AB 962 on Cal DOJ Site?

[BallTurret]

I was perusing the California Dept. of Justice - Office of the Attorney General web site and came across the 2009 New and Amended California Firearms Legislation page. As I started to read legislation posted on this site, I came across AB 962 that defines the sale, transfer and ownership of ammunition... Now correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this legislation struck down by a superior court judge??? If so, why is AB 962 showing as being in effect. Below is the link to the site:

2009 New and Amended California Firearms Legislation | State of California - Department of Justice - Kamala D. Harris Attorney General

[libertarian]

Probably because that's a 2009 document, and the law was struck down in 2011? The case was Parker v. California.

[IDNTWN2]

Ruled unconstitutional in January of 2011:

"In a dramatic ruling giving gun owners a win in an National Rifle Association / California Rifle and Pistol (CRPA) Foundation lawsuit, this morning Fresno Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton ruled that AB 962, the hotly contested statute that would have banned mail order ammunition sales and required all purchases of so called “handgun ammunition” to be registered, was unconstitutionally vague on its face. The Court enjoined enforcement of the statute, so mail order ammunition sales to California can continue unabated, and ammunition sales need not be registered under the law."

BREAKING NEWS: California Court Rules Ammunition Ban AB962 Unconstitutional | The Shooter's Log

The bill still resides on the DOJ site, but it has not been codified into law, never will be. There WILL be new bills though. Guaranteed.

[libertarian]

Originally Posted by IDNTWN2

The bill still resides on the DOJ site, but it has not been codified into law, never will be. There WILL be new bills though. Guaranteed.

It actually *is* in the penal code already, section 30345-30365 and 30312. No idea why it hasn't been cleaned out yet, probably the slow wheels of justice turning...

[mjones]

Originally Posted by libertarian

It actually *is* in the penal code already, section 30345-30365 and 30312. No idea why it hasn't been cleaned out yet, probably the slow wheels of justice turning...

Even though its enrolled in the Penal Code its still null and void via the Judiciary. The Penal Code is riddled with sections of stricken codes. The only way they can be physically removed is by the legislature - which they rarely do.

[mark]

they sure wasted no time in upgrading their website format though.

[BallTurret]

Thanks for everyone's response... One would think that this being a site for Cali law, it would be maintained to a more current standard.

[David2531]

Originally Posted by BallTurret

Thanks for everyone's response... One would think that this being a site for Cali law, it would be maintained to a more current standard.

You said it all "this being a site for Cali law"

[NorCalChuck]

Not when you consider who the Attorney General is . . .
Remember she came from San Francisco . . . . I would not put it past her to leave it there just for the confusion it can cause to the average lay person seeking information.
Kamala D. Harris is no friend of any gun rights to anyone except those she wishes to choose.

[IDNTWN2]

Originally Posted by libertarian

It actually *is* in the penal code already, section 30345-30365 and 30312. No idea why it hasn't been cleaned out yet, probably the slow wheels of justice turning...

Ill be darned. Did not know that.

[BallTurret]

Originally Posted by David2531

You said it all "this being a site for Cali law"

Sorry...I let common sense get the best of me.

[BallTurret]

Originally Posted by NorCalChuck

Not when you consider who the Attorney General is . . .
Remember she came from San Francisco . . . . I would not put it past her to leave it there just for the confusion it can cause to the average lay person seeking information.Kamala D. Harris is no friend of any gun rights to anyone except those she wishes to choose.

This was my first thought... Nothing like 'control' with deception.

[Purple K]

The case is still alive in the Courts, the DOJ is appealing the Judges decision.