PDA

View Full Version : CA ammo retailer quitting business due to AB962


berg
03-23-2010, 4:06 PM
Is he right about the affect of AB962 on his business?

http://www.akfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65100

WTS: Online Ammunition Company. Professional Website, In stock Inventory, support!!!

Hey Everybody!

I'm writing to you today to let you know that I'm regrettably selling my business. We are an online ammunition retailer that sells to both Law Enforcement and Civilians to people all over the United States. We are located in California and recently a Bill "AB962" passed in the California legislature. It says that you can't sell ammunition over the internet and it limits how much ammunition you can sell in the state of California to 1 box a month. This law takes effect in Feb 2011, so in preparation of this I'm selling the company and all of it's assets.

Some quick points: 1) We are profitable 2) We have established ourselves with several keywords. 3) You will get all assets in the sale including our professionally made website, domain name, hosting, inventory, etc. 4) We have customer all over the United States and a significant portion of traffic is organic. 5) The profit margin on our top 2 selling products are the 71% and the 52%. 6) Since inception the site has had 22,362 Visits, 81,889 Page Views.

All offers will be considered.

Please send me an email through our website to have your email added to the Google Analytics website stats. The site can be used for redirects or a subsidiary of the new owner's company. Please send me an email with any questions/concerns. Thanks

-AmmoSphere

bwiese
03-23-2010, 4:10 PM
He's probably using scam fearmongering marketing.

Maybe he's just clueless.

Yes, internet sales to Californians will be an issue.

No, there's no limit to 1 or 2 boxes a month at retail.

pennys dad
03-23-2010, 4:14 PM
Agreed with above comment. Even if I was petrified of AB962 I would stay in business long enough to capitalize on the rush on ammo.

orangeusa
03-23-2010, 4:19 PM
Here - CG
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=282683

And here - BF
http://www.berettaforum.net/vb/showthread.php?t=60734

Since I posted on both threads, I'll just be silent.... :rolleyes:

(Hey, why aren't the fancy emoticons working?)

markw
03-23-2010, 7:42 PM
How does 962 effect internet sales of components?

wildhawker
03-23-2010, 7:48 PM
Mark, it doesn't.

smallshot13
03-23-2010, 10:52 PM
There are those who read the full text of AB 962 and realize that 12317 is so losely worded that many corporate attorneys may be advising their clients that they can't ship components because they have not excersized 'reasonable care' to determine if the driver, dock worker, warehouse person, driver or customer in the delivery chain are not prohibited persons. This has nothing to do with the tighter definition found in 12318. By the way, 12317 says nothing about handgun ammunition, so it could be interpreted by some overzealous prosecutoror anti to apply to long gun ammo components as well. Yes, I'm still looking for an honest, point by point debate on this issue.

wildhawker
03-23-2010, 11:04 PM
It's been done on numerous occasions.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=263112&highlight=AB962
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=230961

More info below.

There are those who read the full text of AB 962 and realize that 12317 is so losely worded that many corporate attorneys may be advising their clients that they can't ship components because they have not excersized 'reasonable care' to determine if the driver, dock worker, warehouse person, driver or customer in the delivery chain are not prohibited persons. This has nothing to do with the tighter definition found in 12318. By the way, 12317 says nothing about handgun ammunition, so it could be interpreted by some overzealous prosecutoror anti to apply to long gun ammo components as well. Yes, I'm still looking for an honest, point by point debate on this issue.

AB962 cannot survive a Federal challenge.

How about sharing plan B with us. I know I'll help fight, but I want to know all about it real quick.

It's been discussed at length before.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3197663&postcount=35

All,

The regulation of internet delivery of ammunition as drafted in AB-962 is preeempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994.

AB-962 Regulates The Routes and Services of Common Carriers

AB-962 creates a misdemeanor in a 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 manufacture/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 is 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 U. S. C. 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 the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (“FAAAA”) and was codified in 49 U.S.C. 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 Supreme Court Unanimously Ruled That Laws That 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 AB-962 .

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 an equivalent “public safety” exception to the FAAAA to allow AB-962 either.

AB-962, as written, is preempted by the FAAAA.

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

-Gene

RRangel
03-24-2010, 4:05 AM
I was also thinking about another angle. That the state is technically providing an unfair advantage to in state sellers. There is case law against this as a violation of interstate commerce.

I can imagine FFL dealers refusing to accept ammo on behalf of consumers. It is an obvious logistical problem given the large population compared to FFL dealers. What about those who don't live near an FFL? This whole aspect presents a hardship for those trying to recieve ammo from out of state vendors.

There may be many out of state plaintiffs that can file because it disadvantages them.

smallshot13
03-24-2010, 7:59 AM
WildHawker, thank you for the references. I did go back and review them. Neither one discusses the specifics of 12317 as a stand alone statute. I actually participated in one of the reference threads with the same questions I have posted here, but no one responded to my questions/comments. I also reviewed CalGunsLaw, where again, I do not find any discussion of 12317. Thus I am still faced with the questions and concerns I find when reading that section. To give control (not talking about sale) of anything described in the sub-section (c) definition to a person whom one has not excersized reasonable care to determine if they are a prohibited person is a crime. Does not reference handgun, so could apply to long gun as well. The responses I get from my questions and comments seem to be clouded by overall retained knowledge of the complete AB 962 bill. Amendments to 12061, 12316 and addition of 12318 are different than the added 12317, which appears to stand alone and be potentially significant.

Table Rock Arms
03-24-2010, 8:04 AM
If they sell to law enforcement as well as civilians all over the united states, then why would not selling online orders to Californians put them out of business?

wildhawker
03-24-2010, 10:27 AM
Smallshot, I'll reread for clarity but it really isn't an issue.

jnojr
03-24-2010, 11:30 AM
Since inception the site has had 22,362 Visits, 81,889 Page Views.

I could create a "Hello World" page and gets more hits than this "since inception". My little HDTV discussion board, which I do absolutely nothing with, averages ~20K hits and ~12K page views per day.

Not very impressive.

I think bwiese's "fear mongering" comment is dead on.

orangeusa
03-24-2010, 11:36 AM
Slightly off topic, but my most popular threads are ones I've removed.

'removed' will get like 1200 hits in a few days, and my WTS will get 50!!! :)

Curtis
03-24-2010, 12:31 PM
I don't think this person knows what they are doing...with regards to business and ammo.

I believe an ammo business could gain a great deal of California business from knowing the laws, not spreading misinformation, and treating California gun owners with the respect we deserve.