L.A. NOW

Southern California -- this just in

« Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home | Next Post »

Judge rules against new state ammunition rules

Californians who buy handgun ammunition will not have to supply their thumbprint, photo ID and other information starting Feb. 1 after a judge in Fresno ruled Tuesday that a new state law mandating the information is unconstitutionally vague.

The law, signed in 2009 by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, was meant to give law enforcement officers a better opportunity to track criminals buying ammunition.

But Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton issued a summary judgment against the law, which also required ammo buyers to provide their birth date and address, and issued an injunction preventing the state from enforcing it Feb. 1. The law also would have prevented mail-order sales of handgun ammunition.

The judge sided Tuesday with former Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker, who filed a lawsuit arguing that the law was not clear.

"I’m pleased," Parker said. "My whole concern was: What is the definition of handgun ammunition? There is a lot of ammunition that goes both in handguns and long-guns."

Sen. Kevin De Leon (D-Los Angeles), who wrote AB 962, is considering his legal and legislative options, including a possible appeal, said Dan Reeves, his chief of staff.

"The code section defining handgun ammo is very similar to the federal definition and has been on the books for 30 years," Reeves said in an e-mail. "Today a judge ruled in a summary judgment it was unconstitutionally vague."

ALSO:

Gardena High School violated district's weapons-check policy

Mel Gibson domestic violence case: Prosecutors closing in on decision

Authorities looking for Riverside County girl, 15, who said she was being held against her will

-- Patrick McGreevy

 
Comments () | Archives (40)

Activist conservative judge strike again.

I understand the reasoning behind the law, but I don't understand how it prevented gang members from buying ammunition. The information collected at time of purchase was to be stored on paper in the store where the ammo was bought... no electronic registry, no background check, nada. Just paper sitting in a filing cabinet. If a gang banger wanted to buy bullets, this law wasn't going to stop them from buying it in a CA store, only online. This would have been another waste of taxpayers money.

If gang members want bullets bad enough, they'll get them...the ban would have only been a minor annoyance at best.

I'd sure like to hear the great mind of Kevin De Leon explain how a more detailed tracking of ammunition purchases would have decreased crime. Locks only keep honest people out, or maybe you didn't know?

And you, Reeves, should be ashamed for being his man-boy shill.

Seriously, what is the difference? How "terribly intrusive" is it for the police to know who's bought ammunition, whether it's for handguns or "long guns"? If the purchaser's not going to use ammunition to commit a crime, then the purchaser should not have a reason to be concerned.

These politicions dream up these unconstitutional laws thinking that the people are safer.The public gets lulled asleep because they dont know thier Rights and Freedoms . Did Kevin De leon really think and believe that Ab962 would stop criminals? Not one law has stopped a criminal totally commited to murder someone .California has more gunlaws than most any State .The recent shooting has placed this in the public arena so politics goes wild with it . Americans have the Responcibility for thier own personal safety .When you depend on the police for your own safety ,In many instances its a little too late and your a little too dead .About time you let LEGAL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS handle some of that responcability for themselves .For those that wish to have the police do that responcibility then its on themselves .

Ronald Reagan repealed the 1968 Federal ammunition reporting law in 1986. For those of you old enough to remember, every time one bought even a single box of .22 caliber ammunition it was necessary to fill out a form nearly identical to the one for purchasing a handgun.

Senator de León is just another inner city politician elected not because he is competent but because of the color of his skin.

The pendulum swings like pendulums have a tendency to do! Back in the other, (correct), direction!

This was crud from the start. Criminals can get whatever they want, whenever. This another economic attack on lawful gun owners to include police officers who shoot often. I easily go through 200 rounds at the range a few times a month. Under this law, I'd pay 1.5-2 times as much than mail order prices and can only pickup 50 rds at a time? Again, we punish the law abiding the pretend we are controlling the thugs.

