CA AB 962 signed into law

[PCRit]

Just another reason to be glad I don't live in CA.
Thanks Governator...a real friend of the 2nd Amendment...

Oct 12, 2009

Sacramento, CA – Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law legislation that will help law enforcement officials track down and apprehend armed criminals and other prohibited persons. AB 962 by Assembly Member Kevin DeLeon (D-Los Angeles) had the support of law enforcement officials from across the state and was modeled after successful city ordinances, including the cities of Sacramento and Los Angeles. AB 962 was the Brady Campaign’s top priority bill in this year’s legislature.

The law requires maintenance of purchaser records by handgun ammunition vendors. Local law enforcement can use these records to find illegal guns.

“The purchase records will provide our police officers with yet another tool to track down and apprehend armed and dangerous criminals,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

The new law also requires the safe storage of handgun ammunition in stores and that all handgun ammunition sales be completed in face-to-face transactions. Sacramento and Los Angeles have had great success over the last few years with similar city ordinances. “Law enforcement officials in both cities have had great success in tracking down violent criminals who purchased ammunition in Sacramento and Los Angeles,” said Ellen Boneparth, President of the California Brady Campaign Chapters. “Our California Brady Chapters were instrumental in urging cities to pass the local ordinances and getting strong support statewide for AB 962.”

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1184/

 

[TexasRifleman]

The purchase records will provide our police officers with yet another tool to track down and apprehend armed and dangerous criminals

Yeah, I'm sure that's how it's going to work.

Wow, really hate to see this. In before "Where was the NRA, why didn't the NRA stop this" nonsense.

Local law enforcement can use these records to find illegal guns.

Sure wish someone could explain to me how that's supposed to happen.

Ugh. What a sorry piece of legislation. Good luck to you guys in California. Maybe incorporation can eventually work to reverse this. Tough fight to undo the damage from this.

 

[Legasat]

This is SO ridiculous, I just don't have words for it. What a Turncoat (Arnold)!

Luckily the Cal Guns Foundation is already pushing ahead with their legal strategy to overturn.

Why should YOU care, because if it stands, it will spread!

This is a sad day in the People's Republic of California!

 

[calaverasslim]

I said it before and I say it again. Ahhhhnaold does not have the eggs to buck the state legislature. He wants relected and he won't do anything to jepordize that.

He is just a piece of crap who is useless.

 

[WoofersInc]

One problem I see is that ammo will become even harder to find in border areas like here in Vegas. All of the Cali visitors will be hitting the shops up while they are in town to get around this. I also see an increase of buying at the gun shows by people traveling just for ammo.

 

[gbran]

Sacramento, CA – Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law legislation that will help further infringe the RKBA for law abiding citizens and further the incremental attack strategy that has worked so well in the past to kill gun ownership.

 

[freakshow10mm]

Problem for the state is the Calguns Foundation is ready to file suit in federal court due to this:

The regulation of internet delivery of ammunition as drafted in AB962 is preeempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAAA '94).

AB962 Regulates The Routes & Services of Common Carriers

AB962 creates a misdemeanor in 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 manufacturet/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 were to be 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 USC §14501(c)(1):

(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 FAAAA '94 and was codified in 49 USC §41713:

§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 US Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that laws which 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 AB962 .

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:

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 any equivalent “public safety” exception to the FAAAA to allow AB962 either.

AB962, as written, is preempted by FAAAA '94.

We have already done initial planning regarding plaintiffs and counsel for this case. And we do have time - as the law does not take effect until February 2011.

 

[Pistola]

Just saw this on the local news. Very sickening.

 

[Gordon]

Arni will forever be known as a "girlyman" by all red blooded American citizens- I sent him an e mail to confirm this!

 

[swoter]

Voice out of a dark alley; "Hey buddy, wanna buy some ammo? Good stuff..."

 

[Balrog]

Too bad for California, but maybe it will decrease ammo sales there, and leave more for the rest of us...

Is that selfish???

