Third Lawsuit Filed Against AB 962

From the CalGuns Foundation:

Truckers and gun owner groups file lawsuit against California to void handgun ammunition shipping ban

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://ia360709.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.caed.211363/gov.uscourts.caed.211363.1.0.pdf .

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.

I’ll have more after I have a chance to read the complaint.

UPDATE: A report on the lawsuit from Land-Line Magazine – The Business Magazine for Professional Truckers.

In Their Own Words – Alan Kachalsky and Christina Nikolov

Over the last few years we have come to know and respect the courage and tenacity of Dick Heller and Otis McDonald (and their fellow plaintiffs) as they fought the District of Columbia and Chicago respectively. We learned that Mr. Heller was an armed security guard trusted to protect the court buildings in DC but not trusted to have a handgun in his home to protect he and his family. Likewise, we came to know Mr. McDonald, a courageous African-American gentleman with a quiet dignity, who just wanted to protect his family with a handgun after being threatened by the drug dealers targeting his neighborhood.

But what do we know about the plaintiffs in the case of Kachalsky et al v. Cacace et al – the Westchester, New York case that challenges New York’s pistol permit law? If you depended upon the media or “authorized journalists” as David Codrea calls them, nothing. Absolutely nothing. It is as if post-McDonald the media considers gun rights old news not worthy of their time and talent.

Doing a Google search on Alan Kachalsky, I find that he is an attorney in private practice in Westchester County. Going to Martindale-Hubbell (law directory), I can learn that he is a graduate of New York Law School and that he has been licensed to practice since 1981.

Likewise, doing a similar search for Christina Nikolov, I find that she is the Director of Research for ChartWatchCentral, a web-based service offering technical analysis and research on stocks to investors. I also found out that she is a 1LT in the Civil Air Patrol, a licensed single and multi-engine commercial pilot, and a certified flight instructor.

This is all good information and it tells us that they are solid citizens and accomplished in their professions. But it doesn’t tell the how and the why of the lawsuit nor does it tell us what they hope to change with their lawsuit (other than being granted their permits). Because I was curious, I contacted them by email and sent them a set of questions. I got lucky. They were gracious enough to answer my questions. The questions and each of their unedited responses are below.

First, why did you become a plaintiff in this case? What was it that convinced you to take a stand against those who denied you a pistol permit for failing to show “good cause”?

Alan Kachalsky


My story is that for various reasons, I decided a few years ago that it was time to get a pistol permit. I picked up an application in Westchester County, and filled it out as best as I could. I saw the choices for target this, and business carry, and full carry. My purpose was for self-defense, so I applied for a concealed carry permit (only). I filled out the ‘Attachment -full carry’ form which asked me to ‘list all factors which I believe to be relevant to establish proper cause for the issuance of a firearm license for the purpose of full carry.’

I responded:

***********The factors which establish proper cause for the issuance to myself of a Full Carry pistol Permit are: 1) The Second Amendment of the Constitution grants citizens the right to bear arms. As a citizen, I am therefore entitled to exercise my Constitutional right to bear arms. I believe that Constitutional right entitles me to the permit without further the need to establish “proper cause.”

If the issuing agency for some reason requires more than this, then I will cite the fact that we live in a world sporadic random violence might at any moment place one in a position where one needs to defend oneself or possibly others, e.g. random shootings in universities (Virginia Tech), post offices, airline check-in counters, malls, road rage, as well as the run-of-the-mill street muggings and robberies. While the odds of finding oneself in a Virginia Tech type situation are remote, one must reflect that had there been even one armed person, the death toll might have been considerably less than 31 dead. While one never knows what one might do in such situations, it is my belief that it is better to have the option to defend oneself (and others) than not to have the option. As a pilot and a skydiver, I have been trained to handle emergencies, and I have actually handled several emergencies, so it is unlikely that I will respond in a dangerous manner. *********

I submitted the application along with the Affidavits, etc., and crossed my fingers hoping to get it approved.

Much to my disappointment, many months later, I received the decision denying my application on the grounds that I did not demonstrate a need for self-protection beyond that of the general public.

Although I had heard that it was quite difficult to get a carry permit, I felt it was my Constitutional right, and it annoyed me that some bureaucrat had the right to sit and decide whether I demonstrated ‘a need for self-protection. . .” What does that mean anyway? And who gave this bureaucrat the right to sit in judgment and say, no, you don’t have a need . . .

