PDA

View Full Version : AB 962 Double jeopardy


DemocracyEnaction
01-10-2011, 9:19 AM
We have all seen rifles in pistol calibers and vice versa. Who is to say what caliber is for what? The ammo manufactuer maybe, Pehaps a small crimp or special primer could designate a round as say "Rifle Cartridge". The argument that Commiefornia is trying to ban all ammo could be made( Chipping away at the stone)?


What do you guys think especially you legal profession people who have more knowledge of how the law is written.:smash:

Untamed1972
01-10-2011, 9:24 AM
We have all seen rifles in pistol calibers and vice versa. Who is to say what caliber is for what? The ammo manufactuer maybe, Pehaps a small crimp or special primer could designate a round as say "Rifle Cartridge". The argument that Commiefornia is trying to ban all ammo could be made( Chipping away at the stone)?


What do you guys think especially you legal profession people who have more knowledge of how the law is written.:smash:

That very issue was addressed in the law suits (some now dismissed) that were filed. The statute is overly broad and does not contain a clear definition of what "handgun ammuntion" actually is which would cause vendors to be overly cautious to avoid an legal hassles.

Letitrip
01-10-2011, 9:53 AM
I see AB962 being overturned in the near future.

mdouglas1980
01-10-2011, 10:33 AM
I see AB962 being overturned in the near future.

perhaps in just a little over a week??

choprzrul
01-10-2011, 10:48 AM
If (and I certainly hope not) it stands and is allowed to go into effect, I would like to see mfg come out with something like a ".355 Rifle Improved (RI)" round. Basically, make the case .001" shorter than a 9mm and give it a different head stamp. You can use your imagination for the rest: .358 RI (357 mag), .452 RI (45 Colt), .400 RI (10mm), etc. Maybe print a disclaimer on the box "these rounds are intended for use in rifles only, but may or may not function correctly in other firearms." Make them light loads so that they will work either way.

.

CSACANNONEER
01-10-2011, 10:50 AM
perhaps in just a little over a week??

My guess would be "TWO WEEKS".

Chris M
01-10-2011, 11:02 AM
If (and I certainly hope not) it stands and is allowed to go into effect, I would like to see mfg come out with something like a ".355 Rifle Improved (RI)" round. Basically, make the case .001" shorter than a 9mm and give it a different head stamp. You can use your imagination for the rest: .358 RI (357 mag), .452 RI (45 Colt), .400 RI (10mm), etc. Maybe print a disclaimer on the box "these rounds are intended for use in rifles only, but may or may not function correctly in other firearms." Make them light loads so that they will work either way.

.


Brilliant idea...the hard part would be to get the manufacturers to make it happen. And I highly doubt any of them would be willing to do so until after the 'dust settles'.

QQQ
01-10-2011, 11:06 AM
I see AB962 being overturned in the near future.

I don't. Want to make a wager?

taperxz
01-10-2011, 12:15 PM
Even if it does pass. I still believe there will be legal ways around the law to be able for anyone to buy ammo online or via phone.

bob1911
01-10-2011, 12:21 PM
Perhaps the manufactures would be willing to simply re-designate the names similar to what Chevrolet did in 1978 with the 307/305 smallblock v-8 engines.

DemocracyEnaction
01-10-2011, 1:09 PM
They may be willing If we were to nudge them in that direction

OleCuss
01-10-2011, 1:48 PM
Eight days from now the issue may be radically different than it looks today. We might want to see what the judge says about all this on the 18th.

shotcaller6
01-10-2011, 3:28 PM
I placed an order with Palmetto State Armory today, their website states that after Jan. 20th no ammo of any kind be it rifle or pistol will be shipped to California due to AB 962.

UPDATE: 1/14/2011 Palmetto said they will honor the exemptions of AB962

Legasat
01-10-2011, 3:40 PM
I believe very few suppliers will ship ANY ammo to CA if this goes into effect.

The Geologist
01-10-2011, 10:05 PM
I can define rifle ammo, but I can't really think of any so called "handgun ammo" that is not easily used in a rifle. So except for California's apparent violation of the Commerce Clause, I can't see where the law would be broken by interstate mail order/online purchases. By the way Marlin has a nice .357 lever action.

vincnet11
01-10-2011, 10:08 PM
That very issue was addressed in the law suits (some now dismissed) that were filed. The statute is overly broad and does not contain a clear definition of what "handgun ammuntion" actually is which would cause vendors to be overly cautious to avoid an legal hassles.What if their excuse was if a certain percent of handguns used that ammo more than rifles its considered a "handgun ammo."?

