UPDATE 8/15:Parker v CA (NRA Lawsuit Overturning AB962) CA Supreme Court Briefs Filed

[CCWFacts]

The Armi Jager AP-74 fires the 32 ACP. Armi was an Italian company that made semi-auto replicas of military weapons that fired rimfire and small caliber centerfire rounds. The AP-74 was the M-16 replica.

Amazing. Well, there's one, but I think you could still say that 32acp and 25acp are clearly pistol ammo.

Still, this law is stupid and I'm glad the court tossed it for being vague. Criminal laws shouldn't be so open to interpretation where people need to go looking for obscure Italian rifles to figure out what it means.

[IVC]

CGN: the new playboy magazine for guns where only the pictures get looked at. LOL

That's funny, just please drop the "LOL" - makes you look like FGG.

[IVC]

It's good to see AB 962 moving through the court system. This is just in time, as there are already bills to require background checks for ammunition purchases, which will have to be combined with the ban on Internet sales.

The second part of the attack on AB 962, which ended up not being required due to the main argument of "vagueness" being sufficient, is what we might be testing in courts next.

Fingers crossed, and thank you to M&A.

[CMonfort]

The State filed its reply brief yesterday asking the CA Supreme Court to review the Appellate Court's published decision striking down AB 962 and requiring heightened levels of clarity for gun/ammo regulations to withstand vagueness challenges:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Parker-v.-California_Reply-In-Support-of-Petition-for-Review.pdf

[CMonfort]

Update

The California Supreme Court has granted the State's Petition for Review. Briefing will occur over the next few months and oral arguments should take place later this year.

I will post links to all briefs when they are filed.

It would have been nice to have this opinion stand at the Court of Appeal (and our work be done on this case), but this does provide the opportunity for a stronger ruling from the California Supreme Court. Should the Court reverse for any reason, there are decent odds that SCOTUS may consider this case given the unsettled state of the vagueness doctrine and Scalia's previously stated desire to revisit the issue. (Not to mention the novel 2A / Vagueness SOR component, i.e. laws regulating the Second Amendment must provide heightened levels of clarity).

This also means the litigation will continue, which was the reason De Leon's fix-it legislation was vetoed a couple of years ago.

Onward and upward we go.

[jrr]

Holee-fuuc. Well, this just got interesting. This last couple weeks has been a nail biter for sure! Well, lets hope we get the Harrot v Kings County type of court and not the Kasler one.

Good luck, and go get em'!

[M. D. Van Norman]

Thanks for the update, Clint. I think we can all agree how important it is that we hold the line on this issue.

[CAL.BAR]

The California Supreme Court has granted the State's Petition for Review. Briefing will occur over the next few months and oral arguments should take place later this year.

I will post links to all briefs when they are filed.

It would have been nice to have this opinion stand at the Court of Appeal (and our work be done on this case), but this does provide the opportunity for a stronger ruling from the California Supreme Court. Should the Court reverse for any reason, there are decent odds that SCOTUS may consider this case given the unsettled state of the vagueness doctrine and Scalia's previously stated desire to revisit the issue. (Not to mention the novel 2A / Vagueness SOR component, i.e. laws regulating the Second Amendment must provide heightened levels of clarity).

This also means the litigation will continue, which was the reason De Leon's fix-it legislation was vetoed a couple of years ago.

Onward and upward we go.

Let's be specific here Chuck, as I see it, the importance of this case is NOT the vagueness as applied to the "dual use" nature of rifle/pistol ammunition as De Leon has last year and again this year introduced new legislation that will obviate the issue entirely by including restrictions and ALL ammunition. Thus making the distinction irrelevant. However, deciding the standard to be applied for vagueness [I]is[I] important for future legal challenges (i.e. AW legislation) and does appear to be the long range goal, no?

[nrandell]

Isn't this law preempted by the FAAAA anyway?

[Gray Peterson]

Let's be specific here Chuck, as I see it, the importance of this case is NOT the vagueness as applied to the "dual use" nature of rifle/pistol ammunition as De Leon has last year and again this year introduced new legislation that will obviate the issue entirely by including restrictions and ALL ammunition. Thus making the distinction irrelevant. However, deciding the standard to be applied for vagueness [I]is[I] important for future legal challenges (i.e. AW legislation) and does appear to be the long range goal, no?

This is Clint, not Chuck.

[CMonfort]

UPDATE 8/15:Parker v CA (NRA Lawsuit Overturning AB962) CA Supreme Court Briefs Filed

Update 8/15/14:

This is the latest update in the NRA/CRPAF case that overturned AB 962, which would have mandated thumb printing and registration, and banned online sales of "handgun ammunition" as vaguely defined by the statutes. The statutes were held unconstitutionally vague and permanently enjoined by the trial court and again by the CA Court of Appeal. In addition to striking down AB 962 on its face, this case is significant and has larger big picture implications. Specifically, the decision by the California Court of Appeals was the first opinion in the nation to recognize that laws that regulate Second Amendment conduct must provide heightened levels of clarity to prevent them from being stricken as unconstitutionally vague, irrespective of whether the laws actually violate the Second Amendment.

Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and briefing is now in progress.

The state filed it's opening brief on May 6.

Our office filed Respondents' Brief on Monday, August 18.

All filings to date in the case can be viewed here.

The State's Reply brief is due next month.

Oral arguments are expected to take place in late 2014 or early 2015.

-Clint

[Noble Cause]

Everyone who is hip to these things knows the founders listed them in order of
importance, so of course free speech will always be more important than the
ability to protect it, duh. That's why #3 "quartering of troops" issue ranks
above the remaining rights, it's obviously more important than them, sheesh....

So you're saying in future versions they might be able to "Un-Stupid" this ?

The amount of verbiage required in legalese to simple say:

"This is idiotic, and even an expert couldn't figure this out,
much less an average person or police officer."

is obviously necessary, but nonetheless astonishing to a layperson
such as myself.

I'm getting really tired of this "death by a thousand cuts" laws these little
Chicken-Sh@ts politicians keep regurgitating...

If you write a law that is determined by the courts to be unconstitutional,
you should not be allowed to write any further laws for the next couple of
sessions or end of your term, if applicable.

If you do it a second time, you may not write anymore laws, period,
and you may not hold any elected public office for at least ten years...

Anyway that's my political fantasy musings for this month...


Noble

[OleCuss]

The update is much appreciated. I'm looking forward to an epic win!

[smallshot13]

In the end, it does not matter since SB 53 will moot this case, changing the ban from handgun ammo to all ammo.

[IVC]

"Handgun ammo" was just the beginning of the case. There was a whole other line of attack using truckers...

I would expect that a case against SB 53 would be both granted a preliminary injunction *and* a stay pending resolution of AB 962.