PDA

View Full Version : Ammo after AB 962


Kyle1886
03-24-2010, 11:03 AM
I have read AB 962 several times and don't find any wording that would make it illegal for a relative to ship a box of ammo to an address in CA. (As long as the receiving party is legally allowed weapons/ammo). I may be incorrect but the bill specifies "vendors", though I may have missed "other persons" as providers. Example: I have a relative in Texas, relative sends me a couple of boxes of ammo for my birthday/etc. Relative is not a seller or FFL. Will that be legal? (No, I'm not trying to skirt the law, just trying to find out the legality to avoid issues down the line, since sometimes I have received ammo from an out of state relative).

Respectfully,

Kyle

wildhawker
03-24-2010, 11:12 AM
It will not matter.

AB962 *cannot survive a Federal challenge*.

loather
03-24-2010, 11:48 AM
It will not matter.

AB962 *cannot survive a Federal challenge*.

I've heard this said before, but I haven't heard of any progress on this front. I don't mean to criticize, because I'm sure there are reasons for not having everything out in the open. Especially in lieu of AB 1663's failure to pass, where's the court challenge?

Sorry. I'm just a bit frustrated over all the work we put into trying to keep 962 from passing in the first place, all the work we put into 1663 trying to get it passed, and coming up against a brick wall.

tiki
03-24-2010, 12:13 PM
I've heard this said before, but I haven't heard of any progress on this front. I don't mean to criticize, because I'm sure there are reasons for not having everything out in the open. Especially in lieu of AB 1663's failure to pass, where's the court challenge?


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=276216

wildhawker
03-24-2010, 12:20 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=276216

Please note that Mr. Chaffin's suit is in no way affiliated with the efforts of CGF.

As soon as is prudent we'll be posting an update as to our AB962 challenge. Until then, remain patient and be certain that this, and a number of other challenges, are moving forward. We look forward to a very, very busy 2010. :43:

wildhawker
03-24-2010, 12:21 PM
I've heard this said before, but I haven't heard of any progress on this front. I don't mean to criticize, because I'm sure there are reasons for not having everything out in the open. Especially in lieu of AB 1663's failure to pass, where's the court challenge?

Sorry. I'm just a bit frustrated over all the work we put into trying to keep 962 from passing in the first place, all the work we put into 1663 trying to get it passed, and coming up against a brick wall.

Your hard work in the anti-AB962 campaign was valuable in many ways, some of which will be apparent in the very near future.

Kyle1886
03-24-2010, 12:45 PM
So we are to "assume" that this issue will be "settled" prior to the implementation of AB 962, 02/2011? That should be a relief to a bunch of Assemblymembers, that are on my mailing list.

Respectfully
Kyle

Lateralus
03-24-2010, 12:55 PM
I've heard this said before, but I haven't heard of any progress on this front. I don't mean to criticize, because I'm sure there are reasons for not having everything out in the open. Especially in lieu of AB 1663's failure to pass, where's the court challenge?

Sorry. I'm just a bit frustrated over all the work we put into trying to keep 962 from passing in the first place, all the work we put into 1663 trying to get it passed, and coming up against a brick wall.

I completely understand where you're coming from. I always hear The Right People act all cryptic and secretive while trying to reassure people and somehow take it for granted they know what they are doing. Well, this time I actually know whats going to happen. Trust me when I say they are not all smoke and mirrors about this.

After talking to the NRA lawyer/leadership at the AB1663 hearing, I am in no way concerned about AB962 and you can quote me on that.

paul0660
03-24-2010, 12:59 PM
Back to the OP:

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.

That goes for anyone who is not a vendor, who is held to a higher standard (fingerprints etc.).

Curtis
03-24-2010, 1:14 PM
I trust that CGF will handle the situation with AB962.

Reading the law, I can't find anything that specifically defines a "handgun ammunition vendor." It appears that as long as you meet local requirements to conduct business, you can call yourself a "handgun ammunition vendor." There is a reference to 12071, but that relates only to someone with an FFL. I assume I'm missing something....its not uncommon.

Soldier415
03-24-2010, 1:18 PM
tag

paul0660
03-24-2010, 1:28 PM
(c) "Handgun ammunition vendor" or "vendor" means any person, firm, corporation, dealer, or any other business enterprise that is engaged in the retail sale of any handgun ammunition, or that holds itself out as engaged in the business of selling any handgun ammunition.


it really is all here: http://www.ab962.org/ReadAB962.aspx

Mstrty
03-24-2010, 5:28 PM
So we are to "assume" that this issue will be "settled" prior to the implementation of AB 962, 02/2011? That should be a relief to a bunch of Assemblymembers, that are on my mailing list.