MongooseV8
01-10-2011, 10:09 PM
Even if it does pass. I still believe there will be legal ways around the law to be able for anyone to buy ammo online or via phone.

It did pass about 1 year ago. Its a current law that goes into effect next month. I think its going to take a while to bust the law up, if it ever happens.

justinjames
01-11-2011, 12:55 AM
what about shotgun ammo over the internet??

jshoebot
01-11-2011, 2:19 AM
So since this statute basically is doing a good impression of enforcing the commerce clause, will a fed judge put a stop to it? You know, like they did with AB1070 in AZ. In that case it was a state attempting to secure its own borders, which is a federal power enumerated in the Constitution. Wouldn't this be the same thing, but regarding the commerce clause instead of border security?

xounlistedxox
01-12-2011, 11:17 AM
I live in Sacramento County. Sacramento City has had an Ordnance for awhile now that requires you to show ID etc to purchase Ammo. Any place selling ammo in the CITY has to comply with this, but any place selling ammo in the COUNTY does not. Most ammo retailers outside of CA have refused to send me ammo based on this. If ab962 goes into effect I think every ammo retailer outside of CA will follow suit and just send no ammo to CA at all including rifle ammo etc

AYEAREFIFTEEN
01-12-2011, 2:23 PM
Even if it does pass. I still believe there will be legal ways around the law to be able for anyone to buy ammo online or via phone.

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.

Subdivision (a) shall not apply to or affect the deliveries, transfers, or sales of, handgun ammunition to any of the following:

(6) Persons licensed as collectors of firearms pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto whose licensed premises are within this state who has a current certificate of eligibility issued to him or her by the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 12071.

If I read that correctly a C&R + COE would exempt someone from the face to face aspect of the law.

ETA:

12061. A vendor shall comply with all of the following conditions, requirements and prohibitions:

(3) Commencing February 1, 2011, a vendor shall not sell or otherwise transfer ownership of any handgun ammunition without, at the time of delivery, legibly recording the following information:

* (A) The date of the sale or other transaction.
* (B) The purchaser's or transferee's driver's license or other identification number and the state in which it was issued.
* (C) The brand, type, and amount of ammunition sold or otherwise transferred.
* (D) The purchaser's or transferee's signature.
* (E) The name of the salesperson who processed the sale or other transaction.
* (F) The right thumbprint of the purchaser or transferee on the above form.
* (G) The purchaser's or transferee's full residential address and telephone number.
* (H) The purchaser's or transferee's date of birth.

I can't see a lot of vendors doing this, but, if an online vendor made some sort of form you could print and mail to provide the required information required by 12061 I don't so why they couldn't ship handgun ammunition legally to someone in California with a C&R/COE. Unless of course vendors outside of California are not required to keep these records???

(b) Paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) shall not apply to or affect sales or other transfers of ownership of handgun ammunition by handgun ammunition vendors to any of the following, if properly identified:

* (1) A person licensed pursuant to Section 12071.
* (2) A handgun ammunition vendor.
* (3) A person who is on the centralized list maintained by the department pursuant to Section 12083.
* (4) A target facility which holds a business or regulatory license.
* (5) Gunsmiths.
* (6) Wholesalers.
* (7) Manufacturers or importers of firearms licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.

"Wholesalers" is pretty damn vague too. Doesn't really specify what kind of wholesaler you have to be. ;)

choprzrul
01-12-2011, 2:32 PM
Hmmm....

Sure would be nice to have all UPS and FedEx drivers statewide refuse to deliver ANY packages until 962 is abolished.

You know, stand up for us on civil rights grounds.

.

BrianRodela
01-12-2011, 4:30 PM
Just a funny thought, "Face to Face" for purposes of verification, would Skype or video chatting be allowed? LOL!

thrasherfox
01-12-2011, 4:41 PM
We have all seen rifles in pistol calibers and vice versa. Who is to say what caliber is for what? The ammo manufactuer maybe, Pehaps a small crimp or special primer could designate a round as say "Rifle Cartridge". The argument that Commiefornia is trying to ban all ammo could be made( Chipping away at the stone)?


