The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: PegLeg45 on January 18, 2011, 03:38:36 PM
-
Got this from Dillon Precision today relating to the ban (AB 962) on mail order ammo sales in California:
Here is the announcement:
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.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=384117&page=2
*Bold emphasis is mine.
-
WOW! A Fresno Judge that has a brain!!!,....Since it was ruled in the NRA's/CRPA's favor, the STATE shoul pay the legal fees.
Oh, wait,....Ca. is still broke,....
Nevermind.....
2nd Amend. Proponents: 1
Grasseating, bong smoking, cooty scratching, Moonbeam lovin', Birkenstock wearing, liberal asshats: 0
-
WOW! A Fresno Judge that has a brain!!!,....Since it was ruled in the NRA's/CRPA's favor, the STATE shoul pay the legal fees.
Oh, wait,....Ca. is still broke,....
Nevermind.....
2nd Amend. Proponents: 1
Grasseating, bong smoking, cooty scratching, Moonbeam lovin', Birkenstock wearing, liberal asshats: 0
You forgot gun grabbing. ::)
-
WOW! A Fresno Judge that has a brain!!!,....Since it was ruled in the NRA's/CRPA's favor, the STATE shoul pay the legal fees.
Oh, wait,....Ca. is still broke,....
Nevermind.....
2nd Amend. Proponents: 1
Grasseating, bong smoking, cooty scratching, Moonbeam lovin', Birkenstock wearing, liberal asshats: 0
fresno is farm country... its where you want to file a case for something like this. not la or sf
-
A win but not a big one IMHO. "Constitutionally Vague" as opposed to unconstitutional.
-
Its is actually pretty big. it means they will have give a standard of what is and is not a hand gun round.
up until this rulling, according to the CA DOJ, any metalic cartrage was a hand gun round. shot guns were expemt as there are no legal hand gun shot guns( no class 3)
the judge is a 45 colt with just a long cylinder. thats why its legal.
-
A win but not a big one IMHO. "Constitutionally Vague" as opposed to unconstitutional.
You are wrong Haz. A pro gun rights decision by a Ca. court has significance far beyond the importance of the particular issue.
As for further action our side could turn it around on the Govt as well.
They keep claiming on the thinnest grounds that they have jurisdiction over nearly everything under the "Commerce clause".
Banning a product from the leading form of modern commerce is a clear violation of Federal jurisdiction.
They may not do anything about illegal aliens but this gets them on 2 fronts, first, it deprives the Feds of Tax revenue, Second it undermines their opposition to the Ca. Marijuana laws.(based on the commerce clause they claim jurisdiction because Grow lights seeds and fertilizer cross state lines )
-
Sorry, y'all are happy about a half full glass ruling.
-
I'm sorry that you can't see that when the glass had a hole in it getting it half full is a definite improvement.
-
Its is actually pretty big. it means they will have give a standard of what is and is not a hand gun round.
up until this rulling, according to the CA DOJ, any metalic cartrage was a hand gun round. shot guns were expemt as there are no legal hand gun shot guns( no class 3)
the judge is a 45 colt with just a long cylinder. thats why its legal.
Sorry to tell you TAB, but the Judge isn't legal in CA.
-
Sorry to tell you TAB, but the Judge isn't legal in CA.
thats not ture. its perfectly legal to own and use. a ffl can not sell it to a non leo. there is nothing stopring it from being bought person to person. Importing one is not legal unless your a leo or a ffl, but that ffl can only sell it to a leo.
-
I'm sorry that you can't see that when the glass had a hole in it getting it half full is a definite improvement.
Challenging a law over 'semantics' is NOT effective. The law is right (good) or not. Having it turned back because of grammar is BS.
-
thats not ture. its perfectly legal to own and use. a ffl can not sell it to a non leo. there is nothing stopring it from being bought person to person. Importing one is not legal unless your a leo or a ffl, but that ffl can only sell it to a leo.
Splitting hairs once again. IS it legal or not? Citizen can't buy one from an FFL? Then I call it illegal and BS.
-
you talked about spliting hairs and using grammer.
thats how things are done. do you know why we have a pproved handgun list?( atleast legally) its for safety, they want to make sure guns don't blow up and pass drop tests.
just like why drugs are illegal. drugs are taxed, they just make it so you can't pay the tax.
