Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-12-2017, 9:05 AM
operavoice's Avatar
operavoice operavoice is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Sebastopol, CA
Posts: 166
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default Out of state ammunition purchase injunction?

I apologize if this has been addressed, being new, I'm not up to speed yet.
Is anyone aware if there is pending litigation, or a pending filling for an injunction regarding out of state ammunition purchases?

My Google-fu hasn't found anything tangible.

I've asked the Calguns foundation several times when I have sent money for their various other lawsuits, but they take my money and don't respond.

If there is a specific thread, if like to follow it.

Last edited by operavoice; 12-23-2017 at 8:47 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-12-2017, 1:19 PM
winxp_man's Avatar
winxp_man winxp_man is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sack-Town
Posts: 2,004
iTrader: 63 / 100%
Default

From what I know is that there are some ideas I play for 1-1-18. Until it’s law it can’t be acted upon as unconstitutional or purchase injunction because it’s just that non existent. Now once it’s law real soon it can be sued.
__________________
Shoot to Kill not to Wound !


http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg48/winxp_man/MeShooting-1.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-13-2017, 1:49 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 406
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There is also the issue that it is not a "ban," as you can still buy off the internet if you can find a FFL or "licensed ammunition vendor" to accept the shipment and process the paperwork. That this is a big "if" won't be terribly compelling to a court absent proof that no one will accept the shipment within a reasonable distance of the plaintiff buyer's place of residence, and the fact that you can still buy ammo, it just costs you more, as indicating a lack of "irreparable injury." A better plaintiff would be one of the internet ammo brokers making a restraint of trade claim under the interstate commerce clause.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-13-2017, 2:53 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,978
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I am unclear why your msgs are not getting thru to CGF. I will pass the word on.

I will say that there IS an exemption for holders of C&R + a COE (CA certificate of Eligibility). Yes this
costs money, LiveScan, renewals, etc.


The real issue will be getting vendors to honor it and understand/accept legit docs.

I have talked with some MiWall people at the SJ gunshow and they know about it. I am unclear if this
exemption allows for accelerated unlimitd in-state delivery from an in-state licensed vendor.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

Last edited by bwiese; 11-13-2017 at 10:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-13-2017, 4:21 PM
otteray otteray is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Santa Cruz & Lake Tahoe
Posts: 2,968
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

SEC. 8.6. Section 30312 of the Penal Code is amended
to read:
...

(c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) shall not apply to the sale, delivery, or transfer of ammunition to any of the following:
...
(6) A person who is licensed as a collector of firearms pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, whose licensed premises are within this state, and who has a current certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 26710.
__________________________________________________ ___________


California Code of Regulations

Title 11, Division 5

Chapter 10. Ammunition
§ 4260. Ammunition Vendor License Applications

(c) A firearms dealer licensed pursuant to Penal Code sections 26700 to 26915 is automatically
deemed a licensed ammunition vendor pursuant to Penal Code section 30385(d) and is not
required to submit an application for an ammunition vendor license.


So any FFL dealer does not need to apply, it appears. Correct?
__________________

Last edited by otteray; 11-13-2017 at 5:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-13-2017, 6:47 PM
hvacins hvacins is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 78
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Slightly off topic but my brother told me today he read somewhere that the California COE ammunition exemption is only good through 12-31-18 and that as of 1-1-19 the COE will no longer qualify you for online purchases. I’ve been digging around to find what he read as I’m sure there are tons of us that went through the 03/COE process just to keep our online purchases flowing. Sure would suck to see it’s only good through the end of 2018 then poof that legit process is gone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-13-2017, 8:13 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,837
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hvacins View Post
Slightly off topic but my brother told me today he read somewhere that the California COE ammunition exemption is only good through 12-31-18 and that as of 1-1-19 the COE will no longer qualify you for online purchases. I’ve been digging around to find what he read as I’m sure there are tons of us that went through the 03/COE process just to keep our online purchases flowing. Sure would suck to see it’s only good through the end of 2018 then poof that legit process is gone.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rather than, "digging around to find out what he read," why not ask him? Otherwise, you're chasing ghosts, and regardless of what you find, you still won't know if it's what he read.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-13-2017, 8:25 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 31,898
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hvacins View Post
Slightly off topic but my brother told me today he read somewhere that the California COE ammunition exemption is only good through 12-31-18 and that as of 1-1-19 the COE will no longer qualify you for online purchases. I’ve been digging around to find what he read as I’m sure there are tons of us that went through the 03/COE process just to keep our online purchases flowing. Sure would suck to see it’s only good through the end of 2018 then poof that legit process is gone.
Not true.