What do you guys think especially you legal profession people who have more knowledge of how the law is written.:smash:

Yeah, that is pretty much what I was trying to alude to when I made a post about starting an uprising.

But not very many responses and a few negative responses saying it would never happen.

Here is the thread I had started that didnt receive the support I had hoped.


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=382875

My plan would work if everyone got involved and got behind it. but I saw enough nay sayers that I know now it would never work because not enough people would support it. Alot of talk but no action I guess


You are right. it is vague which is why I dont blame sellers who are taking a stance of not selling ANY ammo to California. there is no telling what California will classified has hand gun ammunition.

and I honestly think California made if vague like that on purpose to try and cause colateral damamge to ALL ammo being purchased through the internet

I have seen .45 caliber in rifles and I have seen .223 caliber in pistols

You have .22 caliber pistol and rifles.

And what doesnt make sense to me is why they banned handgun ammunition. I would have figured they would have banned assault weapon ammo first since they libs are always trying to instill fear about the black rifles.

I can totally see the libs using handgun ammo is dipping their toes in the water. and if it isn't over turned. I can see them next going after .223 ammunition. they will say because it can only be used in pistols and assault rifles that it needs to be controlled.

This handgun ammo ban is getting their foot in the door.

Just like I keep hearing on this board about 2a lawyers taking baby steps and being careful about what legal battles they fight because it is better to win and use it as a stepping stone than to lose

Well I think the liberals are doing the same thing with the Ammo ban, they got it to pass no one is going to be able to over turn it and after it has been in place for a year or so, I can see them going after other ammo.

Really is time to bale on California. this place sucks and no lawyers are able to do anything about it. too many liberal judges in this state. too much liberal power.

bodger
01-12-2011, 6:26 PM
I placed an order with Palmetto State Armory today, their website states that after Jan. 20th no ammo of any kind be it rifle or pistol will be shipped to California due to AB 962.


That's the problem. These vendors don't want to go to the trouble of sifting through California's ridiculous laws so they know what is legal and what isn't.

It's easier to just cut all sales to us and leave it at that. A fact I am certain is just fine with Kevin DeLeon.

I wouldn't be surprised to see many vendors taking this same stance even if AB962 is overturned. Which is unlikely to happen anytime soon. I predict a long fight to get this law struck down.
I'll happily eat those words if I'm wrong, but my guess is we'll be living under the communistic restriction of AB962 for the entirety of this year and beyond.

foxtrotuniformlima
01-12-2011, 6:49 PM
There have been several threads on all the work arounds but they require the seller to believe them. None of the major sellers are willing, at this point, to see the legal way to sell handgun ammo to CA.

I just wish they would recognize the C&R + COE exemption. :(

Dutch3
01-12-2011, 7:36 PM
It is interesting to sit here, a couple of weeks before this legislation is slated to take effect and there is still no clear definition of which products are affected and which are not.

Along with that, ammo dealers have have received no direction from DOJ as to the mechanisms they are expected (required?) to use in the implementation of the new legislation.

The complete absence of the "what" and the "how" are conspicuous, especially in a state where even a box of crackers requires complete instructions along with a warning label.

-D

thrasherfox
01-13-2011, 8:49 AM
It is interesting to sit here, a couple of weeks before this legislation is slated to take effect and there is still no clear definition of which products are affected and which are not.

Along with that, ammo dealers have have received no direction from DOJ as to the mechanisms they are expected (required?) to use in the implementation of the new legislation.

The complete absence of the "what" and the "how" are conspicuous, especially in a state where even a box of crackers requires complete instructions along with a warning label.

-D

Agree.

As I said, I think the vaguness has been done on purpose to try and impact ALL ammo sales to California.

I cant believe the people who are supposed to be watching this stuff didnt do anything about it.

I mean what the he11 has the NRA done to help California? there is NO WAY this bill should have been passed.

I am sure glad I bought all my reloading equipment so I can reload ALL my calibers I need. I think getting ammo in the future in California is going to be a real pain.

1) Higher prices
2) out of stock on a lot of ammo since local merchants wont be use to the supply and demand
3) near impossible to get special ammo (such as I use the Hornady Critical defense rounds in my personal protection hand guns)

DemocracyEnaction
01-13-2011, 8:58 AM
Cabelas is shipping ammo on orders placed by Jan 21 at 9 p.m. CST they have some good deals. Just thought I would let everyone know.

newglockster
01-13-2011, 9:04 AM
Here's a quick question...
Can I, a resident of CA, order ammo from Cabelas, have them ship it to their Reno store, and then I can pick it up?
1. Will that be legal?
2. Has anyone heard if Cabelas will do that?

