California Court Rules Ammunition Ban AB962 Unconstitutional

This is a discussion on California Court Rules Ammunition Ban AB962 Unconstitutional within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=6086 I didn't see this posted anywhere else, so I thought I would post it. I'm sure Cheaper Than Dirt isn't lying since they ship ...

Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: California Court Rules Ammunition Ban AB962 Unconstitutional

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member
    Array skysoldier29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Miami Florida / Michigan
    Posts
    1,240

    California Court Rules Ammunition Ban AB962 Unconstitutional

    http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=6086

    I didn't see this posted anywhere else, so I thought I would post it. I'm sure Cheaper Than Dirt isn't lying since they ship ammo to Cali.
    "Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!" - Marvin the Martian

    Sig Sauer P250 2Sum 9mm, P250c 9mm - Glock 23 - Springfield Armory Loaded .45, XD Service 9mm - Ruger LCP, LCR, Smith & Wesson 638

    NRA Member

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    7,929
    I am glad to hear that. Sometimes common sense prevails.

  4. #3
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,168
    Though happy enough for the ruling going the way it did, I am puzzled by the reasoning.

    "The lawsuit alleged, and the Court agreed, that AB 962 is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it fails to provide sufficient legal notice of what ammunition cartridges are “principally for use in a handgun,” and thus is considered “handgun ammunition”

    I think we here all pretty well know what cartridges are principally for use in a handgun. Sure, now and again someone gets a Henry in .357, but .357 is principally a handgun cartridge. I like the results, but I sure don't understand the reasoning behind it.

    Again, for illustration, and maybe this is more vague, is 22 Magnum principally for use in rifles or handguns? That gets a tad tricky, though I think most folks here would say rifles-with NAA revolvers being the exception.

    Good result, but weird reasoning to my mind or I'm missing something and someone will surely point that part out to me.

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array Hiram25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wyoming, DE
    Posts
    10,791
    Law of averages finally caught up with California, nobody is perfect, they are bound to get one right once and awhile.
    Hiram25
    You can educate ignorance, you can't fix stupid
    Retired DE Trooper, SA XD40 SC, S&W 2" Airweight
    dukalmighty & Pure Kustom Black Ops Pro "Trooper" Holsters, DE CCDW and LEOSA Permits, Vietnam Vet 68-69 Pleiku

  6. #5
    Member Array socal2310's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Camarillo, CA
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Though happy enough for the ruling going the way it did, I am puzzled by the reasoning.

    "The lawsuit alleged, and the Court agreed, that AB 962 is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it fails to provide sufficient legal notice of what ammunition cartridges are “principally for use in a handgun,” and thus is considered “handgun ammunition”

    I think we here all pretty well know what cartridges are principally for use in a handgun. Sure, now and again someone gets a Henry in .357, but .357 is principally a handgun cartridge. I like the results, but I sure don't understand the reasoning behind it.

    Again, for illustration, and maybe this is more vague, is 22 Magnum principally for use in rifles or handguns? That gets a tad tricky, though I think most folks here would say rifles-with NAA revolvers being the exception.

    Good result, but weird reasoning to my mind or I'm missing something and someone will surely point that part out to me.

    It's unconstitutional precisely because of the difficult cases you mention in addition to some other problems such as: What does "principally" mean? 50.1%, 60%? Who's intention, the ammunition manufacturers, firearm manufacturers, end users? Assuming a benchmark for "principally" is set, and one of the preceding groups is selected for term of "intentions," how would you measure that? Plaintiffs were also able to point out that several online sellers such as Cheaper Than Dirt, Midway USA and Ammoman among others decided to simply withhold sales to California for all ammunition orders pending clarification by the California AG (our new AG is horribly anti-gun and would most likely refuse to issue an opinion until she had to: namely when a prosecution for violation occurred - never. No one was going to sign up to be a test case).

    It ought to be noted that DeLeon (AB 962's author) drafted a bill in 2010 to clarify what calibers were covered. This was defeated thanks to the efforts of the NRA and CRPA for the purpose of keeping the bill unconstitutionally vague. Now with the higher profile the legislation has achieved after this near miss, it is unlikely to be passed again (a shocking number of California gun owners over the age of 40 only learned about the bill when sellers sent cessation notifications in the last couple of months). If it were passed again, our new/old Democratic governor Jerry Brown would likely veto it - I love the irony of that one: he's more pro-gun than his challenger or our ex RINO was).

    Ryan
    Those who will not govern their own behavior are slaves waiting for a master; one will surely find them.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. San Diego Court Rules Against Concealed Carry - NRA to Appeal to 9th Circuit Court
    By LanceORYGUN in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: January 6th, 2011, 11:44 PM
  2. Va. Judge rules New Healthcare law unconstitutional...surely headed for SCOTUS
    By jwhite75 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: December 16th, 2010, 05:32 PM
  3. Judge rules Wisconsin concealed carry ban unconstitutional
    By MoResident in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: November 19th, 2010, 12:21 AM
  4. Lawsuit to Overturn California AB962 Filed – StateAmmo.com et al vs. State of CA DOJ
    By MosinMan42 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 9th, 2010, 10:59 PM
  5. Stolen Valor Act Found Unconstitutional by Colorado District Court Judge
    By msgt/ret in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: August 9th, 2010, 12:37 PM

Search tags for this page

ca ab 962 unconstitutional appellate court
,
california ab 962 overturned
,

glock 27 is it ca legal

,
isn't new jersey's ammunition ban in violation of 2010 leosa
,
scotus, ammunition, part of gun
Click on a term to search for related topics.