CA Ammo law - AB 962 - overturned in court 1/18/2011

[Jon_Snow]

In the long run, the state will either make a specific list of handgun ammo, or they will extend the law to cover ALL ammo. It won't seem like such a great victory if that happens.

The original bill would have restricted all ammo types and they couldn't get it passed. Then they tried again, when they tried to pass another piece of legislation that would extend AB 962 to all types of ammo, and that failed as well. This is the culmination of a lot of hard work and lobbying by the CRPA, NRA and other groups.

Interstate commerce seems like it would have been easier to pull off; as that is expressly the purview of congress.

My understanding is that a case was presented earlier along those lines and the court declined to hear it because the "issue isn't yet ripe", since it hadn't gone into effect yet.

 

[Librarian]

In the long run, the state will either make a specific list of handgun ammo, or they will extend the law to cover ALL ammo. It won't seem like such a great victory if that happens.

I'd like to see the law overturned on RKBA, interstate commerce, or some other permanent grounds.

At a guess, the Legislature will introduce bills along those lines.

Should they be pass and implemented, this lawsuit will likely be re-filed; it was dismissed, without prejudice, on 'ripeness'.

 

[spartan00054]

the court declined to hear it because the "issue isn't yet ripe", since it hadn't gone into effect yet.

What is all that nonsense? "Ripeness?" Please tell me you're kidding. Is that even a legal term? Don't these people realize that they are running a justice system, not an orchard? RKBA issues aside, the issue of a STATE overstepping its bounds and meddling in what is expressly FEDERAL territory was ripe when it was introduced in the Assembly. :banghead:

 

[spartan00054]

Librarian, I just clicked through on that link to the CGF foundation, and have reviewed the court documents. What became of the efforts to overturn the dismissal of the OOIDA case?

 

[mes227]

Interstate commerce seems like it would have been easier to pull off; as that is expressly the purview of congress. "Unconstitutionally vague rulings" are rare.

While interstate commerce is the sole purview of Congress, this didn't specifically ban interstate commerce. It banned all internet sales, including those from a California-based internet seller, and that makes it not about interstate commerce. A 2nd Amendment challenge might have a better chance than an Interstate Commerce one. Consider a gun collector like myself with a bunch of odd-ball calibers. Where am I supposed to buy 375 SuperMag rounds? If I can't buy ammo (or brass) I can't use my guns for their intended purpose.

The ruling will most likely be appealed and because "Unconstitutionally vague rulings" are indeed rare we should not necessarily expect the appellate court to uphold this ruling. Though "vague" does seem an appropriate finding since nowhere in law is handgun ammo defined.

 

[spartan00054]

It banned all internet sales, including those from a California-based internet seller, and that makes it not about interstate commerce.

Hold the phone. How does also banning a CA-based internet seller settle the issue of AB 962 interfering with the transport/trade of goods across state lines? The law doesn't technically ban internet sales, to the best of my understanding. It just bans someone from receiving ammunition via common carrier.

While I'd love to see this unpleasant piece of legislative trash squashed squarely beneath a 2A based challenge, I am not sure how that would play out in this perverse state. Right judge, right courtroom at the right time, maybe. I think we'd have a better shot calling 962 on the carpet for overstepping the State's jurisdiction in a Federal courtroom, where the judges tend to favor Federal powers.

 

[Librarian]

Librarian, I just clicked through on that link to the CGF foundation, and have reviewed the court documents. What became of the efforts to overturn the dismissal of the OOIDA case?

I think we'd have a better shot calling 962 on the carpet for overstepping the State's jurisdiction in a Federal courtroom, where the judges tend to favor Federal powers.

Calguns Foundation appears to want to re-file that one after the current legislature gets its 'at bat'; if the dismissal on 'ripeness' - Judge England wrote

Plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe for review. They cannot demonstrate
any current harm or a sufficiently immediate concern. No one can yet
anticipate how California’s bill will affect Plaintiffs and/or their
business. No case or controversy exists at this time. Therefore, Plaintiffs’
case is DISMISSED without prejudice, and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF
No. 11) is DENIED as moot.

is the way the Eastern District wants to see it, and I think they may be properly seeing the case this way - then refiling before a new law takes effect would again be dismissed.

 

[Zoogster]

What is all that nonsense? "Ripeness?" Please tell me you're kidding. Is that even a legal term? Don't these people realize that they are running a justice system, not an orchard?

What they court is essentially saying is that there is no standing because with the law stayed there is no current detrimental impact on anyone.
Being dismissed without prejudice means the plaintiff is free to file again if there is a detrimental impact at any future date. It is a way of saying the situation is unresolved with no definitive judgment because there is no longer a situation to resolve at this time.

This result is actually one of the better possible results because it is unlikely to simply be overturned leaving the restriction on citizens in place.
While if the judge had simply ruled in favor of the plaintiff that would have been a quite possible result in the near future.

Instead everyone will have to start over, including re-passing the law to begin with.
The negative is the associated legal costs of the RKBA side just to get back to the same point they already had reached in future legislation, but the positive is the lawmakers have to prioritize passing a new law and get one passed to restrict the freedoms of CA citizens.
There is always the chance they won't get to that, or won't in the near future.
So it is not a win that sets any precedent, or creates new protections against such legislation in the future, but is for now a win nonetheless.

Recent propositions passed in California however will insure the legislator is actually more anti-gun in the future, so the political landscape in future years for gun rights is quite likely to be worse than now.

 

[Librarian]

Just posted at Calguns:
January 24, 2011 - Today the Fresno Superior Court issued an Order of Permanent Injunction in the NRA - CRPA Foundation funded legal challenge to AB962, Parker v. California. The order permanently prevents the state and its agents from enforcing the provisions of AB962 (Penal Code sections 12060, 12061, and 12318). A copy of the Order is available here.

 

[spartan00054]

January 24, 2011 - Today the Fresno Superior Court issued an Order of Permanent Injunction in the NRA - CRPA Foundation funded legal challenge to AB962, Parker v. California. The order permanently prevents the state and its agents from enforcing the provisions of AB962 (Penal Code sections 12060, 12061, and 12318).

That's beautiful. Huzzah for the NRA, CRPA and everyone else who made this happen. I am proud to send you my dues.

I recently graduated with a degree in Political Science, so I am no stranger to the kind of mickey-mouse nonsense (trying really hard here to find THR-appropriate language) that goes on in the courtroom or at the Statehouse.

It still never fails to amaze/enrage me when it happens though. Maybe I'm still young and naive, but by God I intend to hold onto the idea that if we all looked eachother in the eye like men, made an effort to be forthright and direct about our intentions and actions and just generally shot straight, we'd all be much happier, live longer, and be able to spend more on ammo.

 

[cbrgator]

Realize that the court's ruling is likely to be appealed. This is a great first step but not the end of the line.

 

[George S.]

I would certainly bet that this will wind up in the 9th Circus Court in San Francisco. It's an excellent decision by the Fresno court, but it's not over yet. The anti-gun liberals will do whatever it takes to get this horrible excuse for a law to keep residents from freely buying the ammo they are entitled to have and from a source of their choosing.

 

[Librarian]

Actual order from the Fresno court now available here. (.pdf)

 

[rajb123]

Hoooooray!

...the politians are always trying to overstep their authority....Obamacare and the ammo ban are just two examples....