PDA

View Full Version : Status of AB962 - yes, I know...


huck
01-13-2011, 6:47 PM
I'm no Calguns insider - just someone who buys handgun ammo. And I have a few friends who are always asking what's happening with AB962 - probably because I optimistically told them back in October that this law would never become a reality.

I've spent hours on here trying to figure out the status with the fight against AB962. I know there are two stickies in this forum, but the info seems dated and/or limited. This is what I've been able to cull from my research:

There were at least 3 lawsuits filed against AB962.
1 - OOIDA_v._Lindley
2 - State Ammunition v Lindley
3 - Parker v California

The first two have been dismissed as "not being ripe" - which means no damage has been done yet, so nothing to complain about.

The third lawsuit (Parker v California) appears to still exist and has a hearing (in Fresno?) and possible ruling on January 18th.

Is that about it?

Can anyone elaborate?

BTW, the OOIDA_v._Lindley link in the (closed) sticky post is dead.

OleCuss
01-13-2011, 6:53 PM
That's about it.

NorCalDustin
01-13-2011, 6:59 PM
Yeah thats it... We wont know more until on/after the 18th.

Librarian
01-13-2011, 7:47 PM
Well, that's flippin' weird.

I put in a fixed link, but it's exactly the same as the one that doesn't work.

huck
01-13-2011, 8:32 PM
Well, that's flippin' weird.

I put in a fixed link, but it's exactly the same as the one that doesn't work.

I swear it didn't work.

Librarian
01-13-2011, 10:30 PM
I swear it didn't work.

Oh, you're right - it didn't.

It's that, so far as I can tell, the link I replaced it with is exactly the same (and that old one used to work!).

justinjames
01-14-2011, 1:05 PM
Librarian,
i know knowbody knows what ammo is included in the bill,but is there a chance that shotgun ammo will be included?? thanks for your input

Librarian
01-14-2011, 1:18 PM
Librarian,
i know knowbody knows what ammo is included in the bill,but is there a chance that shotgun ammo will be included?? thanks for your input

Seems not - pretty hard to include that as handgun ammo.

Whether out of state sellers may choose to ship it is another issue.

SupportGeek
01-14-2011, 1:19 PM
What Id like to know is that since Parker was not dismissed, but rather given a court date, does that mean there is still hope?
Or will everyone show up, and the judge pull the same 'Its not ripe yet" bullppucky?

the_quark
01-14-2011, 1:22 PM
There's still hope. We'll know a lot more on the 18th.

Maltese Falcon
01-14-2011, 1:27 PM
There's still hope. We'll know a lot more on the 18th.

Where is it be adjudicated? Can anyone show up and observe the proceedings?

.

huck
01-14-2011, 2:12 PM
Seems not - pretty hard to include that as handgun ammo.

Whether out of state sellers may choose to ship it is another issue.



Maybe they'll put the Taurus Judge on the roster and then ban 410 shotgun ammo (not).

The Geologist
01-14-2011, 7:14 PM
Let's hope not, but CA included rifle ammo that can be used in a handgun or is it handgun ammo thats used in a rifle. Oh I don't know (and neither do the bill authors). Just enjoy the 3-day weekend.

jpigeon
01-14-2011, 8:03 PM
Status is get your fingers ready for some ink son...

Helpful_Cub
01-14-2011, 8:08 PM
Maybe they'll put the Taurus Judge on the roster and then ban 410 shotgun ammo (not).

They'll most likely keep the Judge banned and then add 410 to the list of handgun ammo. It doesn't make sense so it sounds perfect for California.

inbox485
01-17-2011, 9:09 AM
Maybe they'll put the Taurus Judge on the roster and then ban 410 shotgun ammo (not).

I would actually expect 410 shotgun ammo to be banned anyway. The law doesn't say that the handgun in question has to be legal or even exist. If it is a physical possibility, I'd expect it to be covered.

motorhead
01-17-2011, 9:47 AM
i'm curious myself. many online retailers are now using the 1/21 date as a cut-off point.

Yankee Clipper
01-17-2011, 10:36 AM
i'm curious myself. many online retailers are now using the 1/21 date as a cut-off point.
And some interstate sellers have also notified their customers they will stop shipping all ammunition to us. That includes rifle ammo!

bodger
01-17-2011, 11:02 AM
Does anyone know if FedEx or UPS have spoken up about AB962?

huck
01-17-2011, 4:19 PM
So, where can we look to see what happens tomorrow?

chris
01-17-2011, 4:20 PM
And some interstate sellers have also notified their customers they will stop shipping all ammunition to us. That includes rifle ammo!

yep that is what the bill's author wanted and so far he got it.

