PDA

View Full Version : Legal flaws in AB962 allowing ready Fed. court challenge...


bwiese
10-12-2009, 9:59 AM
I copied & reposted Gene's post that was buried in a thread so folks are not panicky. We have time, funds and technical correctness on our side. We've known about this issue for sometime (i.e, we didn't come up with this at midnight yesterday) - it's been kept warm on the stove 'just in case'.

The regulation of internet delivery of ammunition as drafted in AB962 is preeempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAAA '94).

AB962 Regulates The Routes & Services of Common Carriers

AB962 creates a misdemeanor in proposed Penal Code §12318 for not following the appropriate steps for “delivery . . . of handgun ammunition”. The bill goes on to state that deliveries may “only occur in a face-to-face transaction with the deliverer . . . being provided bona fide evidence of identity from the purchaser or other transferee.” However, the bill exempts law enforcement agencies, sworn police officers, ammunition manufacturet/importers, “handgun ammunition vendors” as defined in the statute, and certain firearms collectors. As such, common carriers will now have to make modifications to their rates and services in an attempt to ascertain whether delivering a package marked ORM-D to any given address is allowed, or is punishable as a crime.

This requirement on a common carrier’s service is particularly difficult for carriers where a retail establishment meets the definition of a “handgun ammunition vendor” under the act, but is not otherwise a Federal Firearms Licensee. These retailers are exempted from the non-delivery requirement but there is no documentation proving that such a recipient is exempt. Many “big box” retailers in California sell ammunition but do not sell firearms.

Even if an alternate narrower statutory construction were to be followed, on the face of the proposed law, common carriers would have to attempt to obtain evidence of identity to comply with proposed Penal Code §12318(a), which is clearly a state law that has a substantial impact on a carrier’s service.

Regulation of the Routes or Services of Common Carriers is Federally Preempted

Federal preemption of the routes, rates, or services of common motor carriers is found in 49 USC §14501(c)(1):

(1) General rule. Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of 2 or more States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier (other than a carrier affiliated with a direct air carrier covered by section 41713 (b)(4)) or any motor private carrier, broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property. Additional Federal preemption for common carriers was enacted in FAAAA '94 and was codified in 49 USC §41713:


§41713. Preemption of authority over prices, routes, and service

(a) Definition. In this section, “State” means a State, the District of Columbia, and a territory or possession of the United States.

(b) Preemption.
(1) Except as provided in this subsection, a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of at least 2 States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier that may provide air transportation under this subpart.

(4) Transportation by air carrier or carrier affiliated with a direct air carrier.—
(A) General rule.— Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of 2 or more States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier or carrier affiliated with a direct air carrier through common controlling ownership when such carrier is transporting property by aircraft or by motor vehicle (whether or not such property has had or will have a prior or subsequent air movement).
The US Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that laws which regulate delivery by "common carriers" are preempted.

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that a Maine statute that placed limitations on the delivery of cigarettes was preempted by the FAAAA. That statute is very similar to the restrictions on delivery found in AB962 .

In Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association (128 S. Ct. 989, 2008) the Court found that a requirement for shippers to choose a special shipment method and that a carrier would be deemed to have knowledge that shipment had prohibited tobacco products in it, were both preempted by Federal Law. Maine attempted to defend the regulation by claiming that there was a public health exception to the FAAAA. The court replied to that argument as follows:


Maine’s inability to find significant support for some kind of “public health” exception is not surprising. “Public health” does not define itself. Many products create “public health” risks of differing kind and degree. To accept Maine’s justification in respect to a rule regulating services would legitimate rules regulating routes or rates for similar public health reasons. And to allow Maine directly to regulate carrier services would permit other States to do the same. Given the number of States through which carriers travel, the number of products, the variety of potential adverse public health effects, the many different kinds of regulatory rules potentially available, and the difficulty of finding a legal criterion for separating permissible from impermissible public-health-oriented regulations, Congress is unlikely to have intended an implicit general “public health” exception broad enough to cover even the shipments at issue here. (Id. at 997.)

There is not any equivalent “public safety” exception to the FAAAA to allow AB962 either.

AB962, as written, is preempted by FAAAA '94.

We have already done initial planning regarding plaintiffs and counsel for this case. And we do have time - as the law does not take effect until February 2011.

freakshow10mm
10-12-2009, 10:02 AM
Getcha some!

foxtrotuniformlima
10-12-2009, 10:14 AM
So because this new regulation makes UPS's job harder, it is not legal ? That is SWEEEEEEET!

steadyrock
10-12-2009, 10:16 AM
Very nicely played, CGF. Donation inbound to help offset some of the costs. I knew there would be a good contingency plan, but I didn't know it would be this tight. Well done.

woodsman
10-12-2009, 10:18 AM
How do other areas legally prevent mail order ammunition sales or justify the finger print requirement?

wash
10-12-2009, 10:18 AM
My question is buried in the other thread too.

Can we get legal fees paid by the state if we win the case?

7x57
10-12-2009, 10:19 AM
Defense in depth. We didn't want to have to pay to take it down in court, but the ball got past the front line. More costly, but that's why we have a second line.

7x57

freakshow10mm
10-12-2009, 10:23 AM
How do other areas legally prevent mail order ammunition sales or justify the finger print requirement?
Could be preempted by being passed before the date of the federal law. That's my guess. Most laws will have a history annotation on the bottom of effective date or date it was made into law.

Legasat
10-12-2009, 10:23 AM
I'll take it however we get there!!!

oaklander
10-12-2009, 10:24 AM
Thanks Bill, that other thread grew a lot faster than I expected!

joe_sun
10-12-2009, 10:26 AM
Thanks for the hope! More donstions inbound soon.

dirtnap
10-12-2009, 10:28 AM
Would there have been some risk exposing this prior to the bill becoming law? I don't understand why no mention of this was made during the fight.

AndrewMendez
10-12-2009, 10:28 AM
EVERYBODY SAY IT WITH ME....DONATE!

Vin496
10-12-2009, 10:31 AM
Even though it looks like AB962 will be shot down, be prepared to be gouged for the next year.

bodger
10-12-2009, 10:32 AM
Would there have been some risk exposing this prior to the bill becoming law? I don't understand why no mention of this was made during the fight.


I agree. Would it have made any difference? I can't think of why it would have helped the opposition. Would they have worded AB962 differently?

Maybe there was concern that CG folks wouldn;'t work quite as hard to get Arie to veto if the alternative plan was divulged.

I still don't believe that there was ever a tally of all the calls and faxes and e-mails we made. And if there was, if Arnie ever saw it.

Vin496
10-12-2009, 10:32 AM
Would there have been some risk exposing this prior to the bill becoming law? I don't understand why no mention of this was made during the fight.

I'm sure there would have been a risk, why would you let them know they wrote a bill that could easily be overturned in court.

GrizzlyGuy
10-12-2009, 10:48 AM
It seems like the legislature could easily get around this by passing a new law that makes buying handgun ammo illegal except in face-to-face transactions. That would relieve the burden on common carriers and take them out of the equation. For example, among other things, PC 12020 makes it a crime to buy a high capacity magazine.

HondaMasterTech
10-12-2009, 10:51 AM
Good luck.

dirtnap
10-12-2009, 11:00 AM
I'm sure there would have been a risk, why would you let them know they wrote a bill that could easily be overturned in court.



Maybe there was concern that CG folks wouldn''t work donate quite as hard to get Arie to veto if the alternative plan was divulged.



Maybe this?

:hide:

jdberger
10-12-2009, 11:05 AM
I agree. Would it have made any difference? I can't think of why it would have helped the opposition. Would they have worded AB962 differently?

Maybe there was concern that CG folks wouldn;'t work quite as hard to get Arie to veto if the alternative plan was divulged.

I still don't believe that there was ever a tally of all the calls and faxes and e-mails we made. And if there was, if Arnie ever saw it.

Of course it would. AB 962 was already amended to squeeze by the initial objections of Calgunners when we were hammering the Assembly and Senate.

Sometimes you have a better chance when you dare the opposition to lick the frozen flag pole....

Eckolaker
10-12-2009, 11:05 AM
Just Curious, but how come this was not originally part of the strategic effort to stop this bill?

Don't you think it would have helped to use these legal loopholes as another way to explain the ridiculousness of this bill? Especially to those that don't quite get it?

steadyrock
10-12-2009, 11:10 AM
Would there have been some risk exposing this prior to the bill becoming law? I don't understand why no mention of this was made during the fight.

I don't have a copy of the book handy, but there is a passage in Sun Tzu's The Art of War that talks about when you want your men to fight their hardest, place their backs against a river so they have nowhere to go but forward. I'm quite certain that same wisdom ran through Gene's veins when making this decision.

gregorylucas
10-12-2009, 11:22 AM
I have to agree with the sentiment that you don't show all of your cards in a game until forced to. I would like to think of it as an "incremental" approach to breaking the back of gun control. Besides a court decision is the final word on any piece of legislation anyways.

Greg

freakshow10mm
10-12-2009, 11:23 AM
Just Curious, but how come this was not originally part of the strategic effort to stop this bill?

Don't you think it would have helped to use these legal loopholes as another way to explain the ridiculousness of this bill? Especially to those that don't quite get it?
TRP probably didn't think it was necessary to publicize this in fear of A) gun owners becoming complacent that "it will be taken care of" and B) the legislature changing the wording to regulate the buying instead of delivering to comply with the federal regulation.

If/when AB962 gets struck for this violation, the legislature will have to start from the beginning to get a legal bill passed. This means it will start at the basics, change the words, get it passed in committee, bring it to the floor for debate/vote, then over to the other side for debate/vote, change here, there, etc. The longer a bill takes the less enthusiastic lawmakers are willing to spend on it. We can bank on more important things to come by to get their attention off draft #2. Jab in the face to make them take cover then knee them in the balls. That's how politics work.

wildhawker
10-12-2009, 11:27 AM
We cannot live in a state of complacency, as if CGF/NRA/SAF will be there to save us every time.