Thanks!

Uranium238
01-13-2011, 9:16 AM
It's a damn shame that everything has to come to this. The Socialists in office are making gun ownership seem like a nightmare.

Chris M
01-13-2011, 9:42 AM
Here's a quick question...
Can I, a resident of CA, order ammo from Cabelas, have them ship it to their Reno store, and then I can pick it up?
1. Will that be legal?
2. Has anyone heard if Cabelas will do that?

Thanks!

Out of state, no need to show ID (except if paying with credit card). I don't know if they'll allow you to order & pay online, and then pick up in store. If you know they have the stuff in stock, and you're already heading in that direction, just bring cash and get what you need.

sbrady@Michel&Associates
01-13-2011, 11:04 AM
I cant believe the people who are supposed to be watching this stuff didnt do anything about it.

I mean what the he11 has the NRA done to help California? there is NO WAY this bill should have been passed.


I do not speak for the NRA on this particular matter, though our firm (Michel & Associates, PC) has done legal work for the NRA in California, including its litigation efforts for nearly 20 years. But since those working in Sacramento on behalf of the NRA likely will not stick up for themselves, I will plead their case.

AB 962 originally was for ALL ammo; how do you think it got limited to "handgun ammo"? AB 962 originally prohibited transfers of ammunition in excess of 50 rounds; how do you think that provision was removed? They caused thousands of letters to be sent to Sacramento in opposition to AB 962, and when it passed, sent a veto request letter. Then, they, along with CRPA, sponsored a bill to have AB 962 repealed, and obtained 76,000 letters in support of that bill. (See http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?year=2010&summary=ab1663).

Once all that failed (which was in no way their fault), NRA became a party to one legal challenge to AB 962 (OOIDA) and helped fund another along with CRPA Foundation (Parker).

That is just what the NRA did in CA with regards to AB 962 (Remember that all three anti-gun bills last legislative session were defeated). Excluding all of the tremendous lobbying it does, here is a list of some of NRA’s and CRPA Foundation's pending litigation efforts in California and its accomplishments just in the last two years:


THE NRA / CRPA FOUNDATION /
LEGAL ACTION PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS

NOTABLE ACTIVE/RECENT LITIGATION:

Parker v. State of California - Lawsuit challenges California’s AB 962, which requires vendors to store “handgun ammo” so customers can’t access it, and starting February 1, 2011, to register all “handgun ammo” sales and require transactions of “handgun ammo” be face-to-face, prohibiting internet sales. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment to kill ALL major portions of the law will be heard November 3rd.
Peruta v. County of San Diego - Currently preparing an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for this lawsuit challenging San Diego’s strict requirements for obtaining a CCW. This case may resolve the legal question of whether the right “to bear arms” means a right to carry a handgun outside the home.
Jackson v. City of San Francisco - Lawsuit challenges San Francisco ordinances requiring residents to keep handguns locked up in their own homes, banning the discharge of firearms, even in self-defense, and banning many types of ammo from being sold. Plaintiffs recently successfully petitioned the court to have a stay lifted, and are rapidly moving forward with motions for Preliminary Injunction and Summary Judgment, while many other cases in California remain stayed pending resolution of Nordyke v. King.
OOIDA v. Lindley - NRA joined with the Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association and the Calguns Foundation to challenge the face-to-face requirement of AB 962 in a separate lawsuit in federal court. This lawsuit was recently dismissed for lack of ripeness but may be filed again in February of 2011 should the Parker suit be unsuccessful.
Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority - Lawsuit successfully challenged San Francisco’s ban on possessing firearms in public housing. The ban was rescinded. This case was recently used to help NRA lawyers in Delaware where a similar ban existed.
McDonald v. Chicago - Recruited 38 California and eight elected District Attorneys from Nevada, along with law enforcement officials in both California and Nevada to file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court supporting incorporation of the Second Amendment.
Millender v. County of Los Angeles - Filed a joint amicus brief challenging the ability of law enforcement to write over-broad search warrants used to seize firearms unrelated to crimes.
CBD v. Bureau of Land Management, et al. - Intervened on behalf of hunters in an Arizona lawsuit in which radical environmental groups sued the BLM to prohibit the use of lead ammunition for hunting in the Arizona Strip, a classic hunting area.
People v. Saleem - Filed amicus letter in Supreme Court of California. Though the case did not involve firearms, the Saleem opinion would be a great tool in combating vague firearm laws in the future. The Supreme Court recently rejected the case, and CRPA Foundation is currently preparing a new Amicus requesting that the opinion now be republished so that it may be cited in future challenges to vague firearms laws!
Nordyke v. King - NRA and CRPA Foundation each filed an amicus brief urging the Ninth Circuit to adopt a “strict scrutiny” standard of review for firearm restrictions.

