The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 18, 2011, 05:27 PM   #1
.300 Weatherby Mag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2008
Posts: 1,777
CA Update: AB962 = CA Appellate Court Upholds Injunction 11/06/13

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=385930


COURT GRANTS NRA / CRPA FOUNDATION MOTION, INVALIDATES UNCONSTITUTIONAL AMMUNITION REGULATION STATUTE THAT WOULD HAVE BANNED MAIL ORDER AMMO SALES & REQUIRED AMMO SALES REGISTRATION

In a dramatic ruling giving gun owners a win in an National Rifle Association / California Rifle and Pistol (CRPA) Foundation lawsuit, this morning Fresno Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton ruled that AB 962, the hotly contested statute that would have banned mail order ammunition sales and required all purchases of so called “handgun ammunition” to be registered, was unconstitutionally vague on its face. The Court enjoined enforcement of the statute, so mail order ammunition sales to California can continue unabated, and ammunition sales need not be registered under the law.

--- Hey folks - great news but to post the entire body of what may be copyrighted is trouble for web sites. So I edited it.

Also, the URL didn't work for me. If someone or the OP wants to fix the URL or post a summary of the rest - it would be appreciated.

Sorry

GEM

Last edited by Al Norris; January 18, 2011 at 10:30 PM. Reason: Fixed Link
.300 Weatherby Mag is offline  
Old January 18, 2011, 05:56 PM   #2
krucam
Member
 
Join Date: September 21, 2010
Posts: 24
GREAT news out West...the fight there will likely never end, but a win is a win.
krucam is offline  
Old January 18, 2011, 09:08 PM   #3
Metalchemist
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2010
Location: California
Posts: 1
AB962 update

LOOK HERE for full text.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=385930
Metalchemist is offline  
Old January 18, 2011, 09:14 PM   #4
TheGoldenState
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2010
Posts: 1,191
__________________
The Day You Get Comfortable Is The Day You Get Careless...
TheGoldenState is offline  
Old January 18, 2011, 09:36 PM   #5
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,297
OK, obviously one of my comods was working on combining two threads on the same topic while I was busy closing one.

So, reopened.


Oh, and next time someone from California starts asking "WHERE'S NRA IN MY STATE???", this will be a good thing to show him.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old January 18, 2011, 10:40 PM   #6
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,319
It was probably me, Mike.

Here's the official notice, from Chuck Michel's CA Gun Law blog. I suggest not going there for a few hours. His server has been hit hard by the folks in CA and is currently down. sigh.

Quote:
COURT GRANTS NRA / CRPA FOUNDATION MOTION, INVALIDATES UNCONSTITUTIONAL AMMUNITION REGULATION STATUTE THAT WOULD HAVE BANNED MAIL ORDER AMMO SALES & REQUIRED AMMO SALES REGISTRATION

by C.D. Michel

In a dramatic ruling giving gun owners a win in an National Rifle Association / California Rifle and Pistol (CRPA) Foundation lawsuit, this morning Fresno Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton ruled that AB 962, the hotly contested statute that would have banned mail order ammunition sales and required all purchases of so called “handgun ammunition” to be registered, was unconstitutionally vague on its face. The Court enjoined enforcement of the statute, so mail order ammunition sales to California can continue unabated, and ammunition sales need not be registered under the law.

The lawsuit was prompted in part by the many objections and questions raised by confused police, ammunition purchasers, and sellers about what ammunition is covered by the new laws created by AB 962. In a highly unusual move that reflects growing law enforcement opposition to ineffective gun control laws, Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Other plaintiffs include the CRPA Foundation, Herb Bauer Sporting Goods, ammunition shipper Able’s Ammo, collectible ammunition shipper RTG Sporting Collectibles, and individual Steven Stonecipher. Mendocino Sheriff Tom Allman also supported the lawsuit.

The ruling comes just days before the portion of the law that bans mail order sales of so called “handgun ammunition” was set to take effect on February 1, 2011. The lawsuit, Parker v. California is funded exclusively by the NRA and the CRPA Foundation. If it had gone into effect, AB 962 would have imposed burdensome and ill conceived restrictions on the sales of ammunition. AB 962 required that “handgun ammunition” be stored out of the reach of customers, that ammunition vendors collect ammunition sales registration information and thumb-prints from purchasers, and conduct transactions face-to-face for all deliveries and transfers of “handgun ammunition.” The lawsuit successfully sought the declaration from the Court that the statute was unconstitutional, and successfully sought the injunctive relief prohibiting law enforcement from enforcing the new laws.

The lawsuit alleged, and the Court agreed, that AB 962 is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it fails to provide sufficient legal notice of what ammunition cartridges are “principally for use in a handgun,” and thus is considered “handgun ammunition” that is regulated under AB 962. It is practically impossible, both for those subject to the law and for those who must enforce it, to determine whether any of the thousands of different types of ammunition cartridges that can be used in handguns are actually “principally for use in” or used more often in, a handgun. The proportional usage of any given cartridge is impossible to determine, and in any event changes with market demands. In fact, the legislature itself is well aware of the vagueness problem with AB 962's definition of "handgun ammunition" and tried to redefine it via AB 2358 in 2010. AB 2358 failed in the face of opposition from the NRA and CRPA based on the proposal’s many other nonsensical infringements on ammunition sales to law abiding citizens.

