Mr. Fife Posted January 19, 2011 at 05:59 AM Share Posted January 19, 2011 at 05:59 AM In a dramatic ruling giving gun owners a win in an National Rifle Association / California Rifle and Pistol (CRPA) Foundation lawsuit, this morning Fresno Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton ruled that AB 962, the hotly contested statute that would have banned mail order ammunition sales and required all purchases of so called "handgun ammunition" to be registered, was unconstitutionally vague on its face. The Court enjoined enforcement of the statute, so mail order ammunition sales to California can continue unabated, and ammunition sales need not be registered under the law. The lawsuit was prompted in part by the many objections and questions raised by confused police, ammunition purchasers, and sellers about what ammunition is covered by the new laws created by AB 962. 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. Mendocino Sheriff Tom Allman also supported the lawsuit. The ruling comes just days before the portion of the law that bans mail order sales of so called "handgun ammunition" was set to take effect on February 1, 2011. The lawsuit, Parker v. California is funded exclusively by the NRA and the CRPA Foundation. If it had gone into effect, AB 962 would have imposed burdensome and ill conceived restrictions on the sales of ammunition. AB 962 required that "handgun ammunition" be stored out of the reach of customers, that ammunition vendors collect ammunition sales registration information and thumb-prints from purchasers, and conduct transactions face-to-face for all deliveries and transfers of "handgun ammunition." The lawsuit successfully sought the declaration from the Court that the statute was unconstitutional, and successfully sought the injunctive relief prohibiting law enforcement from enforcing the new laws. My link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Posted January 19, 2011 at 01:46 PM Share Posted January 19, 2011 at 01:46 PM That is great. I received an email over the weekend from an online ammo store stating they will no longer be shipping to California. I hope to see an email from them asap retracting the last email. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric2281 Posted January 19, 2011 at 02:09 PM Share Posted January 19, 2011 at 02:09 PM That is great. I received an email over the weekend from an online ammo store stating they will no longer be shipping to California. I hope to see an email from them asap retracting the last email. I noticed J&G Sales retracted thiers last night. Great news indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrat Posted January 19, 2011 at 03:27 PM Share Posted January 19, 2011 at 03:27 PM I just heard about this law recently, and it scared the bejeezus out of me. You know IL would be next if the court hadn't thrown this out. Thank heavens for common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyP Posted January 19, 2011 at 03:48 PM Share Posted January 19, 2011 at 03:48 PM Whaddya mean Illinois would be next? Try buying ammo online if you live in Chicago. lol Same goes for any proposals to ban hi-capacity magazines..... already in place here and I suspect many other ill-informed jurisdictions. And let's not even discuss the bans on any rifles/carbines or shotguns with those deadly, cop-killer, assault weapon of mass destruction pistol grips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted January 19, 2011 at 04:11 PM Share Posted January 19, 2011 at 04:11 PM Whaddya mean Illinois would be next? Try buying ammo online if you live in Chicago. lol Same goes for any proposals to ban hi-capacity magazines..... already in place here and I suspect many other ill-informed jurisdictions. Yep, and many FFLs won't ship to a C&R FFL (such as myself) located within the City. Having a downstate alternate shipping address helps me immensely, though some retailers won't ship to an alternate address. Chicago bans the transfer of ammunition within city limits, but whether this affects USPS or other shipping is nebulous. The carries is simply dropping the ammunition of on behalf of the transferor who is not located inside City limits. However, no sane businessman wants to take on that legal battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xwing Posted January 19, 2011 at 06:55 PM Share Posted January 19, 2011 at 06:55 PM Good to see a sane court ruling coming out of California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted January 19, 2011 at 07:38 PM Share Posted January 19, 2011 at 07:38 PM Remember that the statute was overturned on vagueness grounds, not 2A grounds. They could re-write the statute more clearly and get around this ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrat Posted January 19, 2011 at 08:30 PM Share Posted January 19, 2011 at 08:30 PM Remember that the statute was overturned on vagueness grounds, not 2A grounds. They could re-write the statute more clearly and get around this ruling. Hopefully they don't rewrite it the Chicago way:"Sales of handgun ammunition is prohibited..." Better not give them any ideas... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.