thomachan72
09-07 09:46 AM
Just as under the Indian constitution under the Income tax act all citizens whether residing inside the country or not are treated equally. the Govt will be acting against the law and infringing upon basic rights if they create different tax structures based upon place of residence for citizens. For eg:- interest on bank deposits is income generated within the country and for that there is a compulsory TDS in case of NRIs. This is a provision to prevent people from repatriating income without paying due taxes as it becomes the responsibility of the bank to collect the tax. Now as any citizen an NRI has the right to any exemptions / deductions and can claim back excess tax that was deducted when he/she files the income tax.
I wouldn't be worried about this article unless your personal chartered accountant in India tells you something. You cannot be taxed differently from any other citizen. Let me ask you one thing; Dont you as a citizen have the right to vote irrespective of where you stay? similarly your rights dont change if you stay abroad or work abroad. Infact the govt of many states rely heavily on foreign repatriation particularly from the gulf countries.
There is going to be a HUGE HUGE aproar if something silly like this were to happen. Its like saying, "NRIs have to pay more at the Indian gas stations because the tax is higher for them"
Dont worry be happy it is a false article written by somebody who apparently has not understood really what he/she read.
I wouldn't be worried about this article unless your personal chartered accountant in India tells you something. You cannot be taxed differently from any other citizen. Let me ask you one thing; Dont you as a citizen have the right to vote irrespective of where you stay? similarly your rights dont change if you stay abroad or work abroad. Infact the govt of many states rely heavily on foreign repatriation particularly from the gulf countries.
There is going to be a HUGE HUGE aproar if something silly like this were to happen. Its like saying, "NRIs have to pay more at the Indian gas stations because the tax is higher for them"
Dont worry be happy it is a false article written by somebody who apparently has not understood really what he/she read.
wallpaper 2011 Calendar
IAMINQ
03-18 05:19 AM
Dear Friend,
We don't know what was your understanding between you and your ex-employer, It seems to me that you voluntarily paid money when you are not supposed to. I am also not sure how you got an H1 transfer without getting paid... Lot of question marks ??? Its better you talk to a qualified attorney and get their opinion. You can definetly go after the ex-employer for not paying you which they are legally bound too.. You will get all your $$$$.
We don't know what was your understanding between you and your ex-employer, It seems to me that you voluntarily paid money when you are not supposed to. I am also not sure how you got an H1 transfer without getting paid... Lot of question marks ??? Its better you talk to a qualified attorney and get their opinion. You can definetly go after the ex-employer for not paying you which they are legally bound too.. You will get all your $$$$.
21stIcon
05-04 01:07 PM
I've been monitoring BEC&PERM for the past 30 days and delved deeper on all labor processing thread, but found none on denials of conversion, please point out some reference URLs for PERM conversion denials that would be helpful.
2011 Image of JANUARY 2011 Calendar
crystal
04-28 03:08 PM
What possible reasons , you think you might get an RFE on h1-b extension?
more...
snhn
04-13 11:58 AM
Hello,
I am in my 8th year of H1b visa, getting extension on the basis of a pending labor . My visa notice came in today.
My lawyer says this. I-129 Approval notice from Feb 2006-2007. However my approval was
sent to consulate in Islamabad pakisan. Apparentlly my visa was not extended here in US.
I cam to know about it because it says on my I129 application. It basically says that I am
not eligible to extend my stay in the US therefore have to travel outside the country. My
wife petition,, well all she received was a letter from INS stating that her H4 application
can not be renewed because of my petition. I also states on that the H1B petitionore has a
criminal recore which is inadmissible in US. the only criminal record I have is some
traffic violations and a DWI from 2000.
Since my DWI I have been able to extend my H1 3 times in ths country. I have in fact been
able to travel out 2 times. I have never tried to get the visa extension in Pakistan
before. So I am not sure when DWI became a inadmissble offense. I got a h1 extension
approved last year. They never said anything abou that. I hav not been involved in
anything else either.
none of the conversation my lawyer has had with them, it does not specify what the criminal
record they are talkin g about. I have even talke to INS about it and they dont know either.
One other question. Can I still work even thought my visa is not extended per say. INS only
send a approval notice but not extension. The company lawyer stated that he needs to wait until he gets a letter from INS explainin what crminal back ground I have that makes me inadmissble. According to him DWI should not be the reason alone. He also stated that I can work and thet he will file an appeal in regards to this denial. If I goto pakistan, then the background check alone will take few months. If that happens, then I may loose my job here. Per INS I have to leave the country and try for extension there. But since they stated on my wife denial that I am inadmissble, the chances are they are not going to do it. Can I try goingt to Mexico to do this.
