AB 962 California Ammunition Restrictions Feb 01 2011

EXTREMEOPS1 · Dec 18, 2010

I thought that this matter had been resolved obviously not ......
damn Arnold Schwarzenegger !!! Does this restrict the reloaders out there to?

California Ammunition Restrictions

Subject: California Assembly Bill 962
Date: Nov. 30, 2010

On Oct. 11, 2009, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 962, legislation that will restrict purchases of handgun ammunition in California, and will prohibit California residents from buying handgun ammunition through catalog and Internet vendors.

AB 962 will become law statewide Feb. 1, 2011.

In addition to banning catalog and Internet sales of handgun ammunition, AB 962 will:
Prohibit the retail sale, the offer for sale, or the display of handgun ammunition in a manner that allows it to be accessible without assistance of an employee.
Require that the delivery or transfer of ownership of handgun ammunition occur in a face-to-face transaction, with the deliverer or tranferor being provided bona fide evidence of identity of the purchaser or other transferee.

That evidence of identity, which must be legibly recorded at the time of delivery, includes:
The right thumbprint of the purchaser or transferee.
The brand, type and amount of ammunition sold or otherwise transferred.
the purchaser's or transferee's full residential address and telephone number.
The purchaser's or transferee's date of birth.

We appreciate the support of our many valuable California shooting-sports customers over the years, and regret that we will no longer be able to provide them with handgun ammunition through catalog or Internet sales after Jan. 21, 2011.

CenTex · Dec 18, 2010

Socialism is just another dirty word for totalitarianism. :cuss:

RockerFor2A · Dec 18, 2010

Geez. I better get my order in soon. I know what I want for Christmas now!

Iopencarry · Dec 19, 2010

This bill, set to take effect in Feb, has been "put on hold" by the courts.
The NRA/CRPA, have a suit to stop this. They, along with the lawyers from the other side, have came to an agreement to table the bill until the court case is settled.

will post link soon.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6083

EXTREMEOPS1 · Dec 19, 2010

Thanks for updated info

Iopencarry said:
This bill, set to take effect in Feb, has been "put on hold" by the courts.
The NRA/CRPA, have a suit to stop this. They, along with the lawyers from the other side, have came to an agreement to table the bill until the court case is settled.

will post link soon.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6083

I saw that Cabelas are still acting on the AB962 bill informing CA ammo buyers that they cannot do business after 1/21/2010 due to the law going into effect . Maybe I'll inform them of their error

Iopencarry · Dec 19, 2010

more then welcome,

as for a nice call/letter to any supplier, I think it can't hurt.

Darkshadow62988 · Dec 20, 2010

Lawsuit

Anyone know what ever happened with the lawsuits challenging this?

Edit: Never mind I found quite a bit with a google search, looks like we will find out some info mid-January.

EXTREMEOPS1 · Dec 21, 2010

Response from Cabelas

EXTREMEOPS1 said:
I saw that Cabelas are still acting on the AB962 bill informing CA ammo buyers that they cannot do business after 1/21/2010 due to the law going into effect . Maybe I'll inform them of their error

Hello *******

Thank you for contacting Cabela's Product Information Department.

I will pass along the information to our Internet and Legal departments. Hopefully the problem will be corrected very soon.

Sincerely,

Mitch B.
Auto-Response 12/19/2010 09:58 PM
Suggested solutions were displayed.
Customer (***********) 12/19/2010 09:58 PM
You are telling CA ammo buyers that you cannot do business with them after 1/21/2010 due to AB962 . This has been put on hold by the courts see Link below :-

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6083

Please advise your sales department as this needs addressing soonest

Thanks

************

coolusername2007 · Dec 22, 2010

Iopencarry said:
This bill, set to take effect in Feb, has been "put on hold" by the courts.
The NRA/CRPA, have a suit to stop this. They, along with the lawyers from the other side, have came to an agreement to table the bill until the court case is settled.

will post link soon.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6083

The linked article says nothing about anything being "put on hold." In fact, just the opposite. From what I can tell this thing is marching forward until a ruling is offered on or around Feb 1st. From the article...

In light of the Court’s willingness to rapidly expedite this litigation and reach a final decision on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, Plaintiffs opted to withdraw their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction rather than protracting the litigation by arguing and requesting supplemental briefing on Plaintiffs’ irreparable harm claims. Plaintiffs' need for a preliminary injunction to issue were alleviated in many regards by assurances from both opposing counsel and the Court that this case will in fact be resolved prior to February 1st.

Ca Patriot · Dec 22, 2010

wait, so when this bill goes into effect i cant buy 9mm ammo from the internet ?

NRAMARINE · Dec 22, 2010

So why don't the ammo manufacturers simply boycott Ca.? Don't sell the police or any govt agency ammo for violating the rights of residents.