We must take it upon ourselves to fight using all the resources available to us, which is what we did. And we'll continue to. And we're going to win. End of story.

freakshow10mm
10-12-2009, 11:32 AM
I wouldn't count the NRA as being beneficial to CA. I've been around here for a year and in that time the CGF has done more on accident than the NRA has done on purpose. The NRA seems like a fair weather fan of CA. I wouldn't put them on my Christmas card list.

steadyrock
10-12-2009, 11:35 AM
We cannot live in a state of complacency, as if CGF/NRA/SAF will be there to save us every time.

We must take it upon ourselves to fight using all the resources available to us, which is what we did. And we'll continue to. And we're going to win. End of story.

Succinctly put.

RRangel
10-12-2009, 11:35 AM
It seems like the legislature could easily get around this by passing a new law that makes buying handgun ammo illegal except in face-to-face transactions. That would relieve the burden on common carriers and take them out of the equation. For example, among other things, PC 12020 makes it a crime to buy a high capacity magazine.

That could just as easily violate the Constitution on 2nd Amendment grounds as ammunition is required for "functional" firearms. Just ask Justice Scalia.

stillnotbob
10-12-2009, 11:38 AM
How do other areas legally prevent mail order ammunition sales or justify the finger print requirement?

That's at the Local level.... the Supreme Court stated that a State cannot pass the law. That's how I understand it.

freakshow10mm
10-12-2009, 11:43 AM
That can't be it, the law states "a political subdivision of a state". That means any governing body with jurisdiction in the state, ie county, city, village, township, et al.

Spiggy
10-12-2009, 11:44 AM
CGF has my support.

I'll gladly miss lunch & dinner today if CGF will use the money to a better cause.

PolishMike
10-12-2009, 11:50 AM
why wasnt this used to challenge the restrictions already in place in places like SF?


Do you have to wait for the bill to take effect to file?

sfpcservice
10-12-2009, 11:51 AM
How do other areas legally prevent mail order ammunition sales or justify the finger print requirement?

This is exactly what I was wondering.... Why did we never go after counties like Marin when they imposed mail order prohibitions?

freakshow10mm
10-12-2009, 11:52 AM
No, file right away. If we win, they can't enforce it and the law because null and void. Game on.

We should have an AB962 subforum somewhere that all the threads about the law can be put.

CHS
10-12-2009, 11:52 AM
If my understanding is correct, this ONLY would challenge the mail-order ban part.. Right?

We'd still be screwed when buying ammo locally (like at the range)... Right?

bwiese
10-12-2009, 11:53 AM
Would there have been some risk exposing this prior to the bill becoming law? I don't understand why no mention of this was made during the fight.

It was made to the relevant parties thru a very appropriate channel at the right time.

You don't wanna call out flaws in a law while it can still be amended.

I think, in final analysis, it got lost in noise and/or in Gov's staff with all the activity 700+ bills to sign/veto in the last day, someone just said "hey the gun guys got 2 outta 3 so be happy".

AB962 hung by a thread in legislature. NRA & CRPA folks were lied to by a specific legislator that the bill was dead. Normally this does NOT happen - folks from opposite sides who see & work w/each other every day don't lie to each other on such procedural matters at that level. Our team treats opposing legislators with respect - opposes them, but with decorum and following the rules, so we can maintain a high road and not be denigrated. That's fine, until someone pulls crap, makes false accusations (i.e., lies about an NRA position, stance or statement) - and that's when the gloves come off. I suspect that legislator will have interesting things happen to him, including orange card mailings and billboards touting NRA support for him placed near churches & schools. In a contested Dem primary that can (and has) mad a difference.

Sgt Raven
10-12-2009, 11:55 AM
I wouldn't count the NRA as being beneficial to CA. I've been around here for a year and in that time the CGF has done more on accident than the NRA has done on purpose. The NRA seems like a fair weather fan of CA. I wouldn't put them on my Christmas card list.

How little you know of what the NRA has done in Ca. :rolleyes:

jakemccoy
10-12-2009, 11:56 AM
I wonder if Arnold knew about this problem FAAAA.

dirtnap
10-12-2009, 12:00 PM
It was made to the relevant parties thru a very appropriate channel.

I think, in final analysis, it got lost in noise and/or in Gov's staff with all the activity 700+ bills to sign/veto in the last day, someone just said "hey the gun guys got 2 outta 3 so be happy".


So the "relevant" parties turned out not to be so relevant....maybe next time the rest of us irrelevant people can get a little 411. :rolleyes:

You can PM me if you feel that is more appropriate. :p

Shotgun Man
10-12-2009, 12:06 PM
Will the lawsuit only challenge PC 12318 as it relates to the delivery of ammo or will it also attack PC 12061 requiring thumbprint, etc.?

blackberg
10-12-2009, 12:12 PM
why wasnt this used to challenge the restrictions already in place in places like SF?


Do you have to wait for the bill to take effect to file?


probably because it is expensive and hard to challenge it, now that it affects the whole state, it is easier...economies of scale...
-bb

bwiese
10-12-2009, 12:12 PM
I wouldn't count the NRA as being beneficial to CA. I've been around here for a year and in that time the CGF has done more on accident than the NRA has done on purpose. The NRA seems like a fair weather fan of CA. I wouldn't put them on my Christmas card list.

You're in Michigan and don't understand what it's like out here.

CGF can't do what it can do without other folks helping. We have some smart NRA + CRBA +folks in Sacto. Much of the success in OLL rifles, etc. has been due to initial NRA legal work that we can stand upon.

But the NRA and CRPA is just a relatively few number of people in front, with us on the ground.

With 2/3 Dems in the legislature and a CA Republican party that's essentially given up, we continually have to run an uphill battle.

The fact that we do this well is amazing - the bad gun bills out there that have been killed is scary.

xxdabroxx
10-12-2009, 12:14 PM
Will the lawsuit only challenge PC 12318 as it relates to the delivery of ammo or will it also attack PC 12061 requiring thumbprint, etc.?

I am curious too, where can we find the full text of the bill that went into effect?

bwiese
10-12-2009, 12:15 PM
Just Curious, but how come this was not originally part of the strategic effort to stop this bill?

Don't you think it would have helped to use these legal loopholes as another way to explain the ridiculousness of this bill? Especially to those that don't quite get it?

It was explained, thru appropriate channels. Whether it got high enough to
Gov's staff is up in the air.

If explained too early, the bill may have had the language edited to be legal.
As it was the 50rd person-to-person limit was removed.

This was one of 700+ bills on a variety of subjects at a crap time. I think it was just hit or miss on a buncha bills.

Shotgun Man
10-12-2009, 12:19 PM
I am curious too, where can we find the full text of the bill that went into effect?

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_962_bill_20090921_enrolled.html

freakshow10mm
10-12-2009, 12:19 PM
How little you know of what the NRA has done in Ca. :rolleyes:
In the year I've been a member here, I've seen the question 'where is the NRA on this one' asked more times than 'where is the CGF on this one'. It just seems to me like the real results come from the CGF and if the NRA is involved it's riding the coattails. The NRA likes to wash its hands of things in CA. Just my perception.

freakshow10mm
10-12-2009, 12:23 PM
You're in Michigan and don't understand what it's like out here.

CGF can't do what it can do without other folks helping. We have some smart NRA + CRBA +folks in Sacto. Much of the success in OLL rifles, etc. has been due to initial NRA legal work that we can stand upon.

But the NRA and CRPA is just a relatively few number of people in front, with us on the ground.

With 2/3 Dems in the legislature and a CA Republican party that's essentially given up, we continually have to run an uphill battle.

The fact that we do this well is amazing - the bad gun bills out there that have been killed is scary.
Just seems to me like the CGF is everywhere and the NRA is a friend waiting until you are laying on the ground getting stomped before they jump in. If they are as involved as you say they are, then that's good and they are operating under my radar. Seems the things that the NRA was heavily involved in, OLL as the example, was before I joined here.

xxdabroxx
10-12-2009, 12:33 PM
oh yeah,

@ DeLeon, Ha ha Douche, you FAIL :43:

bwiese
10-12-2009, 12:37 PM
Just seems to me like the CGF is everywhere and the NRA is a friend waiting until you are laying on the ground getting stomped before they jump in. If they are as involved as you say they are, then that's good and they are operating under my radar. Seems the things that the NRA was heavily involved in, OLL as the example, was before I joined here.

They're involved in a ton of stuff here, including legal/political
One of Wayne La Pierre's direct reports is here.

One issue is the "N" in NRA - politicians can say "hey, that's Fairfax, Virginia - not CA.

This is why a functional state rifle assn is vital and why we're enthused about the New CRPA with new leadership/lobbyist getting off the ground. That "C" is for California, and the difference between "N" and "C" in CA politics is important. Sounds trivial, but it most assuredly ain't.

The NRA has continually been looking for increasing grassroots support in CA. CGF and Calguns happen to be a couple of elements of that. In many ways, CG acts, albeit unofficially, as a virtual online Member's Council without locale restrictions.

The Bacon Eater
10-12-2009, 12:39 PM
Im glad you guys are on top of this. I will send my donation in a few.

xxdabroxx
10-12-2009, 12:45 PM
Per 12323 and 12001, handgun ammunition is only loosely defined. There is no absolute that 9mm, 10mm, 40cal, 44mag, 38spl, etc. are handgun ammunition. Could something of a similar effect as to how the "series" language was removed from the AW ban be applicable here. I mean there are sub machine guns etc. that fire so called pistol calibers. Where is the line? Handgun ammunition could be a 308 if you own a Thompson.

12323. As used in this chapter, the following definitions shall
apply:
(a) "Handgun ammunition" means ammunition principally for use in
pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed
upon the person, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 12001,
notwithstanding that the ammunition may also be used in some rifles.


But I as a lever gun owner who only owns a lever gun in 44mag, how am i to know that is "handgun" ammunition?

Looks like the bullet, speed loader, etc is still there:

SEC. 5. Section 12316 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

(2) For purposes of this subdivision, "ammunition" shall include,
but not be limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed
loader, autoloader, or projectile capable of being fired from a
firearm with a deadly consequence. "Ammunition" does not include
blanks.

HUTCH 7.62
10-12-2009, 12:46 PM
Im glad you guys are on top of this. I will send my donation in a few.

+1 when I get some money from my unemployment check I'll donate what I can.

freakshow10mm
10-12-2009, 12:47 PM
"principally for use in"

9mm, 10mm, 40 S&W, 38 Spl, 45 ACP are all principally for use in pistols and revolvers. I don't think there is any creativity there.

Cal-Irish
10-12-2009, 12:48 PM
If CGF get AB 962 overturned. I will love them longtime.

Tier One Arms
10-12-2009, 12:54 PM
Its a shame that we even need to spend CGF money to fight this ridiculous bill, there are much better things we could have spent the money on were it not for our states stupidity. Many people on this forum say they are leaving this state, but I doubt that many will actually do it, but I can say with 100% certainty that I will not be living in this state as of June 2010, and the RKBA and taxes is the main reason I'm leaving.

wildhawker
10-12-2009, 12:55 PM
I think they'd prefer your money, but if you've never been to one of Oak's parties...

If CGF get AB 962 overturned. I will love them longtime.

IrishPirate
10-12-2009, 1:02 PM
BRAVO!!!!

DrjonesUSA
10-12-2009, 1:04 PM
$50.00 donated to CGF just now.

Mstrty
10-12-2009, 1:04 PM
I wouldn't count the NRA as being beneficial to CA. I've been around here for a year and in that time the CGF has done more on accident than the NRA has done on purpose. The NRA seems like a fair weather fan of CA. I wouldn't put them on my Christmas card list.

I think I might have found my new signature line

Shotgun Man
10-12-2009, 1:05 PM
Even if we are successful in nullifying PC 12318 because a state cannot burden deliverers with their regs., wouldn't ammo vendors still not sell to CA because of PC 12081's fingerprinting and i.d. requirements?

xxdabroxx
10-12-2009, 1:05 PM
"principally for use in"

9mm, 10mm, 40 S&W, 38 Spl, 45 ACP are all principally for use in pistols and revolvers. I don't think there is any creativity there.

then,

(2) "Handgun ammunition" means handgun ammunition as defined in
subdivision (a) of Section 12323, but excluding ammunition designed
and intended to be used in an "antique firearm" as defined in Section
921(a)(16) of Title 18 of the United States Code. Handgun ammunition
does not include blanks.

(16) The term “antique firearm” means—
(A) any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or
(B) any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica—
(i) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or
(ii) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or
(C) any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term “antique firearm” shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof.

My original colt 1911 takes 45acp, it is an antique firearm. Does this not apply? At what point is a firearm an antique, 30 years? I think most pistol calibers were designed well over 30 years ago, hell even if its 50 years. This would include, 45 acp, 45 colt, 9mm luger, etc. So does the antique language overrule the handgun ammunition language?

Can someone link me to the bolded, and underlined portion in my quote, lunch is over and i have to look busy again, well busy with work stuff. /endrunonsentence

Edit: i was hoping C&R to be antique, but it is not so.

thatrogue
10-12-2009, 1:05 PM
so no more magazine through the mail ether huh

Harrison_Bergeron
10-12-2009, 1:11 PM
It seems like the legislature could easily get around this by passing a new law that makes buying handgun ammo illegal except in face-to-face transactions. That would relieve the burden on common carriers and take them out of the equation. For example, among other things, PC 12020 makes it a crime to buy a high capacity magazine.

The new law already makes it illegal for consumers to do anything but face to face. The issue is that retailers still need a way to get the stock that they sell to consumers. Huge chains like Wal-Mart have their own shipping means and would be unaffected, but "Bob's Bait and Tackle" still needs UPS to ship him his stock and according to what I'm reading his UPS guy is now going to be required to make sure Bob is legally allowed to receive this ammo.

Eckolaker
10-12-2009, 1:14 PM
It was explained, thru appropriate channels. Whether it got high enough to
Gov's staff is up in the air.

If explained too early, the bill may have had the language edited to be legal.
As it was the 50rd person-to-person limit was removed.

This was one of 700+ bills on a variety of subjects at a crap time. I think it was just hit or miss on a buncha bills.

Word, thanks for the reply.

That actually makes a good bit of sense.

Nodda Duma
10-12-2009, 1:23 PM
Question for you..I'm not sure how/when you can file lawsuits against bad law. Obviously you can sue against existing, but will you be able to file lawsuit before this law goes into effect? That is, try to keep it from even becoming active in Feb 2011?

Thanks,
Jason

leitung
10-12-2009, 1:27 PM
Sweet, let mw know what I need to do, and where to be and I will be there..

I still am in shock over this whole thing..

Shotgun Man
10-12-2009, 1:28 PM
The new law already makes it illegal for consumers to do anything but face to face. The issue is that retailers still need a way to get the stock that they sell to consumers. Huge chains like Wal-Mart have their own shipping means and would be unaffected, but "Bob's Bait and Tackle" still needs UPS to ship him his stock and according to what I'm reading his UPS guy is now going to be required to make sure Bob is legally allowed to receive this ammo.

12318 does not apply to handgun ammunition vendors.

12318 seems kind of superfluous as 12061 requires the thumbprint at the time of delivery anyway.

bwiese
10-12-2009, 1:28 PM
Question for you..I'm not sure how/when you can file lawsuits against bad law. Obviously you can sue against existing, but will you be able to file lawsuit before this law goes into effect? That is, try to keep it from even becoming active in Feb 2011?

Plaintffs that will have standing can sue to stop injury from laws conflicting.

We're working on plaintiffs now, could be fun - remember, CGF is home of the one-armed guy looking for a left-handed Glock ;)

Nodda Duma
10-12-2009, 1:35 PM
Plaintffs that will have standing can sue to stop injury from laws conflicting.

We're working on plaintiffs now, could be fun - remember, CGF is home of the one-armed guy looking for a left-handed Glock ;)

Thanks, I'd imagine it wouldn't be hard for you to find the perfect plaintiffs. If you need any more, let me know. I would love to help. :D

-Jason

AngelDecoys
10-12-2009, 1:43 PM
After hearing the news this morning, my day started down. Thanks for making it brighter.

Blackhawk556
10-12-2009, 2:36 PM
just donated to CGF and also set up monthly donations coming straight out of pay check :D

radioburning
10-12-2009, 2:51 PM
SEC. 5. Section 12316 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

(2) For purposes of this subdivision, "ammunition" shall include,
but not be limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed
loader, autoloader, or projectile capable of being fired from a
firearm with a deadly consequence. "Ammunition" does not include
blanks.

Wait, I can't shoot speedloaders or clips out of my handgun now?!!! Now I'm really mad!!

Seriously though, this bill is the most retarded piece of garbage I've ever seen. Burn 'em to the ground, Bill.

Burn 'em to the ground.

oaklander
10-12-2009, 3:04 PM
Two snaps up!

I think they'd prefer your money, but if you've never been to one of Oak's parties...

bodger
10-12-2009, 3:09 PM
Wait, I can't shoot speedloaders or clips out of my handgun now?!!! Now I'm really mad!!

Seriously though, this bill is the most retarded piece of garbage I've ever seen. Burn 'em to the ground, Bill.

Burn 'em to the ground.

Damn. I didn't even see that. Okay, we seriously can't order speedloaders and mags from the internet either after this canard takes effect?

Not that there will be any vendors willing to take the chance to send ANYTHING to the PRK now.

curtisfong
10-12-2009, 3:10 PM
So it was mentioned, but I can't find the answer in this thread:

Can this be used to attack local restrictions on ammo purchases? (Marin/LA/Sac)? If so, is that the silver lining in AB962 being passed? Is it giving us a shot at getting rid of those restrictions?

Shotgun Man
10-12-2009, 3:14 PM
Sorry for repeating a previously unanswered question.

If this lawsuit takes out PC 12318 on federal preemption grounds, how does that help me? I don't have a COE or C&R.

I still cannot buy ammo over the internet because of PC 12061's requirement that vendors obtain my info including thumbprint at time of delivery.

CSDGuy
10-12-2009, 3:33 PM
It seems like the legislature could easily get around this by passing a new law that makes buying handgun ammo illegal except in face-to-face transactions. That would relieve the burden on common carriers and take them out of the equation. For example, among other things, PC 12020 makes it a crime to buy a high capacity magazine.
Actually, no. PC 12020 makes it a crime for persons, not exempted, to SELL, GIVE, or LEND, a high capacity magazine...

PC 12020
(a) Any person in this state who does any of the following
is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year
or in the state prison:(2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be
manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or
exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity
magazine.
If you scroll down to around (b)(17) or so, you'll find a HUGE list of exemptions...
Subtle distinction, but very important. It's not illegal for me to BUY the hi-capacity magazine, it's just generally illegal to SELL it to me.

Victory
10-12-2009, 3:44 PM
Can someone post a link to the finalized, passed bill?

Please? Thank you.

-Vic

rolo
10-12-2009, 3:45 PM
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_962_bill_20090921_enrolled.html

Shotgun Man
10-12-2009, 3:45 PM
Can someone post a link to the finalized, passed bill?

Please? Thank you.

-Vic

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_962_bill_20090921_enrolled.html

Oldnoob
10-12-2009, 3:47 PM
Can someone post a link to the finalized, passed bill?

Please? Thank you.

-Vic

http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_962_bill_20090921_enrolled.pdf

Victory
10-12-2009, 3:56 PM
Thanks guys. Much appreciated.

-Vic

bladerunner747
10-12-2009, 3:59 PM
I don't have a copy of the book handy, but there is a passage in Sun Tzu's The Art of War that talks about when you want your men to fight their hardest, place their backs against a river so they have nowhere to go but forward. I'm quite certain that same wisdom ran through Gene's veins when making this decision.

That is a true statement!
The history Channel had that specific lesson in warfare, sometime back during the past two weeks.
Not only that but it gets challenged and taken down for good! This bill was coming up every damn year!

Shotgun Man
10-12-2009, 4:05 PM
That is a true statement!
The history Channel had that specific lesson in warfare, sometime back during the past two weeks.
Not only that but it gets challenged and taken down for good! This bill was coming up every damn year!

So far as I've been able to discern, we cannot challenge the entire bill based on federal preemption-- only the part that creates PC 12318. So the rest of the garbage could stand, i.e. 12061 requiring fingerprints, etc.

12318. (a) Commencing February 1, 2011, the delivery or transfer
of ownership of handgun ammunition may only occur in a face-to-face
transaction with the deliverer or transferor being provided bona fide
evidence of identity from the purchaser or other transferee. A
violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

steadyrock
10-12-2009, 4:10 PM
So far as I've been able to discern, we cannot challenge the entire bill based on federal preemption-- only the part that creates PC 12318. So the rest of the garbage could stand, i.e. 12061 requiring fingerprints, etc.

That's the question mark in my mind too. I suppose an answer will emerge shortly as soon as the groundwork for the case is finished.

freakshow10mm
10-12-2009, 4:12 PM
Already been working on a new internet form for this purpose.

The out of state vendor will have to keep the records. That means if local LE wants the records, molon labe.

Shotgun Man
10-12-2009, 4:17 PM
Already been working on a new internet form for this purpose.

The out of state vendor will have to keep the records. That means if local LE wants the records, molon labe.

Who does the out-of-state vendor ship to? At the time of delivery, he's gotta get the thumbprint, etc. per PC 12061.

rolo
10-12-2009, 4:21 PM
Who does the out-of-state vendor ship to? At the time of delivery, he's gotta get the thumbprint, etc. per PC 12061.

I thought that this was where the FAAAAAAAA came in. The requirement for the deliverer to verify eligibility of the buyer for the seller. Don't take that as gospel, I haven't read the cigarette delivery suit yet.

devildog999
10-12-2009, 4:24 PM
AB962 hung by a thread in legislature. NRA & CRPA folks were lied to by a specific legislator that the bill was dead. Normally this does NOT happen - folks from opposite sides who see & work w/each other every day don't lie to each other on such procedural matters at that level. Our team treats opposing legislators with respect - opposes them, but with decorum and following the rules, so we can maintain a high road and not be denigrated. That's fine, until someone pulls crap, makes false accusations (i.e., lies about an NRA position, stance or statement) - and that's when the gloves come off. I suspect that legislator will have interesting things happen to him, including orange card mailings and billboards touting NRA support for him placed near churches & schools. In a contested Dem primary that can (and has) mad a difference.

When this bill was approaching a vote, I called DeLeons office. The lady in his office told me that the bill would end up being dropped because they were too busy with the economy. They were gonna let it fall through. About a month later it passed, B**** lied to me!!!!

Shotgun Man
10-12-2009, 4:29 PM
I thought that this was where the FAAAAAAAA came in. The requirement for the deliverer to verify eligibility of the buyer for the seller. Don't take that as gospel, I haven't read the cigarette delivery suit yet.

I read the Maine Cigarette case. The shipping/delivery companies filed suit against Maine's requirement that cigs be shipped to a person over 18. UPS et al. didn't want to be checking ids. The newly created PC 12318 is somewhat analogous to this Maine law.

However, if you remove PC 12318 from the picture, the fact remains that PC 12061 forbids any vendor from selling ammo without getting the thumbprint at the time of delivery (subject to exceptions). So we're SOL.

PC 12318 actually provides a whisper of relief from 12061. An in-state handgun ammo vendor can act as the agent of the out-of-state vendor and get the thumbprint, etc.

Again, I'm not sure what substantive gains killing PC 12318 will provide.

freakshow10mm
10-12-2009, 4:38 PM
Who does the out-of-state vendor ship to? At the time of delivery, he's gotta get the thumbprint, etc. per PC 12061.
Yes, all that will be done and done legally. I will not state the details as it is part of a larger expansion project being implemented. You will see it when the time comes.:D

bodger
10-12-2009, 5:03 PM
When this bill was approaching a vote, I called DeLeons office. The lady in his office told me that the bill would end up being dropped because they were too busy with the economy. They were gonna let it fall through. About a month later it passed, B**** lied to me!!!!

I guess she didn't want us gunnies to feel as though we were fighting with our backs to the river. :D

Maybe DeLeon read The Art of War also.

smallshot13
10-12-2009, 5:10 PM
Please don't forget 12317 in this approach. That is the only section where the definition of handgun ammunition has been expanded to include bullets, magazines, speed loaders, etc.. It already existed in 12316. 12317 has the potential to reach out to banning internet sales of reloading components. I know there is dissenting opinion on that, but I truly believe that interpretation is a serious concern that should not be forgotten. 12317 appears to be as vulnerable to this FAAAA approach as 12318 is.

I still don't understand how 12061 can apply to an out of state vendor when the definitions of a restricted person are entirely CA constructs. Any out of state vendor may be able to have any person handle ammunition who is legally allowed to in their state, until they are selling to a CA resident? And out of state vendors must reorganize their physical stores to comply with 962? Makes no sense. 12061 should be attacked on these grounds.

hoffman259
10-12-2009, 5:10 PM
Were should I send a donation for this fight? Should I send more money to CGF or were to on this one?

TripleT
10-12-2009, 5:14 PM
Hang on a second. Let's review this thing carefully. 12061, (7) (b) has the exemptions listed 1-7 Including:
(1)A person licensed pursuant to Section 12071. ie an FFL
(2) A handgun ammunition vendor. Whatever that is ?
(3) A person who is on the centralized list maintained by the doj pursuant to 12083. Again an FFL with a CFD.
(4) A target facility yada yada yada
(5) Gunsmiths
(6) Wholesalers
(7) Manufacturers

So what it looks like to me and don't take my word for it, is if your one of the above the out of state ammo supplier can ship to those folks same as always. You just need to supply them with your proof of exemption ie FFL which most dealers would already have done. So, business as usual at that level, again, unless I'm reading the exemptions wrong or ?

Interestingly, the concept of "A handgun ammunition vendor" has been created, which may or may not be a difficult thing to qualify for. Also, the possibility of "Target Facility" ie ranges and clubs being exempt might be an intriguing possibility.

At any rate, it seems that the burden is not on the wholesaler / distributor beyond what they do already, at least for their dealers. Private individuals are still screwed because they'll still have to submit the thumbprint and id but if you were creative there could be a couple of possibilities worth exploring that would at least get the ammo to a local and perhaps more competitive source.

artherd
10-12-2009, 5:16 PM
I agree. Would it have made any difference? I can't think of why it would have helped the opposition. Would they have worded AB962 differently?

We went public with this the day after they lost the ability to edit AB962 for good. You figure it out :)

Harrison_Bergeron
10-12-2009, 5:26 PM
How can a state force residents of another state to comply with a law? How would CA charge an out of state vendor for not getting a finger print? There is nothing they can do is there? Isn't this why "export" is not covered on the hi-cap mag law.

artherd
10-12-2009, 5:31 PM
Seems the things that the NRA was heavily involved in, OLL as the example, was before I joined here.

OLL was not NRA, it was grassroots.

I imported the first one, publicized the concept, and arranged for a flood to enter CA before DOJ could do anything about it. Those of us who founded CGF were instrumental in eventually settling the dust around OLLs.

That said, CGF and NRA work very closely together, and the NRA is the only reason you do not have door to door confiscations. NRA is responsible for building the dam and holding it up. CGF patches cracks. Full stop.

Vectrexer
10-12-2009, 5:33 PM
I copied & reposted Gene's post that was buried in a thread so folks are not panicky. We have time, funds and technical correctness on our side. We've known about this issue for sometime (i.e, we didn't come up with this at midnight yesterday) - it's been kept warm on the stove 'just in case'.

The regulation of internet delivery of ammunition as drafted in AB962 is preeempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAAA '94).

****

We have already done initial planning regarding plaintiffs and counsel for this case. And we do have time - as the law does not take effect until February 2011.


Thanks for the repost Bill. I was sorely pissed off at the traitor in the Governor's desk. No I am still pissed off, but in a happier way. :)

.

Sgt Raven
10-12-2009, 5:36 PM
When this bill was approaching a vote, I called DeLeons office. The lady in his office told me that the bill would end up being dropped because they were too busy with the economy. They were gonna let it fall through. About a month later it passed, B**** lied to me!!!!

How can you tell when they're lying? When their lips are moving!:p

navyinrwanda
10-12-2009, 5:40 PM
Regarding the Maine cigarette case, Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, 128 S. Ct. 989 (2008), here's a quote from the final paragraph of Justice Breyer's majority opinion (emphasis added):
Finally, Maine says that to set aside its regulations will seriously harm its efforts to prevent cigarettes from falling into the hands of minors. The Solicitor General denies that this is so. He suggests that Maine, like other States, can prohibit all persons from providing tobacco products to minors (as it already has, see Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 22, §1555–B(2) (Supp. 2007)); that it can ban all non-face-to-face sales of tobacco; that it might pass other laws of general (non-carrier-specific) applicability; and that it can, if necessary, seek appropriate federal regulation (see, e.g., H. R. 4081, 110th Cong., 1st Sess. (2007) (proposed bill regulating tobacco shipment); H. R. 4128, 110th Cong., 1st Sess., §§1411–1416, pp. 577–583 (2007) (proposed bill providing criminal penalties for trafficking in contraband tobacco)). Regardless, given Morales, where the Court held that federal law pre-empts state consumer-protection laws, we find that federal law must also pre-empt Maine’s efforts directly to regulate carrier services.

For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Given that possible challenges to AB962 have already been explored, I'm wondering if someone has an opinion as to whether this portion of the on-point ruling might present a probem.

oldrifle
10-12-2009, 5:48 PM
I just got on a 10,000 watt radio station that covers all of the central coast of CA and spoke about AB962 and asked the listeners to go to CalGuns.net, come to the forum and donate to CGF. I hope it makes a difference. I'll be donating as well. :chris:

Sinestr
10-12-2009, 5:50 PM
If requiring a finger print is not going to be something that can be removed in the coming legal battle, then that will not personally be enough for me. So what if I can still mail order but have to give a thumb print. Thats BULL SH**, I'm not a criminal and giving my thumb print is equal to being accused of committing a crime before one has been committed. Giving up a thumb print is giving probable cause under this law, that is the most unacceptable part of this!

Lone_Gunman
10-12-2009, 5:50 PM
So has anyone contacted DeLeon to berate him for crafting such a poorly written bill? I know we are trying to take the high road but it would make me feel so much better to make fun of him and tell him it wont stand. You can send him messages through his facebook page...

Shotgun Man
10-12-2009, 5:52 PM
Regarding the Maine cigarette case, Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, 128 S. Ct. 989 (2008), here's a quote from the final paragraph of Justice Breyer's majority opinion (emphasis added):

Given that possible challenges to AB962 have already been explored, I'm wondering if someone has an opinion as to whether this portion of the on-point ruling might present a probem.

Yeah, pretty much. I believe CA can ban non face to face transfers. You just cant be requiring delivery personnel to check ids. The law permits the transfer of handgun ammo to vendors without the check.

oldrifle
10-12-2009, 5:58 PM
Do you think there's any value in calling this guy's office to voice our outrage? I know... too late. But maybe it will do something for us?

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a45/staff.aspx

Sgt Raven
10-12-2009, 6:02 PM
If requiring a finger print is not going to be something that can be removed in the coming legal battle, then that will not personally be enough for me. So what if I can still mail order but have to give a thumb print. Thats BULL SH**, I'm not a criminal and giving my thumb print is equal to being accused of committing a crime before one has been committed. Giving up a thumb print is giving probable cause under this law, that is the most unacceptable part of this!

Do you have a Driver's license? You have to give a thumb print to get one of those. :p

Spiggy
10-12-2009, 6:02 PM
Thanks for the repost Bill. I was sorely pissed off at the traitor in the Governor's desk. No I am still pissed off, but in a happier way. :)

.

keeping grinding that axe, we got plenty of things to be pissed off about. Didn't need SB962 to do it.

truthseeker
10-12-2009, 6:14 PM
What is to stop a "gang banger" from using a fake ID (his/her picture but info from someone else) and then using super glue on their thumb print to fill in the print before buying ammo?

They will still have their ammo and the "ammo dealer" will only have a smudge print and false information.

Also, what if a "gang banger" wants to kill someone that day and buys ammo. How is this law going to stop them from having the ammo that day?

Are the running a background check BEFORE releasing the ammo to you?

These legislators are dumb as a box of rocks!

Sinestr
10-12-2009, 6:17 PM
Do you have a Driver's license? You have to give a thumb print to get one of those. :p

It's called INCREMENTALISM. The just because they already do argument doesn't hold water for me. These laws are a continued erosion of are freedoms. This is just a continued step closer to a true police state.

JTecalo
10-12-2009, 6:21 PM
These legislators are dumb as a box of rocks!

I actually have a box of rocks that could challenge that

EastBayRidge
10-12-2009, 6:24 PM
Forgive the ignorance, but I just got in after a long day traveling and have only scanned some of the threads. Really disappointed this thing got enacted.

As far as I can tell, it seems that the reason for the gov's signature was that the program of thumbprinting/face to face sales etc was effective in Sacramento. If it was similar/identical to the system AB 962 sets up, was the Sacramento system not ripe for a challenge on the same grounds set forth in the title post ? It's been in effect for awhile now, long enough at least to be cited as an example that it "works". Or is there something about the Sac law that lets the city argue that it's somehow not federally pre-empted ?

bodger
10-12-2009, 6:24 PM
We went public with this the day after they lost the ability to edit AB962 for good. You figure it out :)

I guess I forgot how friggin' dumb they are and that they would actually leave the door open a crack for a real lawyer to barge through.

That boggles my mind. But good for us I suppose.

KylaGWolf
10-12-2009, 6:25 PM
Thank you Bill for that ray of light. Hearing that AB962 passed made a rough week even rougher. I get back to CA tomorrow night. I can't afford to help the fight much but will give what I can. And if there is any other way I can help in this fight I will do what I can that way too. :)

bodger
10-12-2009, 6:26 PM
Forgive the ignorance, but I just got in after a long day traveling and have only scanned some of the threads. Really disappointed this thing got enacted.

As far as I can tell, it seems that the reason for the gov's signature was that the program of thumbprinting/face to face sales etc was effective in Sacramento. If it was similar/identical to the system AB 962 sets up, was the Sacramento system not ripe for a challenge on the same grounds set forth in the title post ? It's been in effect for awhile now, long enough at least to be cited as an example that it "works". Or is there something about the Sac law that lets the city argue that it's somehow not federally pre-empted ?

Good question. There is a similar law here in LA.

remodelin
10-12-2009, 6:30 PM
Well just bought 6280 rounds on ammo on line NO TAX for you California. $1600 + or -:eek:

Shotgun Man
10-12-2009, 6:35 PM
Forgive the ignorance, but I just got in after a long day traveling and have only scanned some of the threads. Really disappointed this thing got enacted.

As far as I can tell, it seems that the reason for the gov's signature was that the program of thumbprinting/face to face sales etc was effective in Sacramento. If it was similar/identical to the system AB 962 sets up, was the Sacramento system not ripe for a challenge on the same grounds set forth in the title post ? It's been in effect for awhile now, long enough at least to be cited as an example that it "works". Or is there something about the Sac law that lets the city argue that it's somehow not federally pre-empted ?


As far as I know, Sac's law regulated vendors.

See http://www.qcode.us/codes/sacramento/view.php?topic=5-5_66-5_66_020&highlightWords=ammunition&frames=on

The challenge the CGF envisions is attacking the delivery restriction placed in PC 12318.

That is wider than Sac's law. Sac's law appears to only affect vendors. Sac's law may pass constitutional muster (absent incorporation).

I'm not sure how this is going to help us because 12061 requires thumbprint, etc. at the time of delivery.

freakshow10mm
10-12-2009, 6:36 PM
the NRA is the only reason you do not have door to door confiscations.
Thanks. I needed a good laugh today.

technique
10-12-2009, 6:42 PM
the NRA is the only reason you do not have door to door confiscations.

I disagree...People armed to the teeth are what stops door to door confiscations...I figure after the first or second door, they would figure that out.

bodger
10-12-2009, 6:45 PM
I disagree...People armed to the teeth are what stops door to door confiscations...I figure after the first or second door, they would figure that out.


I agree. Feinstein's statement on 60 Minutes made me laugh out loud at her.

"Give 'em up folks" she says. She actually seemed to believe that if she had the 51 votes, it would be just that easy. No resistance, just sheeple-like compliance.

After all, it would be the new strict gun control law.

Lower86
10-12-2009, 7:09 PM
What is to stop a "gang banger" from using a fake ID (his/her picture but info from someone else) and then using super glue on their thumb print to fill in the print before buying ammo?

Agreed. And, even with a name, address, ID, fingerprint, credit report, high school transcript, bank account and routing number, wife's maiden name and 3 years of past tax returns on file, once that ammunition is purchased, there's no tracking it anyway.

Gang violence has to be prevented by proactive law enforcement, education and economic opportunity, not reactive legislation. So of course, we should cut LE and education funding.

We'd rather take the "Let's make crime more illegal" approach and hinder the rights of your good citizens to protect their families and livlihood.

GrizzlyGuy
10-12-2009, 7:23 PM
Actually, no. PC 12020 makes it a crime for persons, not exempted, to SELL, GIVE, or LEND, a high capacity magazine...

Thanks, you're right, I stand corrected.

Looks like the bullet, speed loader, etc is still there:

so no more magazine through the mail ether huh

Okay, we seriously can't order speedloaders and mags from the internet either after this canard takes effect?

Bullets, magazines, speed loaders, reloading supplies, etc. are not affected by AB 962. See here where I made a guess as to where the confusion is coming from, and can read up and down to Librarian's posts as well:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3185752#post3185752

haikuonicodnem
10-12-2009, 7:30 PM
I hope AB 962 can be smashed on an "interstate commerce" argument, just like California's unconstitutional "Smog Impact Fee" on out of state vehicles was hammered into the ground.

Best wishes legal team!

383green
10-12-2009, 7:35 PM
Since reloading components are not affected, what would stop a company like Miwall from selling an ammo can full of primed, charged, resized cases (with each case mouth closed off by a disposable plastic cap to keep the powder charge in place), and then selling another ammo can which coincidentally contains the same number of bullets?

Just thinking out loud... ;)

jarhead995
10-12-2009, 7:35 PM
What does this mean? 14 year old brain fails to compute..

97F1504RAD
10-12-2009, 7:57 PM
So I have a question about this. Since this applies to in state ammunition dealers how can they possibly enforce this for out of state dealers. As an example: Let's say ammoman for instance has my CDL and my thumbprint on file and has UPS deliver me my ammo in a face to face signature required would that then technically be legal?

How do they plan to check out of States records if in fact we have this info on file with an out of state ammo dealer?

Quoting this section:

SEC. 7. Section 12318 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
12318. (a) Commencing February 1, 2011, the delivery or transfer
of ownership of handgun ammunition may only occur in a face-to-face
transaction with the deliverer or transferor being provided bona fide
evidence of identity from the purchaser or other transferee. A
violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

So if in the above example Ammoman has my CDL and thumbprint and then ask for UPS to check my CDL upon delivery would this not be legal?

The Wingnut
10-12-2009, 8:05 PM
Donated! Take 'em down!

rumblebee
10-12-2009, 8:16 PM
Just donated as well!!! GO GIT SOME GUYS :D
Come on Calgunners...put your $ where your mouth is and give our guys the "ammo" they need to fight this!!! :cool::cool:

Donated! Take 'em down!

Shotgun Man
10-12-2009, 8:27 PM
So I have a question about this. Since this applies to in state ammunition dealers how can they possibly enforce this for out of state dealers. As an example: Let's say ammoman for instance has my CDL and my thumbprint on file and has UPS deliver me my ammo in a face to face signature required would that then technically be legal?

How do they plan to check out of States records if in fact we have this info on file with an out of state ammo dealer?



So if in the above example Ammoman has my CDL and thumbprint and then ask for UPS to check my CDL upon delivery would this not be legal?

While not parcing your post keenly, I would say if you can find an out-of-state ammo dealer to rig up an agent to get your thumbprint at the time of delivery, you might be okay.

Who knows? I would expect newly trained DOJ snipers, scoping the buy, not sure about their equipment, doing negligent disharges during the transfer.

thebullet
10-12-2009, 9:01 PM
I LOVE C.G.F GOD BLESS YOU GUYS AND YOUR AWESOMNESS! let the ammo flow via the mail.:36::36::36: (donation to fallow shortly)

hoffmang
10-12-2009, 9:18 PM
Let me clear up some interpretative errors above. "retail sale" in 12060 limits 12060 effectively to "in this state" which is implied but not written there. If it didn't, then all of the intended exemptions for law enforcement or C&R + COEs in 12318 would be invalid. 12318 was the section intended to ban internet delivery of ammunition for most people.

-Gene

obeygiant
10-12-2009, 9:42 PM
Let me clear up some interpretative errors above. "retail sale" in 12060 limits 12060 effectively to "in this state" which is implied but not written there. If it didn't, then all of the intended exemptions for law enforcement or C&R + COEs in 12318. 12318 was the section intended to ban internet delivery of ammunition for most people.

-Gene

Thank you for clarifying.

steelrain82
10-12-2009, 9:54 PM
All I know is we fought hard and we lost game 3. Gene has a solid plan for game 4 though. To be honest this was my first true activist participation with calling and flyers. And I actually felt and still feel kinda sick. I thought ok if we lose hey no biggie but it really is. And it made me really feel nauseas.

Surefire
10-12-2009, 9:58 PM
I really hope this lawsuit works.
Where can one send money to offer support for the cost of this suit?

Wrangler John
10-12-2009, 10:00 PM
So are components subject to AB 962?

My main concern is rifle components; bullets, cartridge cases, primers and powder. However, handgun components appear also not to be covered. I do not purchase factory ammunition.

AB 962 refers to Title 18 USC Section 921 (a) (16) relative to antique firearms, and Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 USC. manufacturers and importers and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.

Section 921 (17)(A) Defines “ammunition” as ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellant powder designed for use in any firearm. While Subsections (9) and (10) define "Importer" and "Manufacturer" respectively.

Can the term, "Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 USC. manufacturers and importers and the regulations issued pursuant thereto." be construed to include components as ammunition although not specifically referred to in AB 962?

If components are not included, rifle or handgun, will we be able to claim a categorical exemption from Internet vendors? There seems to be some confusion as to what the term "bullet" encompasses. AB 962 states: "or projectile capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence." A "bullet," as a component is inert and incapable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence. Did the author of AB 962 refer to "bullet' as a common reference to a loaded "cartridge"?

The term "firearm" in the above example exceeds the scope of AB 962, in that it should only apply narrowly to handgun projectiles, and more specifically those loaded in commercial ammunition or commercially produced reloaded ammunition sold at retail. An individual's private reloaded or hand loaded ammunition is not produced for sale.

There also seems to be no mechanism to prevent me from purchasing ammunition or components while out of state and importing them, as the purchase and delivery occurred beyond the jurisdiction of the state.

This poorly written law leaves more questions than answers. The ultimate solution for me is to move to Oregon, something that has been on the back burner for some time.

HondaMasterTech
10-12-2009, 10:01 PM
I really hope this lawsuit works.
Where can one send money to offer support for the cost of this suit?

Yes. The last thing anyone wants to see is Gene naked.

bombadillo
10-12-2009, 10:01 PM
So correct me if i'm wrong but this bill makes it illegal for a person to purchase more than 50 rounds per month for any handgun ammo right? I am arguing with a LEO buddy of mine and he's saying that its only going to affect vendors meaning you have to have a license to "transfer" or sell more than 50 a month. My understanding of this is that any ordinary joe schmo cannot purchase more than 50 monthly and if so, where specifically in the bill can I point him to. I read it but couldn't necessarily cite what I was looking for.

ke6guj
10-12-2009, 10:35 PM
So correct me if i'm wrong but this bill makes it illegal for a person to purchase more than 50 rounds per month for any handgun ammo right? I am arguing with a LEO buddy of mine and he's saying that its only going to affect vendors meaning you have to have a license to "transfer" or sell more than 50 a month. My understanding of this is that any ordinary joe schmo cannot purchase more than 50 monthly and if so, where specifically in the bill can I point him to. I read it but couldn't necessarily cite what I was looking for.

Here's AB962 as it was signed, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_962_bill_20090921_enrolled.html . That 50-round number was in a previous version of the bill which was amended to exclude that.

slidecatch
10-12-2009, 11:06 PM
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc172/rdavis420/CalGuns/GEHG.jpg
$100 donated to CALGUNS for a total of $200 this year so far...

ke6guj
10-12-2009, 11:35 PM
I think that bold section could be inferred to only pertain to "projectile".

RRangel
10-12-2009, 11:44 PM
It also looks like ammunition on school property is now a bona fide crime.

Lone_Gunman
10-12-2009, 11:45 PM
So are components subject to AB 962?

My main concern is rifle components; bullets, cartridge cases, primers and powder. However, handgun components appear also not to be covered. I do not purchase factory ammunition.

AB 962 refers to Title 18 USC Section 921 (a) (16) relative to antique firearms, and Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 USC. manufacturers and importers and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.

Section 921 (17)(A) Defines “ammunition” as ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellant powder designed for use in any firearm. While Subsections (9) and (10) define "Importer" and "Manufacturer" respectively.

Can the term, "Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 USC. manufacturers and importers and the regulations issued pursuant thereto." be construed to include components as ammunition although not specifically referred to in AB 962?

If components are not included, rifle or handgun, will we be able to claim a categorical exemption from Internet vendors? There seems to be some confusion as to what the term "bullet" encompasses. AB 962 states: "or projectile capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence." A "bullet," as a component is inert and incapable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence. Did the author of AB 962 refer to "bullet' as a common reference to a loaded "cartridge"?

The term "firearm" in the above example exceeds the scope of AB 962, in that it should only apply narrowly to handgun projectiles, and more specifically those loaded in commercial ammunition or commercially produced reloaded ammunition sold at retail. An individual's private reloaded or hand loaded ammunition is not produced for sale.

There also seems to be no mechanism to prevent me from purchasing ammunition or components while out of state and importing them, as the purchase and delivery occurred beyond the jurisdiction of the state.

This poorly written law leaves more questions than answers. The ultimate solution for me is to move to Oregon, something that has been on the back burner for some time.



It appears the short answer to your question is reloading components are not effected. The long answer can be found here http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=230961

Deamer
10-13-2009, 12:20 AM
It's called INCREMENTALISM. The just because they already do argument doesn't hold water for me. These laws are a continued erosion of are freedoms. This is just a continued step closer to a true police state.

Just like them adding more ammo restrictions and trying to expand the condor no lead areas. I bet Deleon already has the ammendment drafted to add rifle and blackpowder to the new law.

Digital Dude
10-13-2009, 9:36 AM
Man that sucks! BTW: I'm new here on the forum from the Arizona area. I grew up in SoCal so I've been thinking of moving back. In fact, I was a LEO in the 70's for about 3-yrs and it was hard even then to get a CCW and now I'm concerned it's nearly impossible.
Regards,

wash
10-13-2009, 11:47 AM
Who is going to run the lawsuit?

It will be good to say Nordyke vs. King if Kilmer is handling it or San Francisco handgun ban if Chuck Michel is doing it.

steadyrock
10-13-2009, 12:00 PM
It also looks like ammunition on school property is now a bona fide crime.

Source?

freakshow10mm
10-13-2009, 12:21 PM
Source?
I bet it's in AB962.

donstarr
10-13-2009, 12:36 PM
It also looks like ammunition on school property is now a bona fide crime.
Source?

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_962_bill_20090921_enrolled.html :

12316.
(c) Unless it is with the written permission of the school
district superintendent, his or her designee, or equivalent school
authority, no person shall carry ammunition or reloaded ammunition
onto school grounds

copenhagen269
10-13-2009, 12:40 PM
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_962_bill_20090921_enrolled.html :

12316.
(c) Unless it is with the written permission of the school
district superintendent, his or her designee, or equivalent school
authority, no person shall carry ammunition or reloaded ammunition
onto school grounds

Does it matter if you have a CCW ?

ke6guj
10-13-2009, 12:46 PM
It also looks like ammunition on school property is now a bona fide crime.Its already a crime. 12316(c) is already law.


I bet it's in AB962.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_962_bill_20090921_enrolled.html :

12316.
(c) Unless it is with the written permission of the school
district superintendent, his or her designee, or equivalent school
authority, no person shall carry ammunition or reloaded ammunition
onto school grounds

Nope, 12316(c) is pre-existing law. AB962 just added sections to 12316, but 12316(c) was already there.


Does it matter if you have a CCW ?Yes it does, the rest of 12316(c) includes this,

This subdivision shall not apply to a duly appointed peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, a full-time paid peace officer of another state or the federal government who is carrying out official duties while in California, any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in making an arrest or preserving the peace while he or she is actually engaged in assisting the officer, a member of the military forces of this state or of the United States who is engaged in the performance of his or her duties, a person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4,

donstarr
10-13-2009, 12:50 PM
Does it matter if you have a CCW ?

Looks like it does matter. Here's the complete text of subdivision (c) from the passed/enrolled/signed version of the legislation:
(c) Unless it is with the written permission of the school
district superintendent, his or her designee, or equivalent school
authority, no person shall carry ammunition or reloaded ammunition
onto school grounds, except sworn law enforcement officers acting
within the scope of their duties or persons exempted under
subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section
12027. This subdivision shall not apply to a duly appointed peace
officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of
Title 3 of Part 2, a full-time paid peace officer of another state or
the federal government who is carrying out official duties while in
California, any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in
making an arrest or preserving the peace while he or she is actually
engaged in assisting the officer, a member of the military forces of
this state or of the United States who is engaged in the performance
of his or her duties, a person holding a valid license to carry the
firearm pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of
Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4, or an armored vehicle guard, who is
engaged in the performance of his or her duties, as defined in
subdivision (e) of Section 7521 of the Business and Professions Code.
A violation of this subdivision is punishable by imprisonment in a
county jail for a term not to exceed six months, a fine not to exceed
one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both the imprisonment and fine.

donstarr
10-13-2009, 12:52 PM
Nope, 12316(c) is pre-existing law. AB962 just added sections to 12316, but 12316(c) was already there.
Thanks. I didn't go look at the current text of 12316 to see how it differed from the version in AB962.

EDIT: The narcissist in me wants to claim that my post was factually correct, since the original post (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3203459&postcount=141) on the subject was regarding whether "ammunition on school property is now a bona fide crime" ... and that part of 12316 is "now" effective law (while 962 won't be effective until 2011, if ever). ;)

copenhagen269
10-13-2009, 2:38 PM
Looks like it does matter. Here's the complete text of subdivision (c) from the passed/enrolled/signed version of the legislation:
(c) Unless it is with the written permission of the school
district superintendent, his or her designee, or equivalent school
authority, no person shall carry ammunition or reloaded ammunition
onto school grounds, except sworn law enforcement officers acting
within the scope of their duties or persons exempted under
subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section
12027. This subdivision shall not apply to a duly appointed peace
officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of
Title 3 of Part 2, a full-time paid peace officer of another state or
the federal government who is carrying out official duties while in
California, any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in
making an arrest or preserving the peace while he or she is actually
engaged in assisting the officer, a member of the military forces of
this state or of the United States who is engaged in the performance
of his or her duties, a person holding a valid license to carry the
firearm pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of
Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4, or an armored vehicle guard, who is
engaged in the performance of his or her duties, as defined in
subdivision (e) of Section 7521 of the Business and Professions Code.
A violation of this subdivision is punishable by imprisonment in a
county jail for a term not to exceed six months, a fine not to exceed
one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both the imprisonment and fine.

Ok, thanks guys.

AngelesRanges
10-14-2009, 11:04 AM
Why hasn't anyone gone to court before about this when the city of LA has been doing this same thing for decades.....

bomb_on_bus
10-14-2009, 11:08 AM
Man I sure hope that we have more money, time, and resources at out disposal to fight this thing then those who pushed this bill to become law.

CHS
10-14-2009, 11:31 AM
Why hasn't anyone gone to court before about this when the city of LA has been doing this same thing for decades.....

We didn't have Heller or Nordyke back then.

rklute
10-15-2009, 10:19 AM
If requiring a finger print is not going to be something that can be removed in the coming legal battle, then that will not personally be enough for me.

You bought a gun in the last couple of years in California? You had to put your thumbprint on the form which the FFL will keep on file. They are just following that precedent.

I agree this is a hassle, I don't like the law, and I hope it can be repealed or amended. In the mean time, California gun owners have 16 months to figure out what can be done to work around the law and implement them.

For you reloading or road trips to Nevada may be your best options.

DocSkinner
10-15-2009, 10:45 AM
Overly broad?
*****
SEC. 7. Section 12318 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
12318. (a) Commencing February 1, 2011, the delivery or transfer
of ownership of handgun ammunition may only occur in a face-to-face
transaction with the deliverer or transferor being provided bona fide
evidence of identity from the purchaser or other transferee. A
violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
****

Its that transfer/transferor term. Vendor is defined, but not "transferor" (that I could find).

- so if I am at a range and let a friend shoot my guns with my ammo, did I just "illegally transfer ammunition"??

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
10-15-2009, 11:05 AM
- so if I am at a range and let a friend shoot my guns with my ammo, did I just "illegally transfer ammunition"??

Arguably yes if you were not provided bona fide evidence of identity from your friend. Personally I don't think that letting a friend shoot your gun and handgun ammo is or should be considered a transfer of ownership of the handgun ammo, but this seems like a bit of a grey area.

DocSkinner
10-15-2009, 11:46 AM
Arguably yes if you were not provided bona fide evidence of identity from your friend. Personally I don't think that letting a friend shoot your gun and handgun ammo is or should be considered a transfer of ownership of the handgun ammo, but this seems like a bit of a grey area.

Grey areas are good for poking legal holes in it, correct?

You can lend a handgun, as it is something you get back. To me, ammo would be transferred as it is consumed and not returned.

Was also wondering now as a pistol instructor - students would have to personally purchase their own ammunition and it could not be included in a course fee?

Was wondering if that could get a stay put on it, say, right after it gets signed...

steelrain82
10-15-2009, 3:32 PM
well according to that i would assume that as long as you check there id when you give them ammo it would be ok because you followed the law and did it face to face even if it was in an instructional class. but it would be in our best interest not to assume anything and ask a legal person or someone far wiser than me. i feel there is alot of room for the makers of this to add on all sorts of stuff to this bill

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
10-15-2009, 3:37 PM
To me, ammo would be transferred as it is consumed and not returned.

The consumption part is the best argument why letting your friend shoot your handgun and ammo entails a transfer of ownership IMO.

Was also wondering now as a pistol instructor - students would have to personally purchase their own ammunition and it could not be included in a course fee?

I don't think you could include the price of the handgun ammo in the course fee unless the student paid the fee in a face to face transaction, providing bona fide evidence of identity (I'm assuming here the course fee is paid in advance). And then when the ammo was delivered to the student face to face in the class, provided bona fide evidence of identity again. Another question is would you as a pistol instructor be a handgun ammo vendor subject to the record keeping requirements, etc. Not totally sure of all this, still trying to digest the bill but anyway you slice it it's f'ed up.

canadagoose
10-15-2009, 10:23 PM
As written, 12061 seems to only add a shipping restriction to vendors. If I already own ammunition outside of California, I can still ship it to myself, can't I?

Given that, I would think you could get around the letter of the law by using a PO Box mail forwarding service based in another state. The vendor isn't breaking any laws since they're not shipping to anyone in California, and the reshipper isn't breaking any laws since they're not a vendor. I could make the argument that the ammunition became my possession when it was received at my PO Box.

This arrangement might remove the economic advantage of mail order, but would it be legal?

WileyWilly
10-15-2009, 10:32 PM
It's against federal (Post Office) regulations to send Ammunition through the mail; thats why we have to use UPS or FEDEX or another common carrier.
WW

canadagoose
10-15-2009, 10:49 PM
Won't a PO Box accept UPS deliveries on your behalf? And won't they forward to you via UPS?

WileyWilly
10-15-2009, 10:52 PM
Go to ups.com and look at their policies,
WW

DocSkinner
10-16-2009, 10:35 AM
Won't a PO Box accept UPS deliveries on your behalf? And won't they forward to you via UPS?

a box can't "accept" anything - as in it isn't a person ;-) .

HOWEVER, many non-UPS operated, commercial PO Box places have policies for accepting packages as they are trying sell themselves as your business front end. Whether or not they will receive ammunition, and whether or not they forward anything is another matter... (and don't forget that whole "transfer/transferor" language.

CHS
10-16-2009, 10:45 AM
HOWEVER, many non-UPS operated, commercial PO Box places have policies for accepting packages as they are trying sell themselves as your business front end. Whether or not they will receive ammunition, and whether or not they forward anything is another matter... (and don't forget that whole "transfer/transferor" language.

Those are *NOT* PO boxes. Those are just boxes.

A PO box is a POST OFFICE box. At the post office :) You can't deliver UPS packages to the post office at a PO Box.

However, you can deliver UPS packages to a standard box run by a non-post office commercial entity.

383green
10-16-2009, 10:47 AM
I get my mail through a Postal Annex store, and I've had no trouble receiving ammo shipments there.

bodger
10-16-2009, 10:51 AM
Why hasn't anyone gone to court before about this when the city of LA has been doing this same thing for decades.....


I think it's mainly because you could still legally accept mail order ammo deliveries in the City of LA.

Of course, now that these municipalities with their own FTF and fingerprint laws are being touted as the crime fighting model for AB962, I would ask the same question. Why weren't these BS laws passed by city councils challenged a long time ago?

Maybe one of the legal eagles can answer.

DocSkinner
10-16-2009, 11:07 AM
Those are *NOT* PO boxes. Those are just boxes.

A PO box is a POST OFFICE box. At the post office :) You can't deliver UPS packages to the post office at a PO Box.

However, you can deliver UPS packages to a standard box run by a non-post office commercial entity.

they are most certainly post office boxes, they are also most certainly NOT United Postal Service post office boxes. A psot office is just a place where mail is received and distributed. A Post Office is one of those operated by the UPS. If you really want to get nit-picky... ;-)

DocSkinner
10-16-2009, 11:08 AM
I think it's mainly because you could still legally accept mail order ammo deliveries in the City of LA.

...

Sacramento has this law, and mail order places will not ship there.

bodger
10-16-2009, 11:14 AM
Sacramento has this law, and mail order places will not ship there.


Is it against the law to ship there, or do the mail order companies decline to do so?

I've seen some online vendors that state they will not ship ammo to "Los Angeles County".

This is FUD driven, they heard about the FTF laws in LA City, and wrote off the whole city and county. But it was never actually illegal to ship to or accept mail order ammo in LA.

navyinrwanda
10-16-2009, 12:04 PM
Sacramento has this law, and mail order places will not ship there.
The Sacramento ordinance is quite a bit less comprehensive than AB 962. Here are the pertinent sections:

5.66.020 Ammunition sales log required.

An ammunition vendor shall maintain an ammunition sales log which records all firearm ammunition sales as required by this chapter. The transferee shall provide, and the ammunition vendor shall record on the ammunition sales log, at the time of sale, the following information for each sale of firearms ammunition:

A. The name, address, and date of birth of the transferee;

B. The date of the sale;

C. The transferee’s driver’s license number, state identification card number, passport number, or other valid government-issued photographic identification;

D. The brand, type, and quantity of firearms ammunition transferred;

E. The identity of the person transferring the firearms ammunition on behalf of the ammunition vendor;

F. The transferee’s signature and right thumbprint. (Ord. 2007-065 § 1).
Sacramento doesn't ban common carrier deliveries (Internet/mail order). They do, however, require "any person, firm, corporation or dealer engaging in the business of selling, leasing or otherwise transferring any firearm or firearm ammunition" to have a business license. This may be he reason that some companies decline to ship ammo to Sacramento.

Also, Sacramento requires that ammunition logs be transmitted to the Chief of Police within five days of capture — something not in AB 962...

ar15barrels
10-17-2009, 2:08 AM
It seems like the legislature could easily get around this by passing a new law that makes buying handgun ammo illegal except in face-to-face transactions. That would relieve the burden on common carriers and take them out of the equation. For example, among other things, PC 12020 makes it a crime to buy a high capacity magazine.

Read PC12020 again.
It's not illegal to buy them.
The law restricts manufacturing, importing and offering for sale.

dantodd
10-17-2009, 3:23 AM
I don't think you could include the price of the handgun ammo in the course fee unless the student paid the fee in a face to face transaction, providing bona fide evidence of identity (I'm assuming here the course fee is paid in advance). And then when the ammo was delivered to the student face to face in the class, provided bona fide evidence of identity again. Another question is would you as a pistol instructor be a handgun ammo vendor subject to the record keeping requirements, etc. Not totally sure of all this, still trying to digest the bill but anyway you slice it it's f'ed up.

I believe that the new law requires a face-to-face at the point of transfer only and not necessarily at the time the item is paid for. For example: a gun may be PPTed but the actual legal transfer happens at the end of the ten day wait. I would think that if the instructor sells ammo in the regular course of his business that he would be considered an ammo vendor. However; if the payment for the ammo were merely a pass through and the range actually transferred the ammo to the student when she arrived then the range would be the vendor and would need to keep the paperwork.

hoffmang
10-17-2009, 10:38 AM
Sacramento has this law, and mail order places will not ship there.

I'm not sure that interpretation is correct. CGF is in the process of clarifying that.

-Gene

freakshow10mm
10-17-2009, 10:48 AM
I'm not sure that interpretation is correct. CGF is in the process of clarifying that.

-Gene
Reading that seems to me they are regulating Sacramento vendors.

Haole
10-20-2009, 8:19 AM
Those are *NOT* PO boxes. Those are just boxes.

A PO box is a POST OFFICE box. At the post office :) You can't deliver UPS packages to the post office at a PO Box.

However, you can deliver UPS packages to a standard box run by a non-post office commercial entity.

I've received FedEx at my PO box. Why should UPS be any different?

ar15barrels
10-20-2009, 10:01 AM
I've received FedEx at my PO box. Why should UPS be any different?

Because the USPS works with Fedex, but not with UPS.

I have had stuff shipped to my PO box via UPS and UPS contacted USPS who gave them my street address.
That was a suprise to me because I thought my street address was kept confidential.
Most times when UPS tries to deliver to my PO box, I just get a postcard mailed from UPS telling me to come and pick it up at the UPS terminal.

Dirk Tungsten
10-20-2009, 2:17 PM
FWIW, I live in the City of Sacramento, and have had ammunition delivered. It seems that it's up to the vendors interpretation of the law to decide whether or not to ship here.

SteveRogge
10-23-2009, 12:22 PM
California: NRA Sponsors Legislation to Repeal AB962!

Friday, October 16, 2009

Earlier this year, Assemblyman Curt Hagman introduced Assembly Bill 373 related to the sales of handguns. AB373 was sponsored by the National Rifle Association in order to streamline the ability for law-abiding Californians to purchase handguns.
Now that Governor Schwarzenegger has signed AB962 into law, people are already becoming aware of the damage that it will do to California and it's citizens. Therefore, the NRA and Assemblyman Hagman have agreed to amend AB373 into legislation that would repeal AB962. The newly amended AB373 will be heard in the State Legislature in January of 2010 so we must be ready for these hearings.
All of California's firearms owners, dealers, shooters, hunters, collectors, clubs/organizations, and ammunition vendors, should be prepared to join in this effort to repeal AB962. This will not be an easy fight, but it is possible to win if we all stick together and act in an organized manner.
We, the NRA, will have specific activities that everyone can participate in during this important effort. Please stand-by and be prepared to help. There is no good reason not to be part of the team.
Read the NRA-ILA News Release regarding Governor Schwarzenegger's counter-productive signing of AB962 at http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=12998 .
As a first-step in this process; please contact Assemblyman Curt Hagman and thank him for demonstrating his leadership by using his legislation (AB373) for this very important effort to repeal AB962. His office phone number is 916-319-2060 and you can email him at Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov.


Find this item at: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=5176
We as gun owner need to thank him for his support on our behalf, H e will be running for reelection next year. We as member to the shooting community need to help with his reelection by
1 Offering your time
2 Your money to support his reelection campaign
3 Show the PRO GUN BAN Lobby that we will support the people that support “US” and we will
work to defeat those do not.

Please contact Assemblyman Curt Hagman his campaign website is

http://www.curthagman.com/

ar15barrels
10-23-2009, 1:29 PM
Now that Governor Schwarzenegger has signed AB962 into law, people are already becoming aware of the damage that it will do to California and it's citizens. Therefore, the NRA and Assemblyman Hagman have agreed to amend AB373 into legislation that would repeal AB962.

It's always harder to un-do a bad deed that's already been done than to stop the bad deed from occuring in the first place.

elenius
10-23-2009, 3:18 PM
It's always harder to un-do a bad deed that's already been done than to stop the bad deed from occuring in the first place.

But it will be a sweeter victory to rise again after such a beating. "I'm not dead yet" :D

G17GUY
10-23-2009, 4:04 PM
But it will be a sweeter victory to rise again after such a beating. "I'm not dead yet" :D

ok, but when?

DocSkinner
10-27-2009, 10:12 AM
It's always harder to un-do a bad deed that's already been done than to stop the bad deed from occuring in the first place.

true - but is is far easier to get 90% of people to REACT than to act!! We live in a world where most people don't pay any attention until they get smacked upside the head with something they could have seen coming a mile away... in this case, reaction is better than no actions at all!

Ed_in_Sac
10-29-2009, 6:36 PM
Received an email from Sen Daryl Steinberg, senate leader pro tem, that he will have town hall meetings:

11/9 in Rancho Cordova
11/10 in Antelope
11/12 and 11/17 in Sacramento

See his web site for time and meeting places.

This would be an excellent time to ask about AB962 and his support for it. I wrote him during the process asking he listen to my concerns but that never happened...now is the time folks!

Lead Lobber
11-02-2009, 8:43 PM
Does this mean I can not long pass gas while holding one of my handguns? :(

Noraku81
11-16-2009, 9:44 PM
I know this has probably been posted many times but one more time wouldn't hurt. Here is the on-line petition to repeal AB962

http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/cgi-bin/petition.cgi

liketoshoot
11-17-2009, 6:24 AM
I’m just curious, why can’t California have a driver’s license or a state issued ID that has the word “restricted” on it for people convicted of a felony? If this state had that and we showed our DL or state issued ID to the cashier they would see that they could/could not sell the ammo to this person. Yea I know it means you have to show ID but if you use your credit card they ask anyway. This maybe a way to stop AB962.

Untamed1972
11-17-2009, 8:45 AM
I’m just curious, why can’t California have a driver’s license or a state issued ID that has the word “restricted” on it for people convicted of a felony? If this state had that and we showed our DL or state issued ID to the cashier they would see that they could/could not sell the ammo to this person. Yea I know it means you have to show ID but if you use your credit card they ask anyway. This maybe a way to stop AB962.


Yeah....they could do that. But then the badguys with restricted licenses would just get there GF, buddy, cousin or whoever who has a clean license to buy it for them. That's the whole point of why this law is so stupid.....because it will do nothing to keep ammo out of the hands of criminals.

RP1911
11-17-2009, 8:55 AM
Yeah....they could do that. But then the badguys with restricted licenses would just get there GF, buddy, cousin or whoever who has a clean license to buy it for them. That's the whole point of why this law is so stupid.....because it will do nothing to keep ammo out of the hands of criminals.

They do that already.

5150bronco
11-18-2009, 11:35 PM
wow. there is no way to stop that really. thanks for opening my eyes up to this stuff.