No Ammo Shippments To California after Jan 1st 2011.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

No Ammo Shippments To California after Jan 1st 2011.

This is a discussion on No Ammo Shippments To California after Jan 1st 2011. within the Handgun Ammunition and Reloading forums, part of the Handguns category; Just a note: Cheaper Than Dirt,will no longer be shipping ammo of any kind, to California starting January 1st 2011. ...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    wv hedgesville
    Posts
    8

    Exclamation No Ammo Shippments To California after Jan 1st 2011.

    Just a note: Cheaper Than Dirt,will no longer be shipping ammo of any kind,
    to California starting January 1st 2011. There new catalog states this on,
    the front of it as well as there web site.
    I do not know if this applies to other mail order company's or not.
    If this can be done in Cal. it can be done in other states as well.
    I have told many friends to buy ammo cans with good seals and stock up,
    over the years. I hope they see why know.
    Iam sure China and the Mexican drug gangs are very happy to hear this as,
    they don't buy there ammo in California.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    2,736

    Default

    California: NRA/CRPA Foundation Withdraw Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Negotiate Expedited Briefing Schedule for MSJ and Trial

    Friday, November 19, 2010

    On June 17, 2010, the CRPA Foundation (funded by the NRA and CRPA) filed a lawsuit in Fresno Superior Court challenging the ammunition regulation statutes enacted by Assemblyman Kevin de Leon’s Assembly Bill (AB) 962 from the 2009 legislative session. The suit, Sheriff Clay Parker vs. State of California, challenges AB 962’s requirement that “handgun ammunition” be stored out of the reach of customers, its ammunition sales registration and fingerprinting requirements, and its face-to-face requirement for all deliveries and transfers of ownership of “handgun ammunition.” The lawsuit primarily alleges that the mandates of AB 962 are incomprehensible, and that the law’s definition of “handgun ammunition” is unconstitutionally vague. Copies of the filings in in Parker v. California can now be viewed at Registration.

    On November 17, 2010, the Foundation's lawyers at Michel & Associates, P.C. in Long Beach appeared in Fresno court for the Plaintiffs on their hearing for a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and related case management and scheduling conferences. During the hearing, the Court expressed concerns over the amount of “irreparable harm” to plaintiffs if an injunction was not issued at this stage, and whether that harm couldn’t simply be “repaired” with money damages. The Court encouraged the parties to focus on the underlying substantive issue, and to reach agreement on how to expedite a decision on the merits prior to the effective date of February 1st for the major components of AB 962. In doing so, the court noted that although trials are now being set for 2012, the Court would grant the plaintiffs a rare trial setting preference. The Court then assisted the parties in negotiating a briefing schedule for an unusual and extremely expedited joint Motion for Summary Judgment/Trial by brief.

    The hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Trial are set for January 18, 2011. The Court, noting that “time was of the essence” for Plaintiffs, ensured a ruling would either be made the date of the hearing or within a few days to ensure this case is resolved in its entirety prior to February 1st. In light of the Court’s willingness to rapidly expedite this litigation and reach a final decision on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, Plaintiffs opted to withdraw their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction rather than protracting the litigation by arguing and requesting supplemental briefing on Plaintiffs’ irreparable harm claims. Plaintiffs' need for a preliminary injunction to issue were alleviated in many regards by assurances from both opposing counsel and the Court that this case will in fact be resolved prior to February 1st. The Foundation’s lawyers are now working tirelessly to prepare for Summary Judgment, and if needed, trial.

    The lawsuit was prompted in part by the many objections and questions raised by confused police, ammunition purchasers, and sellers about what ammunition types are covered by the new laws created by AB 962. In a highly unusual move that reflects growing law enforcement opposition to ineffective gun control laws, Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Other plaintiffs include the CRPA Foundation, Herb Bauer Sporting Goods, ammunition shipper Able’s Ammo, collectible ammunition shipper RTG Sporting Collectibles, and individual Steven Stonecipher.

    The CRPA Foundation works jointly with the National Rifle Association (NRA) to bring strategic litigation to advance the rights of firearms owners in California. NRA and CRPA Foundation’s involvement in both of these lawsuits is part of a California litigation strategy being implemented by the NRA and CRPA Foundation through their proactive Legal Action Project (LAP). LAP is a joint venture between the NRA and CRPA Foundation to advance the rights of firearms owners in California. Through LAP, NRA/CRPA attorneys fight against ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances, and educate state and local officials about available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

    A separate lawsuit has also been filed by the Calguns Foundation, the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (the largest trucker's trade association), the Folsom Shooting Club, and two individual truckers in a lawsuit challenging California's soon-to-be-implemented law banning most shipments of handgun ammunition into California. The case is OOIDA v. Lindley. A copy of the Complaint and related pleadings in that suit are also available at California Gun Laws.

    OOIDA v. Lindley, filed in Sacramento's United States District Court, Eastern District of California, alleges that the ammo shipment ban portion of AB 962 is similarly burdensome and preempted by federal law regulating interstate carriers. Plaintiffs will soon be filing their own Motion for Summary Judgment to block the shipping portions of the law from taking effect.