This was discussed a couple of months ago, and initially raised some concerns, but it is not the case.

One thing to keep in mind is that you need to read the actual enacted PC. A lot of misinformation is out there because of references to SB1235 (DeLeon), which did not/will not go into effect due to the passage of Prop63 (Newsom).
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just gov't will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just gov't. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-14-2017, 12:14 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,837
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hvacins View Post
Slightly off topic but my brother told me today he read somewhere that the California COE ammunition exemption is only good through 12-31-18 and that as of 1-1-19 the COE will no longer qualify you for online purchases. I’ve been digging around to find what he read as I’m sure there are tons of us that went through the 03/COE process just to keep our online purchases flowing. Sure would suck to see it’s only good through the end of 2018 then poof that legit process is gone.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I didn't want to plug up this thread with a new issue, so I put together some information on this aspect in a new thread: "Ammunition Law: Continuance of C&R+COE exemptions after 2019", @
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1399514
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-16-2017, 1:13 PM
Boost_is_Best Boost_is_Best is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 24
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

How does it not fall under interstate commerce? If I buy ammo from another state online or physically, shouldn't that mean it should be regulated by the federal government and not the state alone?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-16-2017, 5:21 PM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 23,065
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boost_is_Best View Post
How does it not fall under interstate commerce? If I buy ammo from another state online or physically, shouldn't that mean it should be regulated by the federal government and not the state alone?
It's regulated by the Federal Gov and the State Govs of the seller's State & the buyer's State.

In this case, CA is adding conditions for acquisitions and no outright prohibition.
^Conditions being, it needs to be imported & transferred through a licensed vendor or via conditional exemption.

Since there is no outright prohibition/restrictions on purchasing, the Federal Gov may allow until the Federal Courts say otherwise.


Several years ago, CA tried outright prohibition and was smacked down in the Courts for violating interstate commerce.
CA learned from that and passed a version (what's going into effect on 01-01-2018 & 01-01-2019) that the Courts may or may not allow.

Courts can't legally weigh in, until after it goes into effect and an affected party sues.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).

Last edited by Quiet; 11-16-2017 at 5:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-17-2017, 10:58 AM
edwardm's Avatar
edwardm edwardm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Tacoma!
Posts: 1,950
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post

Courts can't legally weigh in, until after it goes into effect and an affected party sues.
That's not how standing works. Judge Hamilton enjoined AB 962 two weeks before it would have been effective (Jan 18 injunction, 2/1 effective date).

There may be other reasons why The Great Legal Minds (except those sometimes turning down cases from fear of their police union clients) haven't filed suit, but standing shouldn't be one of them.
__________________
More regimes have been brought, piecemeal, to their knees by what was once called “Irish Democracy”—the silent, dogged resistance, withdrawal, and truculence of millions of ordinary people—than by revolutionary vanguards or rioting mobs.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-17-2017, 11:00 AM
Old4eyes's Avatar
Old4eyes Old4eyes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Nevada
Posts: 1,439
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Pennsylvania bans the importation of alcohol by individuals. The Federal government has allowed this. That would be a precedent that we don't want to have established for the argument we are trying to make.

Look how long Pena vs CID has been slogging through the court and we can anticipate that or worse for a suit about the sale of ammunition.