More lawsuits are pending and will be filed VERY SOON!

HUNTING REGULATIONS:

CBD v. CA Fish & Game, et al. - Opposing radical environmental groups’ efforts to restrict hunting in Mojave National Preserve.
California Fish and Game Commission - Gathering thousands of records from agencies involved with the condor recovery, and working with scientists to debunk the pseudo-science being used to support the theory of condor death from lead ammo ingestion. Helped convince the Commission to vote against a proposal to ban lead .22 rimfire and shot for use in hunting squirrels and game birds, and, most recently, convinced the Commission to reject consideration of future lead ammo regulations. Lead ammo ban efforts are expanding and our fight is too!

LOCAL ORDINANCE OPPOSITION EFFORTS:

Richmond - Prepared a lawsuit against the City of Richmond and served the City with a pre-litigation demand letter to repeal its ban on the possession of large-capacity magazines. City Council repealed the ordinance rather than litigate.
San Mateo County - Served a pre-litigation letter that prompted the sponsor of several LCAV Model Ordinances to pull consideration of those anti-gun owner ordinances, including a dealer regulation scheme that would make it practically impossible to sell guns in that county.
Desert Hot Springs - Successfully opposed an ordinance that would have banned possession of firearms on almost all public property.
Berkeley - Served City with pre-litigation letter which resulted in the repeal of an ordinance prohibiting possession of semiautomatic-rifles.
Fairfield - Successfully opposed an ammo sales registration ordinance.
Long Beach - Successfully opposed an ammunition registration ordinance. These efforts revealed the dubious uses of records by law enforcement in other jurisdictions, including running suspicionless background checks of law abiding gun owners, which LAP lawyers continue to monitor.
Santa Clara - Successfully opposed an ordinance that would have prohibited all firearms in Santa Clara City parks, even for CCWs!

RANGE ASSISTANCE EFFORTS:

San Diego - Worked with a consortium of shooting ranges in San Diego County since early 2009 to oppose certain proposed revisions to the San Diego County Code that would impose drastic new limitations on target shooting in the unincorporated portions of San Diego County.
Airport Mesa - Investigated BLM Shooting Closure near the town of Jacumba, California. This investigation included the review of documents obtained from the federal government and interviews with federal employees and members of the public affected by the closure.
LA Harbor- Reviewed status of Los Angeles Police Department’s permit with the Navy for the LAPD Harbor Range. The Harbor Range was open to the public until 2001 (and briefly reopened thereafter). These efforts hope to see the range reopened to the public in the coming years.

Other examples of range protection efforts are ongoing statewide.

GUN OWNER DEFENSE EFFORTS:

Gary Tudesko - Handled appeal that reinstated high school student Gary Tudesko who was expelled for leaving unloaded shotguns in his truck parked off-campus after early morning duck hunting. The case received national news coverage.

OTHER EFFORTS:

Mayors Against Illegal Guns - Submitted letters to California members of MAIG warning of the group’s anti-gun-owner positions and urging them to renounce membership, and obtained MAIG’s secret “Blueprint for Federal Action on Illegal Guns,” intended only for the White House.
“Assault Weapons” & 80% Firearms - Litigating definition of “assault weapon” for firearms and parts, including the legality of “flash suppressors” LAPD classifies as “grenade launchers,” and the definition of a “zip gun,” and the right to “make” a firearm from incomplete parts.
LCAV - Monitored communications with local governments, and released a LCAV memo explaining its modus operandi for obtaining legal help.
Memoranda - Produced dozens of legal opinion memoranda and assisted countless NRA/CRPA members with firearms legal issues.

