Calguns.net  

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

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #281  
Old 12-12-2012, 3:32 PM
Left Coast Conservative's Avatar
Left Coast Conservative Left Coast Conservative is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Columbia, MO
Posts: 276
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
“The big question now: what will the Governor do?”

My scenario, based on not much more than my opinion:

Hmmmm. Does the Legislature have the votes to override a veto?

If so, the Governor vetoes, the legislature overrides with enough votes to prevent Chicago home rule to apply, and Illinois becomes shall-issue.

If not, then the AG files an appeal, is granted a stay of the CA7 order, Governor vetoes, and Illinois remains at status quo unless and until carry becomes a right by SCOTUS decision, striking down the Illinois law for good. Chicago writes their own ordinance, forcing a new lawsuit, which they lose at District, and Illinois becomes shall-issue.

The only way Illinois avoids shall-issue seems to be if SCOTUS decides against Moore on appeal. I wonder how likely that is?
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 12-12-2012, 3:37 PM
Left Coast Conservative's Avatar
Left Coast Conservative Left Coast Conservative is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Columbia, MO
Posts: 276
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
For your worried math to work you have to assume the entire rest of the current active aren't supportive and I think that's hard math for your position. It would not surprise me to see them petition of reconsideration and en-banc to stall. What is not very clear is whether it would be granted based on the math above. The wild card would be if someone wanted to dissent to the denial of en-banc - which could add a couple of months to the timeline.

As to all this "California will be last stuff - poppycock. This is going to SCOTUS and the day after the decision is announced all the holdout states and City will be shall issue.

-Gene
Gene,

On that wonderful day, I go down to the Santa Clara Co. Sheriff office to get an application, and they refuse to give me one because they don't accept them anyway. What would one do then?
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 12-12-2012, 3:42 PM
Left Coast Conservative's Avatar
Left Coast Conservative Left Coast Conservative is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Columbia, MO
Posts: 276
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post

It would seem to me that Judges do not like defendants who are defiant to their rulings, could Illinois really be that stupid?

Nicki
History would seem to indicate that yes, they might be that stupid. The next sign of Illinois intelligently managing their gun control litigation I see will the the first.
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 12-12-2012, 3:50 PM
Luieburger's Avatar
Luieburger Luieburger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 892
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Alan Gottlieb will speak about the victory and gun control in general in about 10 minutes on Current TV (Young Turks).

At 6pm PST he'll be on Piers Morgan for a similar discussion.


EDIT: 7 minutes in. Yeah... I didn't expect they would be spouting anti-gun bs before they let Alan speak. Sorry. I should have known better with Current TV.
__________________

NRA Benefactor Life Member
SAF Committee of One Thousand

Last edited by Luieburger; 12-12-2012 at 4:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 12-12-2012, 4:17 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMP91 View Post
That's only if the Heller 5 stay on the court by the time this case reaches them (if the antis appeal, which if their "sore loser" attitude is any indication they will)...

The antis could also pull the "delay the case until Obama can appoint one more liberal judge" card... I wouldn't put it past them...
Can't do it. The Heller 5 (absent wildly unexpected health issues) are going nowhere during the next 4 years. At wildly most, an unlikely en-banc process can take a year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Coast Conservative View Post
Gene,

On that wonderful day, I go down to the Santa Clara Co. Sheriff office to get an application, and they refuse to give me one because they don't accept them anyway. What would one do then?
First, you will not ask for an application. You will take the one online, fill it out, and submit it. If they don't process it we will get a TRO which consists of Don Kilmer and I waiting in the hallways of a Federal court for the on call motions judge who will force the issue in near real time.

Just as no one seriously resisted Heller or McDonald, no one will seriously resist a SCOTUS carry ruling.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 12-12-2012, 4:35 PM
AlexDD AlexDD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 868
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

With all this talk of eventual shall issue, my question is once shall issue does materialize here in California will we see more local Police Chiefs go with issuance or will they most remain with delegating it to the County sheriff?
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 12-12-2012, 5:05 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexDD View Post
With all this talk of eventual shall issue, my question is once shall issue does materialize here in California will we see more local Police Chiefs go with issuance or will they most remain with delegating it to the County sheriff?
It's a darn interesting question. I think you may see a lot of them go shall issue potentially as a revenue opportunity. I know that Taft PD realized there was an opportunity when Kern county got backed up for example.