-
thats not ture. its perfectly legal to own and use. a ffl can not sell it to a non leo. there is nothing stopring it from being bought person to person. Importing one is not legal unless your a leo or a ffl, but that ffl can only sell it to a leo.
I'll reword it..........The Judge is not on the CADOJ list of approved handguns for sale in CA.
Effective January 1, 2001, no handgun may be manufactured within California, imported into California for sale, lent, given, kept for sale, or offered/exposed for sale unless that handgun model has passed firing, safety, and drop tests and is certified for sale in California by the Department of Justice. Private party transfers, curio/relic handguns, certain single-action revolvers, and pawn/consignment returns are exempt from this requirement.
-
They'll go back and specify exactly what they want to call handgun ammunition and have no problem ramming a new law down our throats.
The Judge: A rep from Taurus told me that because the gun is designed to fire the .410 shotgun shell, it falls under CA's short-barrel shotgun law and is completely illegal to sell, or own (other than LE). Also, because it has a rotating cylinder, it falls under our assault weapon ban. Typical CA BS!
-
if that is true I know sevral people that are commiting felonys right now. funny that they leaglly transfered the guns thru a ffl too.
-
Using the Judge as an example of what is wrong in CA and is bad policy for us:
Any time you have an approved list of guns that can be purchased from an FFL but you allow private purchase, transfer and import of others you are playing into the hands of the anit's. When you start playing the grammar, verbage and punctuation game with legislation you are also playing into the hands of the anti's.
Allowing one type of purchase or transfer with an FFL and another privately you are opening up to a can of worms that leads to more restriction. Look at the so called gun show loophole. This is nothing more than "kitchen table" sales and trades taking place in an organized event, but the anti's started pushing for FFL only transfer or at least Brady checks on all transfers. They have not gotten their way on this, but they have still moved their attack on to all private transfers that take place.
Can anyone else envision the problems with the "approved" list but not holding private transfer or import to it? Every time an "unapproved" gun shows up in a crime, search or investigation, and every time a gun is seen at a gun show that is not on "the list" the anti's will be all over it with negative press and spin in ink.
Example one is a classic of a fearful people that feel their world is out of control. They don't care as much about anything else except that they want control. They want control of their lives, and they are lashing out at an item that they fear. It has been said millions of times, and I will repeat - "It isn't about guns as much as it is about control."
Example two is what happens when too many groups or organizations are allowed to legislate or rule. The patchwork of regulations erode Rights, hinder enforcement, turn honest citizens into criminals unintentionally, and actually help criminals skirt the laws. Do people actually believe that a state organization that inspects guns and approves or disapproves is going to do a better job than the company engineers and the insurance companies that cover those companies' liability?
The ruling of this court on the basis of grammatical issues has us perched at the top of the same slippery slope as the famous comma that either is or isn't in the Second Amendment and how it changes the meaning dramatically. All the writings of the founding fathers and their reasons for this amendment are being thrown out the window over an errant comma.
-
Ok,let me weigh in here on a point of fact, not opinion. In theory, a court can only over turn a law for two reasons. The firsrt is that it is either unconstitutional or other wise exceeded the authority of the legislative or rule making body. The law is delared void because the power to pass it never existed. Think of the flag burning law, McCain Feingold, Heller, or limits on abortion rights as examples.
The second basis, and one rarely used is what is called the "rational basis" test. Courts are (in theory) reluctant to overturn a law because they think it is a bad idea. Thats what elections are for. BUT, if the law itself, while permissable in scope, is arbitrary, vague, or unenforceable, precedent says that courts can overturn it. Historically, fewer than one in ten cases of judicial review use this rationale. It is rare that a court says to the legislature "What the hell were you thinking?". This is one of those cases. It says nothing about gun rights pro or con. It does however, force the legislature to deal with the complexity of precisley defining restrictions that can be understood by a reasonable person. I think the Ca. legislature will find this a somewhat difficult task without running afoul of Heller or MacDonald. Its far from just a matter of semantics.
FQ13
-
WOW! A Fresno Judge that has a brain!!!,....Since it was ruled in the NRA's/CRPA's favor, the STATE shoul pay the legal fees.
Oh, wait,....Ca. is still broke,....
Nevermind.....
2nd Amend. Proponents: 1
Grasseating, bong smoking, cooty scratching, Moonbeam lovin', Birkenstock wearing, liberal asshats: 0
What's wrong with Birkenstocks? :D