PDA

View Full Version : Question regarding the extent of the AB962 ruling


OleCuss
01-18-2011, 1:42 PM
I understand that today the Judge ruled against the state and this is being reported as having stopped implementation of AB962. AB962 is being reported as "dead" by some.

Questions of an appeal by the state (I kinda doubt that will happen) or of the introduction of new legislation aside, I'm wondering if AB962 was struck down of if only portions of it were ruled unconstitutionally vague.

I'd note that there were some provisions which were already in place/implemented and it is not clear to me that those provisions were struck down. There is at least logic that would say that all provisions were struck down as there would seem to be vagueness issues on the already implemented provisions as well as the ones due on 1 February 2011.

TIA.

PsychGuy274
01-18-2011, 1:57 PM
We're not going to know for sure until the ruling comes out, but it sounds like it was ruled 'unconstitutionally vague' due to not defining what 'handgun ammo' actually is.

We have to wait and see.

OleCuss
01-18-2011, 2:08 PM
Thank you.

cadjak
01-18-2011, 2:11 PM
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.

OleCuss
01-18-2011, 2:33 PM
Thank you, but I'd note that since most have come to consider AB962 to be only the provisions which were due to take effect on 1 February 2011, when someone says in an Internet posting that AB962 was struck down it is not at all clear to me that the entire statute was stomped on rather than just the provisions due for 1 February.

Logic says it should be the entirety of AB962.

tiki
01-18-2011, 2:39 PM
What bothers me is that it was struck down for vagueness and not because it violated the Commerce Act. If it was a violation of the Commerce Act, then it couldn't be reintroduced. But, now it can be rewritten as a cleanup bill and re-introduced. I'm happy, but, I would have been happier if it was just dead for good.

Untamed1972
01-18-2011, 2:43 PM
Thank you, but I'd note that since most have come to consider AB962 to be only the provisions which were due to take effect on 1 February 2011, when someone says in an Internet posting that AB962 was struck down it is not at all clear to me that the entire statute was stomped on rather than just the provisions due for 1 February.

Logic says it should be the entirety of AB962.


I'm guessing that it basically kills the whole bill even the parts that already went into effect because they all were referenced to the vague definition of handgun ammo.

PsychGuy274
01-18-2011, 2:45 PM
Thank you, but I'd note that since most have come to consider AB962 to be only the provisions which were due to take effect on 1 February 2011, when someone says in an Internet posting that AB962 was struck down it is not at all clear to me that the entire statute was stomped on rather than just the provisions due for 1 February.

Logic says it should be the entirety of AB962.

Well come on now...we all know not to apply logic to Kalifornia gun laws :D

Bogart
01-18-2011, 2:47 PM
So this probably won't change the fact that I can't ship ammo to Sacramento. So frustrating having to ship to a coworkers house.

Still I'm glad we had a positive ruling on AB962. Atleast I CAN still ship it to the coworkers house.

curtisfong
01-18-2011, 3:02 PM
What bothers me is that it was struck down for vagueness and not because it violated the Commerce Act. If it was a violation of the Commerce Act, then it couldn't be reintroduced. But, now it can be rewritten as a cleanup bill and re-introduced. I'm happy, but, I would have been happier if it was just dead for good.

Exactly. And, like others have already pointed out, it still leaves us with all the idiotic local city regulations regarding ammunition sales (e.g. LA and Sacramento)

otteray
01-18-2011, 4:07 PM
Now, lemme see; this was voted on by our legislative representatives and then signed into law by then RINO Austrian Governor also known as the Terminator or Ahnold.
For it to be reintroduced, isn't the whole process required to start over with a new bill, a vote, then followed by the new Governor's signature or veto?
What will win out? Should we have faith in a governor that may actually believe in what the Second Amendment is meant to be, or will we see political correctness and nanny statism continued on the AB962 ammo issue?
Which will prevail?

Synergy
01-18-2011, 4:15 PM
Now, lemme see; this was voted on by our legislative representatives and then signed into law by then RINO Austrian Governor also known as the Terminator or Ahnold.
For it to be reintroduced, isn't the whole process required to start over with a new bill, a vote, then followed by the new Governor's signature or veto?
What will win out? Should we have faith in a governor that may actually believe in what the Second Amendment is meant to be, or will we see political correctness and nanny statism continued on the AB962 ammo issue?
Which will prevail?

IIRC DeLeon submitted the same bill in 2 prior sessions before AB962 passed. Resubmission of a like or similar bill is prohibited.

IGOTDIRT4U
01-18-2011, 4:19 PM
IIRC DeLeon submitted the same bill in 2 prior sessions before AB962 passed. Resubmission of a like or similar bill is prohibited.

And one of the times he did it in violation of the floor rules and they still allowed a vote on it. They have no shame, nor scruples.

wildhawker
01-18-2011, 4:23 PM
Remember that Sacramento has stated that their local ordinance does not affect mail order ammo.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Sacramento_County_Internet_Ammo_Orders-2009-12-03.pdf

... Chapter 5.66 of the Sacramento City Code was neither intended to regulate vendors who sell firearm ammunition through the internet from a location outside the State of California, nor has it been applied in this manner.


See also, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=246494

hoffmang
01-18-2011, 4:41 PM
We haven't read the actual opinion yet but I can give you some informed speculation. The issue that is unconstitutionally vague is the definition of "handgun ammunition." All of the new parts of the PC introduced by AB-962 rely on that definition. As such, that means that both the dealer stocking, the dealer registration, and the shipping ban all fall as no one can reasonably determine what the controlled ammo versus uncontrolled ammo is. Also, the bill had no severance clause because it was redrafted in such a hurry on the last day of the session.

I'm willing to bet the state doesn't appeal too...

-Gene