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
  #121  
Old 12-10-2019, 9:54 AM
SlickSlinky SlickSlinky is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Am I wrong in thinking that even if this does get ruled in our favor, the microstamping requirement would still make any new firearms unavailable? I guess I could buy a threaded barrel, but I would really love a new two tone Beretta M9A3.

Should they also have noted that California has allowed LEOs to legally purchase what is considered an AW?
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 12-10-2019, 10:03 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 19,361
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlickSlinky View Post
Am I wrong in thinking that even if this does get ruled in our favor, the microstamping requirement would still make any new firearms unavailable? I guess I could buy a threaded barrel, but I would really love a new two tone Beretta M9A3.

Should they also have noted that California has allowed LEOs to legally purchase what is considered an AW?
So you’re mistaken as Miller has little to do with the roster. (See Pena). AND!

LEOs are NOT exempt from the AW laws. Department can purchase for duty use and any LEO individual getting an AW must have prior approval and endorsement of the Department declaring it for duty use only. Additionally, they can’t keep that AW after leaving the Dept or retiring. The must surrender it to the Dept or make it featureless and de register it in order to keep it.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 12-10-2019, 10:31 AM
sfvshooter's Avatar
sfvshooter sfvshooter is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: LA/SFV
Posts: 1,159
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

I usually get an email from CRPA when something worthwhile occurs. I haven't received anything in the last few days.
__________________
Too many rifles, not enough time...
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 12-10-2019, 10:56 AM
SlickSlinky SlickSlinky is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
So you’re mistaken as Miller has little to do with the roster. (See Pena). AND!

LEOs are NOT exempt from the AW laws. Department can purchase for duty use and any LEO individual getting an AW must have prior approval and endorsement of the Department declaring it for duty use only. Additionally, they can’t keep that AW after leaving the Dept or retiring. The must surrender it to the Dept or make it featureless and de register it in order to keep it.
You are right, the AWB and the roster would have to be overturned to get the pistol that I would like to get.

But they still have a way to get what the state considers an AW and have it in use legally. Where, if I were to have the same modifications, then it is illegal and I go to jail. Its a two tier system and should be argued in my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 12-10-2019, 11:31 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 19,361
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlickSlinky View Post
You are right, the AWB and the roster would have to be overturned to get the pistol that I would like to get.

But they still have a way to get what the state considers an AW and have it in use legally. Where, if I were to have the same modifications, then it is illegal and I go to jail. Its a two tier system and should be argued in my opinion.
Military and LE are already exempt from Federal NFA laws so that would bea federal issue
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 12-10-2019, 4:43 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

NOTICE of Change of Hearing on 16 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Certain Claims in First Amended Complaint MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim : Motion Hearing reset for 1/16/2020 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5A before Judge Roger T. Benitez. (no document attached) (gxr) (Entered: 12/10/2019)

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...ler-v-becerra/
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 12-10-2019, 5:13 PM
GPMG Gunner's Avatar
GPMG Gunner GPMG Gunner is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 45
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I’ll offer this;

If Judge Benitez rules in our favor (very possible) and the same thing occurs with the magazine ban injunction (that resulted in freedom week - again, a possibility), then I predict the following two things will occur:

1. Millions of modern rifles formerly called “assault weapons” will flood into California, and you won’t be able to find a lower or semi auto to save your life on gun store shelves. However , due to the 10 day wait, a week of freedom won’t be enough. The beneficiaries of the injunction will be CURRENT owners of modern rifles.
2. If the same thing occurs with the AWCA that happened with magazines, the net effect will be that the law that controls assault weapons will be unenforceable. Just like it is with magazines. The defense of, “I made, bought, imported, transported, or modified X during freedom week” will be a legal shield from prosecution. They may even be forced to open the registration rolls again.

It won’t be about keeping bullet buttons. This will be about having rifles in their free configuration.

And one more thing; the 9th is no longer a sure vote for the antis. It’s about 50/50 now, most of those are Trump judges. We will have to wait and see.

