Skip to comments.[CALIFORNIA STATE] COURT INVALIDATES UNCONSTITUTIONAL AMMUNITION REGULATION STATUTE (AB962)
Posted on 01/18/2011 12:50:03 PM PST by RKV
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 Ables 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 gun banners will be back. Then we’ll beat them again.
“unconstitutionally vague on its face”
This is good, but I’d rather see such laws struck down as violations of the Second Amendment than on a technicality like vagueness. That leaves the door open for the anti-gun nuts to come back with a more specific law.
Save that for the next round. Meanwhile spread fear, uncertainty and doubt among the enemies of liberty. And I’m saying that in the nicest way possible. ;>)
So.... what did they give up to get this? Nothing comes free, especially when the libtards are involved. What’s the catch?
!! WIN !!
I thought the law covered all kinds of ammunition, not just handgun ammunition?
The catch is this is a state court ruling and may be appealed, or the legislature will try again. Then we beat them again.
NRA/2nd Amendment PING
That will be the next bill. Then we bring in Alan Gura, go to federal court and he kicks their @$$. Again.
Yeah, I realize that much. I just anticipate something like a ban on magazines that hold more than 2 rounds, or magazines made out of plastic or metal. Or maybe the ammo issue is solved, but there is a 200% tax on all ammunition. I’m a grumpy cynic, though, so I automatically assume the worst.
And no, this is not an anti-California sentiment. I just wonder about the proverbial other shoe.
My take is we need 2-3 more Supreme Court verdicts to get the CA legislature to give up. Working on making that happen. ;>)
Good luck with your future litigation.
Meanwhile, San Joaquin Valley warrants CC - one way or the other.
I thought everyone had abandoned the single issue NRA for more "effective" groups like GOA.
Actually its CalGuns and Second Amendment Foundation they’re going to. You know, SAF? The guys who brought you Alan Gura, Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago? Those guys. And yes I’m an NRA member.
It’s always nice to see that a judge here or there still gives a rat’s behind about the US Constitution.
Law firm twitter feed.