PDA

View Full Version : So, how do we attack AB-962 next time?


BigFatGuy
01-20-2011, 5:24 PM
When they re-introduce it, and clearly define "handgun" ammo by listing every type, size, brand, breed, and caliber of ammunition they can find listed anywhere, how will we attack it then?

stix213
01-20-2011, 5:29 PM
They tried to list ammo types specifically last session but couldn't even get it to the governator's desk. I'll believe they can pass it when I see it.

GOEX FFF
01-20-2011, 5:33 PM
Don't forget about 2 other lawsuits (maybe more) waiting to pounce on other aspects of this infringing unconstitutional bill aside from what defines "handgun" ammo.

GOEX FFF
01-20-2011, 5:40 PM
I do have a Q: though. I'm not a legal eagle.

If a "New" bill is drawn up, does it have to start all the way from the beginning passing through all the steps again? Hypotheically, if so and passed does that mean the new bill in the form of 962 wouldnt go into effect for another year?

BigFatGuy
01-20-2011, 5:42 PM
Don't forget about 2 other lawsuits (maybe more) waiting to pounce on other aspects of this infringing unconstitutional bill aside from what defines "handgun" ammo.

I hope you're right, but being unconstitutional doesn't seem to be worth much these days.

I look forward to the day when we don't have to depend on politicians' incompetence to keep our RKBA.

danger707
01-20-2011, 5:46 PM
I dont want get off topic but is there any online distributors who are now shipping to Cali?

I was at the range today to celebrate by shooting 1000 rounds of different calibers.

IrishPirate
01-20-2011, 5:46 PM
I do have a Q: though. I'm not a legal eagle.

If a "New" bill is drawn up, does it have to start all the way from the beginning passing through all the steps again? Hypotheically, if so and passed does that mean the new bill in the form of 962 wouldnt go into effect for another year?

yes. but the state could still appeal the judge's decision and another court could rule differently. We're lucky that he order it not to be enforced!!

GOEX FFF
01-20-2011, 5:53 PM
I hope you're right, but being unconstitutional doesn't seem to be worth much these days.

Unfortunately yeah.. BUT it was ruled unconstitutionally vague, so at least one judge in CA respects the constitution being the supreme law of the land like CA claims it does too. De' leon & Co. think they can pass anything they want without it. He and many others in CA office are the ones who doesn't think the constitution is worth much these days.
Maybe he'll see now that they just cant push through whatever they want because they want to.

Didn't he go to law school???

GOEX FFF
01-20-2011, 5:55 PM
yes. but the state could still appeal the judge's decision and another court could rule differently. We're lucky that he order it not to be enforced!!

Ok Thanks! :)

Librarian
01-20-2011, 6:08 PM
I do have a Q: though. I'm not a legal eagle.

If a "New" bill is drawn up, does it have to start all the way from the beginning passing through all the steps again? Hypotheically, if so and passed does that mean the new bill in the form of 962 wouldnt go into effect for another year?

Yes. In general, when a bill is signed into law by the Governor, that bill is finished. Also the case if he vetoes one (unless over-ridden by the Legislature).

Failing passage at any other stage, a bill might crawl bleeding out of a corner for reconsideration, until the close of the Legislature on the last day of the second year of the 2-year session.

http://www.moldychum.com/storage/zombie.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=123623599443 5

Fear the Zombie Bill!

vincnet11
01-20-2011, 7:16 PM
If that ammo listed can be used in a rifle then its not a handgun ammo. (Most likely they will list .45 ACP in there, I know it can be used in a rifle too so you have a case.) Gun manufacturers will find a loophole by simply making rifles that chamber some of those "handgun ammo" then you can say its unconstitutionally vague for them to list it as "handgun ammo" when its used in a rifle.

What else will they do ban people from using "handgun ammo" in their handgun because of this? How about AR Pistols that use rifle ammo, ban those too since their more "lethal" than handgun ammo?

Its already confusing as it is, I think they might as well ban all ammo shipping and require face to face transaction for all ammo.

hoffmang
01-20-2011, 8:15 PM
There are fundamental problems with trying to regulate handgun ammo like the author wishes to.

1. Shippers (Fedex, UPS) have to know who they can and can't deliver handgun ammo to. Otherwise, it's a kind of pointless bill and it is not entirely clear that the dormant commerce clause and state long arm jurisprudence would limit the ability of California to restrict e.g. Midways actions. Note too that Midway still has to be able to ship into California to the local retail store or range as a supplier so Midway and Fedex have to able to ship some handgun ammo.

2. The original way around 1 was to create a permitting system like the CFLC program, but our state is bankrupt and remains so.