The interesting factor of the FBI not wanting to have the NICS being used for ammo checks will be a wildcard for the implementation and that fact might cause a delay but the hope of an injunction is probably spitting into the wind.
__________________
Send Lawyers, Guns and Money - On second thought, hold the Lawyers.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-17-2017, 12:02 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,837
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edwardm View Post
That's not how standing works. Judge Hamilton enjoined AB 962 two weeks before it would have been effective (Jan 18 injunction, 2/1 effective date).

There may be other reasons why The Great Legal Minds (except those sometimes turning down cases from fear of their police union clients) haven't filed suit, but standing shouldn't be one of them.
I've always understood that there is a difference in standing depending upon whether the action challenges a statute as being invalid on its face or as applied to a specific case.

Hamilton enjoined AB962 based on a ruling of "facial" invalidation, not under the concept of "as applied". The appeals court described this in upholding the Hamilton decision(http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-...l/1648877.html)
Quote:
Facial vs.  “As Applied” Challenges

“A facial challenge to the constitutional validity of a statute or ordinance considers only the text of the measure itself, not its application to the particular circumstances of an individual.”  (Tobe v. City of Santa Ana (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1069, 1084 (Tobe ).)   The relief typically sought is total invalidation of the law.   Therefore, cases hold that the challenger must demonstrate “a present total and fatal conflict with applicable constitutional prohibitions.”  (Ibid., citations and internal quotations marks omitted.)

In contrast, an “as applied” challenge “involves an otherwise facially valid measure that has been applied in a constitutionally impermissible manner.”  (California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal.4th 231, 277 (conc. & dis. opn. of Cantil–Sakauye, C.J.) (Matosantos ).)  This type of challenge “contemplates analysis of the facts of a particular case or cases to determine the circumstances in which the statute or ordinance has been applied and to consider whether in those particular circumstances the application deprived the individual to whom it was applied of a protected right.”  (Tobe, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 1084.)
The Parker (Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker), lawsuit alleged that the mandates in AB 962 were incomprehensible, and that the definition of "handgun ammunition" was unconstitutionally vague on its face. As a law enforcement officer, that gave Parker standing to challenge the statute prior to its operation on the basis that the law on its face would be un-enforceable."

Based on this, since the current ammo law appears to have resolved the previous unconstitutional language issues in AB 962, it would appear that legal action must be delayed until a suit can be filed based on the new statutes "as applied" to a specific individual(s). That can't happen until after 1/1/2018.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-17-2017, 1:10 PM
edwardm's Avatar
edwardm edwardm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Tacoma!
Posts: 1,950
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
I've always understood that there is a difference in standing depending upon whether the action challenges a statute as being invalid on its face or as applied to a specific case.

Hamilton enjoined AB962 based on a ruling of "facial" invalidation, not under the concept of "as applied". The appeals court described this in upholding the Hamilton decision(http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-...l/1648877.html)

The Parker (Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker), lawsuit alleged that the mandates in AB 962 were incomprehensible, and that the definition of "handgun ammunition" was unconstitutionally vague on its face. As a law enforcement officer, that gave Parker standing to challenge the statute prior to its operation on the basis that the law on its face would be un-enforceable."

Based on this, since the current ammo law appears to have resolved the previous unconstitutional language issues in AB 962, it would appear that legal action must be delayed until a suit can be filed based on the new statutes "as applied" to a specific individual(s). That can't happen until after 1/1/2018.
Based on your last sentence, I want to explain further.

Facial and as-applied challenges categorize the type of Constitutional challenge. As you stated, it's a distinction, though a somewhat muddy one, as to whether a statute is invalid on its face, or invalid as applied to a plaintiff under a given set of circumstances.

Standing is a jurisdictional question answered well before the merits of the challenge would be determined. The harm alleged to determine standing need not have occurred yet - it may be imminent or threatened. The harm may be to every person (i.e. a facial challenge) or it may be to a subset of one person (as-applied).