Librarian
01-17-2011, 4:45 PM
I imagine anything that can be shared will either be at www.calgunlaws.com or posted here.

Remember, no likely news before close of business (what, 4 PM for courts?) and maybe it won't be completed tomorrow.

Anyone who posts the equivalent of 'are we there yet' about the case will be mocked, I say, mocked unmercifully!

http://www.wpclipart.com/animals/birds/M/Mockingbird.jpg

CaliforniaLiberal
01-17-2011, 5:04 PM
I'm no Calguns insider - just someone who buys handgun ammo. And I have a few friends who are always asking what's happening with AB962 - probably because I optimistically told them back in October that this law would never become a reality.

I've spent hours on here trying to figure out the status with the fight against AB962. I know there are two stickies in this forum, but the info seems dated and/or limited. This is what I've been able to cull from my research:

There were at least 3 lawsuits filed against AB962.
1 - OOIDA_v._Lindley
2 - State Ammunition v Lindley
3 - Parker v California

The first two have been dismissed as "not being ripe" - which means no damage has been done yet, so nothing to complain about.

The third lawsuit (Parker v California) appears to still exist and has a hearing (in Fresno?) and possible ruling on January 18th.

Is that about it?

Can anyone elaborate?

BTW, the OOIDA_v._Lindley link in the (closed) sticky post is dead.


All I would add is that if Parker fails us tomorrow (God Forbid!) then there is a good case for re-filing OOIDA and State Ammunition after the law takes effect.

Quser.619
01-17-2011, 6:32 PM
While I've been trying to keep up, which of the 3 cases seems strongest to the legal professionals here?

Dutch3
01-17-2011, 6:46 PM
I would actually expect 410 shotgun ammo to be banned anyway. The law doesn't say that the handgun in question has to be legal or even exist. If it is a physical possibility, I'd expect it to be covered.

I certainly hope not. AB 962 specifies handgun ammunition as defined in Section 12323:

12323. As used in this chapter, the following definitions shall
apply:
(a) "Handgun ammunition" means ammunition principally for use in
pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed
upon the person, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 12001,
notwithstanding that the ammunition may also be used in some rifles.

.410 bore shotshells are not principally for use in handguns, and a shotgun is not a rifle.

Paul S
01-17-2011, 6:49 PM
While I've been trying to keep up, which of the 3 cases seems strongest to the legal professionals here?

There is only one case left. read about it here:

http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/current-litigation/82-cases-litigation/933-final-pre-trial-briefs-filed-in-nra-crpaf-lawsuit-challenging-california-ban-on-mail-order-ammo-sales.html

huck
01-17-2011, 7:01 PM
I certainly hope not. AB 962 specifies handgun ammunition as defined in Section 12323:

12323. As used in this chapter, the following definitions shall
apply:
(a) "Handgun ammunition" means ammunition principally for use in
pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed
upon the person, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 12001,
notwithstanding that the ammunition may also be used in some rifles.

.410 bore shotshells are not principally for use in handguns, and a shotgun is not a rifle.

The Parker v. California suit (our last hope before the law goes into effect) is based entirely on that clause. The plaintiffs say that definition is too vague.

I don't know why they don't just specify each round. Maybe that's the "clean-up bill" I've heard about.

inbox485
01-17-2011, 7:21 PM
I certainly hope not. AB 962 specifies handgun ammunition as defined in Section 12323:

12323. As used in this chapter, the following definitions shall
apply:
(a) "Handgun ammunition" means ammunition principally for use in
pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed
upon the person, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 12001,
notwithstanding that the ammunition may also be used in some rifles.

.410 bore shotshells are not principally for use in handguns, and a shotgun is not a rifle.

But there are revolvers for which .410 shells would be "principally for use in". I'm not saying it isn't a stretch even for a load of bull. I'm just saying it wouldn't be any less rational than certain other standing decisions.

inbox485
01-17-2011, 7:22 PM
I don't know why they don't just specify each round. Maybe that's the "clean-up bill" I've heard about.

Because it gets too easy to shave .01" off a 45 call it a CA special, and tailor a new barrel to it.

OleCuss
01-17-2011, 7:30 PM
Well, we'll likely get an update (and I think a decision) on Parker tomorrow. It should be very interesting to see how that goes.

Paul S
01-17-2011, 9:36 PM
Further AB962 capitulation..this time Sportsman's Guide.I just fired off the following email to them...it won't do any good but at least I feel better.