In some places I expect you'll see some friendly competition over time.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 12-12-2012, 5:16 PM
Dreaded Claymore Dreaded Claymore is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,240
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
It's a darn interesting question. I think you may see a lot of them go shall issue potentially as a revenue opportunity. I know that Taft PD realized there was an opportunity when Kern county got backed up for example.

In some places I expect you'll see some friendly competition over time.
I just wish the fees weren't quite so high...
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 12-12-2012, 5:49 PM
DeanC's Avatar
DeanC DeanC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 100
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
In some places I expect you'll see some friendly competition over time.
Somehow I don't see Sheriff Doyle getting into a "who can give out the most permits" race...
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 12-12-2012, 6:03 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanC View Post
Somehow I don't see Sheriff Doyle getting into a "who can give out the most permits" race...
Hence, "some."

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 12-12-2012, 6:11 PM
DeanC's Avatar
DeanC DeanC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 100
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Hence, "some."
Aye. I'm just eager for a reason to buy someone a steak...
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 12-12-2012, 6:17 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,445
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
As to all this "California will be last stuff - poppycock. This is going to SCOTUS and the day after the decision is announced all the holdout states and City will be shall issue.

-Gene
Gene, a few years ago you said that after a SCOTUS carry decision some last holdout counties (IIRC, SF, Ala., LA, and Santa Clara), would require their own lawsuits to force compliance w/the holding.
1) Is that still true?
2) If yes, what counties do you think will require "special attention"?
3) If yes, how long after the SCOTUS decision do you think it would take to get all CA counties to comply?
__________________
"Gun-free zones" are "safe spaces" for killers. -- Milo

"If you're a Muslim, you slaughter Infidels: it's what you do."

Moderate Muslims will hold you down so the Radicals can cut your head off.

195+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 12-12-2012 at 6:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 12-12-2012, 6:27 PM
Kolo589 Kolo589 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 296
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luieburger View Post
Alan Gottlieb will speak about the victory and gun control in general in about 10 minutes on Current TV (Young Turks).

At 6pm PST he'll be on Piers Morgan for a similar discussion.


EDIT: 7 minutes in. Yeah... I didn't expect they would be spouting anti-gun bs before they let Alan speak. Sorry. I should have known better with Current TV.
And Piers is being a moron as normal in his "discussion"....
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 12-12-2012, 6:31 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Gene, a few years ago you said that after a SCOTUS carry decision some last holdout counties (IIRC, SF, Ala., LA, and Santa Clara), would require their own lawsuits to force compliance w/the holding.
1) Is that still true?
2) If yes, what counties do you think will require "special attention"?
3) If yes, how long after the SCOTUS decision do you think it would take to get all CA counties to comply?
Outside of LA, SF, Alameda, and Santa Clara, I think none will hold out. I honestly don't think more than 1 will actually attempt to resist - mainly because we're going to seek a TRO ASAP.

Since I said that we've actually made progress in a couple of the counties I thought would hold out have made significant progress.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 12-12-2012, 6:50 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Based on conversations I've had with a number of LEA's over the past couple of years, I think a shall-issue environment such as that we seek in Richards will gradually (and, depending on the politics, possibly more rapidly) push the process "upwards", perhaps with the local agencies handling the front end and the DOJ handling the back end of the process. Consider:

Quote:
26190. (a) (1) Each applicant for a new license or for the renewal of a license shall pay at the time of filing the application a fee determined by the Department of Justice. The fee shall not exceed the application processing costs of the Department of Justice for the direct costs of furnishing the report required by Section 26185.
***
(b) (1) The licensing authority of any city, city and county, or county may charge an additional fee in an amount equal to the actual costs for processing the application for a new license, including any required notices, excluding fingerprint and training costs, but in no case to exceed one hundred dollars ($100), and shall transmit the additional fee, if any, to the city, city and county, or county treasury.
(Emphasis added.)

When the local agencies become not much more than an administrative function and their already cash-strapped budgets have to bear a huge number of California licensees (think 3-5% of ~28Mil on a 2 year rolling basis, any number of things might happen including (but not limited to):

* LEAs push to make DOJ the sole source.
* LEAs push to extend the license duration.
* LEAs push to remove or raise the limit on allowable fees.

As Gene often notes here and elsewhere, we're asking the various sheriffs to issue as many licenses as they can now or, alternatively, be prepared for court orders telling them to remedy their policies and practices such that non-prohibited people have real and timely access to a license - and stronger as may be required to compel the constitutional outcome. We're also putting some other bugs in a number of ears related to the above provisions of the Penal Code and bullet points.