What are your thaughts.
Am I illegal right now.
Thanks!
N
I am in my 8th year of H1b visa, getting extension on the basis of a pending labor . My visa notice came in today.
My lawyer says this. I-129 Approval notice from Feb 2006-2007. However my approval was
sent to consulate in Islamabad pakisan. Apparentlly my visa was not extended here in US.
I cam to know about it because it says on my I129 application. It basically says that I am
not eligible to extend my stay in the US therefore have to travel outside the country. My
wife petition,, well all she received was a letter from INS stating that her H4 application
can not be renewed because of my petition. I also states on that the H1B petitionore has a
criminal recore which is inadmissible in US. the only criminal record I have is some
traffic violations and a DWI from 2000.
Since my DWI I have been able to extend my H1 3 times in ths country. I have in fact been
able to travel out 2 times. I have never tried to get the visa extension in Pakistan
before. So I am not sure when DWI became a inadmissble offense. I got a h1 extension
approved last year. They never said anything abou that. I hav not been involved in
anything else either.
none of the conversation my lawyer has had with them, it does not specify what the criminal
record they are talkin g about. I have even talke to INS about it and they dont know either.
One other question. Can I still work even thought my visa is not extended per say. INS only
send a approval notice but not extension. The company lawyer stated that he needs to wait until he gets a letter from INS explainin what crminal back ground I have that makes me inadmissble. According to him DWI should not be the reason alone. He also stated that I can work and thet he will file an appeal in regards to this denial. If I goto pakistan, then the background check alone will take few months. If that happens, then I may loose my job here. Per INS I have to leave the country and try for extension there. But since they stated on my wife denial that I am inadmissble, the chances are they are not going to do it. Can I try goingt to Mexico to do this.
What are your thaughts.
Am I illegal right now.
Thanks!
N
don840
04-03 06:06 PM
Have had unfortunate turn of events and need your guidance.
I had a valid approved h1 petition and i-94 for 2005 through company A.
Company filed for extension of h1 in 2007 and received approved h1 and i-94 valid till 2010. Did not travel out of the country at that time.
Filed for AOS 485, EAD, AP in 2007. Traveled and entered US using AP in 2008.
USCIS did inquiry and has revoked 2005 h1 because of incorrect LCA filing by the company. They have also said that because of incorrect LCA filing, I am in violation of h1 status. Attorneys have advised that USCIS will retroactive hold me as 'out-of-status' but not unlawful present as I was working in good faith based on an approved petition and unexpired i-94s.
The 2007 h1 was also filed in similar fashion as the 2005 h1.
Although USCIS has not revoked current 2007-2010 h1, there is a possibility of that happening. The 485 might be denied in that case.
The only option is to get on h4 by applying from consulate in India.
Since I will be now answering yes to question 38 (have you violated terms of US visa, or unlawful present..?) I have also shown as intent to immigrate based on my 485 filing.
I want to know my chances of getting an h4 approved.
I had a valid approved h1 petition and i-94 for 2005 through company A.
Company filed for extension of h1 in 2007 and received approved h1 and i-94 valid till 2010. Did not travel out of the country at that time.
Filed for AOS 485, EAD, AP in 2007. Traveled and entered US using AP in 2008.
USCIS did inquiry and has revoked 2005 h1 because of incorrect LCA filing by the company. They have also said that because of incorrect LCA filing, I am in violation of h1 status. Attorneys have advised that USCIS will retroactive hold me as 'out-of-status' but not unlawful present as I was working in good faith based on an approved petition and unexpired i-94s.
The 2007 h1 was also filed in similar fashion as the 2005 h1.
Although USCIS has not revoked current 2007-2010 h1, there is a possibility of that happening. The 485 might be denied in that case.
The only option is to get on h4 by applying from consulate in India.
Since I will be now answering yes to question 38 (have you violated terms of US visa, or unlawful present..?) I have also shown as intent to immigrate based on my 485 filing.
I want to know my chances of getting an h4 approved.
more...
krish.d.rao
11-06 10:11 AM
Any one knows which Airline is good (Cost & Service) from Newark to Bangalore? I have flown AI with stop over in Bom, but would prefer something direct to Bangalore.
