Status of AB962 ?

[OneFunGuy]

Does anyone know the current status of the repeal effort concerning California AB-962?
This is the law that will take affect on July 1, 2011 in California. This new law bans Internet
ammunition sales and requires fingerprint and ID for local, (in store), sales of ammunition.

The last I heard was this.

The NRA brokered a deal with Assembleman Curt Hagman. He added language to his
bill, AB-373, which would have repealed AB-962. It took a lot of searching, but I found that
AB-373 died in commitee in February of 2010.

A related bill, AB2358 I understand has just died, (not sure how that all affects everything though).
AB2358 was ALSO a Kevin De Leon thing.

Is there a simple, to the point, status available somewhere?

This law really isn't going to take affect, is it?

[OleCuss]

There is no current and viable effort to repeal AB962. It is already law but the most onerous provisions don't kick in until February.

Since there are solid cases out there to kill AB962 based on Federal law, injunctive relief will almost certainly be granted and the further provisions will never be implemented.

[microwaveguy]

There is a sticky at the top with this

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=4554418&postcount=2

....... and no I won't yell at you for not using search

[the_quark]

He did specifically ask about "repeal" efforts, so I think he's asking in the legislature, which isn't covered in my FAQ.

I'm not 100% clear on the details, but I think AB2358 ended up being net hostile to us; it was supposed to "clean up" some stuff in AB962 but ended up doing ridiculous things like declaring .223 "handgun ammunition" and I believe was opposed by the NRA at the end of it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, it got kinda crazy.

Bottom line on this though is that the state constitution says that all normal business has to end by midnight on September 1. So, ever since that moment, the legislature can't pass new bills - so there won't be any opportunity to pass an AB962 fixing bill until next year, after it's due to go into effect.

Also, for those of you following along at home, there's going to be an emergency session to try to get a budget, again, but they're not supposed to pass anything else during it.

[OleCuss]

Unfortunately, it turns out that if the governor agrees, they actually can attach non-budgetary items to the budget. I doubt that will happen with the bills we're most interested in here - but you never know.

As a bit of humor? While AB2358 would have defined .223 ammunition as handgun ammo, it would also have left 9mm and 10mm ammo as non-handgun ammo for the purposes of the law since the final version defined .9mm and .10mm ammo as handgun ammo.

[the_quark]

Unfortunately, it turns out that if the governor agrees, they actually can attach non-budgetary items to the budget. I doubt that will happen with the bills we're most interested in here - but you never know.

Yeah, that's why I said "not supposed to"

As a bit of humor? While AB2358 would have defined .223 ammunition as handgun ammo, it would also have left 9mm and 10mm ammo as non-handgun ammo for the purposes of the law since the final version defined .9mm and .10mm ammo as handgun ammo.

Oh, man, that's great. Guess they were celebrating Proposition 19 a little early...

[dantodd]

I think I got bit by a .10mm mosquito the other day.

[the_quark]

They're trying to stop all those Science Fiction "needler" guns.

[GOEX FFF]

As a bit of humor? While AB2358 would have defined .223 ammunition as handgun ammo, it would also have left 9mm and 10mm ammo as non-handgun ammo for the purposes of the law since the final version defined .9mm and .10mm ammo as handgun ammo.

Don't forget to add to the "funny" when they tried to amend AB2358 once during the whole escapade to swing votes and struck out .223 but casually left in the same caliber 5.56x45mm and .22 Rimfire (even .22LR).

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2351-2400/ab_2358_bill_20100830_amended_sen_v95.html

The Munchkins of Oz would say it best -



.

[Window_Seat]

Latest:

Plaintiffs Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc., Erik Royce, Brandon Elias, Folsom Shooting Club, Inc., the Calguns Foundation, Inc., and National Rifle Association, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and defendants Steven Lindley, in his official capacity as Acting Chief of the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms, the State of California, and the
California Department of Justice (collectively, “Defendants”), through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree that, pursuant to Local Rule 144(a), the time in which Defendants may respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief be extended for 28 days to September 17, 2010.

So we have 9 days (and a wake up) to the response.

ETA:
Here is the thread discussion on this case:

CGF Lawsuit: OOIDA v. Lindley - AB-962 Unconstitutional

Also, see my signature line below; OOIDA v. Lindley, and...

Welcome to the forums!

Erik R.

[MadMax]

I thought there where some lawsuits in effect that would make ab962 not happen? Does this mean that we will have to live with the finger printing and no internet sales of handgun ammo crap until a new bill gets past overturning ab962? You guys are freakin me out

Just read the above quote thank god for calguns and hopefully everything goes as planned:-}

[the_quark]

There are no less than three lawsuits challenging AB962, one from CGF (OOIDA), one from Chaffin Law Office, and one from NRA & CRPA. I don't know details on the other two but, as is noted above, we should have their response soonish.

Their response should be pretty entertaining; there really isn't a lot of room for interpretation in the laws we're citing. We're not even bringing a 2nd Amendment case - we're pointing out that they're violating Federal laws regulating shippers in interstate commerce. So nice to be using the Interstate Commerce Clause for good for a change!

Obviously, I'd expect all of us to be filing for stays to keep the law from going into effect, as well. We still have plenty of time on this.

[Window_Seat]

There are no less than three lawsuits challenging AB962, one from CGF (OOIDA), one from Chaffin Law Office, and one from NRA & CRPA. I don't know details on the other two but, as is noted above, we should have their response soonish.

Their response should be pretty entertaining; there really isn't a lot of room for interpretation in the laws we're citing. We're not even bringing a 2nd Amendment case - we're pointing out that they're violating Federal laws regulating shippers in interstate commerce. So nice to be using the Interstate Commerce Clause for good for a change!

Obviously, I'd expect all of us to be filing for stays to keep the law from going into effect, as well. We still have plenty of time on this.

I was going to try to explain, but you did a much better job than I would have, so thanks!

Erik.

[the_quark]

I was going to try to explain, but you did a much better job than I would have, so thanks!

Kinda doubt that, but, just doin' my job.

[bandook]

There are no less than three lawsuits challenging AB962, one from CGF (OOIDA), one from Chaffin Law Office, and one from NRA & CRPA. I don't know details on the other two but, as is noted above, we should have their response soonish.

Their response should be pretty entertaining; there really isn't a lot of room for interpretation in the laws we're citing. We're not even bringing a 2nd Amendment case - we're pointing out that they're violating Federal laws regulating shippers in interstate commerce. So nice to be using the Interstate Commerce Clause for good for a change!

Obviously, I'd expect all of us to be filing for stays to keep the law from going into effect, as well. We still have plenty of time on this.

Question: Will this have any impact on 'No Ammo shipments to LA/SF/Oakland/Napa etc.' or are those people still SOL.