For more information on the NRA/CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project efforts, as well as the NRA/CRPA Local Ordinance Project, you can visit www.calgunlaws.com

1BigPea
01-13-2011, 11:49 AM
I cant believe the people who are supposed to be watching this stuff didnt do anything about it.

I mean what the he11 has the NRA done to help California? there is NO WAY this bill should have been passed.



WOW! Just WOW. Really?

Where have you been?

Do you know anything about the lawsuits that have been filed to try and stop AB962 and who's behind them?

Take another look at the post above mine and then ask yourself again what the NRA has done to help California.

CMonfort
01-13-2011, 11:57 AM
WOW! Just WOW. Really?

Where have you been?

Do you know anything about the lawsuits that have been filed to try and stop AB962 and who's behind them?

Take another look at the post above mine and then ask yourself again what the NRA has done to help California.

This is neither my firm's opinion nor my clients', but I don't think thrasherfox would be satisfied unless the NRA physically restrained the legislators from voting in favor of AB 962.

DemocracyEnaction
01-13-2011, 11:58 AM
Keep up the good work.I personally thank you. I can't believe some of the laws Liberals try to push in S.F. They are what some people call "touched" . How about the mcdonalds law. If you dont want your kid to be fat let him go out and play at the park, quit feeding them fast food every day. Get off your *** and cook dinner.:rant:

Chris M
01-13-2011, 12:13 PM
This is neither my firm's opinion nor my clients', but I don't think thrasherfox would be satisfied unless the NRA physically restrained the legislators from voting in favor of AB 962.

Didn't you know that all gun control laws that are in affect are completely due to the laziness of NRA, SATF, CGF, etc. :rolleyes:

command_liner
01-13-2011, 1:29 PM
Eight days from now the issue may be radically different than it looks today. We might want to see what the judge says about all this on the 18th.

Good timing. The Dec. 6, 2010 Proclamation of Fiscal Emergency by
the outgoing governor will preclude the Legislature from doing anything
in this area as of Jan. 21, 2011.

If the law gets tossed on the 18th, it is unlikely to be "fixed" until the
budget is "fixed". Like some time in November, 2011.

Too bad I will not be around for the show. I bought a house in another
state and will be moving soon.

Paul S
01-13-2011, 3:19 PM
Agree.

As I said, I think the vaguness has been done on purpose to try and impact ALL ammo sales to California.

I cant believe the people who are supposed to be watching this stuff didnt do anything about it.

I mean what the he11 has the NRA done to help California? there is NO WAY this bill should have been passed.

I am sure glad I bought all my reloading equipment so I can reload ALL my calibers I need. I think getting ammo in the future in California is going to be a real pain.

1) Higher prices
2) out of stock on a lot of ammo since local merchants wont be use to the supply and demand
3) near impossible to get special ammo (such as I use the Hornady Critical defense rounds in my personal protection hand guns)

My goodness man....due some research before firing your volley. You are way off the mark here.

And yes...I'm sure it is fair to say nearly all Calgunners are mighty PO'd at the many dweebs in the legislature in Sacramento. But there are many folks fighting the good fight and/or contributing dollars to help support it. Perhaps you can join us in that effort.

Curtis
01-14-2011, 1:24 AM
Just a funny thought, "Face to Face" for purposes of verification, would Skype or video chatting be allowed? LOL!

I did get a legal opinion from a layer (not a firearm specialist) that stated this type of transaction could be done, but a GCF lawyer didn't have the there opinion. And I trust CGF lawyers with my freedom.

There have been a few posts to suggest other ways to ship that would not violate the law.

I think one of the best options would be to work with a local gun shop and have your order sent to them. I think that most companies that are stopping sales are doing so based on legal advice. I know I wouldn't want to be an example case.

thrasherfox
01-14-2011, 4:05 AM
I do not speak for the NRA on this particular matter, though our firm (Michel & Associates, PC) has done legal work for the NRA in California, including its litigation efforts for nearly 20 years. But since those working in Sacramento on behalf of the NRA likely will not stick up for themselves, I will plead their case.

AB 962 originally was for ALL ammo; how do you think it got limited to "handgun ammo"? AB 962 originally prohibited transfers of ammunition in excess of 50 rounds; how do you think that provision was removed? They caused thousands of letters to be sent to Sacramento in opposition to AB 962, and when it passed, sent a veto request letter. Then, they, along with CRPA, sponsored a bill to have AB 962 repealed, and obtained 76,000 letters in support of that bill. (See http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?year=2010&summary=ab1663).