RockerFor2A · Dec 22, 2010

NRAMARINE said:
So why don't the ammo manufacturers simply boycott Ca.? Don't sell the police or any govt agency ammo for violating the rights of residents.

Bad economy and give up large institutional sales/accounts?

Army · Dec 22, 2010

RockerFor2A said:
Bad economy and give up large institutional sales/accounts?

Worked for Barrett.

SBrady@Michel&Associates · Dec 22, 2010

coolusername2007 said:
The linked article says nothing about anything being "put on hold." In fact, just the opposite. From what I can tell this thing is marching forward until a ruling is offered on or around Feb 1st. From the article...

Hello, I am one of the attorneys working on the NRA-CRPA Foundation lawsuit, Parker v. California, challenging all major provisions of AB 962. You are correct that implementation of the law is not "put not hold." The judge gave us an expedited hearing date, January 18, 2011, for the specific purpose of having the case resolved prior to Februrary 1, 2011. So, we will all know prior to February 1, 2011 whether AB 962 will be implemented or killed.

Iopencarry · Dec 22, 2010

SBrady@Michel&Associates

Thank you, for your work and your update. I was told that it was, by the NRA, therefor, I must say that I was giving false information.
As I am not a lawyer, I can only go by what is relaid to me. When it comes to legalize, I am lost.

Again, Thank You.

Gray Peterson · Dec 22, 2010

Iopencarry said:
SBrady@Michel&Associates

Thank you, for your work and your update. I was told that it was, by the NRA, therefor, I must say that I was giving false information.
As I am not a lawyer, I can only go by what is relaid to me. When it comes to legalize, I am lost.

Again, Thank You.

Who in the NRA told you this?

coolusername2007 · Dec 22, 2010

SBrady@Michel&Associates said:
Hello, I am one of the attorneys working on the NRA-CRPA Foundation lawsuit, Parker v. California, challenging all major provisions of AB 962. You are correct that implementation of the law is not "put not hold." The judge gave us an expedited hearing date, January 18, 2011, for the specific purpose of having the case resolved prior to Februrary 1, 2011. So, we will all know prior to February 1, 2011 whether AB 962 will be implemented or killed.

We have a "Brady" on our side?! In a deep Russian accent...Is this good...or bad?

JJ

Thanks for the post and welcome to OCDO. Care to read the "tea leaves" and give us any perspective on how you think this is going to work out?

SBrady@Michel&Associates · Dec 22, 2010

coolusername2007 said:
We have a "Brady" on our side?! In a deep Russian accent...Is this good...or bad? JJ

Thanks for the post and welcome to OCDO. Care to read the "tea leaves" and give us any perspective on how you think this is going to work out?

Yes, in my household the Bradys are pro-gun believe it or not. That is why I have been sent to salvage our surname. You may call it my own personal "campaign." (Laugh machine.) Thank you for the kind words.

And though I feel very good about our case, I respectfully refuse to "read tea leaves," as I am not in the the habit of "counting chickens." The one thing I will point out is that the Honorable Judge Hamilton gave us an expedited hearing date prior to the law taking effect, which shows he is taking the case seriously and understands that the case needs to be resolved prior to February 1, 2011 for the sake of fairness to all involved. This is especially relevant in light of the fact that His Honor's schedule was being set out to December of 2011 for such hearings. Merry Christmas!

coolusername2007 · Dec 22, 2010

SBrady@Michel&Associates said:
Yes, in my household the Bradys are pro-gun believe it or not. That is why I have been sent to salvage our surname. You may call it my own personal "campaign." (Laugh machine.) Thank you for the kind words.

And though I feel very good about our case, I respectfully refuse to "read tea leaves," as I am not in the the habit of "counting chickens." The one thing I will point out is that the Honorable Judge Hamilton gave us an expedited hearing date prior to the law taking effect, which shows he is taking the case seriously and understands that the case needs to be resolved prior to February 1, 2011 for the sake of fairness to all involved. This is especially relevant in light of the fact that His Honor's schedule was being set out to December of 2011 for such hearings. Merry Christmas!

Well in that case, glad to know you're on our side. And I didn't think you'd read them tea leaves, but had to ask. I do agree that the Judge is taking the case seriously, but what concerned me about the news article was that this statement...

The Court, noting that “time was of the essence” for Plaintiffs, ensured a ruling would either be made the date of the hearing or within a few days to ensure this case is resolved in its entirety prior to February 1st.

Hopefully ruling on the date of the hearing isn't a case of just going through the motions of "justice." In other words, I hope his mind isn't already made up. I know scholarly esquires don't think in those terms, but us beaten down peasants do.

Merry Christmas to you and yours also!

Iopencarry · Dec 22, 2010

Mr Peterson,
I will handle the mis-information from my end. As I am sure it was an honest mistake on their part.

Thank you,.
Dale
CCOC

AB 962 California Ammunition Restrictions Feb 01 2011

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Activist Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member