• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

FYI, AB962 Struct Down as Unconstitutional

X

xmattedgex

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
83
Location
, ,
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!!!!!
 
wildhawker

wildhawker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
113
Location
California, USA
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.
 
CenTex

CenTex

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
276
Location
,,
[SIZE=+1][CALIFORNIA STATE] COURT INVALIDATES UNCONSTITUTIONAL AMMUNITION REGULATION STATUTE (AB962)[/SIZE]
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.
Click to expand...


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:
marshaul

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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!).
 
X

xmattedgex

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
83
Location
, ,
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top