Little-Acorn
01-20-2011, 03:09 PM
California big-government advocates, frustrated in their attempts to ban all firearms, recently tried a different tack: Restricting sales of ammunition instead.
They passed a law that called for anyone who buys handgun ammunition, to be treated like a criminal, required to have their fingerprints taken, have face-to-face confrontations with the people selling it, and other such requirements usually reserved for suspects being booked or arraigned for crimes.
That one's been swatted down, too.
The battle goes on.
------------------------------------------
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jan/19/judge-blocks-state-gun-ammo-law/
Judge blocks state handgun ammunition law
Fresno jurist says statute was "unconstitutionally vague"
by Michael Gardner
Wednesday, January 19, 2011 at 7:58 p.m.
A Fresno County Superior Court judge has blocked a pending state law that would have required Californians to provide a thumbprint and photo identification when buying handgun ammunition.
Judge Jeffrey Hamilton ruled from the bench late Tuesday that the law scheduled to go into effect Feb. 1 was “unconstitutionally vague.”
Gun-rights groups had argued that some types of ammunition can be used in both handguns and rifles, making enforcement and compliance a challenge.
One of those making that case is Marc Halcon, owner of the American Shooting Center in San Diego.
“When legislation is passed that doesn’t give clear guidance, you are making it much more difficult to make heads or tails of it,” said Halcon, who is also president of the California Association of Firearms.
At issue is language in the law that bars sales of ammunition “principally for use” in handguns without a thumbprint and ID.
Then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed de Leon’s Assembly Bill 962 in 2009, but implementation was purposely delayed to give dealers and law enforcement time to adapt.
If implemented, the law would have imposed the strictest handgun ammunition purchase regulations of all states.
It also would have required Californians buying handgun ammunition over the Internet or by mail order to have it shipped to a licensed vendor. There, buyers would still have to provide the thumbprint, ID and other information.
Dealers would have had to keep those records on who buys the ammunition, how much and which type for five years. Also ammunition must be stored in areas only accessible to employees,
Violations were to be treated as misdemeanors, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.
Halcon said one of his clerks talked to the attorney general’s office seeking forms and other guidance just last week.
“Their comment was, and I quote, ‘Wing it.’ They had no idea either how to enforce it, how to apply it or how to interpret it,” said Halcon, who was attending a gun trade show in Las Vegas.
The lawsuit was brought by former Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker, who in court papers said it was too vague to enforce.
His attorney, Chuck Michel, said in an e-mail:
“All this ill-conceived and incomprehensible law would have done is impose costly burdens on police and ammunition sellers, It would not have stopped violent criminals from getting ammunition. What it might have done is made accidental criminals out of good people who couldn’t determine their legal obligations.”
They passed a law that called for anyone who buys handgun ammunition, to be treated like a criminal, required to have their fingerprints taken, have face-to-face confrontations with the people selling it, and other such requirements usually reserved for suspects being booked or arraigned for crimes.
That one's been swatted down, too.
The battle goes on.
------------------------------------------
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jan/19/judge-blocks-state-gun-ammo-law/
Judge blocks state handgun ammunition law
Fresno jurist says statute was "unconstitutionally vague"
by Michael Gardner
Wednesday, January 19, 2011 at 7:58 p.m.
A Fresno County Superior Court judge has blocked a pending state law that would have required Californians to provide a thumbprint and photo identification when buying handgun ammunition.
Judge Jeffrey Hamilton ruled from the bench late Tuesday that the law scheduled to go into effect Feb. 1 was “unconstitutionally vague.”
Gun-rights groups had argued that some types of ammunition can be used in both handguns and rifles, making enforcement and compliance a challenge.
One of those making that case is Marc Halcon, owner of the American Shooting Center in San Diego.
“When legislation is passed that doesn’t give clear guidance, you are making it much more difficult to make heads or tails of it,” said Halcon, who is also president of the California Association of Firearms.
At issue is language in the law that bars sales of ammunition “principally for use” in handguns without a thumbprint and ID.
Then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed de Leon’s Assembly Bill 962 in 2009, but implementation was purposely delayed to give dealers and law enforcement time to adapt.
If implemented, the law would have imposed the strictest handgun ammunition purchase regulations of all states.
It also would have required Californians buying handgun ammunition over the Internet or by mail order to have it shipped to a licensed vendor. There, buyers would still have to provide the thumbprint, ID and other information.
Dealers would have had to keep those records on who buys the ammunition, how much and which type for five years. Also ammunition must be stored in areas only accessible to employees,
Violations were to be treated as misdemeanors, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.
Halcon said one of his clerks talked to the attorney general’s office seeking forms and other guidance just last week.
“Their comment was, and I quote, ‘Wing it.’ They had no idea either how to enforce it, how to apply it or how to interpret it,” said Halcon, who was attending a gun trade show in Las Vegas.
The lawsuit was brought by former Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker, who in court papers said it was too vague to enforce.
His attorney, Chuck Michel, said in an e-mail:
“All this ill-conceived and incomprehensible law would have done is impose costly burdens on police and ammunition sellers, It would not have stopped violent criminals from getting ammunition. What it might have done is made accidental criminals out of good people who couldn’t determine their legal obligations.”