Tweet
NRA/CRPAF AB 962 LAWSUIT UPDATE: Parker v. CA MSJ & Trial Date Set
NRA / CRPA FOUNDATION FILES MOTION FOR AN INJUNCTION TO STOP AB 962
On June 17, 2010, the CRPA Foundation (funded by the NRA and CRPA) filed a lawsuit in Fresno Superior Court challenging the ammunition regulation statutes enacted by Assemblyman Kevin De Leon’s Assembly Bill (AB) 962 from the 2009 legislative session. The suit, Sheriff Clay Parker vs. State of California, challenges AB 962’s requirement that “handgun ammunition” be stored out of the reach of customers, its ammunition sales registration and fingerprinting requirements, and its prohibition on mail order and internet sales. The lawsuit primarily alleges that the mandates of AB 962 are incomprehensible, and that the law’s definition of “handgun ammunition” is unconstitutionally vague. A copy of the Complaint in Parker v. California can now be viewed at http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/...op-ab-962.html.
On September 7, 2010, the Foundation's lawyers at Michel & Associates, P.C. in Long Beach filed a motion and accompanying expert declarations seeking an injunction against the state to stop AB 962 from taking effect. Copies of the various documents filed are also available at www.calgunlaws.com. Registration is not necessary to view the documents, but as usual we would appreciate if those who visit the site would register to be kept up to date on the NRA / CRPAF Legal Action Project's California litigation efforts.
The lawsuit was prompted in part by the many objections and questions raised by confused police, ammunition purchasers, and sellers about what ammunition types are covered by the new laws that AB 962 created. In a highly unusual move that reflects growing law enforcement opposition to ineffective gun control laws, Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Other plaintiffs include the CRPA Foundation, Herb Bauer Sporting Goods, ammunition shipper Able’s Ammo, collectible ammunition shipper RTG Sporting Collectibles, and individual Steven Stonecipher.
Although the lawsuit was still being prepared and fine-tuned to maximize its potential for success just a few months ago, lawyers for the CRPA Foundation at Michel & Associates, P.C. in Long Beach were forced to rush to file the suit when a separate lawsuit was filed on June 4, 2010 by other parties (against the urging of counsel) that attempted to make similar claims. Regrettably, that case appears to have defects that will likely invite a motion to dismiss from the DOJ’s lawyers. The CRPA Foundation continues to welcome, and in fact encourages, requests for litigation assistance directed to its lawyers at Michel & Associates, P.C. from attorneys interested in pursuing firearms related litigation so that mistakes can be avoided and legal efforts can be efficiently coordinated in a manner that best serves the interests of all California gun owners.
The injunction request in the CRPA Foundation lawsuit marks the first activity in this case since Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint on August 2, 2010. DOJ lawyers representing the State of California did not feel they had grounds to file a Demurrer (the state court equivalent of a federal Motion to Dismiss at the pleadings stage). But the case was temporarily stalled as the legislature scrambled in a frantic but futile attempt to moot the lawsuit by amending Assembly Bill 2358 to include a list of ammunition calibers that would be considered “handgun ammunition.” Although that legislation was plagued with similar legal problems which would have been challenged in this lawsuit regardless, the plaintiffs’ attorneys tracked this legislation prior to filing for an injunction because the legal arguments would have changed somewhat had AB 2358 passed. Once AB 2358 failed to be enacted, Plaintiffs’ lawyers wasted no time and immediately filed for injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys subsequently worked with the Court and opposing counsel at the DOJ to negotiate an adjusted briefing schedule for this important motion. The hearing on the injunction request is currently set for October 28, 2010.
A third and separate lawsuit has also been filed by the Calguns Foundation, the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (the largest trucker's trade association), the Folsom Shooting Club, and two individual truckers in a lawsuit challenging California's soon-to-be-implemented law banning most shipments of handgun ammunition into California. The case is OOIDA v. Lindley. A copy of the Complaint and related pleadings in that suit are also available at www.calgunlaws.com.
OOIDA v. Lindley, filed in Sacramento's United States District Court, Eastern District of California, alleges that the ammo shipment ban portion of AB 962 is similarly burdensome and preempted by federal law regulating interstate carriers. Plaintiffs will soon be seeking an injunction to block the shipping portions of the law from taking effect. CRPA Foundation has pledged amicus support to the OOIDA suit.
The CRPA Foundation works jointly with the Nation Rifle Association (NRA) to bring strategic litigation to advance the rights of firearms owners in California. NRA and CRPA Foundation’s involvement in both of these lawsuits is part of a California litigation strategy being implemented by the NRA and CRPA Foundation through their proactive Legal Action Project (LAP). LAP is a joint venture between the NRA and CRPA Foundation to advance the rights of firearms owners in California. Through LAP, NRA/CRPA attorneys fight against ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances, and educate state and local officials about available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
To see a partial list of the Legal Action Project's recent lawsuits and accomplishments, visit www.crpafoundation.org. To contribute to the NRA/CRPAF Legal Action Project, visit www.nraila.org or www.crpafoundation.org. And please register at www.calgunlaws.com and www.crpa.org to receive up to the minute updates on this and other California litigation as it becomes available.