We can't stress enough how important a CA9 win would be for all of us. It would change the game overnight.

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 12-12-2012, 7:19 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,691
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Based on conversations I've had with a number of LEA's over the past couple of years, I think a shall-issue environment such as that we seek in Richards will gradually (and, depending on the politics, possibly more rapidly) push the process "upwards", perhaps with the local agencies handling the front end and the DOJ handling the back end of the process. Consider:



(Emphasis added.)

When the local agencies become not much more than an administrative function and their already cash-strapped budgets have to bear a huge number of California licensees (think 3-5% of ~28Mil on a 2 year rolling basis, any number of things might happen including (but not limited to):

* LEAs push to make DOJ the sole source.
* LEAs push to extend the license duration.
* LEAs push to remove or raise the limit on allowable fees.

As Gene often notes here and elsewhere, we're asking the various sheriffs to issue as many licenses as they can now or, alternatively, be prepared for court orders telling them to remedy their policies and practices such that non-prohibited people have real and timely access to a license - and stronger as may be required to compel the constitutional outcome. We're also putting some other bugs in a number of ears related to the above provisions of the Penal Code and bullet points.

We can't stress enough how important a CA9 win would be for all of us. It would change the game overnight.

-Brandon
This

Someone will no doubt have to 'splain it to Sheriff Jones (using pictures and very small words) so denial by delay goes away
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 12-12-2012, 7:42 PM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 801
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I just had to quote this


"Some gun control advocates believe their best chance is with the Supreme Court, despite recent rulings — including one overturning Chicago's handgun ban — that found citizens have a Second Amendment right to have a gun for self-defense in their homes.

Flynn Currie said she is encouraged by the court's silence on the right to carry concealed weapons and wants Madigan to appeal the ruling.

The Supreme Court's rulings on the Second Amendment were "very limited, saying the home is your castle, and it didn't apply to other places," she said. "For that reason, it's worth checking on that question."
"
http://news.yahoo.com/court-ruling-i...080837569.html



Can i just say:
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE keep thinking this way


if they appeal straight to SCOTUS by passing en banc then truely the timeline on this being heard gets moved up?
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc
Quote:
....."there can be no irreparable harm to a municipality when it is prevented from enforcing an unconstitutional statute,” and the public interest always weighs in favor of protecting constitutional rights. See Joelner v. Wash. Park, 378 F.3d 613, 620 (7th Cir. 2004).
I VOTE and contribute to organizations who share my pursuit of freedom
1991

Last edited by ddestruel; 12-12-2012 at 9:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 12-12-2012, 8:06 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 34,250
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Based on conversations I've had with a number of LEA's over the past couple of years, I think a shall-issue environment such as that we seek in Richards will gradually (and, depending on the politics, possibly more rapidly) push the process "upwards", perhaps with the local agencies handling the front end and the DOJ handling the back end of the process. Consider:

When the local agencies become not much more than an administrative function and their already cash-strapped budgets have to bear a huge number of California licensees (think 3-5% of ~28Mil on a 2 year rolling basis, any number of things might happen including (but not limited to):

* LEAs push to make DOJ the sole source.
* LEAs push to extend the license duration.
* LEAs push to remove or raise the limit on allowable fees.
For amusement, I've played with estimating the administrative overhead for this.

Assume 3% of 28 million; that gives a nice number of 840,000.

Guess that each app review and approval takes a whole hour of staff time. Assume that the offices will not devote more (or less) than 8 hours per day, 5 days per week to this task.

That's 105,000 staff-days, or 525 FTE across the state (and we know the heavier burdens would fall on the more populous counties and cities).

An LA County Sheriffs Deputy gets a minimum of $4,702/month. A number of issuing agencies seem to believe that's the right/minimum level of staff to review LTC apps. 3% of LA's 7.5 million LTC-eligible is 225,000. That would be 140 FTE deputies devoted to nothing but LTC apps, every year, now until forever; wikipedia says there are nominally 9100 sworn members of LASO, so they would need about a 1.5% staff increase to use roughly $8 million dollars per year in staff time. (Benefits and other overhead not included here. Rule of thumb: salary * 1.5 to get salary + benefits for gov't employees. Overhead hard to guess, but can be as much as 1.3 * salary in what I've read.)