In the case of the new ammunition laws, the harm is clearly threatened and imminent, and would have a significant impact on the exercise of certain rights of a hypothetical individual plaintiff. The above words suggest an as-applied challenge, and that's my point - standing is a distinct and preliminary consideration. "As-applied" to Plaintiff A, the law prospectively, seriously, and imminently harms her right to purchase ammunition for self-defense as of 1/1/18. The law need not have started having an effect, so long as the harmful effects are imminent.

The biggest grey area I'm aware of relates to third-party standing, the type of claim being made and the relationship between the plaintiff and the third party. Even then, standing may still exist since it is very much fact-driven - it's not sitting in a doctrinal vacuum.
__________________
More regimes have been brought, piecemeal, to their knees by what was once called “Irish Democracy”—the silent, dogged resistance, withdrawal, and truculence of millions of ordinary people—than by revolutionary vanguards or rioting mobs.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-17-2017, 5:31 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 406
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edwardm View Post
Based on your last sentence, I want to explain further.

In the case of the new ammunition laws, the harm is clearly threatened and imminent, and would have a significant impact on the exercise of certain rights of a hypothetical individual plaintiff. The above words suggest an as-applied challenge, and that's my point - standing is a distinct and preliminary consideration. "As-applied" to Plaintiff A, the law prospectively, seriously, and imminently harms her right to purchase ammunition for self-defense as of 1/1/18. The law need not have started having an effect, so long as the harmful effects are imminent.

I am sorry, what is this hypothetical harm to your hypothetical plaintiff that is "clearly threatened and imminent"? Since your hypothetical plaintiff can still buy ammunition in California from a California licensed vendor, what impact, significant or otherwise, is there on the exercise of a right of self-defense? This is where the constitutional attack flounders, at least with respect to buyers. I would think manufacturers or third party wholesalers who can no longer ship and sell to individuals within the state would have a bigger claim under the interstate commerce clause.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-17-2017, 5:37 PM
edwardm's Avatar
edwardm edwardm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Tacoma!
Posts: 1,950
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
I am sorry, what is this hypothetical harm to your hypothetical plaintiff that is "clearly threatened and imminent"? Since your hypothetical plaintiff can still buy ammunition in California from a California licensed vendor, what impact, significant or otherwise, is there on the exercise of a right of self-defense? This is where the constitutional attack flounders, at least with respect to buyers. I would think manufacturers or third party wholesalers who can no longer ship and sell to individuals within the state would have a bigger claim under the interstate commerce clause.
I was discussing the merits of standing, making an argument about that. I was not arguing the merits of a non-existent lawsuit.

Your rock called - it would like you to go crawl back under it.
__________________
More regimes have been brought, piecemeal, to their knees by what was once called “Irish Democracy”—the silent, dogged resistance, withdrawal, and truculence of millions of ordinary people—than by revolutionary vanguards or rioting mobs.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-18-2017, 11:41 AM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 2,004
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by winxp_man View Post
From what I know is that there are some ideas I play for 1-1-18. Until it’s law it can’t be acted upon as unconstitutional or purchase injunction because it’s just that non existent. Now once it’s law real soon it can be sued.
This is incorrect.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-19-2017, 12:17 AM
squeeze squeeze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 454
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Good discussion re: law relating to ammo purchase by Jan 1st 2018. Here is the real world. Two days ago I tried purchasing ammo, over the phone, from Midway. They told me that they could not sell ammo to me because Prop 63 prevented it. Their competitor got my substantial ammo/gear purchase. I sure hope that for all of us peons, this gets clarified.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-19-2017, 6:19 PM
JLIUOD JLIUOD is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 6
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by squeeze View Post
Good discussion re: law relating to ammo purchase by Jan 1st 2018. Here is the real world. Two days ago I tried purchasing ammo, over the phone, from Midway. They told me that they could not sell ammo to me because Prop 63 prevented it. Their competitor got my substantial ammo/gear purchase. I sure hope that for all of us peons, this gets clarified.
I just received 2K rounds that I order a week ago from them.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-20-2017, 11:46 AM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 824
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by squeeze View Post
Good discussion re: law relating to ammo purchase by Jan 1st 2018. Here is the real world. Two days ago I tried purchasing ammo, over the phone, from Midway. They told me that they could not sell ammo to me because Prop 63 prevented it. Their competitor got my substantial ammo/gear purchase. I sure hope that for all of us peons, this gets clarified.
There is a certain amount of confusion on the part of out-of-state vendors regarding the law. Some have chosen to avoid the perceived liability all together and are not selling ammunition into the DPRK. Others are selling until mid-December, 2017.