On June 17, 2010, the CRPA Foundation (funded by the NRA and CRPA) filed a lawsuit in Fresno Superior Court challenging the ammunition regulation statutes enacted by Assemblyman Kevin De Leon’s Assembly Bill (AB) 962 from the 2009 legislative session. The suit, Sheriff Clay Parker vs. State of California, challenges AB 962’s requirement that “handgun ammunition” be stored out of the reach of customers, its ammunition sales registration and fingerprinting requirements, and its prohibition on mail order and internet sales. The lawsuit primarily alleges that the mandates of AB 962 are incomprehensible, and that the law’s definition of “handgun ammunition” is unconstitutionally vague. A copy of the Complaint in Parker v. California can now be viewed at http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/...op-ab-962.html.
On September 7, 2010, the Foundation's lawyers at Michel & Associates, P.C. in Long Beach filed a motion and accompanying expert declarations seeking an injunction against the state to stop AB 962 from taking effect. Copies of the various documents filed are also available at www.calgunlaws.com. Registration is not necessary to view the documents, but as usual we would appreciate if those who visit the site would register to be kept up to date on the NRA / CRPAF Legal Action Project's California litigation efforts.
The lawsuit was prompted in part by the many objections and questions raised by confused police, ammunition purchasers, and sellers about what ammunition types are covered by the new laws that AB 962 created. In a highly unusual move that reflects growing law enforcement opposition to ineffective gun control laws, Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Other plaintiffs include the CRPA Foundation, Herb Bauer Sporting Goods, ammunition shipper Able’s Ammo, collectible ammunition shipper RTG Sporting Collectibles, and individual Steven Stonecipher.
Although the lawsuit was still being prepared and fine-tuned to maximize its potential for success just a few months ago, lawyers for the CRPA Foundation at Michel & Associates, P.C. in Long Beach were forced to rush to file the suit when a separate lawsuit was filed on June 4, 2010 by other parties (against the urging of counsel) that attempted to make similar claims. Regrettably, that case appears to have defects that will likely invite a motion to dismiss from the DOJ’s lawyers. The CRPA Foundation continues to welcome, and in fact encourages, requests for litigation assistance directed to its lawyers at Michel & Associates, P.C. from attorneys interested in pursuing firearms related litigation so that mistakes can be avoided and legal efforts can be efficiently coordinated in a manner that best serves the interests of all California gun owners.
The injunction request in the CRPA Foundation lawsuit marks the first activity in this case since Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint on August 2, 2010. DOJ lawyers representing the State of California did not feel they had grounds to file a Demurrer (the state court equivalent of a federal Motion to Dismiss at the pleadings stage). But the case was temporarily stalled as the legislature scrambled in a frantic but futile attempt to moot the lawsuit by amending Assembly Bill 2358 to include a list of ammunition calibers that would be considered “handgun ammunition.” Although that legislation was plagued with similar legal problems which would have been challenged in this lawsuit regardless, the plaintiffs’ attorneys tracked this legislation prior to filing for an injunction because the legal arguments would have changed somewhat had AB 2358 passed. Once AB 2358 failed to be enacted, Plaintiffs’ lawyers wasted no time and immediately filed for injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys subsequently worked with the Court and opposing counsel at the DOJ to negotiate an adjusted briefing schedule for this important motion. The hearing on the injunction request is currently set for October 28, 2010.
A third and separate lawsuit has also been filed by the Calguns Foundation, the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (the largest trucker's trade association), the Folsom Shooting Club, and two individual truckers in a lawsuit challenging California's soon-to-be-implemented law banning most shipments of handgun ammunition into California. The case is OOIDA v. Lindley. A copy of the Complaint and related pleadings in that suit are also available at www.calgunlaws.com.
OOIDA v. Lindley, filed in Sacramento's United States District Court, Eastern District of California, alleges that the ammo shipment ban portion of AB 962 is similarly burdensome and preempted by federal law regulating interstate carriers. Plaintiffs will soon be seeking an injunction to block the shipping portions of the law from taking effect. CRPA Foundation has pledged amicus support to the OOIDA suit.
The CRPA Foundation works jointly with the Nation Rifle Association (NRA) to bring strategic litigation to advance the rights of firearms owners in California. NRA and CRPA Foundation’s involvement in both of these lawsuits is part of a California litigation strategy being implemented by the NRA and CRPA Foundation through their proactive Legal Action Project (LAP). LAP is a joint venture between the NRA and CRPA Foundation to advance the rights of firearms owners in California. Through LAP, NRA/CRPA attorneys fight against ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances, and educate state and local officials about available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
To see a partial list of the Legal Action Project's recent lawsuits and accomplishments, visit www.crpafoundation.org. To contribute to the NRA/CRPAF Legal Action Project, visit www.nraila.org or www.crpafoundation.org. And please register at www.calgunlaws.com and www.crpa.org to receive up to the minute updates on this and other California litigation as it becomes available.
Comment