AB962 down!

Finally, a judge in California with common sense.

My only question is WTF were all the gun owners doing in California to allow the damn thing to become law?

For those that give a hoot!

ETA -

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.

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 www.nraila.com and 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 www.nraila.com and www.crpafoundation.org.

thank god this over for now........

also, much credit needs to be given to the NRA, CRPA and calguns foundation. all i can say is donate today!!

Here is the chicken little liberal side of the story.... yawn...... another scared half-man, scared liberal writer...

http://redtape.msnbc.com/2011/01/onl...e-for-now.html

Bob Sullivan, the author of that article and Sen. Kevin De Leon, the laws sponsor, fail to tell you that It's already illegal for felons to posses ammunition of any kind in the state of California.


"Let's make another law because the law we already have isn't lawful enough. They didn't obey the other law, but they'll certainly obey this new law because it's more lawful... and damnit! It's for the children!"

What about Rep. McCarthy's Magazine Ban...

Originally Posted by barry

Bob Sullivan, the author of that article and Sen. Kevin De Leon, the laws sponsor, fail to tell you that It's already illegal for felons to posses ammunition of any kind in the state of California.


"Let's make another law because the law we already have isn't lawful enough. They didn't obey the other law, but they'll certainly obey this new law because it's more lawful... and damnit! It's for the children!"

Your post makes no sense. He states in the article....

"And they say they have evidence that millions of rounds of ammunition are illegally sold to convicted felons every year."

I'm not too familer with what this law was supposed to be, but if it's banning online sales of ammo then it makes perfect sense to say that online sales facilitate felons being able to purchase ammo illegally. Nobody is expecting the felon to obey the law. They are expecting the sellers to obey it.

The law only applied to handgun ammunition, John. If they're targeting felons,as they claim, why not restrict the on-line sale of all ammunition? Because they're liars and the goal is to incrementally reduce public access to firearms/ammunition by way of inconvenience and cost. They're not fooling anyone with sense.

Not familiar with the law, but the fact that you can't expect a felon to obey the law suggests tighter controls over the distribution and sale to prevent felons from getting access. If felons commit the majority of crimes with handguns then restricting handgun ammo seems to be logical. I suppose you could argue that would send felons to using weapons that aren't handguns. I live in Florida. When it comes to guns there aren't many restrictions here.

Felons And Guns Revisited

Prohibition does not work. I can think of many felonies that have nothing do with violence or guns... What ever happened to the great liberal idea of rehabilitation?

A felon who is still dangerous should not be freed. "Rehabilitated" felons should get all of their rights back when their debt is paid, including their gun rights and their right to privacy. Debt paid should mean exactly that. Let's give those who are genuinely trying a reasonable chance to go straight.

"The law only applied to handgun ammunition, John. If they're targeting felons,as they claim, why not restrict the on-line sale of all ammunition?"

It makes perfect sense. 9 times out of ten, what time of gun is the guy holding up the convenience store, bank, etc? It isn't a 30/30.

Peace will never be achieved through superior firepower. But whatever it takes to get you through the day.

Referring to the article: The author mentions 2.5 and 3% of sales in local jurisdictions being made(caught) by felons-97.5 to 97% of the general, law abiding public should pay more and be inconvenienced because of the actions of a few? Ultimately, society is punished because our criminal justice system is too weak to make the penalty severe enough to deter criminal behavior. No thanks! Interestingly enough, that same weak criminal justice system with its attempt to get a handle on a few by controlling all, will afford/force everyone to be pseudo-criminals once they legislate away our right to self defense. The punishment for being caught by the criminal justice system will be far less than being caught with out a firearm.
You would be surprised at the quiet mutterings spoken in the corner of every gun shop. The astute recognize the goal and won't let it happen without a fight. For now the fight remains within the justice system. The opposition calls them nutty, fanatics, etc. The truth is they recognize the ultimate law(COTUS) and how any legislation contrary to it is a violation, regardless of how "sensible" the new legislation appears. I think the opposition underestimates the will and resiliency of who they're targeting. Lucky for opposition most are extremely civilized and very slow to wrath. Probably in our lifetime..

