The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 22, 2011, 09:49 PM   #26
seed
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2004
Posts: 411
So what's the short and fast? Can someone please summarize what is going on now?
seed is offline  
Old October 22, 2011, 10:18 PM   #27
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,321
State banned mail order ammo sales.

CalGuns and NRA sued.

State Lost.

State is appealing.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old October 23, 2011, 02:29 PM   #28
Dan F
Member
 
Join Date: July 13, 2011
Location: MD *gah*
Posts: 54
No, Aguila, I have to differ...

That state is really not very appealing.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Dan F is offline  
Old October 23, 2011, 06:13 PM   #29
seed
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2004
Posts: 411
So does anyone know how likely they are to win their appeal?
seed is offline  
Old October 23, 2011, 07:43 PM   #30
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
I don't think it very likely, but I'm biased.

Without reading the States opening brief, it's really kinda hard to actually say. We will know more, next week when the State files.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 23, 2011, 07:54 PM   #31
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
 
Join Date: April 26, 2002
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
No, Aguila, I have to differ...
That state is really not very appealing.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Speaking strictly as someone who spent ten years there and returned to the United States: the state of California is beautiful; its elected officials and bureaucrats are altogether another matter.
__________________
No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.
Standing Wolf is offline  
Old October 29, 2011, 08:36 PM   #32
HoraceHogsnort
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2008
Location: Stanislaus Co., Mexifornia
Posts: 615
madmag wrote: "One of my sons just moved to CA from NJ....kinda like going from the skillet to the skillet."

Its actually more like going from the latrine trench to the outhouse pit!!
HoraceHogsnort is offline  
Old October 29, 2011, 09:15 PM   #33
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
From the Docket:

Quote:
  • 10/26/2011 Stipulation filed to: extend the filing of the AAO from 10/27/11 to 12/12/11. 3rd stipulation sent to Acting PJ for approval.
  • 10/28/2011 Stipulation of extension of time filed to: AAO w/n 45 days; 3rd stipulation approved by PJ.
So the opening brief is now due on or before Dec. 12, 2011.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 28, 2012, 10:15 PM   #34
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
I haven't been following the appeals to this case very much, as things were moving at a truly glacial pace (more the norm than the case we have been following)... Until I received an email notice by Michel & Associates (on an unrelated concern). Nestled in that email blast, was a reference to this case.

Low and behold, the CRPA attorneys have made public their response. While we don't don't have the opening brief by the CA DOJ, we now have the appellee's response.

If you have followed the CA handgun Ammo virtual ban case, this brief will delight you in its clarity.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Parker v CA Apellee Response.pdf (1.97 MB, 51 views)
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 30, 2013, 03:20 PM   #35
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
Waking up this "dead" thread with the latest (although somewhat dated) info from the CA appeals court.

The appellants filed their reply brief on Sept. 26, 2012: Appellants’ Reply Brief

Here, the appellants/defendants argue that a facial challenge to the law, that the law must be vague in all of its applications for a challenge to succeed.

Then on Oct. 9, 2012, a pair of amici curiae filed briefs in support of the respondent (plaintiff). They are:These two amici briefs rebut the appellants reply, above.

The appellants were given 30 days to respond to the amici briefs and on Nov. 13, 2012, they filed their response: Appellants Answer to Amicus Briefs of FFL Guard, LLC and Gun Owners of California and Law Enforcement Alliance of America. A summary of the rebuttal is in the second paragraph of page 5 of the pdf:

Quote:
The amicus briefs at issue have been submitted by avowed gun control opponents. The briefs fail to properly analyze the relevant legal standards, cite a depublished case, and improperly attempt to expand the scope of the appeal. The briefs lack legitimate persuasive power, fail to illuminate any issue of consequence in the action, and need not be considered by the Court.
This case is now fully briefed and we await further court action.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 19, 2013, 12:49 PM   #36
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
In other news, not entirely related to this case, California Lawyer, Chuck Michel, was Honored with NRA Defender of Justice Award. This award was given at the convention in Houston.

In other threads, I have disparaged the NRA-ILA for some of its lawsuits. I think I've made it clear that my remarks were meant for specific cases. If not, let me make that very clear with this post: Any disparaging remarks about the litigation efforts of the NRA-ILA are meant to be viewed in the context of the specific litigation in the thread that the remarks are posted. No more, no less.

The law firm headed by Chuck Michel is perhaps the foremost 2A litigator in CA. It is the "goto" firm when the NRA and/or the CRPA need expert litigators. They are, perhaps the best of the best, when it comes to defending the 2A against the anti-gun legislators in CA.

In this, I applaud the NRA-ILA in delivering this award to Chuck Michel. It is well deserved. My respect and thanks go to Chuck, himself, and to his associates. Sean? Clint? that means you guys too!
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 19, 2013, 10:51 PM   #37
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 211
Checked the docket and here is the status. On May 9. 2013, the court announced that it was ready to decide the case without the benefit of oral argument, unless requested by a party. On May 16, the State requested oral argument. Argument will likely be scheduled in the next 45-90 days, and the court will then have 90 days to issue its decision. So we can expect a decision by early fall, perhaps sooner.

The up side of this case is that the odds favor affirmance of the trial court decision. The downside is that last year the Legislature passed a bill that sought to correct the deficiencies of this law. Governor Brown in vetoing the new bill suggested that any new law should await the resolution of the lawsuit--which is pretty smart thinking because if there is a reversal and Brown had signed the new law, there would be competing statutes on the books. Not dissuaded by this obvious logic, the vetoed bill (or some modification thereof) is up for consideration in the Legislature again this term. The big difference now is that there is a veto killing supermajority of gun banning democrats in both houses.
62coltnavy is online now  
Old November 9, 2013, 11:21 AM   #38
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
The CA Appellate Court has issued their opinion on the afternoon of Nov. 6th. Clint Monfort (an attorney with Michel & Associates) has reported this over at CGN:

Quote:
UPDATE: 11/7/13

California Court of Appeals Confirms Ruling
Striking Down Ammunition Sales Restrictions

On November 6, 2013, the California Court of Appeals for the 5th District affirmed the lower court’s issuance of a permanent injunction in the NRA/CRPA backed legal challenge to Assembly Bill (AB) 962, Parker v. California. AB 962 would have banned mail order ammunition sales and required all purchases of so-called "handgun ammunition" to be registered. The court’s 41 page published opinion confirms that AB 962 is unconstitutionally vague and cannot be enforced.

The appellate decision comes approximately two years after the trial court issued a dramatic ruling giving gun owners a win just days before the law was set to take effect in 2010. The appellate court’s decision confirms that mail order ammunition sales to California can continue and ammunition sales need not be registered under current law.

The lawsuit, litigated by the NRA’s California counsel at Michel and Associates, P.C., was prompted in part by the many objections and questions raised by confused police, ammunition purchasers, and sellers about what ammunition would have been covered by AB 962. In a move that reflects growing law enforcement opposition to ineffective gun control laws, former Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker was the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Other plaintiffs included the CRPA Foundation, Herb Bauer Sporting Goods, ammunition shipper Able’s Ammo, collectible ammunition shipper RTG Sporting collectibles and individual Steven Stonecipher.

In addition to these plaintiffs, Mendocino Sheriff Tom Allman, along with ammunition shippers Midway USA, Natchez Shooters Supplies and Cheaper Than Dirt also submitted declarations in support of the lawsuit. Amicus briefs were submitted to the Court of Appeals by the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Gun Owners of California, and FFLGuard.

The Court of Appeals agreed with plaintiffs’ claims that AB 962 is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to provide sufficient notice of what ammunition is "principally for use in a handgun," and thus considered "handgun ammunition" under the law. The court explained that it would be practically impossible for consumers, retailers, and law enforcement to determine whether any of the thousands of different types of ammunition cartridges that can be used in handguns are actually used more often in a handgun. The proportional usage of any given cartridge is impossible to determine, and it changes with market demands.

The legislature itself was well aware of the vagueness problem with AB 962 and tried, but failed, to redefine the law. Rather than provide a clear list of the ammunition that would be prohibited, however, the legislature used the amendments as an attempt to expand the law to apply to even more types of ammunition, and also tried to expand the law in other ways.

The opinion also confirmed the applicable standard of review that should be applied in constitutional vagueness challenges, a larger legal issue that has been unsettled by the courts for years. The Court expressly confirmed that a law need not be vague in every conceivable application to be found unconstitutionally vague on its face, particularly when the law regulates constitutionally-protected activity, in this case the transfer of ammunition. In that respect the opinion brings some much needed clarity to this general area of the law.

