by About two weeks ago, I posted a story on the NRA/CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project lawsuit againt California’s new handgun ammo law that goes into effect on February 1, 2011. The suit was filed in California Superior Court for Fresno County. We still haven’t seen the complaint in this case as the plaintiff’s attorneys are being “tactically” coy about it.
However, the Corning Observer in Corning, California has a story about Sheriff Clay Parker, the lead plaintiff in the case. The story notes that he is passionate about protecting the “citizen’s right to bear arms.”
Sheriff Parker says about the bill,
“The bill is too broad,” Parker said. “What is handgun ammunition? If you ask, no one could tell you. Some people may say a .357 shell is handgun ammunition, but I have a .357 rifle. This bill has to be defined better.”
The article also quotes an employee of a local hardware store that sells ammunition,
Tim Ross, an employee of Hatfield’s Ace Hardware, which sells firearms and ammunition, said he agrees with Parker that the language of the bill is too broad.
“There is a lot of firearms ammunition that is interchangeable between pistols and rifles,” Ross said. “Another issue we have with the bill is the record keeping. For every box of ammunition we sell we will have to keep fingerprint, driver’s license, and other information on our records for who knows how long and that will create an unimaginable paper trail headache.”
H/T Dave Hardy of Of Arms and the Law blog
