Arnold rolled over...here is the press release on AB 962....I guess that's the end of internet sales on ammo as well as some pretty severe restrictions on ammo sales...I posted this on "ammo" as well. Effective date Feb 2011...pending court challenges.
Before the midnight deadline Governor Schwarzenegger acted on 685 bills that were on his desk. He signed 456, and vetoed 229.
One of the bills that he signed was Assembly Bill 962. It would require handgun ammunition to be kept behind the counter where customers cannot access it without assistance. It would also require gun shop owners to thumbprint people who buy handgun ammunition, as well as record their identification and provide that information to police.
The Governor released a statement explaining why he signed this bill. "To the Members of the California State Assembly: I am signing Assembly Bill 962. This measure would require vendors of handgun ammunition to keep a log of information on handgun ammunition sales, store ammunition in a safe and secure manner, and require the face to-
face transfer of ammunition sales.
Although I have previously vetoed legislation similar to this measure, local governments have demonstrated that requiring ammunition vendors to keep records on ammunition sales improves public safety. These records have allowed law enforcement to arrest and prosecute persons who have no business possessing firearms and ammunition: gang members, violent parolees, second and third strikers, and even people previously serving time in state prison for murder. Utilized properly, this type of information is invaluable for keeping communities safe and preventing dangerous felons from committing crimes with firearms. Moreover, this type of record keeping is no more intrusive for law abiding citizens than similar laws governing pawnshops or the sale of cold medicine. Unfortunately, even the most successful
local program is flawed; without a statewide law, felons can easily skirt the record keeping requirements of one city by visiting another. Assembly Bill 962 will fix this problem by
mandating that all ammunition vendors in the state keep records on ammunition sales.
As Governor, I have sought the appropriate balance between public safety and the right to keep and bear arms. I have signed important public safety measures to regulate the sale and transfer of .50 caliber rifles, instituted the California Firearms License Check program, and promoted the use of microstamping technology in handguns. I have also vetoed many pieces of legislation that sought to place unreasonable restrictions and burdens on firearms dealers and ammunition vendors. Assembly Bill 962 reasonably regulates access to ammunition and improves public safety without placing undue burdens on consumers. For these reasons, I am pleased to sign this bill."
Arnold rolled over...here is the press release on AB 962....I guess that's the end of internet sales on ammo as well as some pretty severe restrictions on ammo sales...I posted this on "ammo" as well. Effective date Feb 2011...pending court challenges."
Sorry to here about that man....i hope they dont pull that BS in Oklahoma .....................You got two choices.........pray for the lawsuits or get the hell outa Cali............if it was me id haulass
"If only bad guys have guns, how can the good guys protect themselves."
Sorry to here about that man....i hope they dont pull that BS in Oklahoma .....................You got two choices.........pray for the lawsuits or get the hell outa Cali............if it was me id haulass
"If only bad guys have guns, how can the good guys protect themselves."
The rumors I have heard is that there is a lawsuit in the works. I understand you thinking that leaving is an option, but in my case this is where my business is. Moving would basically mean starting over, I am not ready to do that just yet, so I guess I’ll just have to stay and fight.
Ya this new law REALLY sticks up my a**, good thing im more of a rifle guy, but im still going to be restricted on my hand guns. plus this is just the beginning, they are just gonna keep going and going and won't give up till its allllll gone... and i agree with mi coll, SEIG HEIL
While the lawsuits are a good and understandable, the problem is they could take years, especially in a Liberal court. The good folks of California have been screwed royally by the Elitist idiots in the big cities, and have a lot of hard battles ahead of them.
There is a lawsuit in the works. The 50 round a month limit was amended out to try to appease the CRPA (didn't work, but thank god for small victories). The CalGuns Foundation in conjunction with the Second Amendment Foundation, California NRA, and CRPA are in the process of filing Federal Suit under the 1994 FAA Act that regulates common carriers.
Specifics below,
"The regulation of internet delivery of ammunition as drafted in AB-962 is preeempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994.
AB-962 Regulates The Routes and Services of Common Carriers
AB-962 creates a misdemeanor in a proposed Penal Code §12318 for not following the appropriate steps for “delivery . . .of handgun ammunition”. The bill goes on to state that deliveries may “only occur in a face-to-face transaction with the deliverer . . . being provided bona fide evidence of identity from the purchaser or other transferee.” However, the bill exempts law enforcement agencies, sworn police officers, ammunition manufacture/importers, “handgun ammunition vendors” as defined in the statute, and certain firearms collectors. As such, common carriers will now have to make modifications to their rates and services in an attempt to ascertain whether delivering a package marked ORM-D to any given address is allowed, or is punishable as a crime.
