PDA

View Full Version : CRPA Foundation: Final Pretrial Briefs on AB962 Challenge....


bwiese
01-10-2011, 11:27 PM
Given I'm a "CRPA dude" too, I'm taking the liberty of (re)posting this email notice of recent CRPA Foundation (and NRA) activity here.

I hope this refutes all the naysayers *****ing about supposed lack of NRA or CRPA activity in CA when they're really in it up to their teeth.

And speaking as a CGFer, we thank Chuck Michel's gang and NRA for their able teamwork and extended efforts being a party to/sponsor of the (unfortunately currently quiescent) OOIDA v. Lindley Federal case.]


A big shout out to Chuck, Sean & Clint...



__________________________________________________ ____


FINAL PRETRIAL BRIEFS FILED IN NRA / CRPAF
LAWSUIT CHALLENGING CALIFORNIA BAN
ON MAILORDER AMMO SALES


On January 7, 2011, the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation (CRPAF) filed a Reply brief and supporting materials for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment in their case challenging AB962. A trial is set for January 18, 2011 - just days before the portion of the law that bans mail order sales of “handgun ammunition” is set to take effect on February 1, 2011. The lawsuit, Parker v. California isfunded exclusively by the NRA and the CRPA Foundation. It seeks a court order declaring the statutes enacted by AB 962 to be unconstitutional, and seeks injunctive relief prohibiting police from enforcing the new laws.

The lawsuit alleges that AB962 is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to provide sufficient notice of what ammunition is “principally for use in a handgun,” and thus is considered “handgun ammunition” that is regulated under AB 962. It is practically impossible, both for those subject to the law and for those who must enforce it, to determine whether any of the thousands of different types of ammunition cartridges that can be used in handguns are actually “principally for use in” or used more often in, a handgun. In fact, the legislature itself is well aware of the vagueness problem with AB 962 and attempted to fix it via AB 2358 in 2010. The attempt failed in the face of opposition from the NRA and CRPA.

Constitutional vagueness challenges to state laws are extremely difficult to win, particularly in California firearms litigation. While we are cautiously optimistic, ammo suppliers and sellers must also be ready to comply with the law if the court upholds it. A Compliance Guide is forthcoming, but unfortunately the law raises more questions than it answers, and the California Department of Justice Firearms Bureau is providing no assistance. Nonetheless, the Compliance Guide will include information obtained from DOJ through this litigation and much more, along with template forms which can be used by ammunition vendors. The Compliance guide will be released and distributed no later than January 18, 2010 on www.calgunlaws.com (http://www.calgunlaws.com/)www.michellawyers.com. (http://www.michellawyers.com./) Sign up at www.calgunlaws.com (http://www.calgunlaws.com/) to be notified.

The Parker lawsuit is the only remaining court challenge to AB962. A federal judge last month dismissed two other cases (OOIDA v. Lindlley and State Ammunition v. Lindley) challenging AB 962 on other grounds. NRA was also a party to and sponsor of the OOIDA case.

Significantly, the Parker briefs argue that a heightened standard of certainty should be applied to the court’s vagueness analysis because of AB 962's impact on the fundamental Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Generally, statutes are subjected to heightened scrutiny under the vagueness doctrine only where cases “impact,” “relate to,” or “implicate” constitutionally protected conduct. The Parker case presents a novel question of law that could set a precedent for future vagueness challenges because such heightened standards of legislative clarity have thus far only been applied in cases involving statutes impacting other constitutional rights such as freedom of speech, the right to choose to have an abortion, and the right to travel. Here however, it seems that blanket prohibitions on how “handgun ammunition” is purchased, and a thumb print requirement for every purchase of such ammunition, necessarily “implicates” or “relates to” the right to maintain an operable handgun to exercise the fundamental right to self defense. So in addition to the obvious benefit of AB 962 being declared unconstitutional, a ruling that statutes that impact Second Amendment rights deserve heightened Due Process court scrutiny would be helpful in the development of Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Win or lose, additional legislation on this and related subjects will no doubt be proposed in Sacramento this legislative session. It is absolutely critical that those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms stay informed and make their voices heard in Sacramento.

Seventeen years ago the NRA and CRPA joined forces to fight local gun bans being written and pushed in California by the gun ban lobby. Their coordinated efforts became the NRA/CRPA "Local Ordinance Project" (LOP) - a statewide campaign to fight ill conceived local efforts at gun control and educate politicians about available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. The NRA/CRPA LOP has had tremendous success in beating back most of these anti-self-defense proposals.

