Lawsuit to Overturn California AB962 Filed – State Ammunition Inc.

Discussion in 'Politics Of Hunting And Guns (NOT General Politics' started by MosinMan, Jul 2, 2010.

  1. MosinMan

    MosinMan New Member

    Messages:
    1
    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    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 ( Chaffin Law Office - Ventura, California )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 A1 Ammo | Ammunition For Sale | Discount Rifle, Handgun Ammunition, 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.
     
  2. Chas1

    Chas1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,547
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    No wonder their going bankrupt out there. I can't imagine the money spent putting all these BS regulations in place...and the state infrastructure that goes along with it and of coarse the cost for all the lawsuits. Man their idiots out there...kinda like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic while it's sinking.