Respectfully
Kyle

Be careful "assuming" it will be taken care of prior to 2011. Even with the lawsuits in the works I see no guarantee this will be dead come 2/11. I am optimistically hopeful though.

wildhawker
03-24-2010, 7:42 PM
AB962 is as good as dead. A judge can ignore a 9-0 SCOTUS decision at their peril.

Mstrty
03-24-2010, 8:02 PM
AB962 is as good as dead. A judge can ignore a 9-0 SCOTUS decision at their peril.


We can only hope.

CornFedWB
03-24-2010, 8:21 PM
I love the enthusiasm, but I'm still scared. These liberal crackheads wont stop. NEVER!

Pyrodyne
03-24-2010, 8:45 PM
I love the enthusiasm, but I'm still scared. These liberal crackheads wont stop. NEVER!

Liberal crackheads worldwide are bristling at this statement and are demanding a public apology for associating them with the likes of such scum.

ETA: If all else fails, reload during that time.

wildhawker
03-24-2010, 9:37 PM
I love the enthusiasm, but I'm still scared. These liberal crackheads wont stop. NEVER!

There's enthusiasm, and then there's:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=15549&d=1232405026

That's how we roll.

formula502
03-24-2010, 10:22 PM
I seem to recall it being said that some of the right people were in contact with some of the governor's people and they were in fact aware of the common carrier issue.

Could the governor have given this to DeLeon (replete with puke-fest signing ceremony) in exchange for a water deal or whatever knowing full well that it would fail immediately upon challenge?

I would love to know what happened there.

bomb_on_bus
03-25-2010, 10:31 AM
AB962 is as good as dead. A judge can ignore a 9-0 SCOTUS decision at their peril.


still doesnt prove that its dead in CA

wildhawker
03-25-2010, 10:42 AM
Are you just being argumentative or do you not understand how the process works?

bomb_on_bus
03-25-2010, 10:55 AM
Neither I am basing it on how CA politicians go about daily business.

I am just being a concerned citizen is all when I hear something good and as potentially good as this I become a tad skeptical.

wildhawker
03-25-2010, 11:00 AM
Neither I am basing it on how CA politicians go about daily business.

I am just being a concerned citizen is all when I hear something good and as potentially good as this I become a tad skeptical.

This is not a *California* issue, nor will it be subject to California politicians any longer.

It will be challenged in Federal court as fully preempted by Federal law (FAAAA).

I think you might find it useful to read the SCOTUS opinion on Rowe v. NH Motor Transport and background info on the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994. Based upon your response, it appears you might not have an accurate context for this challenge.

If you think this is "too good to be true", just wait until we get really busy...

bomb_on_bus
03-25-2010, 11:15 AM
This is not a *California* issue, nor will it be subject to California politicians any longer.

It will be challenged in Federal court as fully preempted by Federal law (FAAAA).

I think you might find it useful to read the SCOTUS opinion on Rowe v. NH Motor Transport and background info on the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994. Based upon your response, it appears you might not have an accurate context for this challenge.

If you think this is "too good to be true", just wait until we get really busy...

It will be a great day to see 962 smashed in a federal court.

Thanks for the info will give me something to read up on in my free time! Its not that I dont have a clear context of what is going on as it is more or less a loss of faith in the system itself. It does make my day to see you and all the others taking up the fight and getting it to a federal level.

wildhawker
03-25-2010, 11:44 AM
http://traveloncloud9.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/never-give-up-cartoon.jpg

;)

Pixs
03-25-2010, 1:12 PM
Thanks wildhawker, I needed that! :TFH:

OleCuss
03-25-2010, 3:34 PM
Wildhawker, I'm not even going to bother to skim the case you mentioned - nor the relevant law you mentioned.

I have an ever-increasing (but not quite yet supreme) confidence that the CGF muckety-mucks are honest, sharp, and not given to being blow-hards.

If you all are saying the days of AB962 are numbered - then my concerns that AB962 will ever be fully implemented have become miniscule.

hnoppenberger
03-25-2010, 4:53 PM
hey if i can, what if one of the CA friendly online stores decided to forget about ab962 and shipped ammo privatly (fedex) to CA anyways? I mean, how would they be caught and prosecuted?

bodger
03-25-2010, 8:29 PM
hey if i can, what if one of the CA friendly online stores decided to forget about ab962 and shipped ammo privatly (fedex) to CA anyways? I mean, how would they be caught and prosecuted?