Despite this common sense win over ill-conceived and counter-productive laws, additional legislation on this and related subjects will no doubt be proposed in the future. Those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms must stay informed and make their voices heard in Sacramento. To help, sign up for legislative alerts at www.nraila.com and www.calnra.com and respond when called upon. To assist in the fight against these persistent attacks on gun owners’ rights in California, please also donate to the NRA Legal Action Project today.

Second Amendment supporters should also be careful about supporting well intentioned, but unfortunately counterproductive litigation brought by individuals and groups without access to the necessary funding, relationships, firearm experts, and experienced lawyers on the NRA's national legal team. The NRA's team of highly regarded civil rights attorneys and scholars has the resources, skill, and expertise to maximize the potential for victory. For a summary of the many actions the NRA legal team has taken or is currently taking on behalf of California gun owners, click here.
While I have yet to read the opinion (I am looking forward to it), my congratulations go out to Clint and the entire team at Michele & Associates. Well done, guys!
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old November 12, 2013, 03:50 AM   #39
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 211
This last legislative session we dodged a bullet on a new law that would amend and repeal this unconstitutionally vague one, replacing it with a similar law applicable to ALL ammo. That law failed to garner enough votes and was allowed to be withdrawn, a legislative device intended to permit the proposal to be refilled, so we will see it again. While undoubtedly the south state politicos would like to get this passed, I think the AG's office would have a stroke because they can't even keep track of guns, much less millions of rounds of ammunition, nor do they have the hardware or software that would allow any meaningful use of the data the bill requires the vendor to record and report to the Department of Justice. The bill seems t intentionally avoid the question of the massive costs that would be imposed for implementing such a law, as well as the continuing costs for the staff necessary to process it. I have little doubt that if such bill is passed, it will turn out to be the same sort of multimillion dollar fiasco as the system NY implemented to try to individually identify fired shell casings from semi-auto pistols.
62coltnavy is online now  
Old November 12, 2013, 06:41 PM   #40
Oldwoodsloafer
Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 48
Ammo Registration

Just to note in passing, New York State's new SAFE Act requires registration of all ammunition sales in the state, including on-line and mail sales. In addition, each ammunition purchase must be approved by a state police version of the NICS check. (Some genius assumed approvals would go thru the FBI NICS system, but the feds vetoed that plan.) The dealer can collect a $10 fee for his efforts.
It looks like California missed theaxe on this one.
__________________
"There is nothing so frightening as ignorance in action."
Oldwoodsloafer is offline  
Old November 15, 2013, 10:42 AM   #41
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,543
The background check for each ammo purchase seems ridiculous and expensive for the purchase of small amounts of ammo. I'm sure this will simply result in bulk purchases by those who shoot even moderate amounts or prompt shooters to buy in-person, out-of-state. The smarter ones would purchase from a store a little deeper into a neighboring state and would toss boxes or other material which lists the lot number so as to avoid easy tracing.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old November 18, 2013, 05:40 AM   #42
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,405
Not me Jim. I'd keep the boxes. They prove I bought the stuff out of state. Track away, you'll find out it came from Next Door, One State Over.
JimDandy is offline  
Old January 26, 2014, 12:54 PM   #43
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
To keep everyone up to date on this case, December 16th, the CA-DOJ filed a petition for review with the CA Supreme Court: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...for-Review.pdf

Then on January 10th, the Respondents filed their answer in opposition to review: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...or-Review-.pdf

On January 21, the State filed its reply: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...for-Review.pdf

We now wait for a grant or denial of review.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 26, 2014, 09:38 PM   #44
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 363
Al,
Thank you very much for keeping us up to date on all the on going cases. This section is really the only reason I visit Firing Line these days.
Davey is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 11:41 AM   #45
Colt46
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: Campbell Ca
Posts: 830
Calguns is becoming quite a force

Other states that may be creeping towards nanny statedom might want to take a page from Calguns. A lot of first class minds and contributors involved.
Colt46 is offline  
Old February 4, 2014, 02:27 PM   #46
Sean Michel n Assoc
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 12, 2011
Posts: 13
This is an NRA Supported Lawsuit

Colt46, to be clear, Calguns has nothing to do with this case. Our firm represents the CRPA Foundation in this lawsuit and the NRA is supporting the case.
Sean Michel n Assoc is offline  
Old February 20, 2014, 12:30 AM   #47
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 137
Feb 19, 2014 the California Supreme Court accepted the CA Attorney General's petition for review.
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

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 -5. The time now is 11:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12732 seconds with 10 queries