that to give RBG time to "retire" and be replaced. A 6:3 win sets a stronger precedent, in stare decisis terms, than a 5:4 win.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalAlumnus View Post
Am I right in thinking that while the facts of the case are “locked and unloaded,” the Court could use this opportunity to define strict scrutiny as the appropriate standard of review for 2A?
I haven't read this case. On first page of this thread, in post #9 I just went by others' descriptions of it where I said if accurate, this case may be another Caetano where they don't even hear orals, just go straight to per curiam. Getting ready to sell my house and move, so don't know if I'll even bother, just let SCOTUS do it's job....
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 01-22-2019 at 8:17 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 01-22-2019, 8:29 AM
CalAlumnus's Avatar
CalAlumnus CalAlumnus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 754
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
this case may be another Caetano where they don't even hear orals, just go straight to per curiam. Getting ready to sell my house and move, so don't know if I'll even bother, just let SCOTUS do it's job....
Wouldn’t that mean we have a per curiam opinion when cert is granted? That’s what happened with Caetano. But cert was granted today with no per curiam opinion. Do per curiam opinions sometimes come later?
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 01-22-2019, 8:33 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,744
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalAlumnus View Post
Wouldn’t that mean we have a per curiam opinion when cert is granted? That’s what happened with Caetano. But cert was granted today with no per curiam opinion. Do per curiam opinions sometimes come later?

It’s going full on. There is going to be a lot coming from Clarence Thomas on this who I think will write the opinion.

It’s clear Kennedy was the log jam now. Look for Thomas to set 2A precedent.
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 1:39 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.