IT figures some MORON judge THINKS that something is 'vague', I think this judges brain is VAGUE. One way that gives the law a small way to 'track' criminals is made MOOT by this IDIOT. Zachary is ANOTHER brainiac, 'minor annoyance' ANY wall that 'prevents' criminals from obtaining what they NEED to commit crimes is a GOOD wall, now this judge has given FREE rein to anyone who wants to buy ammo for that 'illegal' gun sitting there. Good going judgey ole FOOL !!

"Locks only keep honest people out"?

I assume, then, you never lock your doors and are in favor, say, of laws that would make it difficult for people to use locks.

"Zachary is ANOTHER brainiac, 'minor annoyance' ANY wall that 'prevents' criminals from obtaining what they NEED to commit crimes is a GOOD wall, now this judge has given FREE rein to anyone who wants to buy ammo for that 'illegal' gun sitting there. Good going judgey ole FOOL !!"

That statement is a bit of a fallacy. A law was created that effectively punished law abiding citizens. How is that a good law?

How did it punish? How about invasion of privacy? How about being treated like a criminal for a hobby?

Let's flip this around and say that every time you purchased alcohol, you had to provide an ID in which your information was recorded in a database, then the quantity and type of alcohol was logged into said database, then a signature and thumbprint was needed (and stored in a database). If you are purchasing it legally, and using it legally, you have nothing to hide, right? Do you really wanted to be treated this way? Of course you'll say you don't mind, you don't want to be wrong. ;)

God Bless the NRA.

I'm glad that the judge ruled against the rule. Californians do not need anymore rules regulating on how they buy ammo. Just more tax payer money being burned and causing global warming. As if this rule would stop a criminal or help catch a criminal. I'm sure it will catch a criminal, but not a street criminal. If a criminal wants a gun and ammo, that individual will obtain it by any means. Criminals don't play by the rules.

Its sad that" I"people who pay taxes and go to work can't protect there family on the street because they live LA county,10 miles north of me Is kern county and they hand out CCWs to anyone as long as you can jump through there hoops,meaning that your not a felon,or have a restraining order against you,or not deemed insane,you get your CCW.I carry a gun for a living as a security guard and can protect you and your family on post,but if my life is in danger and Iam not on duty,Iam having to be a cave man with sticks and rocks to protect myself,thats wrong!!!!!And the people who would bust me I help daily by helping pay your salary and also helping rid the world of scum,but Iam treated the same if I have a loaded firearm.I think of this almost daily.

Another know-nothing politician who doesn't know a gun from a traffic whistle.

Tony, Marco, and Brett, did you even read the actual law? I am thinking no.

Zackary's post is right on. Adding that the police would not have the personnel to go through thousand of papers to check names. It is already illegal for a felon or gang member to have ammo. All a criminal would have to do to bypass this law was have a non-felon friend buy the ammo for them or go out of state and buy all they want.

As for being non intrusive here is a scenario for you.

Criminal buys a box of 9mm Remington ammo at Wal-Mart. Four days later law abiding citizen buys the exact brand and amount of ammo at the same store. That night "criminal" robs a store and kills 3 customers using the ammo he bought. During the investigation they check all gun stores for that type of ammo sold in the last couple days. They see law abiding citizens purchase that morning and use that to get a warrant to search the house. Seeing the bad guy killed 3 they will do a no knock entry with a SWAT team and remove all his firearms.

Just so you know something similar has already happened in a town were handgun registration is required, just not as extreme. A criminal shot a guy with a Glock firearm. The police went through the registration and went to all Glock owners in the town and wanted them to surrender their gun for testing.

I'm glad this didn't pass. I'm active duty Army and use 500-1000 rounds of "handgun" ammunition a month to train. This law would mean I would have to drive all the way to Nevada to purchase ammo with the rest of the criminals! What a waste of taxpayer money to come up with these crazy laws.

This law was a joke from the beginning. Here's my scenario for you illogical gun grabbing fools.

Two gangbangers drive to Las Vegas. They load up their SUV with 30.000 rounds of handgun ammunition. They are back in LA in a few hours. LA gangs are supplied with enough ammunition to last them into the next century.

Dumb law, dumb, publicity seeking politicians.

