A virtually identical lawsuit was filed by the plaintiffs in early June and then was voluntarily dismissed on July 16th. Of course, on June 28th, the U.S. Supreme Court found for Otis McDonald and the Second Amendment was applied to the states through incorporation. The new complaint has added the Second Amendment as one of the grounds for the complaint.
The other plaintiffs in this case are Jim Otten who owns a Minnesota-based on-line ammo retailer named a1ammo.com and Major Jim Russell, USMC (Ret)., a California resident, who is a disabled veteran. Major Russell is active in the Paralyzed Veterans of America as their Director of Shooting Sports.
What makes this case unique when compared to the rest of the post-McDonald litigation is that it makes the Commerce Clause the centerpiece of the complaint. While it does include the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment and the Second Amendment as part of the basis for the lawsuit, the complaint devotes most of its arguments to the Commerce Clause and AB 962's interference with interstate commerce.
The lawsuit first attacks the definition of "handgun ammunition" as being impermissably vague. The law defines it as:
"Handgun ammunition" means ammunition principally for use in pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 12001, notwithstanding that the ammunition may also be used in some rifles.There are many calibers of ammunition that can be used in both handguns and rifles. For example, the ubiquitous .22LR rimfire can be used in both the Ruger 10/22 carbine and the Ruger MkIII pistol. Likewise, you have many common rifle cartridges that can be used in the Thompson/Center Contender pistol. As the complaint notes,
it forces individuals and businesses to guess what is meant by “handgun ammunition.” As a result, people engaging in constitutionally protected activity (interstate commerce), selling and buying constitutionally protected products (firearms and ammunition), are placed in the precarious position of not knowing whether or not the legal product they are buying is considered by someone somewhere buried deep in the bureaucracy of the State of California to be “handgun” ammunition or “rifle” ammunition.Other provisions of AB 962 requires vendors to make sure that their employees are allowed under the law to sell ammunition and to make sure the recipient of the ammunition is allowed by law to buy. The former requires employers to know whether certain employees are ineligible to sell the ammo while not being authorized by law to conduct criminal background checks. As to the latter, there is no Brady Law forcing a NICS check of ammo purchasers. Furthermore, since the law forbids the sale to gang members, the vendor has no way know if the buyer is or is not a member of a criminal street gang. Unless one is immersed in the gang culture or is a law enforcement officer specializing in gangs, I would venture to say it is hard to tell a wannabe gang member from an up and coming rapper. Or vice-versa.
The meat of the argument against AB 962 is that it interferes with interstate commerce. By requiring a face-to-face transaction, California vendor and manufacturers cannot ship their product out of state. Conversely, out of state sellers and manufacturers cannot ship their handgun ammunition to buyers in California. It goes on to state that,
In addition to a ban on handgun ammunition sales in all but “face to face” transactions, AB962 includes an irrational, preempted definition of “ammunition” so expansive that out-of-state vendors will be unable to determine what is or isn’t legal and what actions are or are not criminal. As a result, out-of-state vendors will simply refuse to sell or ship to California residents. Likewise, the criminalization of the sale of ammunition to an ever-expanding impossible-to-ascertain list of prohibited purchasers will cumulatively interfere with and regulate channels of interstate commerce.With regard to violations of the Second Amendment, the suit says,
AB962 further discriminates against individuals on the basis of whether or not they are employees of the government, exempting “Authorized law enforcement representatives of cities, counties, cities and counties, or state and federal governments for exclusive use by those government agencies” and “peace officers” from its provisions. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution expresses fundamental and individual rights that cannot be reserved only to government employees. These rights are guaranteed to every citizen. To denying these rights to all but government employees, AB962 violates the Second Amendment. This disparate treatment is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.The entire complaint can be seen here.
I am not a lawyer (nor do I play one on television!) but I do think this complaint does make a strong prima facie case that AB 962 interferes with interstate commerce.