Thanks
Air France has a Newark - Paris - Bangalore flight but their price/ service combination is not great. I flew Jet recently and the experience was the best in my 10 years of coach class flying. They do have a stop over in BOM which is not as good as flying direct to BLR but it is not bad either.
Thanks
Air France has a Newark - Paris - Bangalore flight but their price/ service combination is not great. I flew Jet recently and the experience was the best in my 10 years of coach class flying. They do have a stop over in BOM which is not as good as flying direct to BLR but it is not bad either.
2010 stock photo : January 2011 3d
gc28262
12-19 11:36 AM
These articles are nothing new. Given the current state of affairs, its only to be expected because people like you and me are actually displacing some jobs whether we admit it or not.
However, what these folks don't seem to get is that outsourcing is a much bigger culprit. And so go after the business owners who outsource to keep businesses profitable and not target a handful of legal immigrants. And legal immigrants are not responsible for the housing mess! Go after the loan defaulters. Catch the greedy banks who dished out bad loans!!
The unemployment numbers are very high and its spoiling people's holiday season and also their moods. A lot of American citizens don't have a choice to work anywhere else. That clouds their judgement and makes them irrational.Please try to understand the opposite point of view and just ignore these articles instead of starting threads on IV.
If you think you displaced some americans, please give back their jobs and leave the country.:rolleyes:. Your GC status need not stop you from doing so.
However, what these folks don't seem to get is that outsourcing is a much bigger culprit. And so go after the business owners who outsource to keep businesses profitable and not target a handful of legal immigrants. And legal immigrants are not responsible for the housing mess! Go after the loan defaulters. Catch the greedy banks who dished out bad loans!!
The unemployment numbers are very high and its spoiling people's holiday season and also their moods. A lot of American citizens don't have a choice to work anywhere else. That clouds their judgement and makes them irrational.Please try to understand the opposite point of view and just ignore these articles instead of starting threads on IV.
If you think you displaced some americans, please give back their jobs and leave the country.:rolleyes:. Your GC status need not stop you from doing so.
more...
newcomer
07-11 10:37 PM
Good one. Could also add the IV logo on it
hair january 2011 calendar planner.
gc_bulgaria
10-09 04:18 PM
http://www.immigration-law.com/
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
more...
santb1975
03-09 11:06 PM
I talked to attorney Murthy about this issue a few weeks ago. My 140 was approved July 2007. The salary I currently make 485 is 10K less than the salary mentioned on my Labor. I work for a speciality Pharma company with steady revenues. They are a public company as well. Two years ago my company Attorney(Fragomen) and my HR said that should not be a problem since GC is for a future position etc. When I checked with Attorney Murthy she said that is true but if you get a strict immigration officer he can say that the prevailing wage determination for your job was done two years ago and you are still not making that money. She said it is better to make the $$ mentioned on my labor now. I am going to ask my company attorney the same question and see what he says. I have a lot of respect for my company's attorney
hot January 2011 calendar #17
velan
05-26 06:17 AM
We should say thanks to IV core team, senators who understand our pains and helped to achieve this level and finally to QGA for the guidance given to IV core team.
more...
house Diana - January 2011 (calendar
appusheth
03-17 11:40 PM
My LCA was approved in July 2007.
My lawyer sent the I-14 application to USCIS in January 2008 before the 180 day period but my employer dated the USCIS fee check as 2005.
The USCIS returned the application asking us to re-send the application with a new check.
My lawyer sent the application again with a new check but by the time this application reached USCIS the 180 day period was over and USCIS returned the application again stating that my 180 period is over and they cannot accept the I-140 application now.
I am in the process of filing a fresh Labor Cert again. I guess now I will get a priority date of July 2008 and therefore I am losing 1 whole year in this process.
Is there a way out and will USCIS accept my application? The bad part here is the first application sent was before time but the check date was wrong.
All suggestions are highly appreciated.
My lawyer sent the I-14 application to USCIS in January 2008 before the 180 day period but my employer dated the USCIS fee check as 2005.
The USCIS returned the application asking us to re-send the application with a new check.
My lawyer sent the application again with a new check but by the time this application reached USCIS the 180 day period was over and USCIS returned the application again stating that my 180 period is over and they cannot accept the I-140 application now.
