PDA

View Full Version : AB962 Legal Question and Ammunition Preparation


Robidouxs
04-20-2010, 5:15 PM
At what point should I start purchasing ammunition, such as C&R pistol ammunition (7.62x25mm comes to mind), in preparation of AB962? I have heard floating rumors that AB962 will not go into effect, my only assumption is that the legal minds here will cite the Commerce Clause, but I have no solid evidence to verify that this will be the likely outcome.

Will AB962 prohibit the sale of C&R handgun ammunition via online purchases? Will online purchases of 7.62x54R or 22LR ammunition be prohibited?

DougJ
04-20-2010, 5:44 PM
At what point should I start purchasing ammunition...

Now?

glockman19
04-20-2010, 5:47 PM
buy as much as you can find in the calibers you need.

I am preparing to get into reloading my pistol calibers if/when this is in effect. I'll buy maybe 1-2,000 rounds in each caliber then enough powder, primers and bullets to reload them a couple of times.

If you have hard to find calibers now I'd begin preparing right away.

Robidouxs
04-20-2010, 5:48 PM
buy as much as you can find in the calibers you need.

I am preparing to get into reloading my pistol calibers if/when this is in effect. I'll buy maybe 1-2,000 rounds in each caliber then enough powder, primers and bullets to reload them a couple of times.

If you have hard to find calibers now I'd begin preparing right away.

Thank you.

Cali-Shooter
04-20-2010, 5:52 PM
Taken from http://www.ab962.org/ReadAB962.aspx

AB 962, De Leon. Ammunition.

Existing law generally regulates the sale of ammunition.

The bill would provide that no handgun ammunition vendor, as defined, shall sell, offer for sale, or display for sale, any handgun ammunition in a manner that allows that ammunition to be accessible to a purchaser without the assistance of the vendor or employee thereof.

Existing law generally regulates what information is required to be obtained in connection with the transfer of ammunition.

This bill would, subject to exceptions, commencing February 1, 2011, require handgun ammunition vendors to obtain a thumbprint and other information from ammunition purchasers, as specified. A violation of these provisions would be a misdemeanor.

This bill would provide that a person enjoined from engaging in activity associated with a criminal street gang, as specified, would be prohibited from having under his or her possession, custody, or control, any ammunition. Violation of these provisions would be a misdemeanor.

The bill would prohibit supplying or delivering, as specified, handgun ammunition to prohibited persons, as described, by persons or others who know, or by using reasonable care should know, that the recipient is a person prohibited from possessing ammunition or a minor prohibited from possessing ammunition, as specified. Violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor with specified penalties.

The bill would provide, subject to exceptions, that 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 of the purchaser or other transferee. A violation of these provisions would be a misdemeanor.

By creating new crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.


This is where things get ugly. 22 caliber LR could be just as easily argued as being pistol ammo as rifle ammo. Even though the bill mentions handgun ammo, most people speculate that it would mean that ANY ammo will not be allowed to bought and shipped in the PRK right to your front door. Even IF it only restricts pistol ammo from being sold in unregistered/internet/mail transactions, many ammo vendors and companies will turn their noses at us and refuse to sell to us in the PRK, period. You have 9 months and 11 days to stock up before the law goes into effect.

esnyderr
04-20-2010, 7:17 PM
Man I am gettin real sick and tired of this crap. I cant buy ammo online now wtf? I cant wait to move out of this liberal piece of a crap state.

wildhawker
04-20-2010, 7:37 PM
Relax - AB962 is fatally flawed and will not survive a coming challenge. Search "AB962" and "FAAAA" for more info.

MikeH1
04-22-2010, 3:59 PM
the federal government has jurisdiction over interstate commerce, through the Interstate Commerce Commission, so it's just another law they know is bad, but they'll pass anyway.

Mstrty
04-22-2010, 9:20 PM
At what point do I buy ammo!
Now?

+100

OleCuss
04-22-2010, 9:38 PM
I'm with wildhawker.