    To see a partial list of the Legal Action Project's recent lawsuits and accomplishments, visit CRPA. To contribute to the NRA/CRPAF Legal Action Project, visit NRA-ILA :: or CRPA. And please register at California Gun Laws and CRPA to receive up to the minute updates on this and other California litigation as it becomes available.


    Memberships: NRA, GOA, USCCA
    Guns: Glock 26, Ruger LCP, Beretta 90-Two .40, Beretta PX4 Storm Subcompact 9MM, Beretta Tomcat, Bushmaster Patrolman M4

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    2,736

    Default

    California: NRA/CRPA Foundation Withdraw Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Negotiate Expedited Briefing Schedule for MSJ and Trial

    Friday, November 19, 2010

    On June 17, 2010, the CRPA Foundation (funded by the NRA and CRPA) filed a lawsuit in Fresno Superior Court challenging the ammunition regulation statutes enacted by Assemblyman Kevin de Leon’s Assembly Bill (AB) 962 from the 2009 legislative session. The suit, Sheriff Clay Parker vs. State of California, challenges AB 962’s requirement that “handgun ammunition” be stored out of the reach of customers, its ammunition sales registration and fingerprinting requirements, and its face-to-face requirement for all deliveries and transfers of ownership of “handgun ammunition.” The lawsuit primarily alleges that the mandates of AB 962 are incomprehensible, and that the law’s definition of “handgun ammunition” is unconstitutionally vague. Copies of the filings in in Parker v. California can now be viewed at Registration.

    On November 17, 2010, the Foundation's lawyers at Michel & Associates, P.C. in Long Beach appeared in Fresno court for the Plaintiffs on their hearing for a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and related case management and scheduling conferences. During the hearing, the Court expressed concerns over the amount of “irreparable harm” to plaintiffs if an injunction was not issued at this stage, and whether that harm couldn’t simply be “repaired” with money damages. The Court encouraged the parties to focus on the underlying substantive issue, and to reach agreement on how to expedite a decision on the merits prior to the effective date of February 1st for the major components of AB 962. In doing so, the court noted that although trials are now being set for 2012, the Court would grant the plaintiffs a rare trial setting preference. The Court then assisted the parties in negotiating a briefing schedule for an unusual and extremely expedited joint Motion for Summary Judgment/Trial by brief.

    The hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Trial are set for January 18, 2011. The Court, noting that “time was of the essence” for Plaintiffs, ensured a ruling would either be made the date of the hearing or within a few days to ensure this case is resolved in its entirety prior to February 1st. In light of the Court’s willingness to rapidly expedite this litigation and reach a final decision on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, Plaintiffs opted to withdraw their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction rather than protracting the litigation by arguing and requesting supplemental briefing on Plaintiffs’ irreparable harm claims. Plaintiffs' need for a preliminary injunction to issue were alleviated in many regards by assurances from both opposing counsel and the Court that this case will in fact be resolved prior to February 1st. The Foundation’s lawyers are now working tirelessly to prepare for Summary Judgment, and if needed, trial.

    The lawsuit was prompted in part by the many objections and questions raised by confused police, ammunition purchasers, and sellers about what ammunition types are covered by the new laws created by AB 962. In a highly unusual move that reflects growing law enforcement opposition to ineffective gun control laws, Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Other plaintiffs include the CRPA Foundation, Herb Bauer Sporting Goods, ammunition shipper Able’s Ammo, collectible ammunition shipper RTG Sporting Collectibles, and individual Steven Stonecipher.

    The CRPA Foundation works jointly with the National Rifle Association (NRA) to bring strategic litigation to advance the rights of firearms owners in California. NRA and CRPA Foundation’s involvement in both of these lawsuits is part of a California litigation strategy being implemented by the NRA and CRPA Foundation through their proactive Legal Action Project (LAP). LAP is a joint venture between the NRA and CRPA Foundation to advance the rights of firearms owners in California. Through LAP, NRA/CRPA attorneys fight against ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances, and educate state and local officials about available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

    A separate lawsuit has also been filed by the Calguns Foundation, the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (the largest trucker's trade association), the Folsom Shooting Club, and two individual truckers in a lawsuit challenging California's soon-to-be-implemented law banning most shipments of handgun ammunition into California. The case is OOIDA v. Lindley. A copy of the Complaint and related pleadings in that suit are also available at California Gun Laws.

    OOIDA v. Lindley, filed in Sacramento's United States District Court, Eastern District of California, alleges that the ammo shipment ban portion of AB 962 is similarly burdensome and preempted by federal law regulating interstate carriers. Plaintiffs will soon be filing their own Motion for Summary Judgment to block the shipping portions of the law from taking effect.

    To see a partial list of the Legal Action Project's recent lawsuits and accomplishments, visit CRPA. To contribute to the NRA/CRPAF Legal Action Project, visit NRA-ILA :: or CRPA. And please register at California Gun Laws and CRPA to receive up to the minute updates on this and other California litigation as it becomes available.