I am in the process of filing a fresh Labor Cert again. I guess now I will get a priority date of July 2008 and therefore I am losing 1 whole year in this process.
Is there a way out and will USCIS accept my application? The bad part here is the first application sent was before time but the check date was wrong.
All suggestions are highly appreciated.
tattoo Hello Kitty January 2011
braindrain
04-17 11:57 AM
You can apply starting 1 year prior to your expiry and all the details are available in the Indian Embassy websites.
simple google search would give you all the required details. You can start with the below URL..
www.indianembassy.org/
simple google search would give you all the required details. You can start with the below URL..
www.indianembassy.org/
more...
pictures January 2011 Calendar
h1techSlave
04-04 09:16 PM
I think most of the HR folks may not know what is an EAD. So they may fear EAD is some kind of illegal thingie and deny job. It is best to just say I am authorized work in the US and no further explanation need to be given.
Today at Boeing interview event I got very good offer. The HR lady congratulated me, kept offer letter in my hand. Then I told her that I'm an EAD holder. All my fear came true, and she said a big sorry and said EAD is not acceptable at any cost. Also she said, she can keep the offer in hold for me for 5 months. How can I expect green card in hand in 5 months. GOD don't give this situation to any one. just trying to reduce my pain here...
Today at Boeing interview event I got very good offer. The HR lady congratulated me, kept offer letter in my hand. Then I told her that I'm an EAD holder. All my fear came true, and she said a big sorry and said EAD is not acceptable at any cost. Also she said, she can keep the offer in hold for me for 5 months. How can I expect green card in hand in 5 months. GOD don't give this situation to any one. just trying to reduce my pain here...
dresses Images of Beautiful January
nhfirefighter13
June 4th, 2004, 09:04 PM
I needed that laugh after the day I've had. Thanks.
Gary
Thank you...thankyouverymuch. I'll be here all week and twice on Sunday. :p
Everyone needs a nice daily dose of humor and I'm not above making fun of myself. :)
Gary
Thank you...thankyouverymuch. I'll be here all week and twice on Sunday. :p
Everyone needs a nice daily dose of humor and I'm not above making fun of myself. :)
more...
makeup calendar for January 2011
bondgoli007
07-14 04:39 PM
I was audited on 6/09 and Fragommenr responded on 6/30...No response so far and I have emailed my Fragommen paralegal the following questions;
1. Typically how long does DOL take to respond to an Audit?
2. What kind of response can I expect? Will it be an approval or a further Audit?
3. What % of cases get a further audit after a response is filed to an initial Audit?
I will send out a response when I hear from him.
Side question: Is my Priority date the date when PERM was applied or the date the PERM will be approved?
Thanks.
1. Typically how long does DOL take to respond to an Audit?
2. What kind of response can I expect? Will it be an approval or a further Audit?
3. What % of cases get a further audit after a response is filed to an initial Audit?
I will send out a response when I hear from him.
Side question: Is my Priority date the date when PERM was applied or the date the PERM will be approved?
Thanks.
girlfriend See 2011 dates available at
DSLStart
07-29 11:16 AM
No contact with old attorney since I changed job. Do you see any chance of our PD becoming current for next month, hence this activity?
I too got the same two mails. First mail on 20 th and last mail on 22 nd.Mine is approved from Texas on JAN 2006.My PD is Nov 2005,but I used only PD to apply I-485.My current AOS is from another company.Did you or your lawyer get any postal mail?
I too got the same two mails. First mail on 20 th and last mail on 22 nd.Mine is approved from Texas on JAN 2006.My PD is Nov 2005,but I used only PD to apply I-485.My current AOS is from another company.Did you or your lawyer get any postal mail?
hairstyles January Monthly Calendar –
sk2006
07-04 11:48 AM
Answer to original question: YES any legal resident can buy Guns in CA. There is a test to be passed at authorised Gun dealer and there is a 10 days waiting period before you can be issued a gun.
However What about learning to use the weapons? Are there places where one can learn it?
No point buying a gun when you don't know how to use.
However What about learning to use the weapons? Are there places where one can learn it?
No point buying a gun when you don't know how to use.
satishku_2000
07-08 04:35 PM
Just rated and added my comments. Folks dont think about the result , just do your part ...:)
mhathi
02-13 01:56 PM
Immigration Voice - the voice of LEGAL immigrants!
Click here to learn more.
Click here to learn more.
No comments:
Post a Comment