Christina Nikolov

My 2nd Amendment rights were being violated by Westchester County. Whenever I have the opportunity or means to do so, I always take a stand for what I believe in. For example, I once fought a traffic ticket all the way to the NY Appellate Court, when I knew I did nothing wrong, and won without an attorney to assist me, since no lawyers wanted to help.

How did you become a plaintiff in this case? Were you recruited or did you contact the Second Amendment Foundation or Mr. Gura?

Alan

Sorry, we can’t talk about that.

Christina

I contacted Mr. Gura. Prior to this litigation, I already knew Alan Kachalsky, who was also denied for his permit. He already had this litigation in the works with Mr. Gura. I was not recruited and never contacted the 2nd Amendment Foundation.

What is your background with firearms (hunting/target shooting/self-defense)? Are you a longtime shooter or relatively new to guns?

Alan

My background is that I shot rifles when I was a kid in Summer Camp for about three summers. I went to a shooting range once when a friend invited me, and perhaps three or four times over the years when friends had pistols.

Christina

I have been a gun owner for almost 5 years and only shoot paper targets. I do not go hunting. I have taken three 6 hour firearm courses, two of which were in Florida. Each of the Florida courses involved 400+ rounds of live fire, while the New York course does not involve any gun firing. Actually, in NY you cannot even touch a real gun during your six hours of training because it is against the law, so I have more practical experience taking courses in Florida than anyone who has ever taken the firearm course required to be licensed in NY.

What has been your experience since the lawsuit was filed? Have you been contacted by the media? Have friends or colleagues who know of the suit asked you about it? If so, what has been their reaction?

Alan

Nope. No contact from the media. Friends and family are supportive.

Christina

I have not been contacted by the media yet. Very few people have said anything to me about the lawsuit and as a matter of fact, many people I have mentioned the lawsuit to were not even aware of it. Reactions have been unanimously positive. Everyone I mentioned this to wished me well with the case.

Finally, in addition to being granted your permit, what would you like to see come out of this lawsuit?

Alan

The outcome I am looking for would be precisely the relief requested in the Complaint – that carry permits are granted to law-abiding citizens who meet the criteria of New York Penal Code § 400.00:

(1), in that each (a) is over 21 years old, (b) of good moral character, (c) has never been convicted of a felony or serious crime, (d) has never been mentally ill or confined to any institution, (e) has not had a license revoked or been the subject of a family court order, (f) has completed a firearms safety course, and (g) should not be denied a permit other than for any good cause.

Christina

What I wish to see come of this lawsuit is first of all, for me to obtain my unrestricted carry permit. But I would also like to see the law changed, to allow responsible people to own and carry firearms if they want to and are competent. NY needs to change its backwards way of looking at things and realize that criminals are committing crimes and that restricting gun ownership of people who obey the law only helps the criminals, since the criminals will always find ways to obtain firearms regardless of how strict the gun laws are.

I want to thank both Alan and Christina for taking the time to answer my questions so fully. I think we all owe them a debt of gratitude even if we live in an area where gun rights are respected and  “shall issue” concealed carry permits are the norm.

You can read the details of the lawsuit including the complaint in my earlier blog post here.

Obsolete Signs

Now that Arizona has passed constitutional carry – concealed carry without a permit – signs in Tucson parks that warned “Carry a firearm in this park is limited to persons who possess a permit” are coming down. Why? They are obsolete!

Here is a link to the KVOA story with video. Of course the reporter goes into anti-gun hysterics about kids being scared and that they will less safe.

Only 3% Hippie

You are 3% hippie.
Ok, you conservative soul. Do you even believe in global warming? Loosen that necktie a little, and try some organic food. It actually does taste better. And go to a farmer’s market–they’re fun.

Are you a hippie?
Take More Quizzes

Ending up at only 3% must be a reaction on my part from living so close to Asheville, North Carolina. Thanks to Breda, our favorite gun-toting reference librarian, for the link to the quiz.

Sheriff Clay Parker – Lead Plaintiff in NRA/CRPA Foundation Suit Against AB 962

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

Will Steve Gibson, CEO of RightHaven LLC, Sleep with the Fishes?