I think this case gives the antis far more to worry about than NY vs. NYSRPA

Last edited by GPMG Gunner; 12-10-2019 at 5:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 12-10-2019, 5:55 PM
Betfair39's Avatar
Betfair39 Betfair39 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 117
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

i know this is out of topic but why there is no litigation about NFA items (Silencers SBR AR Pistols) in California right now?
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 12-10-2019, 7:51 PM
everyday_hero everyday_hero is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 95
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Remember when distributors made it clear that freedom magazines had to be shipped separately from CA compliant firearms. My educated guess is this time the option will be any feature will become lawful to order.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 12-10-2019, 8:11 PM
shungokusatsu's Avatar
shungokusatsu shungokusatsu is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 20
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Does this have any impact on the list of rifles banned by name? Cuz you know, KAC and all.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 12-11-2019, 9:17 AM
GPMG Gunner's Avatar
GPMG Gunner GPMG Gunner is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 45
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shungokusatsu View Post
Does this have any impact on the list of rifles banned by name? Cuz you know, KAC and all.
Unknown, but the lawsuit attacks the AWCA as a whole, so Category 1, 2, and 3 weapons could be struck - depending entirely on how far Judge Benitez goes with his ruling, assuming it’s favorable. Features have to do with category 3, and a lot of language in the lawsuit addresses this.

If Judge Benitez rules the entire AWCA unconstitutional, Katie bar the door.

If category 1 weapons are struck, you could go buy a PSG-1. If Category 2 weapons are struck, yes you could go buy that SR-10 or SR-15 (or even a RIS, because that railed fore end part is on that list too)
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 12-11-2019, 9:26 AM
GPMG Gunner's Avatar
GPMG Gunner GPMG Gunner is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 45
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Betfair39 View Post
i know this is out of topic but why there is no litigation about NFA items (Silencers SBR AR Pistols) in California right now?
Here’s why - money. It costs money to go to court, and because of this reality good judgement must be exercised as to what and when you want to fight. We have more pressing issues in California, primarily around the question of, “does the average citizen have the right to possess, carry, and use a modern weapon in defense of ones life, property, and society?” We say yes, the state says no.

A silver lining is that AR pistols are not NFA items, so if the AWCA is struck and the roster is successfully defeated, you could own that without challenging the NFA.

If you still want NFA items, there’s always the option of moving to where they are legal, or the possibility of carefully setting up a NFA trust out of state and securing a means to store the item safely. You can also own AOW and DD in California right now, as long as they don’t run afoul of existing California statutes.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 12-11-2019, 2:32 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 1,101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GPMG Gunner View Post
Unknown, but the lawsuit attacks the AWCA as a whole, so Category 1, 2, and 3 weapons could be struck - depending entirely on how far Judge Benitez goes with his ruling, assuming it’s favorable. Features have to do with category 3, and a lot of language in the lawsuit addresses this.



If Judge Benitez rules the entire AWCA unconstitutional, Katie bar the door.



If category 1 weapons are struck, you could go buy a PSG-1. If Category 2 weapons are struck, yes you could go buy that SR-10 or SR-15 (or even a RIS, because that railed fore end part is on that list too)
You are getting a M107A1, and you and you,.. we are all getting BMGs... Hurray.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 12-13-2019, 11:44 AM
Murder's Avatar
Murder Murder is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 40
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GPMG Gunner View Post
1. Millions of modern rifles formerly called “assault weapons” will flood into California, and you won’t be able to find a lower or semi auto to save your life on gun store shelves. However , due to the 10 day wait, a week of freedom won’t be enough. The beneficiaries of the injunction will be CURRENT owners of modern rifles. A
I don't think so. From what I remember, as long as you PURCHASED it within that week it would still be honored; you could have received your mags a month later and it wouldn't have mattered. I'm assuming the same will happen with this.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 12-13-2019, 3:46 PM
morrcarr67's Avatar
morrcarr67 morrcarr67 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ontario, CA
Posts: 14,846
iTrader: 33 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GPMG Gunner View Post
........

If you still want NFA items, there’s always the option of moving to where they are legal, or the possibility of carefully setting up a NFA trust out of state and securing a means to store the item safely. You can also own AOW and DD in California right now, as long as they don’t run afoul of existing California statutes.
I thought you needed a DD permit from the state of CA and the odds of you getting one was slim to none.
__________________
Yes you can have 2 C&R 03 FFL's; 1 in California and 1 in a different state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erion929 View Post

”Benitez 3:29 Thou shall not limit magazine capacity”
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 12-13-2019, 6:31 PM
KINGZ06 KINGZ06 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Beaver County, PA
Posts: 59
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

If the AWB is overturned for a week lets say, will the Bushmaster XM15 become available?
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 12-13-2019, 6:35 PM
Echidin Echidin is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SBC
Posts: 3,045
iTrader: 82 / 100%
Default

