Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   Internet ammunition ban (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/internet-ammunition-ban-29880/)

Jo da Plumbr 07-31-2010 03:38 PM

Internet ammunition ban
 
So we have a new lawsuit here in California to try to stop the internet ammunition ban that is set to take effect soon. Now besides the pro gunners we have the truckers going after the Cal Libs. How effin stupid of a state that is going broke to go after one of the few industries bringing in revenue.

Wish us luck boys.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Truckers and gun owner groups file lawsuit against California to void handgun ammunition shipping ban

Read about it on Calguns here

AB-962 Pre-empted By Federal Laws That Regulate Interstate Shipping

For Immediate Release: 7/28/2010

Redwood City, CA - The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) has joined with the Calguns Foundation, the National Rifle Association, the Folsom Shooting Club and two individual truckers to challenge California’s soon to be implemented ban on the interstate shipment of handgun ammunition to California.

Last year, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 962 into law. Starting in February 2011, the law will criminalize the delivery and transfer of handgun ammunition not done in face-to-face transactions. The law requires shipping companies to implement procedures to determine whether the recipient of a package containing handgun ammunition is covered by one of the exceptions in the law before delivering handgun ammunition in California. This places a big burden on the shippers, and will make shipping ammunition to California much more difficult and likely more expensive.

The new lawsuit, filed today in Sacramento’s Eastern District Federal Court, alleges that these provisions of the law violate the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, which prohibits states and local municipalities from interfering with carriers’ rates, routes, or services.

“This isn’t about firearms or ammunition. Congress made an important decision to keep motor carriers free from a patchwork of burdensome regulation as we move America’s goods to market” said Jim Johnston, OOIDA President. “We cannot allow California to subject our members to criminal liability where the state has no right to meddle.”

California depends on the efficient movement of goods by carrier into California. “California legislators have become accustomed to trampling the rights of California’s gun community. However, this time they’ve taken that recklessness into a field that will hurt every Californian. AB-962 will slow down everyone who orders goods online or buys goods at a retail store,” said Gene Hoffman, Chairman of The Calguns Foundation.

In February 2008, a unanimous United States Supreme Court struck down Maine’s directly analogous law regarding the delivery of cigarettes to Maine in Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport. “It does not matter what the State’s goal is or how honorable they believe their cause is,” stated lead attorney, Jason Davis of Davis & Associates. “Rowe made it clear that a state cannot interfere with a carrier’s rates, routes, or services. AB962 does just that.”

“At Sacramento Valley Shooting Center, we currently provide handgun ammunition sales to the public,” said Jim Bass, President of Folsom Shooting Club. “Should the shipping restrictions in AB-962 take effect, we have no way to prove to shippers that we are a handgun ammunition vendor under the law.”

This case follows a Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenge entitled State Ammunition v. Lindley, and a California State Court Challenge to the vagueness and other requirements of AB-962 brought by the NRA-CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project.

The delivery prohibitions of AB-962 take effect in February 2011; Plaintiffs in this case will be moving quickly to obtain an injunction before the shipping portions of the law takes effect.

The case is filed as OOIDA et. al v. Lindley, U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. C.A. 2:10-at-01095. A copy of the complaint is available from http://bit.ly/OOIDA-CGF-NRA .

Alas, freedom is not free. These efforts cost a great deal of money, if you like what you see we encourage you to donate via the links below.

DrumJunkie 08-01-2010 06:23 PM

Best of luck to you and others like you JdP. What a great mind-set Cali has to systematically shut down any money making businesses out there. Ol' Arnold must feel so bad about making those movies where he has to hold one of those evil hand cannons. :rolleyes:

spittinfire 08-01-2010 06:49 PM

That is just stupid. Doesn't that violate interstate commerce laws?

DrumJunkie 08-01-2010 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spittinfire (Post 324063)
That is just stupid. Doesn't that violate interstate commerce laws?

I believe so.

canebrake 08-01-2010 07:25 PM

http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/v...facepalm-4.jpg


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.