 

[Dr-Science]

I really hate the idea of this thing.
What is rationing ammo to 50 rounds gonna do? Prevent a gangster from shooting someone? Nope: only need one round for that. Also, gangsters are gangsters for a few reasons, many including carrying out illegal activities: they'll get their ammo even if it is illegal (that's how they get most of their guns, right?). f you make ammo illegal, only gangsters will have ammo.

 

[kanook]

guess all those roids shrunk his brain too.

 

[freakshow10mm]

Read the law again. The 50rd limit is not in the final text.

 

[CoRoMo]

AB 962 ... had the support of law enforcement officials from across the state

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
Is that how they protect and serve?
:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:


The only bright side is that the legal case against this legislation sounds strong.

 

[kingpin008]

Arni will forever be known as a "girlyman" by all red blooded American citizens- I sent him an e mail to confirm this!

Thanks for strengthening the anti's view of us as reactionary, name-calling lowlifes. :banghead:

Seriously, what good could come of an email like that? Yeah, good for you, calling Arnold a girly-man. I'm sure he'll think of that every time he sees a new piece of anti-gun legislation and quake in his boots.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Seriously, what good could come of an email like that?

He has used the line himself in California politics. He used the term to describe the agenda of his opponents, mainly regarding the budget.

If he can use the term to describe, from his view, weak opponents then why shouldn't others use the same term?

The legislators "cannot have the guts to come out there in front of you and say, 'I don't want to represent you. I want to represent those special interests: the unions, the trial lawyers' ... I call them girly-men.

Well, guess who is representing special interests by signing this?

No, I think the term girly man is appropriate in this case, since he used it first.

 

[ArmedBear]

TexasRifleman is right. I heard all of Arnold's campaigning when he wanted to be Governator.

The point is to turn that back on him, and say that he has become the very thing he promised to fight.

 

[kingpin008]

If he can use the term to describe, from his view, weak opponents then why shouldn't others use the same term?

Because grown-ups should use grown-up words to get their points across?

Simply because he did it, and showed his inability to rise past the level of a four-year-old who can't make a reasonable argument without the use of namecalling does not mean that we should follow suit.

 

[JimmAr]

Doesn't go into effect till feb 1st, 2011.. people are gunna massively stock up.

 

[ArmedBear]

kingpin008, it's no different from using "Hope" to poke fun at Obama.

California politics is a lot of things -- stupid things -- but it's not anal-retentive.

 

[kingpin008]

ArmedBear - I see what you're saying, and in general I agree. I just have a problem with it when it comes down to some elected official who already seems to have a problem with us and our cause getting an insulting letter.

They know we don't like the decisions they make. Writing insulting letters isn't going to make things any better. We should be taking the High Road (especially when corresponding with them) and busting our asses to bounce them out of office.

 

[Jim K]

Once again, no one dares to speak the truth. The real fear is Mexican gangs and the gutless politicians and police who have allowed them to grow and spread. Whether that fear is real or just more racism is hard to tell, but in any case the truth gets buried. The Brady gang pretends that the criminals are lily-white NRA members, and the politicos pretend that it is the Mafia or some other convenient target. I suspect that if a lawmaker ever tried passing legislation to control the border and crack down on the real criminals, Obama and the Democratic Party would crush him, maybe literally.

Jim

 

[Quiet]

Too bad for California, but maybe it will decrease ammo sales there, and leave more for the rest of us...

It won't decrease ammo sales.
Because, the law goes into effect 02-2011, you may see an rapid increase in ammo sales (causing another shortage of ammo), due to people in CA buying in bulk and en mass in order to stock up before it goes into effect.

 

[Girodin]

Problem for the state is the Calguns Foundation is ready to file suit in federal court due to this:

The only bright side is that the legal case against this legislation sounds strong.

The flip side of that is that Federal courts in Cali are well known for their, shall we say, "interesting" decisions. Those courts are much less predictable than the other circuits even when the law seems clear. The other side of that is that a lot of the cases the Supreme court ends up taking are wacky California circuit court decisions.

I am not sure what this law is supposed to accomplish. I would love to hear a more detailed explanation (some evidence would be great too) of how it has been effective in the cities that passed it.

California is such a joke in so many ways. You know what they say though, people get the government the deserve.