This requirement on a common carrier’s service is particularly difficult for carriers where a retail establishment meets the definition of a “handgun ammunition vendor” under the act but is not otherwise a Federal Firearms Licensee. These retailers are exempted from the non-delivery requirement but there is no documentation proving that such a recipient is exempt. Many “big box” retailers in California sell ammunition but do not sell firearms .
Even if an alternate narrower statutory construction is followed, on the face of the proposed law, common carriers would have to attempt to obtain evidence of identity to comply with proposed Penal Code §12318(a), which is clearly a state law that has a substantial impact on a carrier’s service.
Regulation of the Routes or Services of Common Carriers is Federally Preempted
Federal preemption of the routes, rates, or services of common motor carriers is found in 49 U. S. C. §14501(c)(1):
Quote:
(1) General rule. Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of 2 or more States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier (other than a carrier affiliated with a direct air carrier covered by section 41713 (b)(4)) or any motor private carrier, broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property.
Additional Federal preemption for common carriers was enacted in the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (“FAAAA”) and was codified in 49 U.S.C. § 41713:
Quote:
§ 41713. Preemption of authority over prices, routes, and service
(a) Definition. In this section, “State” means a State, the District of Columbia, and a territory or possession of the United States.
(b) Preemption.
(1) Except as provided in this subsection, a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of at least 2 States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier that may provide air transportation under this subpart.
…
(4) Transportation by air carrier or carrier affiliated with a direct air carrier.—
(A) General rule.— Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of 2 or more States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier or carrier affiliated with a direct air carrier through common controlling ownership when such carrier is transporting property by aircraft or by motor vehicle (whether or not such property has had or will have a prior or subsequent air movement). The Supreme Court Unanimously Ruled That Laws That Regulate Delivery By Common Carriers Are Preempted
In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that a Maine statute that placed limitations on the delivery of cigarettes was preempted by the FAAAA. That statute is very similar to the restrictions on delivery found in AB-962 .
In Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, 128 S. Ct. 989 (2008) the court found that a requirement for shippers to choose a special shipment method and that a carrier would be deemed to have knowledge that shipment had prohibited tobacco products in it were both preempted by Federal Law. Maine attempted to defend the regulation by claiming that there was a public health exception to the FAAAA. The court replied to that argument as follows:
Quote:
Maine’s inability to find significant support for some kind of “public health” exception is not surprising. “Public health” does not define itself. Many products create “public health” risks of differing kind and degree. To accept Maine’s justification in respect to a rule regulating services would legitimate rules regulating routes or rates for similar public health reasons. And to allow Maine directly to regulate carrier services would permit other States to do the same. Given the number of States through which carriers travel, the number of products, the variety of potential adverse public health effects, the many different kinds of regulatory rules potentially available, and the difficulty of finding a legal criterion for separating permissible from impermissible public-health-oriented regulations, Congress is unlikely to have intended an implicit general “public health” exception broad enough to cover even the shipments at issue here.
(Id. at 997.)
There is not an equivalent “public safety” exception to the FAAAA to allow AB-962 either.
AB-962, as written, is preempted by the FAAAA.
We have already done initial planning regarding plaintiffs and counsel for this case. We have time as the law does not take effect until February of 2011.
-Gene Hoffman"
For those of you who don't know, Gene Hoffman is the driving force behind the change of stupid gun laws here in California. He is a VERY smart cookie and also was the youngest CEO of a Fortune 500 company (Also youngest CEO of a company listed on the Nasdaq). We will prevail.
Barring all that, the California NRA is working on a bill, AB 343 for the next legislative session that will directly repeal AB 962. Utilizing the same rationale that the bill violates federal law. There are several avenues of attack. Please donate to the CGF to continue the fight today!
-Erik
__________________
"Safety? Is for gun to shoot, not for be on safety
Love
Ivan"
Sorry to here about that man....i hope they dont pull that BS in Oklahoma .....................You got two choices.........pray for the lawsuits or get the hell outa Cali............if it was me id haulass