Would someone who is familiar with litigation terminology mind translating?
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 12-13-2019, 6:44 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Echidin View Post
Would someone who is familiar with litigation terminology mind translating?
The state is asking the judge to pause this case while the Duncan and Rupp cases go through the 9th Circuit.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 12-13-2019, 6:48 PM
Echidin Echidin is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SBC
Posts: 3,045
iTrader: 82 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
The state is asking the judge to pause this case while the Duncan and Rupp cases go through the 9th Circuit.
Thank you. Any reason to think Judge Benitez would be in favor of the state’s request?
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 12-13-2019, 6:50 PM
ARFrog's Avatar
ARFrog ARFrog is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Northern Calif - East Bay area
Posts: 1,240
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A-J View Post
For threads like this, I assume a majority of folks here are like me and do not want to clutter it with replies that are not relevant or on point. Make no mistake - the people that care about the issue are watching the thread closely, as I assume the opposition is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Echidin View Post
Would someone who is familiar with litigation terminology mind translating?
Not familiar as a practitioner but my impression of the request for stay is:

- delay
- obfuscate
- whine to the Court that it is a lot of work to respond to various litigation caused by multiple pending 2A suits - so can't we just put it all off until an action of the CADOJ's choosing is finalized

...but what do I know
__________________


ARFrog

Last edited by ARFrog; 12-13-2019 at 9:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 12-13-2019, 10:18 PM
local_nobody local_nobody is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 320
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Echidin View Post
Thank you. Any reason to think Judge Benitez would be in favor of the state’s request?
not holding my breath for it to happen, but wouldn't it be a thumb in the eye of the state if Benitez gives the state their 'pause' in this one so the others can finish up, but pairs it with an injunction against enforcing any of the AW provisions in the meantime
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 12-13-2019, 11:10 PM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,188
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GPMG Gunner View Post
Unknown, but the lawsuit attacks the AWCA as a whole, so Category 1, 2, and 3 weapons could be struck - depending entirely on how far Judge Benitez goes with his ruling, assuming it’s favorable. Features have to do with category 3, and a lot of language in the lawsuit addresses this.

If Judge Benitez rules the entire AWCA unconstitutional, Katie bar the door.

If category 1 weapons are struck, you could go buy a PSG-1. If Category 2 weapons are struck, yes you could go buy that SR-10 or SR-15 (or even a RIS, because that railed fore end part is on that list too)
Looking at the list of PC sections that it wants thrown out, the portions that include the Roberti-Roos and AR/AK Series bans do not appear to be listed.

Earlier I asked if this was an oversight or deliberate, but got no answer. Maybe I'm just missing something. Not sure why you'd leave those out but go after everything else.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 12-14-2019, 4:52 AM
69ELKY 69ELKY is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Monterey County
Posts: 292
iTrader: 48 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
Looking at the list of PC sections that it wants thrown out, the portions that include the Roberti-Roos and AR/AK Series bans do not appear to be listed.

Earlier I asked if this was an oversight or deliberate, but got no answer. Maybe I'm just missing something. Not sure why you'd leave those out but go after everything else.
I would love to have a detachable mag on my SKS Para.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 12-14-2019, 8:26 AM
Echidin Echidin is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SBC
Posts: 3,045
iTrader: 82 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by local_nobody View Post
not holding my breath for it to happen, but wouldn't it be a thumb in the eye of the state if Benitez gives the state their 'pause' in this one so the others can finish up, but pairs it with an injunction against enforcing any of the AW provisions in the meantime
That would be one way of giving the finger to the state for trying to rush and circumvent Benitez in Duncan.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 12-14-2019, 9:17 AM
AdvJunkie AdvJunkie is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 23
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Is there any chance the Rupp and Miller teams are talking?..... combining their strategy(s) so that Miller could make an amended complaint that includes Rupps strong points...... perhaps after doing so the Rupp team could withdraw their lawsuit because Miller has the ability to still amend and make their case even more powerful.

Is that a possibility?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
A statute should be sufficiently certain so that a person may know what is prohibited thereby and what may be done without violating its provisions (People v. Hagedorn, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 745.)