The answer is likely to be simplified process, a shorter process, and review by less-expensive staff -- if review is required at all in ordinary cases.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 12-12-2012, 8:20 PM
Mrbroom's Avatar
Mrbroom Mrbroom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 336
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

A big thank you to all those involved here in our fight in CA.. Gene, Brandon, Bill, Grey and the many others.. I will always continue to support CGF, SAF and the NRA. I look forward to the fruits of your labor!
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 12-12-2012, 8:20 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,817
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
For your worried math to work you have to assume the entire rest of the current active aren't supportive and I think that's hard math for your position. It would not surprise me to see them petition of reconsideration and en-banc to stall. What is not very clear is whether it would be granted based on the math above. The wild card would be if someone wanted to dissent to the denial of en-banc - which could add a couple of months to the timeline.
I agree with you with respect to the math. Easterbrook is probably on our side, despite his ruling in NRA v Chicago (it's notable that Posner was on that same panel, concurred with the decision, but penned Moore).

So some of the potential damage depend entirely on how the en banc process works. Is the original decision depublished immediately? I would expect it would be depublished only if en banc is granted, and that suggests to me that Moore stands unscathed even if someone on the 7th circuit wants to dissent the en banc denial. And that means the strategic value of Moore remains in place throughout all of that.


Quote:
As to all this "California will be last stuff - poppycock. This is going to SCOTUS and the day after the decision is announced all the holdout states and City will be shall issue.
The state of California as a whole will become shall issue. The anti-gun strongholds, which hold an iron grip over the majority of the California population, will remain defiant to the last.

While I appreciate that the anti-gun courts haven't done much to contest Heller and McDonald (Jackson v San Francisco is somewhat on the fence with respect to that), carry in public is a whole different animal, and the temptation to resist will be much greater. Hence, as regards how the California district courts in the anti-gun stronghold areas will respond, I am quite skeptical, but have just a hint of hope as well. The only history I think can be any sort of guide here is NAACP v Alabama. I am more than happy to be schooled otherwise, however.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #301  
Old 12-12-2012, 8:52 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
For amusement, I've played with estimating the administrative overhead for this.

Assume 3% of 28 million; that gives a nice number of 840,000.

Guess that each app review and approval takes a whole hour of staff time. Assume that the offices will not devote more (or less) than 8 hours per day, 5 days per week to this task.

That's 105,000 staff-days, or 525 FTE across the state (and we know the heavier burdens would fall on the more populous counties and cities).

An LA County Sheriffs Deputy gets a minimum of $4,702/month. A number of issuing agencies seem to believe that's the right/minimum level of staff to review LTC apps. 3% of LA's 7.5 million LTC-eligible is 225,000. That would be 140 FTE deputies devoted to nothing but LTC apps, every year, now until forever; wikipedia says there are nominally 9100 sworn members of LASO, so they would need about a 1.5% staff increase to use roughly $8 million dollars per year in staff time. (Benefits and other overhead not included here. Rule of thumb: salary * 1.5 to get salary + benefits for gov't employees. Overhead hard to guess, but can be as much as 1.3 * salary in what I've read.)

The answer is likely to be simplified process, a shorter process, and review by less-expensive staff -- if review is required at all in ordinary cases.
Assuming a win in Richards on both "good cause" and "good moral character", there would be no need for the current long processes by the sheriff. The fingerprint check should be all that's needed.
Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 12-12-2012, 9:29 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,445
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
We can't stress enough how important a CA9 win would be for all of us. It would change the game overnight.

-Brandon
Won't hold you to it, but.... Brandon, what is best guestimate on when the 3 judge panel in the 9th will decide Peruta, Richards, and/or Baker? Are we looking at: a month, 3 months, 6 months? Plz factor in the panelists, their individual reps and the rep of the 9th. Thx

Everyone else, save yourselves some time and plz skip the lame 2 weeks jokes....
__________________
"Gun-free zones" are "safe spaces" for killers. -- Milo

"If you're a Muslim, you slaughter Infidels: it's what you do."

Moderate Muslims will hold you down so the Radicals can cut your head off.

195+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 12-12-2012, 10:02 PM
JeepMan JeepMan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 38
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrbroom View Post
A big thank you to all those involved here in our fight in CA.. Gene, Brandon, Bill, Grey and the many others.. I will always continue to support CGF, SAF and the NRA. I look forward to the fruits of your labor!