Only an idiot would sue a reputed mob enforcer for copyright infringement. Steve Gibson, CEO of RightHaven LLC, qualifies.

Anthony “Tony the Animal” Fiato was the subject of a book by Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist John L. Smith and was also a source for many of his columns. The book was entitled “The Animal in Hollywood” and is still available on Amazon. Mr. Fiato is being sued for copyright infringement for putting up LVR-J stories about the mob in Las Vegas on his blog “Hollywood Goodfella“.

Fiato said he was surprised to learn of the lawsuit, since he had been unaware of any concern about him posting R-J stories on his website. Fiato learned about the suit because he was contacted for comment by the Las Vegas Sun.

“I’m not concerned about it. It sounds like someone made a mistake,’’ he said, noting his assistance with Smith’s book and in providing information to the Review-Journal.

Fiato said he lives at an undisclosed location as a relocated government witness.

 Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell has more on RightHaven LLC and a program he has for WordPress blogs to check on links to any of Stephens Media LLC stories.

H/T Snowflakes In Hell

UPDATE: The Armed Citizen has an extensive update on the suit filed against them by RightHaven LLC. They also have a link to a website that gives in quite a bit of detail on the connections between Steve Gibson, both Michelle and Barack Obama, and Obama’s copyright czar Victoria Espinel.

UPDATE II: Walter Olson writing for Cato at Liberty discusses lawsuit filing “millls”. Among them is what he calls “the most recent to emerge – copyright mills” as evidenced by RightHaven LLC. It is an interesting article on all sorts of “litigation-mills”.

Free Elk Hunting Opportunity – No Joke

Imagine a chance to go elk hunting where you don’t have to buy a license or special tags and don’t have to pay a fee to participate. It sounds too good to be true but isn’t. The Theodore Roosevelt National Park is seeking applications from hunters to help cull 250 cow elk from their herd.

They need up to 20 hunters per week for the 12 week program beginning on Nov. 1. According to Park Superintendent Valerie Naylor,

In order to be considered, applicants must be able to demonstrate a high level of shooting proficiency using lead-free ammunition, agree to participate for an entire five-day week, self-certify they are fit enough to perform the rigorous activity necessary, be able to legally possess a firearm, and be willing to sign a volunteer agreement after arriving at the park.

To be considered, you must fill out an online application here and return it by August 9th. More information can be found here.

The only downside to this opportunity is that you have to get to North Dakota and might be hunting during December and January. The average temp in January is 18 deg. Medora, the closest town, has a whopping population of 100. That said, Medora does have 1 hotel and 2 motels. Go here for more info.

Outdoor Life’s Crossbow Test 2010

With North Carolina approving crossbows for use during all archery seasons (and gun seasons as well), I found this review of the latest models of crossbows by Outdoor Life magazine very interesting.

 Horton Vision Crossbow

Now if North Carolina would get rid of their ridiculous requirement to get a purchase permit from the local sheriff, I’d be happy. The problem with the law (besides the permit requirement) is that it prevents you from shopping online. Out-of-state dealers are not going to ship you a crossbow and run afoul of state law. I see some road-trips to various archery dealers in my future.

Outdoor Life is also giving away their editor’s choice and best buy crossbows. However, I’d suggest boning up on crossbow history and lore before taking their 20 question quiz. If I got 5 out of 20 correct, I’d be lucky.

Project Isaiah -Arrrrgh!

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department will take 8,300 confiscated firearms to Tamco Steel Mill tomorrow and turn them into rebar. And they seem to be very proud of themselves over it. Deputy Bill Brauberger describes the event as a celebration and says, “It’s pretty exciting and very visual”.

Picture of the 2009 Project Isaiah
The LA Times story shows a picture of Sheriff Lee Baca holding a stainless Ruger Mini-14 which will be turned into rebar. Checking the price of this on Gunbroker.com, I find prices ranging from about $400 up to about $1,000. So they will be taking high grade steel and turning it into rebar which is utterly stupid. Moreover, the rebar will be used for upgrades to highways and bridges in California, Nevada, and Arizona. 
Arizona? I thought LA was boycotting Arizona over their immigration enforcement bill SB 1070.
No one said governments in California were smart. If they were then they would be making use of companies like this or this one that does auctions for the City of Anchorage.

UPDATE: Of course Project Isaiah makes some fools happy.