• Ventura County Star Article on State Ammunition's Lawsuit

    Friday, August 06, 2010

    The Ventura County Star has released an article on State Ammunition's constitutional challenge of AB 962.  Here's an excerpt:

    Seven months before California’s new law regulating the sale of ammunition fully takes effect, a local ammunition business has taken the state to court with a constitutional challenge.

    State Ammunition Inc. in Ventura has filed a federal suit alleging the law violates the Commerce Clause by prohibiting ammunition sellers from making sales that aren’t face-to-face transactions.

    Read the article here.

  • OOIDA, NRA and CGF File Lawsuit

    Friday, July 30, 2010

    The following press release was sent out 7/29/2010 from the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association.  The complete filing can be read here.

    For Immediate Release:

    Redwood City, CA - The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) has joined with the Calguns Foundation, the National Rifle Association, the Folsom Shooting Club and two individual truckers to challenge California’s soon to be implemented ban on the interstate shipment of handgun ammunition to California.

    Last year, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 962 into law. Starting in February 2011, the law will criminalize the delivery and transfer of handgun ammunition not done in face-to-face transactions. The law requires shipping companies to implement procedures to determine whether the recipient of a package containing handgun ammunition is covered by one of the exceptions in the law before delivering handgun ammunition in California. This places a big burden on the shippers, and will make shipping ammunition to California much more difficult and likely more expensive.

    The new lawsuit, filed today in Sacramento’s Eastern District Federal Court, alleges that these provisions of the law violate the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, which prohibits states and local municipalities from interfering with carriers’ rates, routes, or services.

    “This isn’t about firearms or ammunition. Congress made an important decision to keep motor carriers free from a patchwork of burdensome regulation as we move America’s goods to market” said Jim Johnston, OOIDA President. “We cannot allow California to subject our members to criminal liability where the state has no right to meddle.”

    California depends on the efficient movement of goods by carrier into California. “California legislators have become accustomed to trampling the rights of California’s gun community. However, this time they’ve taken that recklessness into a field that will hurt every Californian. AB-962 will slow down everyone who orders goods online or buys goods at a retail store,” said Gene Hoffman, Chairman of The Calguns Foundation.

    In February 2008, a unanimous United States Supreme Court struck down Maine’s directly analogous law regarding the delivery of cigarettes to Maine in Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport. “It does not matter what the State’s goal is or how honorable they believe their cause is,” stated lead attorney, Jason Davis of Davis & Associates. “Rowe made it clear that a state cannot interfere with a carrier’s rates, routes, or services. AB962 does just that.”

    “At Sacramento Valley Shooting Center, we currently provide handgun ammunition sales to the public,” said Jim Bass, President of Folsom Shooting Club. “Should the shipping restrictions in AB-962 take effect, we have no way to prove to shippers that we are a handgun ammunition vendor under the law.”

    This case follows a Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenge entitled State Ammunition v. Lindley, and a California State Court Challenge to the vagueness and other requirements of AB-962 brought by the NRA-CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project.

    The delivery prohibitions of AB-962 take effect in February 2011; Plaintiffs in this case will be moving quickly to obtain an injunction before the shipping portions of the law takes effect.

    The case is filed as OOIDA et. al v. Lindley, U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. C.A. 2:10-at-01095. A copy of the complaint is available from http://bit.ly/OOIDA-CGF-NRA .

  • State Ammunition, Inc. Challenges AB 962

    Thursday, July 01, 2010

    State Ammunition, Inc. has raised a legal challenge to AB 962.  What follows is their press release on the subject:

     

    A legal challenge to California's online handgun ammunition sales ban and fingerprint purchasing requirement (AB962) was recently filed in federal court. A copy of the lawsuit is available at the following link:

    State Ammunition Lawsuit

    The legal action claims that AB962 violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution by banning handgun ammunition sales in anything other than a face-to-face transaction, and therefore eliminating the ability for California residents to buy ammunition from companies outside the state, as well as the ability for companies inside the state to sell to out-of-state residents. Plaintiffs also argue that AB962 violates Equal Protection and Due Process rights by criminalizing sales of handgun ammunition to various prohibited persons without defining handgun ammunition, and without giving people to ability to know who is actually a prohibited purchaser.

    The case follows a flurry of anti-gun legislation recently emerging from the Democrat controlled legislature in Sacramento, including AB50 (2004 ban on 50 caliber BMG rifles), AB1471 (2007 requirement for ballistic microstamping technology), SB585 (2009 attempted ban of gun shows at San Francisco Cow Palace), AB1934 (2009 ban of open carry of unloaded firearms in public), AB1810 (2010 attempt to require permanent registration of long guns), AB2223 (2010 attempt to expand the “lead free” Condor Zone banning the most common and most affordable types of ammunition), among numerous other gun relates laws and regulations.

    See the complete press release here: http://www.stateammunition.com/store/shopnews.asp?type=News

  • Understanding Section Numbers in AB 962's Text

    Tuesday, April 06, 2010

    We have received a few emails regarding what all the "numbers" in the text of AB962 mean. Throughout the language you'll encounter numbers which usually refer to items in the California Penal Code.  Here's an example.  AB 962 refers to section 12323 many times.  Section 12323 can be found in Chapter 2.6 of the California Penal Code which discusses ammunition.  Here's a link to that section of the CPC:

    CPC Chapter 2.6

    If you see a section number that is not contained in AB 962 you can use Google or some other search engine to locate the language being referred to. 

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. Next page