BREAKING NEWS: California Court Rules Ammunition Ban AB962 Unconstitutional

Source: Cheaper Than Dirt

"In a dramatic ruling giving gun owners a win in an National Rifle Association / California Rifle and Pistol (CRPA) Foundation lawsuit, this morning Fresno Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton ruled that AB 962, the hotly contested statute that would have banned mail order ammunition sales and required all purchases of so called “handgun ammunition” to be registered, was unconstitutionally vague on its face. The Court enjoined enforcement of the statute, so mail order ammunition sales to California can continue unabated, and ammunition sales need not be registered under the law."

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

---

Glad to see that ammunition will not be restricted this way in California.

While it is good news, it is a delay and little more.

I think he's going to be hesitant to sign any bill that would make the problem worse, as this one clearly would.

And done additional harm to the economy by driving sales out of the state.

In addition to the thumbprint and ID requirements, it would have limited sales of handgun ammunition to 50 rounds per day per person. That would have made it difficult for people to obtain sufficient amounts of it for target practice.

I have taught basic firearm safety and shooting skills to more than 100 people. When I take newbie shooters out, I typically go through several hundred rounds of handgun ammunition.

This was a bad law, and I'm glad it has been quashed.

Just try to break in a new pistol w/that amount, LOL.

A good firearm typically has to "wear in" before it really works right.

:hi:

The issue is a law that was unconstitutionally vague.

provide a measure of self-protection against violent attack. Guns don't "make" anyone into anything.

however, guns really do kill more people than they save.

you believe in the gun myth. it's not a point in your favor.

Pick a source and let us all know why you don't believe they are real since the FBI/DoJ do or how many you think there are.

800,000 a year is probably the most conservative estimate, but I'm sure you won't want to accept official US Government sources when the Brady center is right there to make shit up.

In the meantime around 80 million+ plus of us will continue to labor under our collective illusion.

http://www.gunthorp.com/private_firearms_stop_crime.htm

But some just refuse to have their world shaken up around them so they just don't look.

you are better off not allowing that dangerous thing into your midst or house and getting the hell out if someone's trying to get in.

~18,000 suicides by firearm (CDC's wisqars -- 2007 #s)
~18,000 non-fatal injuries by firearm (CDC's wisqars -- 2009 #s)

That's ~436,000 .. still outweighed by even the most conservative count of defensive uses of firearms.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html -- select 'intentional', 'by firearm'
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html -- select 'unintentional', 'by firearm'
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/guncrimetab.cfm

http://www.gunthorp.com/private_firearms_stop_crime.htm

That's a peer reviewed 2.5 MILLION times per year Americans use guns in self defense.

Meaning its methods were acceptable even if you disagreed with the conclusion.

believe valid. Ha Ha Ha! I LOVE the way this can be turned around.

What makes it even better is that the Constitution is on MY side. LMAO!!! Have fun now.

but if you are unwilling to do likewise with me (which is why i asked you), then there's no point in discussing it.

and that it's in the constitution doesn't make it good or bad. slavery was once part of the constitution.

so it can be said that the constitution was on the side of slaveowners. which means that it's not always something to brag about.

maybe we can discuss other issues unrelated to guns. what other topics on DU do you post about?

:hi:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Firearms supply retailers howled about the proposals, because restricting ammunition sales would put many of them out of business (most gun owners purchase firearms infrequently, but ammunition is a regular and recurring purchase). The ban on shipping wasn't actually required to comply with the ammunition sales limit (there were out of state retailers willing to limit Californian's to 50 bullets a day), but was an attempt to force purchasers back to California gun stores. This would have offset any sales loss they saw as a result of the limit, and would have recaptured that sales tax revenue for the state. The net result of this law would have been a net INCREASE of sales tax receipts for ammunition purchases in the state of California.

I'm just happy that I'll be able to order online. My local shops are insanely expensive.

the other replies. I guess I'm the odd guy out. In light of the tragedy in AZ, making ammunition sales so casual, is dangerous IMHO.

making the sale of dangerous reading material so casual, is dangerous IMHO

the law was shot down because it was way to vague. the definition for what constituted handgun ammunition was unconstitutionally vague

on the paragraphs posted. I am not a gun owner or a California resident.

For the Love of God - more guns and available ammo - NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT the answer!!!!!

It prevents an unconstitutionally vague, poorly written law from taking effect.