I've often wondered this myself. Who is going to police a situation like that? UPS and FedEx? Will they somehow be held culpable for making the delivery?

Texas Boy
03-25-2010, 10:15 PM
hey if i can, what if one of the CA friendly online stores decided to forget about ab962 and shipped ammo privatly (fedex) to CA anyways? I mean, how would they be caught and prosecuted?

Assuming CA found out about it (sting operation?), I assume the DOJ would harass them, send them nasty letters, and try to bring charges against them. If the home state didn't cooperate, the company didn't have any assets in CA, and no federal laws were violated, I'm not sure the DOJ could do anything except make noise.

However, given 962 clearly violates federal law, I am confident the CGF will get this overturned in short order.

stan
03-25-2010, 10:54 PM
If you think this is "too good to be true", just wait until we get really busy...

this sounds like code for "give it some time and we'll be registering SBRs and suppressors in caifornia"

three cheers for us!

wildhawker
03-25-2010, 11:16 PM
:whistling:

hnoppenberger
03-26-2010, 11:47 AM
so this is good. I'm sure there will be some patriotic ammo companys that will ignore ab962 and send us ammo anyways.

KCDS
03-26-2010, 11:57 AM
so this is good. I'm sure there will be some patriotic ammo companys that will ignore ab962 and send us ammo anyways.

after a while they may just got ban:mad:

wildhawker
03-26-2010, 1:52 PM
after a while they may just got ban:mad:

:confused::TFH:

chris
03-26-2010, 1:55 PM
After talking to the NRA lawyer/leadership at the AB1663 hearing, I am in no way concerned about AB962 and you can quote me on that.

now that is good to hear. i hope that this law goes where it belongs right in the trash can!

bodger
03-26-2010, 3:02 PM
Should we invite Ahnold to the party after we win the case?

I will definitely be sending a really snide gloating letter to DeLeon.

wildhawker
03-26-2010, 3:12 PM
Should we invite Ahnold to the party after we win the case?

I will definitely be sending a really snide gloating letter to DeLeon.

Not a good idea. DeLeon is a powerful enemy and we don't need to antagonize him with mere nastygrams.

bodger
03-30-2010, 10:09 AM
Not a good idea. DeLeon is a powerful enemy and we don't need to antagonize him with mere nastygrams.


Yeah, I knew that was coming when I posted that. Didn't know who, but knew it would be there.

Any other amendments besides the first and second we should let this asshat thwart?

Nothing is going to antagonize him like the overturning of AB962 will.

SanPedroShooter
03-30-2010, 3:07 PM
"so this is good. I'm sure there will be some patriotic ammo companys that will ignore ab962 and send us ammo anyways"


Dosent all ammo have to be marked orm-d? Wouldnt that give it away? Although, a paint company i heard about has to order certain kinds of spray primer from outside of LA county and the boxes are marked orm-d. Maybe it just means flammable/hazardous material?

dantodd
03-30-2010, 3:19 PM
Dosent all ammo have to be marked orm-d? Wouldnt that give it away?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORM-D

SanPedroShooter
03-30-2010, 3:29 PM
there you have it. so my other question is, does the box have to be marked "cartridges, small arms" or is orm-d good enough? I'm looking through the ups website but my search skills are weak. Basically, could an out of state friend ship me rifle or hangun ammo?

trautert
03-30-2010, 3:41 PM
All the stickers I have say Cartridges, Small Arms in an outer box, with ORM-D in larger block letters inside that.

Keep in mind that this legal abomination has nothing to do with non-handgun ammo, so there will still be boxes coming into the state with these markings on them with ammo inside.

SanPedroShooter
03-30-2010, 4:33 PM
good point. You would have to open them to assertain exactly what kind of "small arms cartridges" they are.

Doug L
03-30-2010, 5:21 PM
AB962 is as good as dead...

Including the hide-the-ammo-from-the-customers-in-the-stores provision, as well???

wildhawker
03-30-2010, 7:22 PM
Doug, more information is coming soon.

CalNRA
03-30-2010, 11:16 PM
All the people who are buying up all the ammo for post-Feb-2011 resale purposes are not liking this thread.

;)