From your recent email notice RE: California Assembly bill AB962

"Among other regulations, AB 962 will:

Ban all mail-order and Internet sales of ammunition..."

Patently false. AB962 stops only handgun ammunition internet/mail order sales. However, it does not define handgun ammunition. The law does not even mention reloading supplies and components. It is unfortunate and maddening you would rather throw up your hands and capitulate rather than read and understand the law. Instead you choose to abandon your California customers.

EOD3
01-17-2011, 10:49 PM
The joker in the deck is the Encore pistol. If the bill isn't stopped, the end results will be very very bad. :mad:

Ifticar
01-17-2011, 11:01 PM
Has anyone sued to delay the effective date until the state defines what is and what is not handgun ammo?

kcbrown
01-17-2011, 11:36 PM
Are we there yet?

:D

Anchors
01-18-2011, 12:09 AM
Are we there yet?

:D

Just two more weeks....

Oh wait, one more day!

glockwise2000
01-18-2011, 12:19 AM
It is 01-18-11 @ 12:19 AM. A few more hours. Last hope, yet.

Librarian
01-18-2011, 12:57 AM
Are we there yet?

:D

http://www.wpclipart.com/animals/birds/M/Mockingbird.jpg
http://www.wpclipart.com/animals/birds/M/Mockingbird.jpg
http://www.wpclipart.com/animals/birds/M/Mockingbird.jpg
http://www.wpclipart.com/animals/birds/M/Mockingbird.jpg!!!

scootle
01-18-2011, 1:40 AM
http://www.wpclipart.com/animals/birds/M/Mockingbird.jpg!!!

Say, that's some nice bokeh you got there... Nikon or Canon?

:p

Librarian
01-18-2011, 2:20 AM
Say, that's some nice bokeh you got there... Nikon or Canon?

:p

Dunno - came from a public domain clip-art site (http://www.wpclipart.com/index.html), and they don't say.

Don't have a digital SLR, but I like my Canon film SLR, so probably would lean to Canon for digital.

inbox485
01-18-2011, 5:29 AM
Further AB962 capitulation..this time Sportsman's Guide.I just fired off the following email to them...it won't do any good but at least I feel better.

From your recent email notice RE: California Assembly bill AB962

"Among other regulations, AB 962 will:

Ban all mail-order and Internet sales of ammunition..."

Patently false. AB962 stops only handgun ammunition internet/mail order sales. However, it does not define handgun ammunition. The law does not even mention reloading supplies and components. It is unfortunate and maddening you would rather throw up your hands and capitulate rather than read and understand the law. Instead you choose to abandon your California customers.

Your right, it won't do any good. But it will spread FUD across the country that that is what the law says. That is why so many have been adamant about blacklisting SG as well as CTD. That is why when CTD gave their token of "support", that most responders were along the lines of FOAD. Not only are they crapy companies for what they choose not to ship, they actively hurt CA by spreading lies about what the law says, and make it easier to advance bans when those lies become "common knowledge". I sincerely hope both those companies die a miserable death.

Jack L
01-18-2011, 7:03 AM
Whatever happens today in court, please somebody post the results at end of the day.

Purple K
01-18-2011, 7:28 AM
Fingers crossed!!!

1BigPea
01-18-2011, 7:48 AM
Can someone post what time it starts?

para38super
01-18-2011, 8:02 AM
tag!!!

daves100
01-18-2011, 8:03 AM
Tag for updates

huck
01-18-2011, 8:11 AM
Can someone post what time it starts?


The court website says 8:30 AM.

1BigPea
01-18-2011, 8:16 AM
The court website says 8:30 AM.

Roger that, thanks!

shock
01-18-2011, 8:19 AM
in for updates :)

Reductio
01-18-2011, 8:44 AM
Well it's past 8:30... come on, I was up all night for this. :willy_nilly:

(Yes, I get courts move slow. :p )

Arreaux
01-18-2011, 8:50 AM
It will say 8:30, but if you've been to most courts lately it's more like 9:15 or so....:wacko:

Tag

thrillhouse700
01-18-2011, 8:51 AM
It will say 8:30, but if you've been to most courts lately it's more like 9:15 or so....:wacko:

Tag

Court will go into session then judge will take a recess until 2pm haha.

huck
01-18-2011, 9:35 AM
:chillpill: lest you be mocked.

newglockster
01-18-2011, 9:50 AM
tagged

NewGuy
01-18-2011, 9:56 AM
Tag

Fiveohmike
01-18-2011, 10:02 AM
Tag

Bhobbs
01-18-2011, 10:43 AM
Any news so far?