The law as it stands is pretty clear to me, and I think to most folks who aren't simply trying to muddy the issue.

If the laws can put me through hoops to buy a few Sudafeds, they can legislate hoops for folks who want to purchase ammo to arm themselves in public.

And this law would have still permitted Californians to do that with ammunition , limited only by their desire and the size

of their wallets.


But I suppose symbolism is more important than results, eh?

I suppose the one that sold him the bullets that enabled the massacre was staffed by a pro-guns-in-every-waistbander, or an employee who was just tired.

Point is simple -- maybe it's a good idea to see who is buying bullets rather than shipping cases to Randy Weaver/Timmie McVeigh wamtabes.

Loughner bought the ammunition face to face. He chose not to order it on line even after being rejected by Wal Mart. The idea that a store clerk can look at someone and know that the person is really dangerous is absurd. I do not believe that there is anything that would have prevented Loughner from legally buying guns or ammunition anywhere.

Perhaps we need a law that requires everyone to have a crazy mass-murder brain probe installed.

Also, we should block anyone that listens to more than a certain number of hours of hate radio per week. We could at lest send them to a reeducation camp first.

Why make it easy for people to commit massacres?

Now, that sounds absurd. But, I bet that is what you are thinking.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and we're engaging in a "Crusade" against gun owners !!!

How quickly the recorded message moves along!


:rofl:

Heck, there are GOPers supporting more rationale controls on guns in public, restrictions on assault weapons/accessories -- however you define it -- sales, tougher criteria for acquiring weapons, etc.

It is even possible that rejecting his initial attempt aggravated the situation. It clearly did not help.

I'll buy things at brick and mortar stores when I want them fast and I am really passionate about what I am buying. Buying on line requires a lot more patience and it is something that I do with a lot less passion. An on line only purchase law might actually have made a positive difference.

One law enforcement officer speculated as to why, but if you check subsequent reports, it's unsubstantiated.

e.g.-

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2011/01/10/wsj-loughner-bought-bullets-at-walmart-saturday



Having bought ammo from wal-mart, I can provide a few more potential causes-

--The wal-mart dork who has the one key in the store that fits the lock on the ammo cage is on a break (happened to me)
--The wal-mart dork who has the one key in the store that fits the lock on the ammo cage took it home with him and is off today (also happened to me)
--Laughner didn't have ID- which is required for purchasing handgun ammo.

acting strange?

is okay in some cases?

this would still be found uncostitutional. This wasnt a 2A issue- its a vagueness of law issue

Thanks for the explanation.

Go back to the original intent, have an army like Switzerland (but still maintain navy and air force) and lose the empire. As for gun ownership goes, if our side believes in individual liberty like Mills, Paine, and Hobbs we should be consistent. Anti gun folks sound more like Burke.

My objection to the second amendment is not political, my objection is from a public health perspective.

The proliferation of guns that has occurred in the U.S due to the second amendment is a public health catastrophe.

google up the CDC's executive summary of the effectiveness of "gun intervention strategies." The public health "model" has been tested and rejected firmly.

The high levels of violence and harm associated with the use of guns in the U.S which have been allowed to proliferate under the Second Amendment is preventable.

I seriously doubt there is anything from CDC that indicates otherwise, but I'm open to learning otherwise.

"First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws: Findings from the Task Force on Community Preventive Services"

This study, however, doesn't "test and firmly reject" any public health model, and reached no conclusions beyond this:

"The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)"

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Is the CDC study I referenced in my two other posts in response to you supposed to be the one that would disabuse me of my view that the proliferation of guns in the U.S is a public health catastrophe?

I mean this one: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Since that study "debunks" nothing, I'm asking if that is all you got?

...if you want to deny individuals the right to keep and bear arms.

Take note gun-controllers: The post I refer to is a splendid example of the "slippery slope;" in this case, a fall into the canyon.

It will be fun watching you beat your head against a brick wall.

I said I'd support an abolition of the ridiculous and odious "right" to own toys that kill.

Such an amendment could not succeed, of course, in a repressive culture where possession of lethal weapons is stupidly promoted and celebrated as a form of "freedom".

there's no sense in sending through bad laws.

