Cal Rifle Sues AB962
Cal Rifle Files Suit Against AB 962 112110
Photo from Backwoods Home Magazine
The NRA and California Rifle Pistol Association have backed a suit by Sheriff Clay Parker of Tahema County to stop the implementation of AB962. Parker v. California seeks to prevent the bill from implementation because the definitions are vague and put all ammo dealers at risk. Further, the bill, if allowed to become law by the courts, would constitute a “taking” by the state which is not supported by the California Constitution.
Touted as “anti-gang legislation” to confuse those on the fence about gun control in California, the bill does nothing to stop gang violence and actually creates a black market for ammunition, adding to crime.
The bill, if allowed to become law on 1 February, 2011, would:
1. Essentially drive small ammo dealers like our county’s hardware stores out of business. Each transaction for ammunition “used in handguns” would have to be recorded, including the right thumb print of the purchaser, all pertinent ID including address, ammunition type and amount, and so on. This creates a burden of record keeping and liability which will discourage small retailers from selling ammo at all.
2. Prevent California shooters from purchasing ammunition through the mail, prevent carriers from carrying handgun ammunition, prevent California ammo dealers from selling in other states, and considers magazines and speed loaders to be “ammunition.”
3. Could potentially make all ammunition subject to this ruling because nearly all rifle cartridges are chambered in handguns as well.
4. Potentially makes providing a friend or relative more than 1 box of .22 ammo a crime.
In sum, the bill does nothing to stop crime, but discourages law abiding Californians from purchasing ammunition in the state.
The Plaintiffs had sought an injunction preventing the law from being enforced until a full trial could take place, but in a compromise move, they have abandoned that injunction in favor of an early court date. It will be heard on January 18th, just days before the law would be in effect.
In addition to Parker v California, Common Carriers are suing complaining that the law is too vague and endangers carriers.
With any luck, none of AB962 will ever see enforcement.
Read AB 962 HERE
Photo from Backwoods Home Magazine
The NRA and California Rifle Pistol Association have backed a suit by Sheriff Clay Parker of Tahema County to stop the implementation of AB962. Parker v. California seeks to prevent the bill from implementation because the definitions are vague and put all ammo dealers at risk. Further, the bill, if allowed to become law by the courts, would constitute a “taking” by the state which is not supported by the California Constitution.
Touted as “anti-gang legislation” to confuse those on the fence about gun control in California, the bill does nothing to stop gang violence and actually creates a black market for ammunition, adding to crime.
The bill, if allowed to become law on 1 February, 2011, would:
1. Essentially drive small ammo dealers like our county’s hardware stores out of business. Each transaction for ammunition “used in handguns” would have to be recorded, including the right thumb print of the purchaser, all pertinent ID including address, ammunition type and amount, and so on. This creates a burden of record keeping and liability which will discourage small retailers from selling ammo at all.
2. Prevent California shooters from purchasing ammunition through the mail, prevent carriers from carrying handgun ammunition, prevent California ammo dealers from selling in other states, and considers magazines and speed loaders to be “ammunition.”
3. Could potentially make all ammunition subject to this ruling because nearly all rifle cartridges are chambered in handguns as well.
4. Potentially makes providing a friend or relative more than 1 box of .22 ammo a crime.
In sum, the bill does nothing to stop crime, but discourages law abiding Californians from purchasing ammunition in the state.
The Plaintiffs had sought an injunction preventing the law from being enforced until a full trial could take place, but in a compromise move, they have abandoned that injunction in favor of an early court date. It will be heard on January 18th, just days before the law would be in effect.
In addition to Parker v California, Common Carriers are suing complaining that the law is too vague and endangers carriers.
With any luck, none of AB962 will ever see enforcement.
Read AB 962 HERE