Librarian
01-18-2011, 10:44 AM
Any news so far?

http://www.wpclipart.com/animals/birds/M/Mockingbird.jpg!!!

Close of business today is soonest to expect anything.

Bhobbs
01-18-2011, 10:46 AM
http://www.wpclipart.com/animals/birds/M/Mockingbird.jpg!!!

Close of business today is soonest to expect anything.

Ok. What time does the court close?

Nick1236
01-18-2011, 11:11 AM
:lurk5:

inbox485
01-18-2011, 12:44 PM
Are we there yet?

GrizzlyGuy
01-18-2011, 12:45 PM
It's dead!! (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=5641466&postcount=96)

1BigPea
01-18-2011, 12:46 PM
Here is the announcement

COURT GRANTS NRA / CRPA FOUNDATION MOTION, INVALIDATES UNCONSTITUTIONAL AMMUNITION REGULATION STATUTE THAT WOULD HAVE BANNED MAIL ORDER AMMO SALES & REQUIRED AMMO SALES REGISTRATION

In a dramatic ruling giving gun owners a win in an National Rifle Association / California Rifle and Pistol (CRPA) Foundation lawsuit, this morning Fresno Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton ruled that AB 962, the hotly contested statute that would have banned mail order ammunition sales and required all purchases of so called “handgun ammunition” to be registered, was unconstitutionally vague on its face. The Court enjoined enforcement of the statute, so mail order ammunition sales to California can continue unabated, and ammunition sales need not be registered under the law.

The lawsuit was prompted in part by the many objections and questions raised by confused police, ammunition purchasers, and sellers about what ammunition is covered by the new laws created by AB 962. In a highly unusual move that reflects growing law enforcement opposition to ineffective gun control laws, Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Other plaintiffs include the CRPA Foundation, Herb Bauer Sporting Goods, ammunition shipper Able’s Ammo, collectible ammunition shipper RTG Sporting Collectibles, and individual Steven Stonecipher. Mendocino Sheriff Tom Allman also supported the lawsuit.

The ruling comes just days before the portion of the law that bans mail order sales of so called “handgun ammunition” was set to take effect on February 1, 2011. The lawsuit, Parker v. California is funded exclusively by the NRA and the CRPA Foundation. If it had gone into effect, AB 962 would have imposed burdensome and ill conceived restrictions on the sales of ammunition. AB 962 required that “handgun ammunition” be stored out of the reach of customers, that ammunition vendors collect ammunition sales registration information and thumb-prints from purchasers, and conduct transactions face-to-face for all deliveries and transfers of “handgun ammunition.” The lawsuit successfully sought the declaration from the Court that the statute was unconstitutional, and successfully sought the injunctive relief prohibiting law enforcement from enforcing the new laws.

The lawsuit alleged, and the Court agreed, that AB 962 is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it fails to provide sufficient legal notice of what ammunition cartridges are “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. The proportional usage of any given cartridge is impossible to determine, and in any event changes with market demands. In fact, the legislature itself is well aware of the vagueness problem with AB 962's definition of "handgun ammunition" and tried to redefine it via AB 2358 in 2010. AB 2358 failed in the face of opposition from the NRA and CRPA based on the proposal’s many other nonsensical infringements on ammunition sales to law abiding citizens.

Constitutional vagueness challenges to state laws are extremely difficult to win, particularly in California firearms litigation so this success is particularly noteworthy. Even so, an appeal by the State is likely, but the Court’s Order enjoining enforcement of the law is effective – February 1, 2011 – immediately regardless.

Despite this win for common sense over ill-conceived and counter productive gun laws, 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. When AB 962 passed there was loud outcry from law abiding gun owners impacted by the new law. Those voices must be heard during the legislative session and before a proposed law passes, not after a law is signed. To help, sign up for legislative alerts at www.nraila.com and www.calnra.com and respond when called upon.

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 McDonaldlegal environment, NRA and CRPA Foundation have formed the NRA/CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project (LAP), a joint venture to pro-actively strike down ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances and advance the rights of firearms owners, specifically in California. Sometimes, success is more likely when LAP's litigation efforts are kept low profile, so the details of every lawsuit are not always released. To see a partial list of the LAP’s recent accomplishments, or to contribute to the NRA or to the NRA / CRPAF LAP and support this and similar Second Amendment cases, visit www.nraila.com and www.crpafoundation.org.