:thumbsup:

regardless of how you feel about gun control or the 2A. For those who weren't following this closely- the court ruled that the law was very vague in regards what constitutes "handgun ammo" the law defined handgun ammo as "ammunition that is principly used in a handgun" but that is way to vague because many calibre (especially .22 lr) are used in handguns just as much as they are used in rifles.

with arsenals! Anyway, what bothered me most about the info in the OP is that ammunition is available through mail order! THAT, to me, is especially dangerous. IMHO

if one follows the line of "reasoning" that the waiting-period advocates advance.

Only common carrier like UPS.

is very common place. This is because it allows shooters to purchase in bulk and save a great deal of money. for me, ive been able to save upwards of 50% when i order online.

Also, ammo is very hard to control- many gun owners make ammo in their basement in a process called reloading or hand loading. this is extremely common with precision shooters who make ammo that is specifically tailored to their needs. In fact it also saves money in the long run and the start up costs are pretty small. Its also easy to learn.

Wounding 19 people must have cost Laughner all of $3.80!!

:nuke:

for anyone who doesn't load their own.

Good ruling, Calicourt.

because the item at issue has a dual purpose and your are only regulating based on one purpose. the fundemental question which is at issue here is "how do you define handgun ammunition?" This is a difficult question to answer because a large majority of common calibres used by shooters today can be used in both handgun and rifles

Reasonable to assume drafters didn't know about this. Language might be narrowed?

California could have simply implemented a blanket requirement stating that ammunition 1) May only be commercially sold by licensed retailers. 2) May only be sold to people over the age of 18 (mandatory ID check). 3) May only be sold in limited quantities, irrespective of type.

The problem with this law is that they tried to define it narrowly and missed the mark...badly. At the same time, they didn't want a broader law, because they didn't want to risk a wider voter revolt over it.

federal law already covers the age requirement.

Including military bases.

It would force ammunition shippers to treat ammunition deliveries like alcohol, forcing pre-notification and the presentation of ID with age verification at the time of delivery. And I meant, 21, not 18 (dumb typo).

One of the arguments for the original law was that online shipping allowed criminals and underage purchasers to obtain ammunition, because the only "verification" of age was a faxed or emailed copy of a state ID to the seller, which could be easily stolen or forged. By blocking online shipping, they claimed that they would be keeping ammunition out of the hands of criminals.

I actually don't disagree with that interpretation, and the way they tried to implement it was just a bit off the mark. All they really needed to do was mandate an identity check requirement similar to the one we already use with alcohol shipments. The delivery has to be sent to a specifically named person, and that person has to show a valid state ID card when UPS shows up on their doorstep. It can't be accepted by anyone else (adult or otherwise).

That's all they ever needed. Not a BAN, but a simple ID/Age check at delivery time.

since gun-controllers are noted for not knowing about this and many other things about that which they wish to ban or control.

Let's see how your take on narrowing the language.

You mean I bought all that ammo for NOTHING??!

The 21st amendment give me the right to drink, so why is direct shipment to out of state customers banned in so many places.

We can't ban your mail order ammo, why should you get to ban our mail order wine?

Many states require that alcohol only be sold by liquor stores. In many areas, you can't even buy a bottle of wine in a grocery store. Alcohol can only be retailed on licensed properties specifically authorized for that purpose.

The UPS delivering alcohol to your front door doesn't meet their local requirements.

I agree, you should be able to by alcoholic beverages through the mail.

Unfortunately, the states like getting a cut on liquor sales, and don't want to give that up.

but Section 2 reserved to the states the ability to regulate the importation and sale of alcohol within its territory:

"Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited."


That's why there can be dry counties or towns.

in that I believe it was McDonald which the court's narrow ruling left open the ability of states to impose restrictions, just not all out bans. In states which have dry counties, it is by approval of the state. The state could pass a law which would take that power away from counties and unify alcohol laws such as has been done in many states with firearms restrictions.

but it has to go through a wine dealer (they obviously need their cut) before you can accept the shipment.

That was started here in Ga. because too much revenue was being lost and being politically connected, the law was passed.

At least, that's the way it used to be.

and I can even order alcohol through the mail. An example of our laws...the only beer or wine coolers which can be purchased in grocery or convenience stores is 3.2% al. by volume, "6%" can only be purchased at a liquor store. There is a distinction between liquor license and beer license. A beer license as Pizza places might have do not allow for sale of anything except 3.2% beverages. No sales on Sunday or holidays. Only one wholesale distributor per brand in the state. And on and on...

Mail order is handled by the shipper mailing to a wholesaler who attaches a tax stamp then mails it on to the buyer. It seems like it would get screwed up but it actually works fairly easily from the buyer standpoint. Cask strength Scotch coop is my experience.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Just like I do now.