This. The tireless work of you folks on our behalf and on the behalf of future generations will bring blessings to your houses.
__________________
Who is John Galt?
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 12-12-2012, 10:11 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,448
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Assuming a win in Richards on both "good cause" and "good moral character", there would be no need for the current long processes by the sheriff. The fingerprint check should be all that's needed.
This^

Shall issue should also mean an end to the interview process and rely solely upon the results of your background check.
__________________

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 12-12-2012, 10:30 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,691
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
For amusement, I've played with estimating the administrative overhead for this.

Assume 3% of 28 million; that gives a nice number of 840,000.

Guess that each app review and approval takes a whole hour of staff time. Assume that the offices will not devote more (or less) than 8 hours per day, 5 days per week to this task.

That's 105,000 staff-days, or 525 FTE across the state (and we know the heavier burdens would fall on the more populous counties and cities).

An LA County Sheriffs Deputy gets a minimum of $4,702/month. A number of issuing agencies seem to believe that's the right/minimum level of staff to review LTC apps. 3% of LA's 7.5 million LTC-eligible is 225,000. That would be 140 FTE deputies devoted to nothing but LTC apps, every year, now until forever; wikipedia says there are nominally 9100 sworn members of LASO, so they would need about a 1.5% staff increase to use roughly $8 million dollars per year in staff time. (Benefits and other overhead not included here. Rule of thumb: salary * 1.5 to get salary + benefits for gov't employees. Overhead hard to guess, but can be as much as 1.3 * salary in what I've read.)

The answer is likely to be simplified process, a shorter process, and review by less-expensive staff -- if review is required at all in ordinary cases.
Great analysis, Sir. Except we already know from existing, approved Federal (and most States) gun sales practice reveals that "not prohibited" can be confirmed in mere minutes, not an hour. Give it another 5 minutes to make sure the classes have been attended, etc. ( a purely clerical task that does not take an LEO) and the model becomes not at all problematic. Simply the totally foreseeable result of a denial of fundamental, enumerated rights. No quarter should be given - none should be expected. The smart people need to gargle/repeat before they sleep each night reciting this. Lovingly submitted from a resident of the non-win County of Sacramento. We do not like being sacrificial PR lambs. And before you flame me/us - answer a question - "can residents apply for and receive a LTC using self defense as good cause and not prohibited as good moral character?" Nope - good luck getting an appointment to submit the ap - let alone get a timely ruling on it.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools

Last edited by Drivedabizness; 12-12-2012 at 10:34 PM.. Reason: Context/spelling
Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 12-12-2012, 10:49 PM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,181
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Won't hold you to it, but.... Brandon, what is best guestimate on when the 3 judge panel in the 9th will decide Peruta, Richards, and/or Baker? Are we looking at: a month, 3 months, 6 months? Plz factor in the panelists, their individual reps and the rep of the 9th. Thx

Everyone else, save yourselves some time and plz skip the lame 2 weeks jokes....
In all seriousness they just had Oral Arguments fairly recently so 1 month especially with the Kachalsky and Moore rulings also being recent probably not 2 months either. I'd say 4-8 months but these things are never consistent ( look at Palmer v D.C )
__________________

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, but let me remind you also that moderation in the persuit of justice is no virtue" -Barry Goldwater

“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” -Gerald Ford

Quote:
Originally Posted by cudakidd View Post
I want Blood for Oil. Heck I want Blood for Oil over hand wringing sentiment!
^
Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 12-12-2012, 11:05 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,445
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by safewaysecurity View Post
In all seriousness they just had Oral Arguments fairly recently so 1 month especially with the Kachalsky and Moore rulings also being recent probably not 2 months either. I'd say 4-8 months but these things are never consistent ( look at Palmer v D.C )
Palmer is in district/trial court, not appeals -- different beast I'd imagine.

Al Norris, am I correct in assuming that the 9th has the same rules you stated re. this case in that there's a 14 day window for requesting en banc and 90 days for requesting cert.?
__________________
"Gun-free zones" are "safe spaces" for killers. -- Milo

"If you're a Muslim, you slaughter Infidels: it's what you do."

Moderate Muslims will hold you down so the Radicals can cut your head off.

195+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 12-12-2012 at 11:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 12-12-2012, 11:07 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,144
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
For amusement, I've played with estimating the administrative overhead for this.

Assume 3% of 28 million; that gives a nice number of 840,000.

