CRPA Foundation Files Legal Brief in Case to Block AB962

[bwiese]

From CRPA email blast, posted here to get everyone on the same page

Onward!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRPAF Files Legal Brief In Case to Block AB 962

11/11/10

On October 7, 2010, the CRPA Foundation filed its Reply brief in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction to block enforcement of AB 962 immediately while the case is litigated. The lawsuit alleges that AB 962 is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to provide sufficient notice of what ammunition is "principally for use in a handgun," and thus "handgun ammunition" that is regulated under AB 962. It is impossible to determine whether the thousands of different types of ammunition suitable for use in handgun are "principally for use in," or used more often in, a handgun.

The legislature was well aware of the vagueness problem with AB 962, and attempted - but failed - to fix it.

Parker v. California is funded exclusively by the NRA and the CRPA Foundation. The lawsuit seeks a court order to block enforcement of the law to prevent the face-to-face requirement from taking effect because ammunition shippers, sellers, and buyers must significantly alter their business practices and software infrastructure well before the February 1, 2011, effective date of the law. Many ammunition suppliers are ceasing shipments of virtually all ammunition to California because the law makes it so difficult to do business.

The DOJ has ludicrously claimed that there is no need for an injunction because DOJ will not enforce AB 962, even though DOJ has already advised retailers of the new laws' requirements. And DOJ cannot stop local police from enforcing AB 962.

The need for the court to issue an injunction in this case is even more crucial because DOJ has asked other courts to stay two separate challenges to AB962 filed in federal court (OOIDA v. Lindley and State Ammunition v. Lindley) while this case is litigated.

Despite Plaintiffs' confidence in the merits of this case, the NRA and CRPA have been litigating vagueness challenges to firearms laws for over 30 years. Courts generally do not overturn statutes on vagueness grounds - particularly firearms laws in California.

Although Plaintiffs' briefs provide ample support for granting Plaintiffs injunction request courts are often reluctant to grant preliminary injunctions before a case is resolved on the merits at trial, especially when asked to block the enforcement of state laws. Regardless of whether an injunction is granted, this lawsuit ultimately seeks a judicial declaration that AB962 is unconstitutional and unenforceable. Input from the Court on this injunction request should help Plaintiffs fashion their case going forward.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has also joined The Calguns Foundation in a separate lawsuit OOIDA v. Lindley, challenging AB 962's prohibition on internet and mail order purchases of "handgun ammunition."



In addition to fighting local gun bans, for decades the NRA has been litigating dozens of cases in California courts to promote the right to self-defense and the 2nd Amendment. In the post Heller and McDonald legal environment, NRA and CRPA Foundation have formed the NRA/CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project (LAP), a joint venture to fight proactively to strike down ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances and advance the rights of firearms owners, specifically in California.

Sometimes the chances of success are greater when LAP's litigation efforts are kept low profile, so the details of every lawsuit are not always released. But to see a partial list of the Legal Action Project's recent accomplishments, or to contribute to the NRA / CRPAF LAP and support this and similar Second Amendment cases, visit www.crpafoundation.org. All donations made to the CRPA Foundation will directly support litigation efforts to advance the rights of California gun owners.

Also, please register at www.calgunlaws.com and www.crpa.org to receive up to the minute updates on this and other California litigation efforts as it becomes available. CalGunLaws.com is produced by the law firm of Michel & Associates, P.C. as a pro bono effort to keep attorneys and interested firearm owners informed on the existing laws and latest legal developments in California. It includes a link to the highly effective www.calnra.com California legislative status and grassroots action page.


The California Rifle and Pistol Association "CRPA," founded in 1875, is dedicated to defending the rights of law-abiding citizens to responsibly use firearms for self-defense and the defense of their loved ones, for sport, and for all other legal activities. CRPA is the official state association of the National Rifle Association. A California non-profit association, CRPA is independently directed by its own Board of Directors. CRPA's members include law enforcement officers, prosecutors, professionals, firearm experts, the general public, and loving parents. CRPA has always worked to reduce the criminal misuse of firearms and firearms accidents, while actively promoting and organizing the competitive shooting sports and Olympic training programs in California. We are proud to say that many CRPA competitors are among the best in the world.


CRPA Homepage: http://www.crpa.org/

CRPA Foundation: http://www.crpa.org/_e/page/1532/0foundation.htm

[IGOTDIRT4U]

Glad you posted this as I got the alert on my BB but it won't open this time for some reason.

[spgripside]

Thanks for the update.

[jaymz]

Fantastic news! I imagine it will be "two weeks" before we know whether or not the injunction is granted.

[loather]

YES!

Stick it to them where it counts!

[hill billy]

I guess the detractors of the NRA who say they never do anything for Ca can sit down now.

[Purple K]

Hill Billy..... Well said

[Blackhawk556]

if they aren't going to enforce AB962, what does it matter to them if it's killed then?

they might not enforce it but ammo sellers from other states will not know that, like CTD

[Munk]

Ahh, I love these e-mail blasts. Once I finally get myself some Income, i'll be sending a bit to CGF, SAF, and CRPA.

if they aren't going to enforce AB962, what does it matter to them if it's killed then?

they might not enforce it but ammo sellers from other states will not know that, like CTD

I think you answered your own question. That, and DOJ can't stop a local LEO from enforcing it.

[oni.dori]

First off, thanks for the update post. I know that I, along with others have been wondering about the status of, and have a lot of questions about these litigations on our infringed rights.

However, I have one quick question. Let's say that all litigations are ruled in our favor and they say it is too vague as is, and is constitutionally unenforcable; would they just be able to ammend the law to specify/clarify what "pistol ammo" is, or would they have to go through the entire process all over again?

[FortCourageArmory]

First off, thanks for the update post. I know that I, along with others have been wondering about the status of, and have a lot of questions about these litigations on our infringed rights.

However, I have one quick question. Let's say that all litigations are ruled in our favor and they say it is too vague as is, and is constitutionally unenforcable; would they just be able to ammend the law to specify/clarify what "pistol ammo" is, or would they have to go through the entire process all over again?

My understanding is that the court cannot re-write the law to define what "handgun ammunition" is. It's not their job. They can only say if it is or is not constitutional. The legislature would have to take another whack at it to accomplish their purpose.

[Peter.Steele]

My understanding is that the court cannot re-write the law to define what "handgun ammunition" is. It's not their job. They can only say if it is or is not constitutional. The legislature would have to take another whack at it to accomplish their purpose.

I suspect that it would probably come across like the Harrot decision. If the state doesn't specify what it is, then how are we supposed to know? It's not the consumer's responsibility to know the details...

(Of course, that's just assuming that they don't kill the whole thing off from the start.)

[N6ATF]

Let's do the time warp again.