Stop worrying about further provisions of AB962 taking effect. This one is bad enough that you've got attorneys recruiting people to sue over it - they figure they'll get some fat fees from winning their case and making the government pay them. Those who know are convinced that nothing will change in February 2011 - and I think they're right.

But buy your ammo anyway. Worst case, you have to go to the range more - and that's not really a bad thing!

stormy_clothing
04-22-2010, 9:58 PM
It's simple, just support places like ammo bros who have reasonable in store prices and buy in bulk :)

EWILKE
04-22-2010, 9:58 PM
I was thinking how much money does UPS or FEDEX stand to loose when this bill goes through.It seems like they would like to see this bill overturned.

Cali-Shooter
04-23-2010, 2:26 AM
I'm with wildhawker.

Stop worrying about further provisions of AB962 taking effect. This one is bad enough that you've got attorneys recruiting people to sue over it - they figure they'll get some fat fees from winning their case and making the government pay them. Those who know are convinced that nothing will change in February 2011 - and I think they're right.

But buy your ammo anyway. Worst case, you have to go to the range more - and that's not really a bad thing!

It will be interesting to see what happens (or doesn't, hopefully) by Febuary of 2011. Seriously, for a state that is 25 Billion in debt, they want to expend more manpower and funds to piss on legitimate gunowners by trying to enforce registered ammo transactions + making measures to prevent mail/internet ammo sales? Only in the PRK...
Come Feb 2011, if this travesty of bill actually gets acted on, I'm just going to buy three times as much ammo online and ship it out of state, and then drive it here myself, just to spite the idiots who passed this crap.

OleCuss
04-23-2010, 5:53 AM
I'm not in on the grounds on which the plans to kill AB962 stand - so I can speculate a little. Oh, and I'm not a lawyer so I could be all wrong about this as well, but let me speculate?

Let's pretend that I served in Iraq and got both my legs blown off. I live way out in the boonies in California and haven't got reliable transport to the closest town with a store which sells ammo. McDonald is handed down in late June saying that I have a right to keep and bear arms which cannot be restricted by the State without at least reasonable grounds. Since I would have to low crawl 5 miles to my nearest neighbor in order to commit murder with my pistol there is no reasonable ground for the State to restrict my RKBA - but because I live in the boonies and cops are not in evidence I have the need to defend myself. So in early July I sue the State of California saying that if I can't buy my ammo on-line and/or the mail then they have unreasonably restricted my RKBA. The state is up an excrement filled crick without a paddle. . .

Edit: You might even be able to make the state allow on-line sales of weapons in California, but that might be a more difficult one to achieve.

All you have to do is find the right case or cases.

And if any of you are offended by my use of a vet. . . I don't know why you would be. I chose one because he/she would almost certainly have been trained in firearms handling and in this particular case would likely have done so under combat conditions which means he/she would both be a sympathetic case as well as being highly qualified. Plus, I like vets (and have a CMB).

GutPunch
04-23-2010, 7:01 AM
Will this impact buying reloading stuff online?

wildhawker
04-23-2010, 9:08 AM
Will this impact buying reloading stuff online?

No.

GutPunch
04-23-2010, 9:32 AM
No.

But all new cases that will be purchased for reloading will be serialized?

wildhawker
04-23-2010, 9:35 AM
But all new cases that will be purchased for reloading will be serialized?

No.

Librarian
04-23-2010, 9:44 AM
Will this impact buying reloading stuff online?
OK, this question I understand ...
But all new cases that will be purchased for reloading will be serialized?
But where did this one come from?

As Brandon already posted, 'no' to both.

GutPunch
04-23-2010, 10:04 AM
OK, this question I understand ...

But where did this one come from?

As Brandon already posted, 'no' to both.

Just looking for a little clarity cause MY first question was related to online purchases and the second was the serialization of the cases so big brother can track you.

SgtDinosaur
04-23-2010, 10:08 AM
I'm already buying large quantities, but then I have 3 handguns to break in right now so most of it will be gone by the time this law goes into effect.

loather
04-23-2010, 10:12 AM
*facepalm*

People are *really* still asking these same questions ad nauseam? I'm usually not one to harp on using the search function, but COME ON. Not only can you find (and should read) the entire text of AB962, but the same .22LR and reloading components questions have been asked and answered in every single one of the 400 AB962 threads that have been started on this site.