Once all that failed (which was in no way their fault), NRA became a party to one legal challenge to AB 962 (OOIDA) and helped fund another along with CRPA Foundation (Parker).

That is just what the NRA did in CA with regards to AB 962 (Remember that all three anti-gun bills last legislative session were defeated). Excluding all of the tremendous lobbying it does, here is a list of some of NRA’s and CRPA Foundation's pending litigation efforts in California and its accomplishments just in the last two years:


THE NRA / CRPA FOUNDATION /
LEGAL ACTION PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS

NOTABLE ACTIVE/RECENT LITIGATION:

Parker v. State of California - Lawsuit challenges California’s AB 962, which requires vendors to store “handgun ammo” so customers can’t access it, and starting February 1, 2011, to register all “handgun ammo” sales and require transactions of “handgun ammo” be face-to-face, prohibiting internet sales. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment to kill ALL major portions of the law will be heard November 3rd.
Peruta v. County of San Diego - Currently preparing an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for this lawsuit challenging San Diego’s strict requirements for obtaining a CCW. This case may resolve the legal question of whether the right “to bear arms” means a right to carry a handgun outside the home.
Jackson v. City of San Francisco - Lawsuit challenges San Francisco ordinances requiring residents to keep handguns locked up in their own homes, banning the discharge of firearms, even in self-defense, and banning many types of ammo from being sold. Plaintiffs recently successfully petitioned the court to have a stay lifted, and are rapidly moving forward with motions for Preliminary Injunction and Summary Judgment, while many other cases in California remain stayed pending resolution of Nordyke v. King.
OOIDA v. Lindley - NRA joined with the Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association and the Calguns Foundation to challenge the face-to-face requirement of AB 962 in a separate lawsuit in federal court. This lawsuit was recently dismissed for lack of ripeness but may be filed again in February of 2011 should the Parker suit be unsuccessful.
Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority - Lawsuit successfully challenged San Francisco’s ban on possessing firearms in public housing. The ban was rescinded. This case was recently used to help NRA lawyers in Delaware where a similar ban existed.
McDonald v. Chicago - Recruited 38 California and eight elected District Attorneys from Nevada, along with law enforcement officials in both California and Nevada to file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court supporting incorporation of the Second Amendment.
Millender v. County of Los Angeles - Filed a joint amicus brief challenging the ability of law enforcement to write over-broad search warrants used to seize firearms unrelated to crimes.
CBD v. Bureau of Land Management, et al. - Intervened on behalf of hunters in an Arizona lawsuit in which radical environmental groups sued the BLM to prohibit the use of lead ammunition for hunting in the Arizona Strip, a classic hunting area.
People v. Saleem - Filed amicus letter in Supreme Court of California. Though the case did not involve firearms, the Saleem opinion would be a great tool in combating vague firearm laws in the future. The Supreme Court recently rejected the case, and CRPA Foundation is currently preparing a new Amicus requesting that the opinion now be republished so that it may be cited in future challenges to vague firearms laws!
Nordyke v. King - NRA and CRPA Foundation each filed an amicus brief urging the Ninth Circuit to adopt a “strict scrutiny” standard of review for firearm restrictions.

More lawsuits are pending and will be filed VERY SOON!

HUNTING REGULATIONS:

CBD v. CA Fish & Game, et al. - Opposing radical environmental groups’ efforts to restrict hunting in Mojave National Preserve.
California Fish and Game Commission - Gathering thousands of records from agencies involved with the condor recovery, and working with scientists to debunk the pseudo-science being used to support the theory of condor death from lead ammo ingestion. Helped convince the Commission to vote against a proposal to ban lead .22 rimfire and shot for use in hunting squirrels and game birds, and, most recently, convinced the Commission to reject consideration of future lead ammo regulations. Lead ammo ban efforts are expanding and our fight is too!