In addition to fighting local gun bans, for decades the NRA has been litigating dozens of cases in California courts to promote the right to self-defense and the 2nd Amendment. In the post Heller and McDonald www.crpafoundation.org (http://www.crpafoundation.org/). All donations made to the CRPA Foundation will directly support litigation efforts to advance the rights of California gun owners.

Also, please register at www.CalGunLaws.com (http://www.calgunlaws.com/) and www.crpa.org (http://www.crpa.org/) . (http://www.calgunlaws.com/) www.CalGunLaws.com (http://www.calgunlaws.com/) is produced by the law firm of Michel & Associates, P.C. as a pro bono effort to keep attorneys and interested firearm owners informed on the existing laws and latest legal developments in California. It includes a link to the highly effective www.calnra.com (http://www.calnra.com/) California legislative status and grassroots action page.


C.D. Michel
Senior Counsel

http://f1614.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=1%5f10188248%5fAJrSi2IAAXLNTSv2OA1jPh TlOdo&pid=1.2.2&fid=Inbox&inline=1 (http://www.michelandassociates.com/)

Direct: (562) 216-4441
Main: (562) 216-4444
Fax: (562) 216-4445
Email: CMichel@michellawyers.com (http://us.mc1614.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=CMichel@michellawyers.com)
Web: www.michellawyers.com (http://www.michellawyers.com/)

180 E. Ocean Blvd.
Suite 200
Long Beach, CA 90802

Mstrty
01-10-2011, 11:52 PM
Thanks for the info, and the work.

odysseus
01-11-2011, 12:06 AM
Thanks for the update.

mikaarce
01-11-2011, 3:25 AM
thank you

753X0
01-11-2011, 5:15 AM
Good post. Thanks for this. I tend to scowl at the NRA a bit. I think I'm still butt-hurt over being thrown under the bus over the original Cal AWB.

bwiese
01-11-2011, 9:06 AM
Good post. Thanks for this. I tend to scowl at the NRA a bit. I think I'm still butt-hurt over being thrown under the bus over the original Cal AWB.

You act like NRA passed the CA AWB. It in no way did - it did what it could to stop it.

Your scowls should be redirected to...

... weak-kneed CA Republican party and antigun elements within it

... supposed "friends" in the hunting/target shooting fields joining
ad campaigns for CA AWB: "I don't need an assault weapon..."

hawk1
01-11-2011, 9:13 AM
You act like NRA passed the CA AWB. It in no way did - it did what it could to stop it.

Your scowls should be redirected to...

... weak-kneed CA Republican party and antigun elements within it

... supposed "friends" in the hunting/target shooting fields joining
ad campaigns for CA AWB: "I don't need an assault weapon..."

Hey Bill, how about a little love for the dems that helped this along as well..:confused:

Then again, your bias tends to show anyways...;)

nick
01-11-2011, 10:04 AM
I'm curious about the other two lawsuits. They were dismissed, but they can be appealed, right? Any plans to do so?

DemocracyEnaction
01-11-2011, 10:30 AM
Thank you. Don't let up, every time they take a chip off the boulder it gets closer to becoming a small stone. Your hard work and determination IS appreciated by those of us who know what it really means.

Steyrlp10
01-11-2011, 11:16 AM
Thank you for posting this, Bill. I agree and appreciate the hard work that everyone is doing to help all of us.

I'm currently watching the lead ammo ban project...

PsychGuy274
01-11-2011, 12:08 PM
Sweet, let us know when anything else comes about.

USMC VET
01-11-2011, 1:45 PM
Thanks for your help and info

navyinrwanda
01-11-2011, 2:28 PM
How about links to the actual briefs?

spgripside
01-11-2011, 2:36 PM
How about links to the actual briefs?

Here (http://www.calgunlaws.com/images/stories/Docs/Parker_v_CA/complaint_parker%20v.%20ca.pdf) is a link to the complaint filed on 6/17/2010. And on the bottom of this page (http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/current-litigation/82-cases-litigation/915-crpa-foundation-seeks-injunction-to-stop-ab-962.html) you will find links to other briefs from this case.

MikeH1
01-11-2011, 2:54 PM
thanks for all the hard work, they haven't won yet

calnurse
01-11-2011, 3:16 PM
Go get them attorney!!!

navyinrwanda
01-11-2011, 3:23 PM
Here (http://www.calgunlaws.com/images/stories/Docs/Parker_v_CA/complaint_parker%20v.%20ca.pdf) is a link to the complaint filed on 6/17/2010. And on the bottom of this page (http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/current-litigation/82-cases-litigation/915-crpa-foundation-seeks-injunction-to-stop-ab-962.html) you will find links to other briefs from this case.

None of these links include the most recent briefs announced today (and filed with the court four days ago).

spgripside
01-11-2011, 3:31 PM
None of these links include the most recent briefs announced today (and filed with the court four days ago).