OK, maybe 400 is a bit of an embellishment. But, my point remains that all these questions have been asked and answered before. </rant>

Anyways, Robidouxs: There is an exemption for C&R and CoE holders in AB962 (PC 12318(c)(6)) which exempts them from the face-to-face requirement. If you don't already have your C&R, get it. You'll also need to get the CoE. Now, whether or not out-of-state (or even in-state vendors, as the case may be) will ship to you even with these credentials remains to be seen. Many vendors have already placed a blanket ammunition restriction (that is, handgun and rifle ammunition) on California buyers come 1 Feb 2011.

But, like Wildhawker and a few others have said: It will be challenged and overturned long before it ever takes effect.

OleCuss
04-23-2010, 10:42 AM
How about setting up a closed sticky thread saying something like the following:

Stop worrying about AB962! The probability that any further provisions will be implemented is vanishing small - the law is so awful that it is almost inconceivable that the courts will allow the really onerous provisions to kick in. This means that next year you will be able to purchase ammo just as you do today.

If you want to be paranoid, go stock up on lots of ammo. I endorse buying ammo - it means you have lots to shoot on the range. OK, it might also be useful for any Zombie Invasions but I've not tested my Hornady .40 S&W JHP on any zombies, so who knows?

Federalist
04-23-2010, 10:52 AM
At what point should I start purchasing ammunition, . . . in preparation of AB962?

Yesterday.

Here's how I look at it. I need ammo. I use it regularly :52: and it won't go bad (at least not in my lifetime). When I find ammo at a decent price, I buy a case. If the new law goes into effect, I will have some extra (assuming that I don't lose it all in a tragic boating accident).

I believe the law will be overturned. But I don't know if the courts will act before the effective date. You never know with the courts.

Its not :TFH: to be prepared with extra quantities of a commodity that one uses regularly.

Sinestr
04-23-2010, 11:06 AM
Here is a repost of a repost from Bill and Gene :)
Looks fairly cut and dried.



Legal flaws in AB962 allowing ready Fed. court challenge...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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):


Quote:
(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:


Quote:
§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:


Quote:
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.
__________________

-----------------------
Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

Librarian
04-23-2010, 11:12 AM
Just looking for a little clarity cause MY first question was related to online purchases and the second was the serialization of the cases so big brother can track you.

My question, which I failed to ask clearly, was more like 'from what (recent) information source did you get anything suggesting that case serialization was a part of AB962?' We need to stamp that one out.

So-called 'microstamping' would have gun serial numbers impressed on fired cases (from some handguns), and the idea of serializing bullets and cases has been proposed in the past, but not enacted.

Mstrty
04-23-2010, 4:48 PM
I look at it this way. I buy ammo all the time. I buy reloading supplies even more frequently than ammo. AB962 has been signed into law. Until it is nullified or found to be unconstitutional Im still buying like there's no tomorrow. What harm does it do me? I dont want to be that guy pounding on the outside of the ark as the waters rise saying "I told you". I would rather be the guy that doesnt need to purchase ammo for a decade and let you guys reap the benefits of high supplies and low demands. Im looking out for my fellow CG-ers.

Maltese Falcon
04-23-2010, 5:04 PM
At what point should I start purchasing ammunition,

Very short answer: Every month as much as your finances or storage space allows....

.

OleCuss
04-23-2010, 5:40 PM
I keep buying as my finances allow and what I want is readily available. But I do not do it because of AB962. I don't think we'll see any more nastiness from AB962 as it will be effectively killed before February 2011.

But I look at what is going to happen after McDonald, Sykes, Nordyke, etc and realize that there are going to be a lot more people buying pistols in California and that means that ammo availability will go down until the ammo suppliers increase their capacity.

So people can buy because they are afraid of AB962 - I buy because I'm confident that AB962 will die, and we'll get favorable rulings in several court cases.