Guess that each app review and approval takes a whole hour of staff time. Assume that the offices will not devote more (or less) than 8 hours per day, 5 days per week to this task.

That's 105,000 staff-days, or 525 FTE across the state (and we know the heavier burdens would fall on the more populous counties and cities).

An LA County Sheriffs Deputy gets a minimum of $4,702/month. A number of issuing agencies seem to believe that's the right/minimum level of staff to review LTC apps. 3% of LA's 7.5 million LTC-eligible is 225,000. That would be 140 FTE deputies devoted to nothing but LTC apps, every year, now until forever; wikipedia says there are nominally 9100 sworn members of LASO, so they would need about a 1.5% staff increase to use roughly $8 million dollars per year in staff time. (Benefits and other overhead not included here. Rule of thumb: salary * 1.5 to get salary + benefits for gov't employees. Overhead hard to guess, but can be as much as 1.3 * salary in what I've read.)

The answer is likely to be simplified process, a shorter process, and review by less-expensive staff -- if review is required at all in ordinary cases.
Excellent analysis sir. I would expect that LA and SF will refuse to dedicate more than 1-2 officers to the task "because of budgetary constraints" (foot dragging) and that they will want all existing hoops jumped through to slow the process. Once they get past that mindset there is really no reason that a sworn officer needs to be involved at at all in the clerical aspects and perhaps not even to physically sign off - at least for 99% of applicants. The questionable applications can then go to sworn officers.

Honestly as long as the DROS system is up and running there is no reason (other than state and locally mandated bureaucracy) why 90% of permits can't be approved and temporary permits issued while you wait (10-15 minutes) with a drivers license like permit to follow in a couple of weeks. Basically swipe your drivers license and check the training complete box (like a handgun purchase) take a picture, and out pops the rice paper temp LTC.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association

Last edited by sholling; 12-12-2012 at 11:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 12-12-2012, 11:12 PM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,779
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
Basically swipe your drivers license and check the training complete box (like a handgun purchase) take a picture, and out pops the rice paper temp LTC.
The first thing we need to do after we force this state to start issuing, is get rid of those stupid rice paper permits.
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 12-12-2012, 11:26 PM
The Shadow's Avatar
The Shadow The Shadow is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,213
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
As to all this "California will be last stuff - poppycock. This is going to SCOTUS and the day after the decision is announced all the holdout states and City will be shall issue.

-Gene
I'll believe it when I have a CCW in my hand and I don't have to jump through ALL of the unreasonable hoops and restrictions that San Bernardino County puts on its permission slips.
__________________
Speaking about the destruction of the United States. "I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all times, or die by suicide. Abraham Lincoln Speech at Edwardsville, IL, September 11, 1858

Godwin's law

Last edited by The Shadow; 12-12-2012 at 11:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #311  
Old 12-12-2012, 11:33 PM
The Shadow's Avatar
The Shadow The Shadow is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,213
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Funtimes View Post
The heck man do we not even exist out here or what!!!??

See :P this is why HI did it's own thing, no one even knows we are here!
Hawaii and California might get "Shall Issue" at the sametime. But I would be more inclined to believe that even Hawaii will get "Shall Issue" before California. Some might disagree with me, but I see no evidence to support their position.
__________________
Speaking about the destruction of the United States. "I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all times, or die by suicide. Abraham Lincoln Speech at Edwardsville, IL, September 11, 1858

Godwin's law
Reply With Quote
  #312  
Old 12-12-2012, 11:36 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,817
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
So, what do you think of the time period that exists between the exact moment the court makes an internal decision and the date of publish? There is a time period where opinions/dissents/etc are being written, facts are being checked, whatever banal mechanics of the process are being completed. During this time is the law unconstitutional, even if the only people who realize that are those internal to the court? What about the poor sods who are being arrested and/or convicted during this time period?
I would say that yes, the law is Unconstitutional from that point in time, and anyone who is subsequently convicted of the overturned law has legitimate grounds to have his conviction overturned on that basis.


Quote:
Must the court, at the instance of consensus, immediately post to twitter the results of the case? A quick yes or no? If the court takes some months to write a complete decision, are they in effect exercising a power that they shouldn't have...?
In effect they are. Such things must, as always, ultimately yield to the constraints of the real world, but only to the degree absolutely necessary. It's not necessary for the court to publish the full opinion, complete with dissent, just to make it clear that the law in question is Unconstitutional. Simply stating so is sufficient. The details can come later.