It's in the Constitution that we have the right to buy ammunition on-line?

Jeremy,
I understand the idea, but there are too many calibers that transition from pistol to rifle and vice versa.

If I call Midway USA and order 22lr ammunition on-line, is it for my rifle or pistol? How about 9mm? .45acp? .38/.357? Just to name a few. Most handgun calibers are interchangeable with rifle. It's not quite as simple as it sounds.

Jeremy, I hope you're sharp enough to realize how bombastic your question is. The COTUS is not permission for the masses, it's a restriction on government.

Peace is unachievable anyway. Respect is the best you can hope for, and it comes from being just as lethal as the most lethal group. Its like the cold war that always gets so much praise. The mutual respect kept both sides from firing a single shot. What did they respect about each other? It sure wasn't their intellectual prowess. It was their firepower!! You don't have to like the fact that I earn and have bought nice things, but you DO have to respect it. I hope the cold war mentality resonates in my home and I never have to fire a single shot to protect it.

My idea of rehabilitation is calling the carpet cleaner to get the blood stains out my carpet after the body of the guy I shot is headed to the morgue. Rehab the carpet and walls... not the dirt bag.

Originally Posted by wake77

It's in the Constitution that we have the right to buy ammunition on-line?

Arguably and easily defendable - HELL YES, it's in the Constitution! What don't you understand about the words "Shall not be infringed"?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Don't make me get the dictionary out again, someone will call me stupid.

The writings of the Founding Fathers clearly state the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

And my favorite source for information on the 2nd Amendment, what it says, and what it means:

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

REPORT

of the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

of the

UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

Second Session

February 1982

The senate did an in depth analysis of what the 2nd Amendment says... I wonder what it says, and why you haven't heard about it.

"Shall not be infringed", I guess that is synonymous with "Shall be able to buy ammo at the cheapest price".

Originally Posted by wake77

"Shall not be infringed", I guess that is synonymous with "Shall be able to buy ammo at the cheapest price".

Because you obviously need them, here are the definitions:

shall   

1. plan to, intend to, or expect to: I shall go later.
2. will have to, is determined to, or definitely will: You shall do it. He shall do it.
3. (in laws, directives, etc.) must; is or are obliged to: The meetings of the council shall be public.
4. (used interrogatively in questions, often in invitations): Shall we go?

not

1. (used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition): You must not do that. It's not far from here.
2. U.S. Slang . (used jocularly as a postpositive interjection to indicate that a previous statement is untrue): That's a lovely dress. Not!

be

1. to exist or live: Shakespeare's “To be or not to be” is the ultimate question.
2. to take place; happen; occur: The wedding was last week.
3. to occupy a place or position: The book is on the table.
4. to continue or remain as before: Let things be.
5. to belong; attend; befall: May good fortune be with you.
6. (used as a copula to connect the subject with its predicate adjective, or predicate nominative, in order to describe, identify, or amplify the subject): Martha is tall. John is president. This is she.
7. (used as a copula to introduce or form interrogative or imperative sentences): Is that right? Be quiet! Don't be facetious.
–auxiliary verb
8. (used with the present participle of another verb to form the progressive tense): I am waiting.
9. (used with the present participle or infinitive of the principal verb to indicate future action): She is visiting there next week. He is to see me today.
10. (used with the past participle of another verb to form the passive voice): The date was fixed. It must be done.
11. (used in archaic or literary constructions with some intransitive verbs to form the perfect tense): He is come. Agamemnon to the wars is gone.

in·fringe   

1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
–verb (used without object)
2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.

I don't think I have ever posted on a thread where you didn't have to post the last word, even when you couldn't come up with anything remotely applicable to say...