Even if a lawsuit is filed and best case, an injunction issues, unless the injunction is upheld on appeal, don't expect Internet vendors to suddenly start selling into the DPRK. The risk is too high for them.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-20-2017, 2:28 PM
Hoooper Hoooper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 2,611
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by squeeze View Post
Good discussion re: law relating to ammo purchase by Jan 1st 2018. Here is the real world. Two days ago I tried purchasing ammo, over the phone, from Midway. They told me that they could not sell ammo to me because Prop 63 prevented it. Their competitor got my substantial ammo/gear purchase. I sure hope that for all of us peons, this gets clarified.
I didnt even realize it was possible to call midway. Their online ordering system is working fine for ammo purchases shipping to CA
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-20-2017, 2:47 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,837
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by squeeze View Post
Good discussion re: law relating to ammo purchase by Jan 1st 2018. Here is the real world. Two days ago I tried purchasing ammo, over the phone, from Midway. They told me that they could not sell ammo to me because Prop 63 prevented it. Their competitor got my substantial ammo/gear purchase. I sure hope that for all of us peons, this gets clarified.
Since you know that is not true, what did you do to raise their knowledge level?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-20-2017, 4:57 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 406
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edwardm View Post
I was discussing the merits of standing, making an argument about that. I was not arguing the merits of a non-existent lawsuit.

Your rock called - it would like you to go crawl back under it.
My my my, just toss out the ad hominems, why don't we. I WAS discussing the merits of standing--and the conclusion that a typical ammo buyer in California has no injury as is required to confer standing. Doh. Your village is calling....
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-20-2017, 10:24 PM
squeeze squeeze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 454
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
Since you know that is not true, what did you do to raise their knowledge level?
"Hoooper
I didnt even realize it was possible to call midway. Their online ordering system is working fine for ammo purchases shipping to CA"

I called a few day prior to placing my order just to check re: CA. I was told to call back and place my order over the phone (yes they have a phone ordering system. # is at the bottom of their page) when they could consult a supervisor.
I did not want to place a large, $1000+, on-line order of ammo and accessories only to have them tell me a few days later that it is a no-go. So I called and was told that prop 63 made it a no-go. I informed the sales lady that her supervisor was wrong. She was polite and apologetic. I also mentioned it in a "feed-back" e-mail. No response. Not much else I could do. I bought from Brownells. Both are good companies but Brownells came through.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-21-2017, 5:16 AM
pennstater's Avatar
pennstater pennstater is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Diamond Bar, Ca.
Posts: 1,924
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
There is a certain amount of confusion on the part of out-of-state vendors regarding the law. Some have chosen to avoid the perceived liability all together and are not selling ammunition into the DPRK. Others are selling until mid-December, 2017.