The vagueness doctrine bars enforcement of "a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application(People v. Hagedorn, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at pp. 745-746.)
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 12-14-2019, 9:22 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 1,101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by local_nobody View Post
not holding my breath for it to happen, but wouldn't it be a thumb in the eye of the state if Benitez gives the state their 'pause' in this one so the others can finish up, but pairs it with an injunction against enforcing any of the AW provisions in the meantime
What would that injunction mean on the ground? Bullet buttons are still enough to be legal?
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 12-14-2019, 11:01 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,877
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Freedom week was enough time to get mags into the state, but let's not forget it will be 10 days before you can take delivery of your gun if the AWB gets tossed. You know the state will appeal faster than freedom week also...
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg


John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 12-14-2019, 12:20 PM
Drew Eckhardt Drew Eckhardt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 1,917
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
Freedom week was enough time to get mags into the state, but let's not forget it will be 10 days before you can take delivery of your gun if the AWB gets tossed. You know the state will appeal faster than freedom week also...
Who doesn't have featureless rifles which could be converted to free state form, or spare lowers that have yet to be assembled?
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 12-14-2019, 3:47 PM
wchutt's Avatar
wchutt wchutt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Shasta County
Posts: 587
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew Eckhardt View Post
Who doesn't have featureless rifles which could be converted to free state form, or spare lowers that have yet to be assembled?
Probably one or two people out there have one, the other, or both, and the parts in hand to convert/build... just guessing.
__________________
“Further evasions will be deleted ETA as off-topic for the thread.
Either participate or remain silent.” -Librarian
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 12-14-2019, 9:36 PM
morrcarr67's Avatar
morrcarr67 morrcarr67 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ontario, CA
Posts: 14,846
iTrader: 33 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wchutt View Post
Probably one or two people out there have one, the other, or both, and the parts in hand to convert/build... just guessing.
Or, if they don't they still have plenty of time to get them.

Sent from my Nokia 7.1 using Tapatalk
__________________
Yes you can have 2 C&R 03 FFL's; 1 in California and 1 in a different state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erion929 View Post

”Benitez 3:29 Thou shall not limit magazine capacity”
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 12-14-2019, 9:53 PM
Brbecker Brbecker is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 90
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I feel like like there is a great chance this will go in our way. Anyone disagree ?
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 12-15-2019, 9:25 AM
mend0k mend0k is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 561
iTrader: 33 / 100%
Default

So ar pistols will be legal to purchase if this goes through? Even with the handgun roster still in tact?
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 12-15-2019, 10:43 AM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: A burned-out Best Buy
Posts: 1,675
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mend0k View Post
So ar pistols will be legal to purchase if this goes through? Even with the handgun roster still in tact?
Are there any AR pistols on the roster? That will answer your question
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 12-15-2019, 10:51 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 1,101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
Are there any AR pistols on the roster? That will answer your question
Yes. Franklin armory CA7 is on roster and for sale now.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 12-15-2019, 11:12 AM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,969
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
Yes. Franklin armory CA7 is on roster and for sale now.
I think he meant semi-auto ar pistols. CA7 is "bolt action" so in the same group as revolvers, etc. Micro stamping, lci, do not apply.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 12-17-2019, 10:01 AM
ironpegasus ironpegasus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 578
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Betfair39 View Post
i know this is out of topic but why there is no litigation about NFA items (Silencers SBR AR Pistols) in California right now?
Because the rest of us in free states don't want the NFA processing time to jump from a little over a year to a three year wait overnight?

Seriously though, I wish they'd streamline that process (15 minutes to process is more than enough - it's barely longer than a 4473 and it's the same background check as a NICS check once your paperwork is verified) and that we'd get a good ruling from the USSC on scrutiny so we can start hitting various aspects of the NFA. Starting with suppressors as over-the-counter items and lifting the '86 machine gun ban to get some rational pricing on MGs.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 12-17-2019, 8:22 PM
RoyBatty RoyBatty is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Nor-Cal
Posts: 128
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Taperxz

There is no law that forces a LEO that purchased and registered an AW for duty that forces that LEO to turn it in upon separation from the agency.....When Jerry Brown was AG he wrote an opinion but it isn’t law
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 12-18-2019, 12:05 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,847
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyBatty View Post
Taperxz

There is no law that forces a LEO that purchased and registered an AW for duty that forces that LEO to turn it in upon separation from the agency.....When Jerry Brown was AG he wrote an opinion but it isn’t law
True, there is no statute saying that retired leos may not keep AWS, but there is no statute that allows them to either. In the absence of any statute, opinions of the AG are persuasive. I haven't read the decision in so long I don't recall exactly what his theory was, but I would guess it is because the only exemption in the penal code is for current, not former, leos, and therefore former leos are subject to the same laws as the rest of us.
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 12-18-2019, 1:42 PM
BBot12 BBot12 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 365
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

So what’s the current state of this court hearing?

I don’t think Benitez delayed the case per Becerra’s motion, did he?
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 7:11 AM.




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



Seams2SewBySusy