Constitutional vagueness challenges to state laws are extremely difficult to win, particularly in California firearms litigation so this success is particularly noteworthy. Even so, an appeal by the State is likely, but the Court’s Order enjoining enforcement of the law is effective – February 1, 2011 – immediately regardless.

Despite this win for common sense over ill-conceived and counter productive gun laws, additional legislation on this and related subjects will no doubt be proposed in Sacramento this legislative session. It is absolutely critical that those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms stay informed and make their voices heard in Sacramento. When AB 962 passed there was loud outcry from law abiding gun owners impacted by the new law. Those voices must be heard during the legislative session and before a proposed law passes, not after a law is signed. To help, sign up for legislative alerts at http://www.nraila.com,/ and http://www.calnra.com/ and respond when called upon.

Seventeen years ago the NRA and CRPA joined forces to fight local gun bans being written and pushed in California by the gun ban lobby. Their coordinated efforts became the NRA/CRPA "Local Ordinance Project" (LOP) - a statewide campaign to fight ill conceived local efforts at gun control and educate politicians about available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. The NRA/CRPA LOP has had tremendous success in beating back most of these anti-self-defense proposals.

In addition to fighting local gun bans, for decades the NRA has been litigating dozens of cases in California courts to promote the right to self-defense and the 2nd Amendment. In the post Heller and McDonaldlegal environment, NRA and CRPA Foundation have formed the NRA/CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project (LAP), a joint venture to pro-actively strike down ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances and advance the rights of firearms owners, specifically in California. Sometimes, success is more likely when LAP's litigation efforts are kept low profile, so the details of every lawsuit are not always released. To see a partial list of the LAP’s recent accomplishments, or to contribute to the NRA or to the NRA / CRPAF LAP and support this and similar Second Amendment cases, visit http://www.nraila.com/ and www.crpafoundation.org.

Visit www.CalGunLaws.com
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 18, 2011, 10:40 PM   #7
Sean Michel n Assoc
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 12, 2011
Posts: 13
Just in from Fresno, the full story is available at www.calgunlaws.com

Looks like Al beat me to it! Thanks from the Michel & Associates team (proudly representing the NRA and CRPA Foundation in this lawsuit).
Sean Michel n Assoc is offline  
Old January 18, 2011, 10:51 PM   #8
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
It's a great day for ALL Californians, not just those who own guns. Congratulations to everyone in California - your state just took a small, but vital, step back toward freedom.
csmsss is offline  
Old January 18, 2011, 10:54 PM   #9
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,613
Does anyone have a link to the actual ruling? I'd like to know the details.

Good news for Californians, and great work by the NRA and CRPA.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 18, 2011, 11:12 PM   #10
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,319
Sorry Sean. Once I saw that the CalGunLaws server was swamped, I didn't want to be a part of the problem with crashing it.

Tom, unlike most rulings, this was not the written opinion. Expect that in a few days/weeks.

This was a direct ruling from the bench. Unusual, but not unprecedented.

Note also, the Judge ruled that the term, "handgun ammunition," was unconstitutionally vague on its face. Since just about every part of the law referenced this term, the entire law is void.

It will require the CA legislature to completely rewrite the law, but only after a thorough reading of the Judges opinion.

Will the State appeal? That's the 2 dollar question (can CA even afford an appeal?).
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 18, 2011, 11:47 PM   #11
jhansman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2007
Posts: 624
Great news, but trust me, the fools in Sacramento will be back with more lunacy. Let's just hope the courts will continue to see the light.
__________________
Blessed is the man who has nothing to say, and cannot be compelled to say it.
jhansman is offline  
Old January 18, 2011, 11:59 PM   #12
mes227
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2010
Location: Incline Village, NV
Posts: 535
Quote:
It's a great day for ALL Californians, not just those who own guns. Congratulations to everyone in California - your state just took a small, but vital, step back toward freedom.
And for those of us in the border states starting to see ammo shortages!!
mes227 is offline  
Old January 19, 2011, 02:15 AM   #13
Sean Michel n Assoc
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 12, 2011
Posts: 13
If www.calgunlaws.com is not working due to the heavy traffic, the full alert about today's decision is also available on our webiste here:http://michellawyers.com/nra-crpaf-l...idates-ab-962/

Just to let people know, the judge has not issued his final written opinion yet, which should be available in the coming weeks.
Sean Michel n Assoc is offline  
Old January 19, 2011, 03:02 AM   #14
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
"...the fools in Sacramento will be back with more lunacy..."
Yes, there is no hope in relying on our legislature for anything but more stupid laws. Now that we have incorporation let's hope that SCOTUS holds that we all have a right to carry. I just ordered some "hand gun" ammunition from Midway USA and they said last day to order for delivery here in kalifornia is the 21st.
jmortimer is offline  
Old January 19, 2011, 09:14 AM   #15
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,319
Sean? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I got the feeling that the Judge strongly hinted that the legislature would need more than just its own word that something was "Handgun Ammunition," since there are no studies, anywhere, that classify ammunition as one or the other.

If this is the case, the written opinion will be very interesting to read.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 19, 2011, 09:51 AM   #16
bikerbill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2007
Location: Lago Vista TX
Posts: 2,377
Excellent news ... yet another idiotic CA law goes down in flames ... can we fast-track this judge for the Supreme Court? Or at least the 9th Circuit?
__________________
"If all guns were built with mechanisms that kept them from firing when held sideways, we could end gang violence." humorist Frank Fleming
bikerbill is offline  
Old January 20, 2011, 05:31 PM   #17
DogoDon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2010
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 368
It's great news, but take careful note that this decision was not on Second Amendment grounds, so this is not precedent in terms of what government can or cannot do to burden the exercise of 2A rights. If CA can tighten up the statutes to avoid the vagueness problem (and I don't even know if that would be possible), expect they will do so.

But I hope not.

DD
DogoDon is offline  
Old January 20, 2011, 06:42 PM   #18
jaydubya
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 1, 2006
Location: Sandy Eggo
Posts: 430
Ah, Fresno! Raisin capital of the world. Center of the San Joaquin Valley, one of the most intensively farmed areas of the world, and a migratory bird hunter's paradise. I assumed (hoped?) that this judge was a Fresnan and might even do some hunting and fishing. Don't know if he does, but he has an excellent feel for legality.

How much will this change? Well, it cancels 1 February as the activation date for AB 962. And until he has issued a written opinion, no appeal is possible, so I can shoot up my stock of range ammo and order more on the internet. Will this decision be appealed? My guess is yes but, as long as I am guessing, it will fail.

Always rebuff those who point to Tucson as a reason for ammunition control. Loughner purchased his ammunition legally, and EVEN IF AB 962 WERE ALREADY IN EFFECT IN CALIFORNIA, he could have done so here. We must look elsewhere for the problem -- and its solution.

Jack
jaydubya is offline  
Old January 20, 2011, 09:08 PM   #19
madmag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 7, 2007
Location: The South
Posts: 4,239
Legislative bills are not normally amusing, but it appears that those that crafted the California bill were not aware that there are rifles that fire most most handgun calibers. But it makes sense that those that wrote the bill are not gun enthusiast.
madmag is offline  
Old January 21, 2011, 03:54 PM   #20
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 561
I expect CA will try again, in the Legislature if the CA AG doesn't appeal somehow. She is responsible for the "sanctuary city" of San Francisco, as DA, so she would love to fight this ruling.

As it stands though, this level of dismissal pretty well kills the law for now. A rewrite, if possible, appears required. The goal was for all ammo to covered, but that would have been too blatant, so the savants in the Legislature just tried for some slices of the salami. Too clever by half.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old January 21, 2011, 05:37 PM   #21
madmag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 7, 2007
Location: The South
Posts: 4,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarrySchell
The goal was for all ammo to covered, but that would have been too blatant,
Agree, but that seems to be the only path. But an all ammo ban probably has no chance at all to succeed. Seems they (CA.) are in a catch 22 situation.

Quote:
I expect CA will try again,
Yes, my guess is they will re-think and come back with legislation directed at (against) handguns rather than ammo. I don't want to give them any idea's....I am sure they will come up with something weird all on their own.

One of my sons just moved to CA from NJ....kinda like going from the skillet to the skillet.
madmag is offline  
Old January 21, 2011, 06:15 PM   #22
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmag
Agree, but that seems to be the only path. But an all ammo ban probably has no chance at all to succeed. Seems they (CA.) are in a catch 22 situation.
No, .22 is also used interchangeably in rifles and handguns.






RUNS AND DUCKS FOR COVER!
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 24, 2011, 10:06 PM   #23
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,319
The Judges decision is out. The Judge permanently enjoins CA from enforcing CA penal code sections 12060, 12061, and 12318 (AB962). Read it here.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 2, 2011, 09:11 PM   #24
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,319
The formal ruling on Parker v. California has been issued and can be read and downloaded here.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 22, 2011, 09:21 PM   #25
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,319
It's been quite a while since anything has actually happened with this case.

On 09-21-2011, the final arguments over attorney fees were made and the Judge has taken them under advisement.

If you have been looking at the Current 2A Cases thread, you may have noticed that CA appealed this decision/order to the 5th District Court of Appeals (5DCA).

Along the way, there was a boondoggle in the appeals filing that resulted in 2 appeals cases being filed. That has now been corrected and is a single appeal (order to consolidate granted on 10-18-2011).

With 2 motions for extra time being granted, the opening brief by CA is due next week, Oct. 27th.

Stay Tuned....
Al Norris 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 04:19 AM.


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 0.14923 seconds with 8 queries