Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: FYI, AB962 Struct Down as Unconstitutional

  1. #1
    Regular Member wildhawker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    113

    FYI, AB962 Struct Down as Unconstitutional

    Just received word, more details soon.

    -BC
    Brandon Combs
    Secretary, Calguns Foundation
    Member, CRPA Board of Directors

    Join me in making regular monthly tax-deductible donations to the Calguns Foundation and help us advance gun rights in California today!

    Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all comments are my own and not the approved position of any organization, nor should they be considered legal advice.

  2. #2

  3. #3
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Wink

    Fantastic news...

    Now to stop AB144...
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    83
    Heck yeah!!! Now I can still buy my 1000 round purchases from bulkammo.com for 100 less than in store!!
    Now let's stop ab144!!!!!

  5. #5
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    A Victory by ' the right people' for the job!

  6. #6

  7. #7
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Keep in mind this was under state constitutional grounds not 2A.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Ruiner.NIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    La Mesa
    Posts
    53
    Wow, that's awesome news!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Modesto , Ca
    Posts
    55
    Glad to hear this! Great Job To All who where involved on Making this happen!

  10. #10
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    I read this and wet myself.

  11. #11
    Regular Member wildhawker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    113
    This victory, I hope, instills our community with some confidence - we'll need it in the many battles to come, not all of which will be so successful at the early stages of litigation (or in Sacto). The gun rights coalition in California - including NRA, CRPA, and CGF, as well as the many grassroots advocates like those here - is indeed strong, and as long as we remain focused, we will advance and secure a robust right to arms and its corollary activities.
    Brandon Combs
    Secretary, Calguns Foundation
    Member, CRPA Board of Directors

    Join me in making regular monthly tax-deductible donations to the Calguns Foundation and help us advance gun rights in California today!

    Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all comments are my own and not the approved position of any organization, nor should they be considered legal advice.

  12. #12
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by demnogis View Post
    Fantastic news...

    Now to stop AB144...
    ...and 12031(e).
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  13. #13
    Regular Member CenTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    ,,
    Posts
    276
    [CALIFORNIA STATE] COURT INVALIDATES UNCONSTITUTIONAL AMMUNITION REGULATION STATUTE (AB962)
    Calguns Foundation ^ | 1/18/2011 | NA
    Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2011 12:50:03 PM 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.

    It would be nice, but I don't think it's over. Notice the reason Judge Hamilton ruled against the bill..."it was unconstitutionally vague." Do you think those who pushed for this bill will let that go? No! They will rewrite the bill and do their darnedest to remove all the vagueness and present the bill again. As y'all know, the anti-Constitutional anti-gunners are relentless. They work under the premise that time is on their side. Sooner or later they believe they will find an anti-gunner judge or court that will rule in their favor. They already know many judges and courts are anti-Constitution. Thankfully, it looks like Judge Hamilton is not one of those judges.
    Last edited by CenTex; 01-19-2011 at 11:27 AM.
    The words of a tyrant: I never entertain opposing opinions. I am always right.

    Socialism is just another dirty word for totalitarianism.

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -Patrick Henry

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Any attempt to rectify the vagueness would likely require banning rifle ammunition as well.

    This might actually make such a bill hard to pass, as it would get the "I've got mine -- screw everyone else" California rifle owners and hunters out in droves -- many of whom couldn't be bothered to support a gun right if their own rights depended on it (oh, wait, they do!).

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    83
    Yeah, I was reading up a little more this morning. Was it really defeated. I think once they re-write it so it's not so vague it's just gonna pass again, but next time around its gonna stay passed. I don't think it being struck down due to a lack of clarity is really a victory, it will be a victory when it gets struck down because the entire idea of the bill is unconstitutional. All I know is I'm stocking up on ammo over the next year.

  16. #16
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    Keep in mind this was under state constitutional grounds not 2A.
    +1

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •