PDA

View Full Version : AB962 question


SJ78
01-12-2010, 12:03 AM
Just wondering what the current status is on it ? is their any chance it can be overturned before Feb ?

wildhawker
01-12-2010, 12:11 AM
Before Feb 2011 when it takes effect? Yes.

Keep your ear to the ground... ;)

Librarian
01-12-2010, 3:54 AM
Before Feb 2011 when it takes effect? Yes.

Keep your ear to the ground... ;)

... your eye on the ball, and your shoulder to the wheel.

Now, try to work in that position. ;)

(No, I'm not up late - I'm in bleedin' Kentucky for a week for training. This is Eastern Time Zone, and a plot by the devil.)

CaliforniaLiberal
02-09-2010, 2:54 PM
Just wondering what the current status is on it ? is their any chance it can be overturned before Feb ?

You will find many, many threads on these questions here. Search for 'AB962' and get to reading.

The Wise Ones of CalGuns give us great hope that AB962 will be overturned, invalidated or sent to bed early before it takes effect. So far the Wise Ones have a very good record of knowing what's going on.

Just you wait and see.

Here's the text of the Bill. It takes a bit of reading and re-reading but it's worth the effort.

http://www.ab962.org/Libraries/AB_962_Documents/ab_962_bill_20091011_chaptered.sflb.ashx

My summary:

* Starting already this January handgun ammo may not be displayed where customers can get to it without assistance from store staff.

* Starting Feb 2011 every sale of handgun ammo in CA will require a record of ID, Address, Caliber and type of ammo and thumbprint be kept for the cops to come look at when they want to. The information is not on computer or kept in a central location, just kept in the store for some years.

* Starting Feb 2011 only face to face sales of handgun ammo. No mail order. With an exception for those having a Curio and Relic Type Three FFL AND a California Certificate of Eligibility. All of which is doable by regular folks. If this goes into effect I'd guess some mail order ammo suppliers will just refuse to ship any ammo at all to CA and not care about your C & R or COE.

* No selling to gang members, minors or other bad or illegal people.


There is no mention of going shopping in another state and bringing it home. No mention of reloading your own handgun ammo. No mention of reloading components. No limit on how much ammo you can buy. No state ammo card for buyers. No special license or fees for sellers. It all applies to "Handgun Ammunition Vendors" "engaged in retail sale."

Several cities in CA already have a local law very much like this already in effect for a couple of years.

So support CalGuns. Make a donation. (Look up at the top of the page for donating and searching.) Have hope. VOTE!

Stack your ammo deep and high.

CAL.BAR
02-09-2010, 4:17 PM
I'm putting my money on the other color on the wheel. I say no, it will not be stopped before it goes into affect. Legal cases first have to have a law active on the books before it can be challenged in court otherwise the issue is "moot" or otherwise premature. So the day it goes into affect, the plaintiff can bring the suit (which, after the appeals, means years of the law being in affect)

The other option is to push through legislation counteracting AP 962 - but w/o a change in the line-up at the state level (you know- the same folks who gave us this winner in the first place) I don't see much hope of that sailing through in less than a year.

So my forecast is at least a year of no internet sales etc.

(I pray I'm wrong however. . .)

wildhawker
02-09-2010, 4:38 PM
AB962 can be challenged *right now*; the law is on the books (chaptered). Only a portion of the law goes into effect on 2/2011.

Understand that it isn't a complex 2A claim. It's a simple Federal preemption case, strongly reinforced by the recent 9-0 SCOTUS decision in Rowe v. NH Motor Transport (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_06_457). AB962's mail order provisions are entirely preempted by the FAAAA (Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994). There is another nice present waiting for us in this as well, but such will be made clear after the case is filed and the complaint posted.

Facts of the Case:
In an effort to address the problem of tobacco use by minors, the Maine legislature passed the Tobacco Delivery Law, which imposes requirements on air and motor carriers that transport tobacco products. One provision of the law requires tobacco retailers to only use carriers that verify the age of each tobacco purchaser, and another provision requires that carriers ensure that no tobacco is shipped to unlicensed retailers. The New Hampshire Motor Transport Association sued, arguing that the state law was preempted by a federal law, the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA). The preemption provision of the FAAAA prohibits state from enacting laws "related to" the prices, routes, or services of air and motor carriers. The Association argued that the Tobacco Delivery Law placed such a burden on the delivery procedures of carriers that significantly affected their prices and services. The state countered that the FAAAA was only meant to preempt traditional economic regulation by states, and therefore laws enacted pursuant to the state's police power - the power of a state to regulate for the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens - were permissible. The U.S. District Court ruled that the law was preempted by the FAAAA.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the lower court. The First Circuit held that a police power exception to the general rule of preemption would be far too broad and was not intended by Congress. Maine could validly ban all unlicensed tobacco products within its borders, but the FAAAA prohibited the state from implementing this goal by imposing requirements on carriers that significantly alter their delivery procedures.

Question:
Does the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 preempt a state law that uses the state's police power to require that air and motor carriers take steps to ensure that tobacco is not sold to minors?

Conclusion:
The Court affirmed both lower courts, holding that the FAAAA preempted the state laws. In a unanimous decision written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Court asserted that the state laws were directly connected with motor carrier services and therefore had a significant and adverse impact on the congressional goal of precluding state regulation in lieu of competitive market forces. The Court further stated that the FAAAA did not allow any exceptions for police powers or public health concerns of the State.


I'm putting my money on the other color on the wheel. I say no, it will not be stopped before it goes into affect. Legal cases first have to have a law active on the books before it can be challenged in court otherwise the issue is "moot" or otherwise premature. So the day it goes into affect, the plaintiff can bring the suit (which, after the appeals, means years of the law being in affect)

The other option is to push through legislation counteracting AP 962 - but w/o a change in the line-up at the state level (you know- the same folks who gave us this winner in the first place) I don't see much hope of that sailing through in less than a year.

So my forecast is at least a year of no internet sales etc.

(I pray I'm wrong however. . .)

snobord99
02-09-2010, 6:22 PM
Legal cases first have to have a law active on the books before it can be challenged in court otherwise the issue is "moot" or otherwise premature.

It's not moot at this point. It's not ripe. Moot means that it's no longer an issue (e.g., you sue and they repeal the law in the middle of the suit). Not ripe means it has not yet become an issue, but could potentially be one later.

hoffmang
02-09-2010, 11:14 PM
The case is ripe. It would require common carriers to start changing their policies in anticipation of the codified start date - something they are protected from doing by Federal law (preemption.)

-Gene