3. Handgun ammo can be defined, but all of this still suffers from 1 and 2.

4. Local logs are kinda pointless if you can just order online...

5. A husband needs to be able to give his wife ammo at a range as well as a friend or a trainer in the same venue.

-Gene

Meplat
01-20-2011, 8:30 PM
All they need do is ban non face to face sale of ALL ammo. Nothing too vague about that. If another bill is passed it will not take effect until next year unless they pass it as an "emergency" bill that just can't wait. That does not seem to be too difficult in CA. I think if they do reintroduce a smiler bill our side should introduce an amendment exempting CCW holders, Who could argue with that. Then when we finally get shall issue; problem solved.

hoffmang
01-20-2011, 9:10 PM
All they need do is ban non face to face sale of ALL ammo. Nothing too vague about that. If another bill is passed it will not take effect until next year unless they pass it as an "emergency" bill that just can't wait. That does not seem to be too difficult in CA. I think if they do reintroduce a smiler bill our side should introduce an amendment exempting CCW holders, Who could argue with that. Then when we finally get shall issue; problem solved.

An all ammo ban runs into some problems with CMP and federal law...

-Gene

EWILKE
01-20-2011, 9:15 PM
I think the shipping companies should be fighting this fight they have the most money to loose I know I have paid a lot of shipping charges in the last few years.

hoffmang
01-20-2011, 9:16 PM
I think the shipping companies should be fighting this fight they have the most money to loose I know I have paid a lot of shipping charges in the last few years.

They were in the fight this time around. Next time, well, we shall see what the law actually says.

-Gene

dustoff31
01-20-2011, 9:16 PM
Local logs are kinda pointless if you can just order online...-Gene

As pointless as they may be, what's your take on local logs w/ID coming to fruition?

hoffmang
01-20-2011, 9:17 PM
As pointless as they may be, what's your take on local logs w/ID coming to fruition?

It would be a boon to internet orders.

-Gene

dustoff31
01-20-2011, 9:21 PM
It would be a boon to internet orders.

-Gene

Yes, I suspect it certainly would be. But do you see that requirement being put into place/upheld? Just for spite, if for no other reason.

dantodd
01-20-2011, 9:59 PM
Yes, I suspect it certainly would be. But do you see that requirement being put into place/upheld? Just for spite, if for no other reason.

Probably not, based on the high quality lobbying the retail gun stores have.

:hide:

wildhawker
01-20-2011, 10:49 PM
Zing by DanTodd! :43:

CMonfort
01-20-2011, 10:57 PM
I would suggest the best thing we can do is not discuss it on chat forums, but I guess its a little late for that.

wildhawker
01-20-2011, 11:00 PM
Hi Irwin!

(and Kathy and Gerry...)

CMonfort
01-20-2011, 11:04 PM
Hi Kimberly!

dantodd
01-20-2011, 11:07 PM
happy to be of entertainment value.

Choptop
01-20-2011, 11:09 PM
Next time around the new version of AB962 will directly address the selling of any ammo to persons restricted by statute from owning ammo.

wildhawker
01-20-2011, 11:15 PM
Clint, Kim told me we're boring. I don't think she hangs out here anymore...

:hide:

(Hi Kimberly!)

hoffmang
01-20-2011, 11:26 PM
I would suggest the best thing we can do is not discuss it on chat forums, but I guess its a little late for that.

Note that I've left a few things out...

*Waves at Mrs. Graham*

-Gene

OleCuss
01-21-2011, 5:19 AM
I don't know what's been left out, but I just can't think of a way that they can re-do AB962 in a manner which will be both legally and politically viable.

They might be able to get a modified AB962 which would be legally viable but I don't see how such a bill would be politically viable.

We may have to fight, but I think that the more onerous provisions of AB962 are effectively dead. Oh, they may rise again, but CGF/CRPA will see to their rapid demise.

Al Norris
01-21-2011, 6:14 AM
The State cannot appeal until the written opinion is issued.

Speculation on any so-called defense against another similar legislative action, is premature until that decision is made public.

1911_sfca
01-21-2011, 8:50 AM
Next time around the new version of AB962 will directly address the selling of any ammo to persons restricted by statute from owning ammo.

+1. How about instead of a fingerprint log, a system that can check whether a person who buys ammo is prohibited from possessing it. This would of course run into the "bankrupt" problem that Gene mentions.

Wherryj
01-21-2011, 10:42 AM
Note that I've left a few things out...

*Waves at Mrs. Graham*

-Gene

Might I also suggest the addition of a few "red herrings" just to keep the legislative critters on their toes?

Choptop
01-21-2011, 10:42 AM
+1. How about instead of a fingerprint log, a system that can check whether a person who buys ammo is prohibited from possessing it. This would of course run into the "bankrupt" problem that Gene mentions.

that is exactly where this is headed.

The only valid argument that I've seen to counter this is that BG checks for ammo purchases would be too costly.