Even if a lawsuit is filed and best case, an injunction issues, unless the injunction is upheld on appeal, don't expect Internet vendors to suddenly start selling into the DPRK. The risk is too high for them.
There certainly is confusion among ammo vendors here in Ca. Locally, I've asked what will happen to three store manager's what their policy will be as of 1/1/2018. They do not know as yet, because the state[DOJ?] as NOT informed anyone yet. So, they are left hanging. Policy running at it's best. Geez!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-21-2017, 9:12 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 824
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pennstater View Post
There certainly is confusion among ammo vendors here in Ca. Locally, I've asked what will happen to three store manager's what their policy will be as of 1/1/2018. They do not know as yet, because the state[DOJ?] as NOT informed anyone yet. So, they are left hanging. Policy running at it's best. Geez!
It is going to be a complete clusterf*ck at the start of the year.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-26-2017, 12:21 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 824
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
I am sorry, what is this hypothetical harm to your hypothetical plaintiff that is "clearly threatened and imminent"? Since your hypothetical plaintiff can still buy ammunition in California from a California licensed vendor, what impact, significant or otherwise, is there on the exercise of a right of self-defense? This is where the constitutional attack flounders, at least with respect to buyers. I would think manufacturers or third party wholesalers who can no longer ship and sell to individuals within the state would have a bigger claim under the interstate commerce clause.
What about the poor sods who have to pay more for their ammunition purchases now that a significant competitive (downward) price pressure has been removed? When I am shooting my shotgun at little clay targets, I go through a flat at a time. After January 1st, there will be at least an increase in cost of shells on the order of $10 (which is the offset for the added paperwork for the seller). I suspect that the price of a flat of shells will increase an additional $10, what with the absence of Internet competition. You don't think that added expense would confer standing?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-26-2017, 12:53 PM
CenterX's Avatar
CenterX CenterX is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sleep North SFO Bay
Posts: 1,516
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by squeeze View Post
Good discussion re: law relating to ammo purchase by Jan 1st 2018. Here is the real world. Two days ago I tried purchasing ammo, over the phone, from Midway. They told me that they could not sell ammo to me because Prop 63 prevented it. Their competitor got my substantial ammo/gear purchase. I sure hope that for all of us peons, this gets clarified.

Odd -I just got an order on Friday, 24 Nov 2017.

An email reply from them said as of 1 Jan 2018, they will no longer sell/ship directly to the public: ammo, ammo components for reloading, and magazines. OUCH!
__________________

- Aut Pax Aut Bellum - Volunteer LDW
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-26-2017, 3:18 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,529
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

What system is this state going to use for ammo background checks?

Will it be a state run system or are they going to try and use NICS by the FEDS.

Won't the federal government have an issue a state using it's system only for ammo background checks and not for firearm background checks?

I seriously doubt this state has the instant check system even up and running let alone set up to even run.

Since Prop 63 won the mandate starts 1-1-18.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-26-2017, 3:23 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 824
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CenterX View Post
Odd -I just got an order on Friday, 24 Nov 2017.

An email reply from them said as of 1 Jan 2018, they will no longer sell/ship directly to the public: ammo, ammo components for reloading, and magazines. OUCH!
This is an example of an out-of-state vendor going extreme conservative. The law only prohibits ammo sales, but the vendor wants zero litigation exposure, so they are deciding to not do any ammunition-related business in CA that doesn't involve a FFL.

Avoiding sales of even 10-round magazines is definitely over the top, but it is what it is.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-26-2017, 3:50 PM
Tripper's Avatar
Tripper Tripper is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central Coast-Salinas
Posts: 7,755
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
I've always understood that there is a difference in standing depending upon whether the action challenges a statute as being invalid on its face or as applied to a specific case.

Hamilton enjoined AB962 based on a ruling of "facial" invalidation, not under the concept of "as applied". The appeals court described this in upholding the Hamilton decision(http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-...l/1648877.html)

The Parker (Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker), lawsuit alleged that the mandates in AB 962 were incomprehensible, and that the definition of "handgun ammunition" was unconstitutionally vague on its face. As a law enforcement officer, that gave Parker standing to challenge the statute prior to its operation on the basis that the law on its face would be un-enforceable."

Based on this, since the current ammo law appears to have resolved the previous unconstitutional language issues in AB 962, it would appear that legal action must be delayed until a suit can be filed based on the new statutes "as applied" to a specific individual(s). That can't happen until after 1/1/2018.