Sorry, I don't have that info yet. Maybe someone else here can help out.

DeanW66
01-11-2011, 4:40 PM
Thanks for the info and keep up the good fight!

Rem222
01-11-2011, 5:16 PM
Thanks to everyone involved in this fight.

Bigtwin
01-11-2011, 6:04 PM
Bwiese, thanks for the update, as well as the work!

diginit
01-11-2011, 6:39 PM
I'm curious about the other two lawsuits. They were dismissed, but they can be appealed, right? Any plans to do so?

How was a violation of interstate commerce dismissed? This is clearly a violation...More infringment.

Librarian
01-11-2011, 6:46 PM
How was a violation of interstate commerce dismissed? This is clearly a violation...More infringment.

Ripeness.Plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe for review. They cannot demonstrate
any current harm or a sufficiently immediate concern. No one can yet
anticipate how California’s bill will affect Plaintiffs and/or their
business. No case or controversy exists at this time. Therefore, Plaintiffs’
case is DISMISSED without prejudice

smokeysbandit
01-11-2011, 6:52 PM
Thanks for the update. Keep up the good work, I'm really hopeful this can be stopped before implementation!
:rockon:

Experimentalist
01-11-2011, 7:31 PM
Thanks to the many individuals and organizations working hard for our rights.

A single court case is taxing enough. The research, the formation of strategy, the paperwork. The fact that three different cases, three different strategies, were employed speaks volumes to the dedication of the team we have working for us.

Here's hoping for a swift victory!

diginit
01-11-2011, 8:10 PM
Ripeness.

I can't say what I think of this.... Someone's mind has spoiled on the vine. They can't figure how much UPS or FedX will lose in deliverys? BS.

OleCuss
01-11-2011, 8:20 PM
In the court's defense, at this time we don't know which ammo suppliers will still ship to California - or even what ammo they can ship. We also don't really know the level of documentation with which the shippers will be required to comply.

One can be pretty durned sure that they will be hurt and that it will be a violation of law, but that is not officially known.

The courts could reasonably claim that even if the supposed harm should occur, the monetary damages can be recovered through a lawsuit which seeks damages.

Personally, however, I think that with Jerry Brown's released budget that OOIDA's argument for ripeness just got a little better. The State of California is not going to have the money to pay their damages. Brown's budget supposes that we will be voting for high taxes and that is not at all clear. Plus, I strongly suspect that their revenue projections and predicted expenditures are unwarrantedly rosy. The problem is that while I think that the argument just got better for injunctive relief, buying the detailed economic analysis and getting the courts to agree with our analysis rather than Jerry Brown's would be prohibitively expensive and with a probability of success which would be too low to warrant the expenditure.

That leaves Parker still the only game in town at the moment.

the_quark
01-11-2011, 8:36 PM
I'm curious about the other two lawsuits. They were dismissed, but they can be appealed, right? Any plans to do so?

Nick,

I can't speak for the other, but from CGF/NRA's perspective in OOIDA, we were dismissed without prejudice because it wasn't ripe (as the law isn't in effect).

We could appeal that dismissal, but, by the time such an appeal could be heard...the law will be in effect.

"Without prejudice" means "you can bring the same complaint later." Perhaps at such a time as the complaint is "ripe". :)

DannyInSoCal
01-11-2011, 8:43 PM
What exactly is this legislation supposed to achieve?

Librarian
01-11-2011, 9:05 PM
What exactly is this legislation supposed to achieve?

Legislation?

The thread is about a lawsuit to prevent implementation of PC 12318 and other sections added by AB 962.

Are you asking what the announced intent was for AB 962? You need to read the bill analyses here (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_962&sess=PREV&house=B&author=de_leon) (but don't believe much of what you read).

GUNFREAK
01-11-2011, 9:13 PM
Is this still going down in the courthouse in Fresno? Also can we show up to watch and show support?

Citadelonline
01-11-2011, 9:14 PM
OOIDA v. Lindlley was the best argument against 962 that CA had going, and it was dismissed. If Parker v. California has any chance of prevailing, it's been diminished by the shooting of a U.S. Congressperson and the murder of a federal judge. I hope I'm wrong, but with the tragedy in Arizona the Parker lawsuit will likely meet the same fate as OOIDA.

the_quark
01-11-2011, 10:21 PM
Well, again, though, OOIDA was only dismissed because the law isn't yet in force, and it was dismissed without prejudice, so it can brought, again, once it is in force. Which, for the record, we may not actually do depending on what else happens. No sense spending money to bring that case forward if something else is already doing well.

rabagley
01-11-2011, 11:45 PM
What exactly is this legislation supposed to achieve?