Stop wasting time and effort on this nonsense and work on real problems, like jobs, medical care, infrastructure and hate mongering.

mark

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Don't mess with the Second Amendment!

Just like the aggression and violence of the right wing in general -- Palin and Beck --

O'Reilly -- no stopping to take a breath -- they might begin to look weak in their

support for violent solutions?

Last week's Arizona shootings of 19 might get people actually thinking about gun violence?

About the real need for gun control laws -- ?

Time for sympathy - empathy -- reassessment -- ?

No -- the right wing may seem to be admitting guilt - push on with the aggressiveness as

though nothing at all has happened --

It will all fade away -- like the decades of "pro-life" murders of doctors and bombings --

O'Reilly's calls for Dr. Tiller's death --

and government will do NOTHING about it ... again.


The longer this nation and our government do not stand up to the right wing spreading

violence and calls for violence -- and the tools of violence --

the longer this nation is feeding on it -- and the longer will be the fight to restore sanity.

We're cheering another right wing win, but somehow we don't seem to notice that?



Michael Moore was also very interesting on Maddow the other day --

how cheap a bullet? 19 cents? 19 cents is all you need to take a human life!

It was ridiculous.

Is make sure people who do own firearms are not able to practice regularly and become/remain proficient.

It is like living in a dry area. If you have to jump through hoops to get alcohol you buy a lot more at a time. I buy shotgun shells by the case because they are much cheaper that way but I would generally prefer not to have to buy more ammunition than I need. Having large quantities of ammunition is a theft risk and it might be a bit dangerous.

You wouldn't want to run out of bullets!!


:eyes:

Target sport shooters use up a lot of ammunition. Explain to me how making them pay more money for it would make the public safer. Do you really believe that a murderer would be deterred by the cost of ammunition?

:eyes:

Then you should oppose this legislation. But you don't. Why is that?

No, I'm the only Straw Man here.

other than that, what the heck are you talking about?

You implied that I had mischaracterized your position. Obviously I had not. Thanks for the confirmation.

(1) You declare that Second Amendment defense is "right wing," ignoring such defenders as Eleanor Roosevelt, Eugene V. Debs, John F. Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, and many other liberal-lefties; and

(2) You claim "we're (I assume you include yourself) cheering another right wing win..." You have reduced the issue to a football game of sorts in which you will take ANY kind of win. That is a departure from even the creaky "public health" model of prohibition.

You can do it with your bare hands for free.

Would it somehow be better if it cost more? What an absurd metric. Murder is murder.

:eyes:

...and the notion that Loughner would have been deterred by the price of ammunition is just what I called it: absurd.

for the price of a bullet --

Also, there is no guarantee that anyone -- save someone attacking their

elederly grandmother in her sleep -- would succeed in killing someone

with their bare hands --rather, they may be killed.

but, from a distance, with a gun -- someone can sneak up as Laughner did

and have their way. All for $3.80 -- when you have a gun, life is cheap!

You're talking about murder, the worst thing one human being can do to another, and you're focusing on the cost of the implement as if that were somehow relevant. Again I have to ask, would it be somehow less heinous if the implements were very expensive?

I just don't get the point of this. It seems like an absurdly trivial point in the context of the tragedy that just happened: "He murdered six people. And the ammo was so cheap!"

what's good for America -- gun control.

If you attack someone with your hands, you're at least risking your own life --

If you want to try to suggest you don't get it, I'll repeat it for you again --

there is little cost to the gun-owner in taking a life -- simply a bullet --

the cost is cheap -- but the costs to the nation in 100,000 gun wounds a year is high.

There's an old saying: "You can't wake up a man who is pretending to be asleep!"

It's about callous disregard for human life; it's about how some humans will kill other humans for the very slightest of reasons.

Somehow you and Michael Moore have twisted this into the bizarre notion of an economic sanction against murder, as if the cost of the bullet were somehow significant, as if somehow the cost of a bullet could be a mitigating factor in the commission of the crime.

The cost of taking a life is simply the price of the bullet? Don't be absurd. We have a criminal code that is structured so as to exact its price via incarceration or in some cases execution.

You apparently have no idea how easy it is for the strong to kill the weak, either with bare hands or with any number of weapons of opportunity: baseball bats, electrical cords, table lamps, whatever's handy.