Note that this applies only to the law that was specifically challenged. Other challenges to other laws will have to wait for the full decision to be published before they can properly be adjudicated, since for challenges to other laws, the details matter.


I appreciate what you're saying here, but the Constitution must reign supreme, or the republic which was built on it is nothing but a sham.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old 12-13-2012, 12:07 AM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,144
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
The first thing we need to do after we force this state to start issuing, is get rid of those stupid rice paper permits.
If they had a bit of sense (I know that's asking a lot) the state would make it no more complicated than getting a drivers license. Show up with your proof of training like you do with insurance, they run an instant check using your drivers license, take your picture and you're on your way. Heck hand it off to the (yikes!) DMV because they already have your prints on file. The permanent LTC could look like a drivers license or just be added to drivers licenses/ID Cards the way a motorcycle endorsement is added. The infrastructure is already in place at the DMV and it would save a cash strapped state a ton of money.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 12-13-2012, 12:07 AM
stingray4540's Avatar
stingray4540 stingray4540 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Bay Area
Posts: 523
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
The first thing we need to do after we force this state to start issuing, is get rid of those stupid rice paper permits.
Never gonna happen. They still print hunting/fishing licenses on stupid unwieldy paper. Isn't CA the home of the silicon valley? The birthplace of technology? And we can't print F'ing credit card type licenses?! Hell, just print paper ones that are CC sized so we can laminate them.


Also, I just want to say a BIG THANK YOU to all of those involved in fighting for our rights! Lawyers, Foundation organizers, monetary contributors, etc.
__________________
Quote:
“Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” - An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania (1759)

Last edited by stingray4540; 12-13-2012 at 12:09 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #315  
Old 12-13-2012, 12:54 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
Great analysis, Sir. Except we already know from existing, approved Federal (and most States) gun sales practice reveals that "not prohibited" can be confirmed in mere minutes, not an hour. Give it another 5 minutes to make sure the classes have been attended, etc. ( a purely clerical task that does not take an LEO) and the model becomes not at all problematic. Simply the totally foreseeable result of a denial of fundamental, enumerated rights. No quarter should be given - none should be expected.
Fingerprinting is required by state law, so NICS/DROS is not the baseline of time to go back. The purpose of the fingerprinting is to A) Check your criminal background and B) to give the issuing authority the ability to do what's called a RAPBACK.

RAPBACK is where if you're put into the system, the issuing authority gets a ping to let them know you've been arrested.

Quote:
The smart people need to gargle/repeat before they sleep each night reciting this. Lovingly submitted from a resident of the non-win County of Sacramento. We do not like being sacrificial PR lambs. And before you flame me/us - answer a question - "can residents apply for and receive a LTC using self defense as good cause and not prohibited as good moral character?" Nope - good luck getting an appointment to submit the ap - let alone get a timely ruling on it.
Why don't you just come out and say what you mean instead of beating around the bush.
Reply With Quote
  #316  
Old 12-13-2012, 7:02 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,890
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Heck hand it off to the (yikes!) DMV because they already have your prints on file. The permanent LTC could look like a drivers license or just be added to drivers licenses/ID Cards the way a motorcycle endorsement is added. The infrastructure is already in place at the DMV and it would save a cash strapped state a ton of money.
Brilliant! Therefore it will never likely happen.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #317  
Old 12-13-2012, 7:15 AM
MrBrent's Avatar
MrBrent MrBrent is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 307
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

[QUOTE=stingray4540;9909728]Never gonna happen. They still print hunting/fishing licenses on stupid unwieldy paper. Isn't CA the home of the silicon valley? The birthplace of technology? And we can't print F'ing credit card type licenses?! Hell, just print paper ones that are CC sized so we can laminate them.


San Bernardino county does issue cc style permits complete with photo. They switched from rice paper a few years back.
Reply With Quote
  #318  
Old 12-13-2012, 7:58 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,558
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
Or alot of citizens dead at the hands of itchy CPD trigger fingers.

An extreme reaction that I don't anticipate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RKV View Post
What I was pointing out was that while Ezell won, months have gone by and there are still no public gun ranges in Chicago. And yes these things take time, but nothing has actually improved since the win.

Well, that's just something else that can be brought up during the negotiations with the legislature. After all, Chicago can give up the fight against Ezell any time they want (or can be forced) to. Can't they?


Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Marbury v Madison controls here.




For someone to be prosecutable under a law which has been declared Unconstitutional would render Marbury v Madison itself null and void, and would place the Constitution itself in a role subservient not only to law which is Unconstitutional but has not been determined to be such by the judiciary, but also to law which has been declared Unconstitutional by the judiciary. It would mean the end of the power of judicial review.

On that basis, the 7th Circuit erred in giving the legislature time to craft new legislation, for in doing so it gives validity to a law which is null and void under the Constitution. That, in fact, is Unconstitutional in and of itself.

The Constitutionality of a law, or lack thereof, is a fixed property of that law, and changes only as the Constitution itself changes. Absent changes to the Constitution itself, a given law either has always been Constitutional since its inception, or it has always been Unconstitutional since its inception. It is not a valid power of the judiciary to declare that a law which is repugnant to the Constitution is, nonetheless, valid, even if only for a limited period of time. For the court to do so is for the court to directly contradict Marbury v Madison.

That's how I see it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
For your worried math to work you have to assume the entire rest of the current active aren't supportive and I think that's hard math for your position. It would not surprise me to see them petition of reconsideration and en-banc to stall. What is not very clear is whether it would be granted based on the math above. The wild card would be if someone wanted to dissent to the denial of en-banc - which could add a couple of months to the timeline.

As to all this "California will be last stuff - poppycock. This is going to SCOTUS and the day after the decision is announced all the holdout states and City will be shall issue.

-Gene

I seem to recall that SCOTUS basically 'grabbed' the Miller case (just by-passed all the interim steps) back in 1939. Doesn't SCOTUS have the ability to do the same thing with Moore? Presuming that they do still have that ability, is there any way to ask that they do so?


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #319  
Old 12-13-2012, 7:59 AM
Al Norris Al Norris is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Al Norris, am I correct in assuming that the 9th has the same rules you stated re. this case in that there's a 14 day window for requesting en banc and 90 days for requesting cert.?
The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) apply to every circuit court.

In those rules there is a 14 day window, from the day the panel decision is posted (as "published" or "unpublished") to file a motion for en banc consideration and/or a motion for the panel to reconsider (usually both motions are made in the same filing).

In the present case (Moore/Shepard), the State has until Dec. 26th to file for en banc. Christmas being a holiday, is excluded from the count. If Lisa Madigan does not file for en banc consideration, then the 90 day clock for filing a petition for cert continues, as it started at the same time. That clock runs out on March 11th (excluding Xmas and New Years), if I have counted correctly.

Allow me to further clarify a point of law that some are misconstruing. As it stands, the law in IL is not yet unconstitutional. The panel made the following order (emphasis added):

Quote:
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions.
This means that the cases go back to the District Courts, and the panel orders them to declare the law(s) unconstitutional and enter a permanent injunction. But the panel then added a caveat to those orders:

Quote:
Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.
So, at the end of this 180 day period, the District Courts will take up the cases and issue their individual declarations and permanent injunctions.

Then and only then, will the law become unconstitutional.

The IL Legislature can, in the meantime, repeal and/or amend the existing law to comply with the Circuit Court's mandate. This will have the affect of mooting the cases. Unless...

They do what Chicago did in Ezell. I don't see this happening, but one never knows.
__________________
Listings of the Current 2A Cases, over at the Firing Line.

Last edited by Al Norris; 12-13-2012 at 8:25 AM.. Reason: clarity
Reply With Quote
  #320  
Old 12-13-2012, 8:27 AM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris View Post
So, at the end of this 180 day period, the District Courts will take up the cases and issue their individual declarations and permanent injunctions.

Then and only then, will the law become unconstitutional.

The IL Legislature can, in the meantime, repeal and/or amend the existing law to comply with the Circuit Court's mandate. This will have the affect of mooting the cases. Unless...
The state will have a difficult, if not impossible time convicting anyone of a simple violation of the carry law in the interim. The circuit has declared the law violates the rights protected by the second amendment. The fact that they have chosen to not strike the law for 180 days is relatively unimportant. Any conviction under the current laws would simply be challenged on the grounds that the law is unconstitutional. And what will the circuit say to that appeal? "We know we said that the law violates your rights but we'll let a conviction stand which Infringes your rights." Again, see Loving v. Virginia. Do you really think that people convicted of miscegenation before the law was struck would be left to rot in jail?
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 10:24 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.