Home

Login Form



Who's Online

We have 12 guests online
 
Truckers and gun owner groups file lawsuit against California to void handgun ammunition shipping ban PDF Print E-mail
Written by Gene Hoffman   
Wednesday, 28 July 2010 16:36
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 .

---

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association is the largest national trade association representing the interests of small-business trucking professionals and professional truck drivers. The Association currently has more than 154,000 members nationwide. OOIDA was established in 1973 and is headquartered in the greater Kansas City, Mo., area.

The Calguns Foundation (http://calgunsfoundation.org) is a non-profit legal defense fund for California gun owners. The Calguns Foundation works to educate government and the public and protect the rights of individuals to acquire, own and lawfully use firearms in California.

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.

The Folsom Shooting Club Inc. was incorporated in 1951 and currently operates Sacramento Valley Shooting Center at Sloughhouse CA. Sacramento Valley Shooting center provides ranges for private, government and public use with rifles, handguns and shotguns. FSC and its 1500 members constantly work with law enforcement, the military, youth and wildlife groups and members of the public to promote safe and proper handling of firearms for sporting, recreational and personal use.

Last Updated on Wednesday, 28 July 2010 16:39
 
Thank you Jason Davis + CGF PDF Print E-mail
Written by Kevin Thomason   
Thursday, 01 April 2010 10:35
The below was recently posted on Calguns.net by a member. With his permission, we are reposting it here. Some cases can be handled with a simple phone call, and we are happy to have been of assistance in the below matter.


Ever since my arrest from last April, it's been a nightmare. From going with the wrong law firm, uneducated/uninformed attorney disregarding all evidence and previous court cases and suggesting me to plead guilty to something that I did NOT do, giving my DNA sample, going to life lesson classes, to surrendering my gun rights...Until about a month ago, I was really fed up, fired my attorney and contacted CGF, Kevin (Oaklander) who referred me to attorney Jason Davis.

I finally got a chance to meet up with him this Wednesday and all it took was 1 phone call from Jason to the police department, that same night the detective called back and told me I was all good to go and I could pick up my firearm that they confiscated and refused to return just a month ago. All I can say is wow!!! Jason did what my attorney couldn't do for a year in 1 phone call.

Guys, if you ever run into ANY trouble at all, contact CGF & Jason immediately. Don't even bother trying to save a few bucks and going with amateurs, because in the end it'll come back and bite you in the ***. Which I learned the hard way.

I'd like to thank you CGF & Kevin & Jason for helping an innocent, responsible and law-abiding citizen retain his rights! Now it's my turn to payback CGF and help out the next victim.

Calguns member, Jeffu.

Last Updated on Thursday, 01 April 2010 10:40
 
Just in Time for Christmas . . . Yet Another Win for The Calguns Foundation! PDF Print E-mail
Written by Kevin Thomason   
Saturday, 26 December 2009 22:24
12/23/2009

In September 2009, the CGF received an urgent call from a young man who was arrested by Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Department deputies in the Long Beach area for violation of Penal Code section 12025 (a) – i.e., carrying a concealed pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in his vehicle.

However, there were two major problems with this arrest:

First, the Department of Justice website states: Nonconcealable firearms (rifles and shotguns) are not generally covered within the provisions of California Penal Code section 12025 and therefore are not required to be transported in a locked container. (See http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/travel.php).

And, second, the firearms prohibited from being concealed according to Penal Code section 12025 are defined as handguns under California law:
As used in this title, the term "handgun" means any "pistol," "revolver," or "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person." (PC 12001(a)(2).)
According to the police report, the 19 year-old Cal State University Long Beach college student, and two of his friends were in a Long Beach industrial area late at night performing experiments with legal compressed air devices.

When they were done for the night and leaving the area, they were pulled over by multiple Los Angeles Sheriff’s units, who ordered them out of the student’s pickup truck at gun point, cuffed them, and searched the truck. The deputies then told the student that they were responding to a “shots fired” complaint and asked him if he had a firearm in the vehicle.

He informed the LASD deputies that he had a shotgun in the cab, a Mossberg 500, which was unloaded and under the seat. He had no ammunition and informed the deputies as much. The deputies then asked him how many rounds he had fired through it that night, the student explained that caller must have heard the noise from the experiments, showed the deputy the legal device used in the experiments, and informed them that he and his friends were not firing the shotgun.

The bottom line is that the LASD took him to the station, with the shotgun, held him until morning, cited him for concealed carry with a court date in Compton and released him on his own recognizance. They kept the shotgun as “evidence.”

Upon contacting The Calguns Foundation, Inc. and explaining the situation, the CGF Board unanimously agreed to fund the student’s criminal defense and retained Jason Davis of Davis & Associates to represent him.

At the initial arraignment, Mr. Davis contacted the Deputy District Attorney and explained that Penal Code section 12025 does not apply to long guns (such as shotguns) . . . unless they are “short barreled.”

The Deputy District Attorney seized upon the fact that the language does not clearly eliminate application to shotguns.

And in addition, the District Attorney informed Mr. Davis that they would add another count of 12025 for possession of the “compressed air” device if Mr. Davis persisted in attempting to defend this case.

Mr. Davis not only persisted but informed the District Attorney’s office that they were not only wrong on the shotgun, but wrong on the “compressed air device” as well.

A “compressed air” device simply cannot be deemed a firearm under Penal Code section 12001, which requires a device to expel a projectile through an explosion or other form of combustion. Mr. Davis advised the District Attorney’s office to take another careful look at the charges and reconsider dismissing the complaint.

The arraignment was then postponed, and no additional counts were brought.

At the second arraignment date, Mr. Davis provided the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office with hundreds of pages of information in support of the common sense position that the terms “handgun,” “pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person” simply do not include shotguns. Mr. Davis even included a copy of the entire “dangerous weapons law” with each and every occurrence of the terms “handgun,” “pistol,” “revolver,” and “other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person,” highlighted in yellow so as to demonstrate the absurdity of the position that a standard shotguns is the same as a “handgun,”

This crazy position would require shotguns to be placed on the list of handguns deemed not unsafe and require a handgun safety certificate for the purchase of shotguns.

At this point the matter was escalated to a higher level Deputy District Attorney, presumably one who is not pre-programmed to think all firearms and the persons possessing them are bad. Unfortunately, this was not the case. The first words out of the new Deputy District Attorney’s mouth were, “Do you want your client to be prosecuted with a felony?”

Clearly, this comment was a threat aimed at Mr. Davis’ challenge to the DA’s position. At this point, Mr. Davis continued to challenge the merits of their case and explained the documents that he provided to them. The arraignment was continued again to allow the Deputy District Attorney to digest the information provided.

Last Friday, at the third arraignment date, the Deputy District Attorney took the position that the law is not clear and may well include long guns – but stated that they could not proceed on the facts.

At that time, Mr. Davis made his motion to the court to dismiss the Complaint prior to arraignment and the Court granted that motion. Case dismissed!

Now Mr. Davis and the client are working on getting his firearm returned. CGF will keep you updated as to those results!

-Kevin.

Click here to donate to CGF:
GUNPAL:

PAYPAL:
-Ben Cannon, Treasurer, CGF.
 
«StartPrev123456NextEnd»

Page 1 of 6