This is a followup to my earlier post on AB 962 being overturned by a state judge Tuesday. Read the post for the background.
The Associated Press ran a story Wednesday on the decision. Written by Garance Burke, the story predictably dragged in the Arizona shootings. (Burke is a lefty; read her paper on “Indigenous Mexican Migrants” (PDF), which refers to illegal immigrants with the misleading euphemism “undocumented”.)
The San Diego Union Tribune ran its own story by Michael Gardner on the decision. Gardner wrote a Jan. 13 story anticipating that the law would go into effect.
The judge's decision was handed down "late Tuesday," according to the San Diego Union Tribune.
From Gardner’s story on the decision: (Emphasis mine).
A Fresno County Superior Court judge has blocked a pending state law that would have required Californians to provide a thumbprint and photo identification when buying handgun ammunition.
Judge Jeffrey Hamilton ruled from the bench late Tuesday that the law scheduled to go into effect Feb. 1 was “unconstitutionally vague.”
Word on the gun law decision was circulating by noon. Note the 12:07 p.m. time stamp on the tweet.
Gardner’s timing conflicts with that given by one of the plaintiffs, the California Rifle and Pistol Association. (emphasis mine.)
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.
I found out about the decision from a Facebook post by Michael A. Schwartz. The post, repeating the association’s statement, has the lunch-hour time-stamp of 12:41 p.m. Tuesday, which fits with the decision being handed down that morning.
(DISCLAIMER: This is my opinion, and not necessarily that of my employer, the North County Times.)
Comments 3
Aside from what time the judge gave his decision, the mainstream media has been getting a lot wrong on gun stories. One of the more prevalent myths since the horrible tragedy in Tucson is that had the Democrat’s federal “assault weapon” ban been renewed in 2004, the gun and magazine the insane murderer used would have been illegal to buy.
Not true.
The federal ban would have no effect on a Glock pistol or the amount of cartridges the magazine held. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Paul Helmke from the anti-gun group “Brady Org” said that a Glock pistol is “not suited for hunting or personal protection.” Well, he is half right. It is not suited for hunting because it is specifically designed for PERSONAL PROTECTION. Don’t take my word for it. Ask the vast majority of law enforcement worldwide who carry Glock products to defend their life or ask the huge percentage of civilian pistol owners in America who own and carry Glock products for the purpose of protection.
If I were a far more cynical person I would wonder if reinstating the “assault weapon” ban is part of the media’s agenda.
Author
Michael,
Reporters are professionals who never let their bias creep into their stories. The media has no agenda except reporting the truth to serve the public and save democracy.
/sarc
I was buying all of that. Glad you included (sarc)