LOCAL ORDINANCE OPPOSITION EFFORTS:

Richmond - Prepared a lawsuit against the City of Richmond and served the City with a pre-litigation demand letter to repeal its ban on the possession of large-capacity magazines. City Council repealed the ordinance rather than litigate.
San Mateo County - Served a pre-litigation letter that prompted the sponsor of several LCAV Model Ordinances to pull consideration of those anti-gun owner ordinances, including a dealer regulation scheme that would make it practically impossible to sell guns in that county.
Desert Hot Springs - Successfully opposed an ordinance that would have banned possession of firearms on almost all public property.
Berkeley - Served City with pre-litigation letter which resulted in the repeal of an ordinance prohibiting possession of semiautomatic-rifles.
Fairfield - Successfully opposed an ammo sales registration ordinance.
Long Beach - Successfully opposed an ammunition registration ordinance. These efforts revealed the dubious uses of records by law enforcement in other jurisdictions, including running suspicionless background checks of law abiding gun owners, which LAP lawyers continue to monitor.
Santa Clara - Successfully opposed an ordinance that would have prohibited all firearms in Santa Clara City parks, even for CCWs!

RANGE ASSISTANCE EFFORTS:

San Diego - Worked with a consortium of shooting ranges in San Diego County since early 2009 to oppose certain proposed revisions to the San Diego County Code that would impose drastic new limitations on target shooting in the unincorporated portions of San Diego County.
Airport Mesa - Investigated BLM Shooting Closure near the town of Jacumba, California. This investigation included the review of documents obtained from the federal government and interviews with federal employees and members of the public affected by the closure.
LA Harbor- Reviewed status of Los Angeles Police Department’s permit with the Navy for the LAPD Harbor Range. The Harbor Range was open to the public until 2001 (and briefly reopened thereafter). These efforts hope to see the range reopened to the public in the coming years.

Other examples of range protection efforts are ongoing statewide.

GUN OWNER DEFENSE EFFORTS:

Gary Tudesko - Handled appeal that reinstated high school student Gary Tudesko who was expelled for leaving unloaded shotguns in his truck parked off-campus after early morning duck hunting. The case received national news coverage.

OTHER EFFORTS:

Mayors Against Illegal Guns - Submitted letters to California members of MAIG warning of the group’s anti-gun-owner positions and urging them to renounce membership, and obtained MAIG’s secret “Blueprint for Federal Action on Illegal Guns,” intended only for the White House.
“Assault Weapons” & 80% Firearms - Litigating definition of “assault weapon” for firearms and parts, including the legality of “flash suppressors” LAPD classifies as “grenade launchers,” and the definition of a “zip gun,” and the right to “make” a firearm from incomplete parts.
LCAV - Monitored communications with local governments, and released a LCAV memo explaining its modus operandi for obtaining legal help.
Memoranda - Produced dozens of legal opinion memoranda and assisted countless NRA/CRPA members with firearms legal issues.

For more information on the NRA/CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project efforts, as well as the NRA/CRPA Local Ordinance Project, you can visit www.calgunlaws.com


Thank you for the information.

Apparently it required the post I made to find out the information you provided. So seriously, thank you for taking the time to post all the information you did. It was information I was not aware of.

I have called the NRA ( I guess it was the main office where ever that is at) a few years back and I inquired about some California gun related issues (I had no idea about gun forums at that time, I wasn't THAT into guns then. I had a few but that was about it) anyway, the person I spoke with gave me the impression that California was to hard of a nut to crack so they focused on areas of the nation they could win in (that was the impression I got, and that was about 7 years ago).

Anyway that kind of left a bad taste in my mouth and of course it is easier to just continue to slam someone than to do research. of course I have no legal backround so I really would have no idea where to even start looking.

All the information you provided I could not have found on my own due to my ignorance of legal matters.

So again, thank you for taking the time to respond as you did.

Anchors
01-14-2011, 4:05 AM
If (and I certainly hope not) it stands and is allowed to go into effect, I would like to see mfg come out with something like a ".355 Rifle Improved (RI)" round. Basically, make the case .001" shorter than a 9mm and give it a different head stamp. You can use your imagination for the rest: .358 RI (357 mag), .452 RI (45 Colt), .400 RI (10mm), etc. Maybe print a disclaimer on the box "these rounds are intended for use in rifles only, but may or may not function correctly in other firearms." Make them light loads so that they will work either way.

.

I say they should have to ban ammo by name through an act of the state legislator and not the interpretation of the DA. (ala Off List)

sbrady@Michel&Associates
01-14-2011, 12:19 PM
My pleasure Trasherfox. No worries. You are not the only one I have seen say similar things. And I think they are probably all unaware of the list I posted. We try to make most of this info available here on Calguns and on calgunlaws.com

Glad you are now involved in RKBA. Stick with it.