    Memberships: NRA, GOA, USCCA
    Guns: Glock 26, Ruger LCP, Beretta 90-Two .40, Beretta PX4 Storm Subcompact 9MM, Beretta Tomcat, Bushmaster Patrolman M4

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central Ohio
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cnyeargin View Post
    Just a note: Cheaper Than Dirt,will no longer be shipping ammo of any kind,
    to California starting January 1st 2011. There new catalog states this on,
    the front of it as well as there web site.
    I do not know if this applies to other mail order company's or not.
    If this can be done in Cal. it can be done in other states as well.
    I have told many friends to buy ammo cans with good seals and stock up,
    over the years. I hope they see why know.
    Iam sure China and the Mexican drug gangs are very happy to hear this as,
    they don't buy there ammo in California.
    Can you scan or snap a picture of your catalog. I have a few doubters that want to see proof. I can't find anything on their site about it.

    Thanks, MP

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Laurinburg NC
    Posts
    163

    Default

    For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan .When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours - Stephen Roberts

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona
    Posts
    428

    Default

    That state just keeps descending deeper and deeper into the toilet. I couldn't imagine living in that place. Bill T.
    I don't need my AR-15 "Assault Rifle", any more than Rosa Parks needed to sit in the front of the bus.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    756

    Default

    Wow, California needs to wake up and smell the coffee, these ridicules Gun and Ammo laws need to go. No need to deprive your citizens and your fellow Californians the right to keep and bear arms....
    Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier....One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.

  8. #8
    handgonnetoter Guest

    Default

    I think that the government in Kalifornia needs to worry about solving in deficit problem, not about keeping any ammo out of the state. That is the left wing doctrine though, lets solve all the problems that don't matter and just leave the ones that do need solving alone.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Gray Court, SC
    Posts
    2,934

    Default California Court Strikes Down Ammunition Law!

    They struck it down! Well for a while anyway...

    NRA-ILA :: California Court Strikes Down Ammunition Law!

    Tuesday, January 18, 2011 In an important victory for California gun owners, the Fresno Superior Court ruled today that California's new ammunition regulation law is unconstitutional, and blocked further enforcement.

    The law, passed last year as AB 962, would have banned mail order ammunition sales and required all purchases of so called “handgun ammunition” to be registered. In an unwritten ruling from the bench, Judge Jeffrey Hamilton found the law unconstitutionally vague on its face and issued an injunction against its enforcement. For now, at least, mail order ammunition sales to California residents can continue, and ammunition sales need not be registered under the law.

    The lawsuit—funded by the National Rifle Association and the California Rifle and Pistol (CRPA) Foundation as part of a joint Legal Action Project—was prompted in part by the many objections and questions raised by confused police, ammunition purchasers, and sellers about what ammunition is covered by the new law. Plaintiffs in the case include Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker, the CRPA Foundation, Herb Bauer Sporting Goods, ammunition shipper Able’s Ammo, collectible ammunition shipper RTG Sporting Collectibles, and individual Steven Stonecipher. Mendocino Sheriff Tom Allman also supported the lawsuit.

    The ruling comes just days before the ban on mail order sales of so called “handgun ammunition” was set to take effect. Many of the nation's largest mail-order and online ammunition retailers had already announced that they would soon end sales to California residents. If the law had gone into effect, it would have required that “handgun ammunition” be stored out of the reach of customers, that ammunition vendors collect ammunition sales registration information and thumbprints from purchasers, and that vendors conduct transactions face to face for all deliveries and transfers of “handgun ammunition.”

    Fortunately, the court agreed that AB 962 is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it fails to provide sufficient legal notice of what ammunition cartridges are “principally for use in a handgun,” and therefore regulated as "handgun ammunition" under AB 962. The law gives no explanation of how to determine what cartridges are "principally for use in” handguns.

    The state is likely to appeal this important victory, and anti-gun lawmakers in Sacramento will undoubtedly try again to destroy lawful ammunition sales in California. Only the ongoing support and activism of California gun owners can block those efforts, so please watch your e-mail alerts and visit
    www.nraila.org for updates on this critically important issue.
    USAF Retired, CATM, SC CWP, NH NR CWP, NRA Benefactor
    To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them... -- Richard Henry Lee, 1787

  10. #10
    handgonnetoter Guest

    Default

    Yes, I saw that on the Fox news ticker that scrolls across the bottom of the T.V. screen! That is good news for shooters in California!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. As of Jan of 2011 we will be able to carry in Iowa
    By dkangel21 in forum Missouri Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-16-2010, 12:15 PM
  2. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-04-2009, 10:24 AM
  3. SAF, Calguns Foundation Challenges California Handgun Ban Scheme
    By lukem in forum California Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-04-2009, 10:03 AM
  4. Winchester ammo.
    By S&WM&P40 in forum Handgun Ammunition and Reloading
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 10-12-2008, 02:39 PM
  5. Shooting with open boxes, buckets of ammo
    By Bohemian in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-08-2008, 06:51 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •