|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 18, 2011, 05:27 PM | #1 |
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 |
January 18, 2011, 05:56 PM | #2 |
Member
Join Date: September 21, 2010
Posts: 26
|
GREAT news out West...the fight there will likely never end, but a win is a win.
|
January 18, 2011, 09:08 PM | #3 |
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 |
January 18, 2011, 09:14 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2010
Posts: 1,191
|
__________________
The Day You Get Comfortable Is The Day You Get Careless... |
January 18, 2011, 09:36 PM | #5 |
Staff
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,390
|
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. |
January 18, 2011, 10:40 PM | #6 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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:
|
|
January 18, 2011, 10:40 PM | #7 |
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). |
January 18, 2011, 10:51 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
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.
|
January 18, 2011, 10:54 PM | #9 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
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 |
January 18, 2011, 11:12 PM | #10 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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?). |
January 18, 2011, 11:47 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2007
Posts: 680
|
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. |
January 18, 2011, 11:59 PM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 12, 2010
Location: Incline Village, NV
Posts: 535
|
Quote:
|
|
January 19, 2011, 02:15 AM | #13 |
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. |
January 19, 2011, 03:02 AM | #14 |
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. |
January 19, 2011, 09:14 AM | #15 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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. |
January 19, 2011, 09:51 AM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 19, 2007
Location: Lago Vista TX
Posts: 2,425
|
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?
__________________
"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." Albert Camus |
January 20, 2011, 05:31 PM | #17 |
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 |
January 20, 2011, 06:42 PM | #18 |
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 |
January 20, 2011, 09:08 PM | #19 |
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.
|
January 21, 2011, 03:54 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
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 |
January 21, 2011, 05:37 PM | #21 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 7, 2007
Location: The South
Posts: 4,239
|
Quote:
Quote:
One of my sons just moved to CA from NJ....kinda like going from the skillet to the skillet. |
||
January 21, 2011, 06:15 PM | #22 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,473
|
Quote:
RUNS AND DUCKS FOR COVER! |
|
October 22, 2011, 09:21 PM | #25 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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.... |
|
|