View Full Version : DOJ website

07-21-2011, 5:59 AM
I thought this was struck down why is this still there under 2009 laws..?
do they have to update website?

AB 962 (Stats. 2009, ch. 628)

* Handgun ammunition must be displayed in a manner that makes the ammunition inaccessible to a purchaser or transferee, and requires the assistance of the vendor or an employee of the vendor. ( 12061.) 1
* An employee of a handgun ammunition vendor, who is prohibited from possessing firearms, cannot handle, sell, or deliver handgun ammunition in the course and scope of his or her employment. ( 12061.)
* No one shall supply, deliver, or give ammunition to a minor who is prohibited from possessing ammunition pursuant to section 12101. ( 12316.)
* Any person who is enjoined from engaging in activity associated with a criminal street gang is prohibited from possessing ammunition. A violation is a misdemeanor. ( 12316.)
* Beginning February 1, 2011, the delivery or transfer of handgun ammunition must occur in a face-to-face transaction, with the recipient providing bona fide evidence of his or her identity and age, subject to specified exceptions. Non-face-to-face transfers, such as internet transactions and mail order deliveries are prohibited. A violation is a misdemeanor. ( 12318.)
* Beginning February 1, 2011, handgun ammunition vendors must obtain a thumbprint and other information related to handgun ammunition transactions subject to specified exceptions (including transfers to peace officers who are authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope their duties). The information must be retained by the vendor for five years from the date of the transaction. A violation is a misdemeanor. ( 12061.)


07-21-2011, 6:06 AM
The DOJ has a history of proliferating bad information. The said law does exist but was ruled unconstitutional. It must be legislatively repealed before it can be deleted from the penal code. I know it's counter intuitive...

07-21-2011, 6:52 AM
Didnt it get voted down to be taken out of the penal code, even though it was found unconstitutional? Shows the stubborn-headedness of our lawmakers. It should be law that if a certain text is found unconstitutional, that it should be wiped from the penal code immediately. Why beat around the bush? It just makes things confusing...

07-21-2011, 7:01 AM
The law is on the books in the Penal Code.

Provisions are generally not in force after court decision deriving from CRPA Foundation/NRA lawsuit.

Most laws invalidated by courts in fact still stay 'on the books'. That's why law is a mix of statute, regulation and case law.

However the DOJ should not quote inactive law - I will note their website has not been updated much.

07-21-2011, 7:28 AM
huh? the courts struck down the law right? Then it's null and void from an enforcement perspective but still fully active from a documentation perspective? I'll just assume that this is the part of california law that's specifically engineered to be completely nonsensical to the point of verging on in(s)anity.