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 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.
My 10th grade daughter could write this bill better than it was put together. Then again, she knows how to shoot and is logical. That said, she’s smart and would never agree to write such an obviously evil, unconstitutional piece of garbage.
Nope, that can't be it. SAF has only 650,000 members while the NRA still has 4,000,000. I'm sure I learned, right here at FR, that most everyone was quitting the NRA because they backed some pro-second amendment Democrat incumbents and weren't worth supporting anymore.
HA HA!
Herb Bauer Sporting goods -Fresno’s finest.
The leftist tried to control CA’s water and ammo, but found the conservative core in Fresno to be too big a nut to crack.
We are winning small victories all over the place. This Leftist craphole can be taken back and restored but it’ll take committed conservatives to win the fight over the coming decades.
It’s good to hear that there is SOME sanity in California howbeit so very seldom seen. Yeah!!!!
How much taxpayer money did the legislature waste promoting and passing a law that couldn’t pass Constitutional muster? How about a law that requires the legislators repay that money from their own pockets when they waste it on poorly crafted legislation?
This one is E A S Y.
Too bad for the retailers who are holding $$$thousands$$$ in in-stock ammo though.
NRA STILL ignores Alan Gura and SAF’s role in Heller and in McDonald. And that is STILL wrong.
Don’t think the thumb print thing is on. Of course I’m well stocked and re-load so I’m maybe not as current as I could be.
Good idea. No likely to get through the legislature. Sadly. That said, CA government is going to get cut hard. Soon. Newspapers are keeping it really quiet, but if you follow the math, things are going to get real interesting in the very near future here in the PRK. Ain’t no $$$ in the bank.
Not exactly. The bill required “face to face” transfers [purchases]. No internet or mail order allowed.
This bill would have brought about extremely onerous regulations on the sellers of ammo as well, causing many to probably just give up on selling ammo.
We already had our local shop stop selling firearms this year because of additional regulations [fed and state], this one probably would have forced them out of the ammo business as well.
The FedGov bill is about to come due too isn’t it?
This is good. Now we can sell our extra morter shells to California enthusiasts./s
And we need to get those south korean military surplus rifles on the market.
GO CMP!
there's nothing I read in the Judges' decision that overturns or stays that portion of the law.
http://www.redding.com/news/2009/oct/12/gov-signs-ammunition-sales-bill/
FTA: “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.”
Since the photo ID and thumbprint were part of the “registration” process, enactment/enforcement of those provisions should go as well.
I’ll wait for further information, but that’s the way I read it.
Most excellent!
Yep, got my email from CRPA today and it confirms: Entire statute enjoined because the law does not/cannot specify what Handgun Ammunition is.
Now we need the State SC to over turn this law AND the municipal laws it was mirrored after in Sacramento and LA counties.
The Democrats tried to fix it but they couldn’t agree among themselves on what constituted “handgun ammo.” They’ll be back but the gun ban lobby in CA has taken a big blow.
Folks have had enough of Democrats’ assault on their 2nd Amendment right to RKBA!
"Now we need the State SC to over turn this law AND the municipal laws it was mirrored after in Sacramento and LA counties."
Yep, git 'er done!
About time we started winning a few here!
YES!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.