I'll repeat it for you: the cost of ammunition is ridiculously trivial in the scope of this and any such tragedy.

But if you think prohibition is the answer, good luck.

though many here seem to be more concerned still about their guns

and bullets than about that reality!

And the cost of the ammunition is a meaningless triviality that you seem to find somehow significant. Please explain that significance. "Life is cheap" is not the appropriate metaphor.

it is not meaningless in any way -- and cheapens all life --

After the tragedy in Tucson, we’ve heard the same old argument from Washington and the media that Americans are “hopelessly divided” on the issue of guns. But when you get outside the echo chamber and talk to ordinary people, the consensus on guns is clear.

That’s what Mayors Against Illegal Guns did with our recent poll1, conducted jointly by a Democratic and a Republican firm. The data shows that the general public and gun owners agree that we have to take common sense steps to prevent future gun crime.

Check out the polling results below and help spread the facts



The truth is, Americans overwhelmingly believe that we can respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners while doing more to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

"91% of Americans AND 93% of gun owners want
FEDERAL AGENCIES TO SHARE INFORMATION
about terror suspects and other dangerous persons to stop them from
buy guns"

How was this question worded on the poll?

Poll conducted jointly by Momentum Analysis and American Viewpoint between January 11 and January 13, 2011. Results of the poll available here (PDF).

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/maig_poll_presentation_1_18_11.pdf

.22 long rifle will do it and if you buy a bulk pack you can get them as cheap as 7 cents each....maybe a little cheaper but I prefer cci it shoots really well and my integrally suppressed ruger 10/22 eats it like popcorn.

A student was shot in the head I believe. Seems Americans need to be reeducated on gun safety and responsibility of handguns. I would personally like the assault ban/high capacity clip reinstated.

The incident in Gardena was the result of a 15-year-old student illegally bringing a gun to school.

Not sure how parents would feel about it. Cities need to take a hard look at the this. Kids and teens getting hold of parents weapons. Quite common place nowadays.

It was integrated into an outdoor education program that involved a number of outdoor activities including shooting. The program was cooed and registered as an Explorer post to take advantage of BSA insurance. The students reloaded their own mostly shotgun ammunition. They were taught proper gun safety. They also learned that skeet shooting was lot of fun and that it had nothing to do with TV gun culture BS. The look on a students face the first time she powdered a clay pigeon in front of her peers was priceless.

I have seen at risk students directed to the program and I have never seen one that did not benefit from it.

The key is having dedicated and talented real teachers behind it quietly teaching core values. If someone goes in and starts trying to spew 2nd Amendment politics it will fail horribly. It has too be entirely about the kids and nothing else.

http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/how-to-guns.php

Some cities don't allow online purchases

You have to be over 21 years old to buy handgun ammunition anywhere.

don't see online purchases right now as a problem.

the so-called "assault ban and high capacity clip " would likely have had no impact on this or other shootings. Remember that Cho used a pistol (not an "assault weapon") and several small magazines. He killed far more folks.

Thanks for the heads up! :hi:

:rofl:

That's just paranoia.

Congratulations.

Xela

or GOP/NRA gun lobbying, gun manufacturing profits?

Costs of almost 100,000 gun shot woundings in America every year?

'IF YOU LOVE GUNS YOU NEVER HAVE TO SAY YOU'RE SORRY?'


In all the discussions of gun-love and ammo-love -- I think we have to

acknowledge the tragedies -- including Arizona -- and especially on this

thread, it would be nice to see that!


An apology would suggest weakness, perhaps -- is that the fear?

A law that is so vague that nobody can explain exactly what it means does not pass Constitutional muster in this state. This one was so bad that the California Department of Justice, which is responsible for enforcing the law, couldn't answer direct, specific questions about what was covered and what was not.

Maybe your state would allow it, but mine does not.

Do you have anything cogent to say about the court's decision?

In california the anti-gun groups are trying to make complicated gun laws to intimidate firearm owners, they think this will reduce the number of people who are fighting for gun rights. Limiting ammo purchases to such low levels would have effectively brought about the closure of shooting ranges which would have been a nail in the coffin of shooting sports in california.

The best way to go about defying them would be to invite people to go shooting, and if you honestly believe in protecting your rights, offer to pay for the range and bullets, which has been very effective with the large number of people who have never shot a gun before that I have taken to the range. Creating new pro gun activists is the way we will win this culture war in the long term.