Yesterday, January 18th, California gun owners dodged a bullet: AB962, the new ammunition control law prohibiting, among other things, mail order ammunition deliveries, was enjoined from enforcement by a Federal judge. You can read about this decision in the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) press release.
But no one who follows California firearms politics thinks that this is the end of the story. First of all, the law is still on the books, and the lawsuit may still proceed to trial. Second, the state might appeal the decision, which the CRPA thinks is likely, attempting to have the injunction removed. And even if Ab962 is ultimately struck down by a Federal court, then the legislature can pass new legislation that corrects the “unconstitutionally vague” language by listing the prohibited ammunition explicitly.
If that does come to pass, even then we are not out of options. Other lawsuits that have bee dismissed, particularly OOIDA v. Lindley, which attacked provisions of AB962 that attempted to regulate common carriers, something that has already been found to by unconstitutional.
2 comments:
Been following your blog for quite some time now. Just wanted to let you know you're doing a great job. BTW, did you hear about the new attempt to ban open carry (California AB 144)? I think this is gonna get interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about the open carry movement yet, but it was my understanding that the San Diego lawsuit regarding concealed carry had a lot to do with the open carry law. Anyway, I thought the ruling was that since California law allowed unloaded/open carry, self defense was not "good cause" to concealed carry. You think this will be significant? I'd like to hear your take on it.
Chris, thanks for reading my blog. I hope you and the other three people who follow me find it worth the time.
I have heard about AB 144. How that bill might effect the status of "self defense" as justification for a CCW remains to be seen. I recommend following this and other issues at www.calguns.net. The Calguns Foundation has assisted in bringing cases against county sheriff offices in an attempt to make "self defense" an acceptable good cause. The case is Richard v. Prieto, and you can read about the current status here:
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Litigation_Past_and_Present
But you're right, Judge Gonzalez (sp?) did cite the ability of UOC in granting summary judgment for the defendant in the Peruta case. There is some speculation that AB 144 may help get carry allowed in California, but only after difficult litigation, I think.
All that might be worth another blog post.
Post a Comment