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.)