A note concerning Ammunition sales in US, particularly CA

[MosinMan]

I understand that this forum is not about Law, but I'm doing my best to get word out about this lawsuit to raise suport for it.


Lawsuit to Overturn California AB962 Filed – State Ammunition Inc. 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/s ... ?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 related laws and regulations.

[FredB]

This is most definitely a target shooting subject. If AB 962 is implemented as written, not only will the individuals filing the lawsuit suffer, but all serious target shooters in the state will suffer as well. Particularly vulnerable will be youth programs which depend on an ample supply of inexpensive .22LR standard velocity. This type of ammo is just not available in California gun stores for face-to-face purchase. Even if a few stores start stocking it, it's likely to be way too expensive for most youth programs. And .22LR SV is the backbone of all Olympic firearm shooting events.

I tried to get the state legislator who introduced the NRA-backed repeal bill, to consider just trying to exempt .22LR and/or mail order purchases, rather than trying to repeal a bill which had passed both houses by overwhelming margins. He refused, insisting that the whole thing had to be repealed. Nice work if you can get it. The repeal bill didn't even make it out of committee. I sure hope this lawsuit does better!

FredB