Lawsuit to Overturn California AB962 Filed – State Ammunition Inc.

M

MosinMan42

Inactive
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 ( 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 relates laws and regulations.
 
I think they're going to have an AWFUL lot of trouble making an argument that this law infringes upon the Commerce Clause, which is an enumerated right given to the federal government. I fail to see how California's law, as onerous and stupendously overreaching as it might be, infringes upon the federal governments right and ability to regulate interstate commerce.
 
Perhaps by the state taking the power to control commerce between states? I do recall that being a major concern in the late 1700s (states taxing/prohibiting trade with other states).

I hope this is a winning strategy, but I am FAR from knowledgeable in this area.
 
The goal, in this situation, is to avoid taking just another 2A lawsuit to court. The reason we are going under the commerce clause is because this law will prohibit any sales that are not face-to-face. Meaning mail orders and online orders which, most ordersd made by those methods (as I understand it) are from out of state.
 
The challange is to the Dormant Commerce Clause:
This Court has adopted what amounts to a two-tiered approach to analyzing state economic regulation under the Commerce Clause. When a state statute directly regulates or discriminates against interstate commerce, or when its effect is to favor in-state economic interests over out-of-state interests, we have generally struck down the statute without further inquiry. [...]. When, however, a statute has only indirect effects on interstate commerce and regulates evenhandedly, we have examined whether the State's interest is legitimate and whether the burden on interstate commerce clearly exceeds the local benefits.
Click to expand...

Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Auth.

See also Rowe v. NH Motor Transport.
 
I should have welcomed you before this, MosinMan, so a belated welcome to the Firing Line.
I haven't been exposed to that bit before.
Click to expand...

That's not at all surprising. Most folks aren't aware of this.

The dormant commerce clause is not about the power(s) of Congress, rather it is about what the States are prohibited from doing. A good explanation of this legal doctrine can be found here.
 
Antipitas

So if I'm reading that correctly, California's ammo restrictions have a very poor chance of surviving this lawsuit...

Good.

I, for one, am very excited about all the pro-gun activity that's been happening. Heller, McDonald, Firearm Freedom Acts, right-to-carry laws, etc... These landmark decisions, laws, and lawsuits are 1000 times better than the expected firearms climate we were antcipating in November 2008.

I'm stoked.

:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top