Ostensibly: better tracking of ammunition going to gang members leading to less ammo purchased by gang members leading to less firearm violence by gang members.

Actually: yet another thinly veiled attempt to restrict the use of guns towards the eventual goal of limiting them to police and military use only.

the_quark
01-11-2011, 11:54 PM
Yup, just like the similar tracking on cold medecine stopped all production of meth:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_drug_war_tracking_meth

NSR500
01-12-2011, 12:44 AM
Thanks for the update.

Wherryj
01-12-2011, 10:11 AM
You act like NRA passed the CA AWB. It in no way did - it did what it could to stop it.

Your scowls should be redirected to...

... weak-kneed CA Republican party and antigun elements within it

... supposed "friends" in the hunting/target shooting fields joining
ad campaigns for CA AWB: "I don't need an assault weapon..."

I agree with your statements about the NRA. I don't know if I totally agree with the "weak-kneed CA Republican party" statement.

I'm sure that there were some in the CA-R party who facilitated the bill, but I'm not aware of the exact balance of the parties at the time. In most years the Ds have enough votes to pass pretty much anything they want in CA.

The Rs might have been in the same position as the NRA-unable to stop the runaway train known as CA politics.

Anyone have more specifics about the vote, etc.?

Wherryj
01-12-2011, 10:14 AM
Yup, just like the similar tracking on cold medecine stopped all production of meth:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_drug_war_tracking_meth

It just created a new class of "criminal"-those lured by the fact that a $5 box of Sudafed now sells for $40-50 to a meth manufacturer.

Who would ever have thought that a law wouldn't do exactly what it was intended to do?

Ed_in_Sac
01-12-2011, 3:25 PM
Yup, just like the similar tracking on cold medecine stopped all production of meth:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_drug_war_tracking_meth

Sooo true!

Citadelonline
01-12-2011, 9:02 PM
Well, again, though, OOIDA was only dismissed because the law isn't yet in force, and it was dismissed without prejudice, so it can brought, again, once it is in force.
Yes, I'm aware of the summary dismissal.
When and if Parker fails, lets hope OOIDA is revisited, then not dismissed on merit or standing.

Super Spy
01-18-2011, 11:18 AM
Any updates on this? I just saw this thread "Breaking AB962 Dead? " http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=385930
.....please say it's so...

hoffmang
01-18-2011, 11:31 AM
Any updates on this? I just saw this thread "Breaking AB962 Dead? " http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=385930
.....please say it's so...

It's so. There will be no reason to re-file OOIDA this year. Now we get to see what the legislature will do after the law has been invalidated.

-Gene

Window_Seat
01-18-2011, 11:34 AM
Good news!

As far as the State Legislature's reaction:
:popcorn:

I want to see the details (as far as the opinion), and I'm sure they are forthcoming.

Erik.

jdberger
01-18-2011, 11:40 AM
It's so. There will be no reason to re-file OOIDA this year. Now we get to see what the legislature will do after the law has been invalidated.

-Gene

That outta save us a couple bucks....for now.

huck
01-18-2011, 1:51 PM
Does anyone know when we'll be able to read Judge Hamilton's actual verdict?

N6ATF
01-18-2011, 4:22 PM
Would it cost them the same to defend fresh suits as it would to appeal? I would think they would just keep resetting the game like Chicago and DC. "Oh, that law is unconstitutional? Here's another one. And another. And another..." until the end of time.

kophinos
01-18-2011, 5:30 PM
i just joined and made a donation to the CPRF because of this.

the_quark
01-18-2011, 5:59 PM
Would it cost them the same to defend fresh suits as it would to appeal? I would think they would just keep resetting the game like Chicago and DC. "Oh, that law is unconstitutional? Here's another one. And another. And another..." until the end of time.

They don't get endless resets. AB962 went down on a very specific issue. They could come back with a version that doesn't have these precise defects. However, it will run afoul of the problems CGF were attacking under. Once that gets adjudicated, it'll be dead.

Also note this is the last dying spasm of a losing ideology, as the Supreme Court expands Heller and McDonald. Remember that Brown v. Board of Education was won in 1954, but it was the mid-60s and beyond before all the civil rights battles were fundamentally won. I except we'll go through a similar process. If Heller is our Brown, we still are only in 1957.

emcon5
01-18-2011, 6:09 PM
Remember that Brown v. Board of Education was won in 1954, but it was the mid-60s and beyond before all the civil rights battles were fundamentally won. I except we'll go through a similar process. If Heller is our Brown, we still are only in 1957.That is an interesting (and somewhat depressing) analogy.

Librarian
01-18-2011, 6:11 PM
Further developments warrant a new thread.