Can't it happen now, since it affects shipping to a person now, lots of vendors have varying deadlines for ordering ammo, saying they will not ship after xxx


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-26-2017, 4:57 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,837
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripper View Post
Can't it happen now, since it affects shipping to a person now, lots of vendors have varying deadlines for ordering ammo, saying they will not ship after xxx

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And, when all ordering functions are closed, then one might be able to make that argument. But I still wouldn't bet the case would be filed until after 1/1/2018, just to make sure any opportunity for counter-argument is closed.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-27-2017, 7:44 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 12,764
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

And we thought folks would obey cell phone laws here?

Good luck with this law with a thousand holes in it, called border crossings.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-27-2017, 4:49 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 406
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
What about the poor sods who have to pay more for their ammunition purchases now that a significant competitive (downward) price pressure has been removed? When I am shooting my shotgun at little clay targets, I go through a flat at a time. After January 1st, there will be at least an increase in cost of shells on the order of $10 (which is the offset for the added paperwork for the seller). I suspect that the price of a flat of shells will increase an additional $10, what with the absence of Internet competition. You don't think that added expense would confer standing?
Nope. TROs require "irreparable harm" if immediate relief is not granted. If the harm can be ameliorated with $, no irreparable harm. One can still exercise the right, there is no personal injury, no irreparable property damage. Hence, no standing to buyers. Sellers may have a case, as I said, but under the interstate commerce clause.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-27-2017, 4:53 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 406
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris View Post
What system is this state going to use for ammo background checks?

Will it be a state run system or are they going to try and use NICS by the FEDS.

Won't the federal government have an issue a state using it's system only for ammo background checks and not for firearm background checks?

I seriously doubt this state has the instant check system even up and running let alone set up to even run.

Since Prop 63 won the mandate starts 1-1-18.
The only check is against APPS. NICS is already overburdened with firearms checks; there is no way it will allow the system to be used to millions of annual purchases of ammo in California. Yes, I am pretty sure that 63 calls for a NICS check, but the SB only calls for APPS, which is all that happens after the license law goes into effect, as I recall. APPS is already in existence; all that is needed is an internet connection to the database.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-27-2017, 5:00 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 824
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Nope. TROs require "irreparable harm" if immediate relief is not granted. If the harm can be ameliorated with $, no irreparable harm. One can still exercise the right, there is no personal injury, no irreparable property damage. Hence, no standing to buyers. Sellers may have a case, as I said, but under the interstate commerce clause.
Who said anything about a TRO? I think the discussion has been about a preliminary injunction, which goes to the judge believing the applicant (usually the plaintiff) will ultimately succeed at trial. As regards standing, perhaps you should check the 7th amendment to the U.S. Constitution - all that is required is an injury on the order of at least $20. In my example of increased fees, the $20 threshold would be met after the first two purchases.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-27-2017, 6:48 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 31,898
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

2010, the preliminary injunction was not granted for AB962 because there was no harm until the law went into effect.
February 1, the case was heard and tossed as being "Unconstitutionally Vague"

However, at issue was the lack of a clear definition of "Handgun Ammunition"... that issue was "fixed" this time by including ALL ammunition.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just gov't will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just gov't. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-27-2017, 10:53 PM
notarycat notarycat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm wondering if the original post meant ammo purchases conducted physically out of state, not about online purchases. I know of many people that have flocked to NV, OR, AZ to purchase ammo by the trunk-load. My question, and perhaps that of the original post, is the legality of bringing ammo back to CA when it was physically purchased in another state. So, if I drive to OR to buy ammo, can I simply load it in the car and drive back home to CA without consequence?
__________________
Catherine, CA
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-28-2017, 5:34 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 758
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by notarycat View Post
I'm wondering if the original post meant ammo purchases conducted physically out of state, not about online purchases. I know of many people that have flocked to NV, OR, AZ to purchase ammo by the trunk-load. My question, and perhaps that of the original post, is the legality of bringing ammo back to CA when it was physically purchased in another state. So, if I drive to OR to buy ammo, can I simply load it in the car and drive back home to CA without consequence?
Starting next year, no, unless you have an 03FFL+COE.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:21 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.