Hey Tony "brains", do you actually know what ab962 is about? Or are you just jumping on the wagon because you read the words "gun" and "ammo" in the same article and automatically campaigned against it?? Please explain to all of us how this ab962 would have....in your own words, "track" criminals and stop them from committing a crime? Oh but yes, I forgot all criminals goes and register their firearms with the DOJ before they go and commit a murder!

Wake up fool and try to develop some brains.

The answer to all the anti-gunnies in CA is that no one should possess any firearms at all, Period!....except for the criminals, they're allowed. Thank you Brady Bunch for spreading lies, lies and more lies.

@brett ... why don't you submit the receipts for everything you buy to the police for review .... Seriously, what is the difference? How "terribly intrusive" is it for the police to know what you have purchased, whether it's for handguns or "long guns" or anything else? If anything and everything you have bought is not going to be used to commit a crime, then you should not have a reason to be concerned.

"Seriously, what is the difference? How "terribly intrusive" is it for the police to know who's bought ammunition, whether it's for handguns or "long guns"? If the purchaser's not going to use ammunition to commit a crime, then the purchaser should not have a reason to be concerned."

Works both ways ?..

Seriously, what is the difference? How "terribly intrusive" is it for the police to know who's bought Gasoline , whether it's for Car, lawnmower or "Molotov cocktail"? If the purchaser's not going to use Gasoline to commit a crime, then the purchaser should not have a reason to be concerned.

Brett -

Here's how and I'll use an example -
People who abuse alcohol kill more people or themselves every year in automobile accidents or alcoholism alone than "criminal use" of firearms come close to. This is proven fact.
Now, say every time you went to buy a bottle of wine or a case of beer,
you would have to give your age, name, address, thumb print, what kind,
the amount you bought and the date when you bought it... and all this personal identity record of you is then stored at the place you bought it being accessible to authority (or criminals committing robbery for the matter) all for essentially marking you as a "potential drunk driver" or in this case, a potential criminal all because you're legally buying a product that thousands of law-abiding people buy and use everyday without issue?

You say "If the purchaser's not going to use ammunition to commit a crime,
then the purchaser should not have a reason to be concerned."
True at face value, but that's no reason to mark everyone out to be a
"potential threat" by punishing honest people without merit just because they're buying something legally......that is wrong!
Likewise, you can't treat people like would-be criminals who (like you say) "are not going to use ammunition to commit crime" either!
How about people who take pilot lessons all go on a list of potential airline Hi-jackers??? Do you see where this is going now? You still don't think this is intrusive????

962 wasn't/isn't just about tracking criminals, its another mundane, do-nothing-feel-good law that does nothing to stop crime, (the recent story of tracking of cold medicine purchases that has failed miserably in reducing the amount of meth labs proves just this) but further erodes the constitutional rights and smears the identities of law-abiding people.
Shame on the creators of this bill. Is this what you like to spend and waste your tax dollars on?

Hey Thank God There Are Some People In California That Say That Government Should Not Have The Government In Their Personal Lives........I Found Out That Some Idiot Assemblyman Is Trying To Ban Open Carry After It Failed Last Year In The Senate..................................Man There Is Nothing Wrong With Carrying A Gun In Public If Your Legal.............................................

I recommend some of you anti-gunners go out shooting sometime. Even take a class. You'll learn how ammunition, and guns for that right, don't miraculously go out and kill anyone. If you slightly understood how the 'gun' world worked, you would realize how insane it is to think it's possible to reduce gun violence, which I like to presume is your goal, through these ineffective 'feel good' laws.

 
1 2 | »

Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video

About L.A. Now
L.A. Now is the Los Angeles Times’ breaking news section for Southern California. It is produced by more than 80 reporters and editors in The Times’ Metro section, reporting from the paper’s downtown Los Angeles headquarters as well as bureaus in Costa Mesa, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, Ventura and West Los Angeles.
Have a story tip for L.A. Now?
Please send to newstips@latimes.com
Can I call someone with news?
Yes. The city desk number is (213) 237-7847.

Categories




Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: