Lawsuit to Overturn California AB962 Filed – State Ammunition Inc.

[MosinMan]

Lawsuit to Overturn California AB962 Filed – State Ammunition Inc. ( http://www.stateammo.com ) et al vs. State of California DOJ


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:

https://www.stateammunition.com/store/shopnews.asp?type=News

The lawsuit was filed by the Chaffin Law Office ( http://chaffinlaw.com )of Ventura, California, on behalf of three Plaintiffs including State Ammunition Inc., a California company selling ammunition online at http://www.stateammo.com, as well as individuals Jim Otten and Jim Russell, both retired members of the United States Marine Corps. Jim Otten, a Minnesota resident, is the owner of http://www.a1ammo.com, a company outside California claiming that as a result of AB962, it will no longer be able to sell to California residents and Jim Russell, a retired Marine Corps Major and a Shooting Sports Director for the Paralyzed Veterans Association of America, who claims that as a result of AB962, he will be unable to purchase bulk handgun ammunition online which he uses to help disabled veterans with rehabilitative organized shooting activities.

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 anti-gun 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.

 

[Len-2A Training]

This is a perfect duplicate of the situation in MA, except it's by interpretation of the AG.

Should be interesting.

If it gets overturned in CA, I'm sure that the MA AG will ignore it, but a case in Fed Court in MA would probably side with the AG and thus might get bumped to USSC due to 2 circuits at odds on the same facts.

So maybe in 4-5 years the ban on mail-order in MA could be lifted.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Two more lawsuits have been filed challenging AB962.

OOIDA v. Lindley filed yesterday claims that AB962 is preempted by the FAAAA and Supremacy Clause - a claim backed up by a recent 9-0 SCOTUS ruling. This case is supported by the CalGuns Foundation and the NRA.

The other case is not yet publicity available, but the lead plaintiff is the Sheriff of Tehama County California. This case is supported by the NRA and the CRPA.

Although these three suits represent three separate, independent actions, they are in fact well coordinated actions that will keep this law from going into effect and cost a cash strapped CA a bundle in legal fees to our side.