FRESNO, Calif. (AP) — A judge has ruled that key sections of a California law restricting the sale of handgun ammunition cannot be enforced because they are unconstitutional.

   Gun rights advocates celebrated Tuesday’s ruling in Fresno County Superior Court, saying the law would have created uncertainty by forcing local gun shops to decide for themselves what type of bullets were covered by the restrictions.

   The bill also would have required handgun ammunition to be bought in a face-to-face transaction, which they say would not have prevented a tragedy like the Arizona shooting rampage that killed six and injured U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

   Shooting suspect Jared Loughner legally purchased ammunition the morning he allegedly opened fire at Giffords’ district meet-and-greet outside a Tucson Safeway.

   (Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press.  All Rights Reserved.)

Comments (56)
  1. Ben says:

    Think about this … if everyone standing around that day had been armed, that guy wouldn’t have gotten a shot off, if he had even had the cojones to go through with it in the first place. Even our current laws are limiting people’s ability to protect themselves. I’m not condoning vigilante justice, but I believe that everyone has the fundamental right to protect themselves and their families. Stricter gun laws only serve to further help those who do not adhere to law.

    “The world is a safer place when the criminals don’t know who is armed.”

    1. Randy Gudgel says:

      That’s actually 100% false. People don’t walk around with their gun out and pointing at anyone before it happens. He could have easily dropped a couple people before anyone reacted. Trying to pretend that everyone having guns means nobody would use them, is just so incredibly ignorant it’s almost not worth a rational response.

      And as far as having guns for self-defense, that is also garbage. Most of the guns that people use for crimes, have been stolen from people and/or homes, that bought these guns for self defense. Either it’s in a place that is not ready enough should a situation occur, so it’s easy for the criminal to get quicker access to a firearm, or the person with the gun isn’t trained enough to be able to take a shot off.

      More guns does not mean people are more safe.

      1. JetManJR says:

        Randy, more disarming of the American Citizen does mean we are less safe. What is the statistical source for your statement that, “Most of the guns that people use for crimes, have been stolen from people and/or homes, that bought these guns for self defense.”?

      2. mesapower2003 says:

        Thats exactly right Randy Gudgel, only a moron would walk around with their gun out and only a moron would make a stratement like like you made here. The concept of armed law abiding citizens is to deter this type of incident from happening. The thought of many armed citizens would possibly have detered this event from happening or the outcome would have been drastically different and note i said possibly! I get the impression if you were there you would have been the first to duck and run. Its people like you who are the reason law abiding citizens are not allowed to have the option of carying a gun to protect them selves and their loved ones from criminals. For example what is someone like you going to do when that armed criminal comes into your house, are you going to call the police and wait the 20 minutes it takes them to get to your house while the intruder shoots you and your children and rapes your wife then murders her, all because you decided not to have the ability to stop that from happening. A hand gun or shotgun it the only thing that takes size out of the equation. It puts a 110 pound woman and her child on a even playing field with a 250 pound intruder bent on rape and murder. Im sure the outcome of that situation would be alot different at my house than it would be at yours! But dont fret Randy i believe everyone has the right to their opinion and i respect your right to yours, and to prove that if we are ever in the same place at the same time i would never infringe on your right not to protect yourself by using my gun to protect your useless ass.

      3. Randy Gudgel says:

        Wow, angry much? I never said anything about me being against people having guns. I was merely stating that people going “Yeehaw! If we got guns, we are safe!” is an ignorant statement. I never said I wanted to take your guns, I never said anything about me being some kind of wuss that would duck and cover. I was merely stating that the reasons for wanting guns is not accurate.

        I do not have guns in my house, but I do have pointy stabby things nearby me at all times inside my house, and I know how to use line of site to my advantage. I am not as useless as you want to pretend.

      4. JetManJR says:

        Oh, everyone but Randy is ignorant… So on one hand you say, “…And as far as having guns for self-defense, that is also garbage”, then on the other, ” I never said anything about me being against people having guns.”… Hmmmm. You’re gonna have to make up your mind one day son… In the meantime, if you stop acting like you’re the smartest guy on the planet and talking down to people, you MIGHT see that other prople do have some pretty good input.

      5. mesapower2003 says:

        Well randy, you just proved my point, guns used in crimes! And your going to protect yourself and your family with pointed things. Your exactly what the criminal element wants, someone who brings a knife to a gunfight. Its not you personally that i dont like its people like you as a whole. Trying to limit responsible gun ownership. I will bet you are one of those who would drop the hammer on the local police department when something happens to you or someone in your area, asking why they were not there in time to help prevent the crime when it happened. And dont iterpret what i say as being angry because its not anger its disgust that weak minded people like you have a say in issues that can cost others the ability to stop criminals when it is needed. Please correct me if i am wrong but i get the impression that you are a liberal, and you know the definition of a liberal dont you? It is someone who uses their rights to the fullest extent to take away someone elses.

      6. Ben says:

        Wow Randy, most people get to know me before calling me ignorant lol. Anywho, ignorance in my opinion is thinking that anyone is going to save you when you’re fighting off an armed intruder with your pointy stabby thing. Choose to think I’m the ignorant one, that’s on you and frankly, I could care less what you think. I know that anyone who breaks into my house will wish they had picked yours instead.

        I’d respond more to your liberal rhetoric, but JR and Mesa have done a fine job of tearing you a new one as it is so I’ll leave you with just this. I’m a veteran and spent years in Iraq. I know how to spot and neutralize a threat “before the fact”. I am not saying that everyone will be of the same level of training, but I am saying that a crowd full of armed people is a much harder target than a crowd of butterknife weilding liberals regardless of their level of training. During WW2, the Emperor of Japan would not invade the American Mainland because “There would be a man with a rifle behind every blade of grass.”.

        It is IGNORANT to think that disarming those who love, respect, and have devoted their lives to the protection and prosperity of the United States of America is a viable option.

        Good day to you, Sir.

    2. CASSIE says:

      WELL SAID!!! 🙂

  2. the watcher says:

    Ben, the criminals DO KNOW who is armed. But the really dangerous criminals are in our government. These laws are not targeted at criminals, but at legal gun owners. The real agenda is to disarm the American people. The excuse “they” are using is to protect us from the unlawful.
    Think about it: There are far more legal law abiding citizens who own guns than then there are criminals who have guns… Who would this law affect the most? Legal gun owning citizens. This is the reason for the law. Our government wants us disarmed. Pay attention and watch how they will try to do everything they can to do this, one way or another.

    1. Billy Joe says:

      Watcher, you must not be watching or reading
      the judge ruled the law unconstitutional.

  3. JetManJr says:

    I think Ben and “the watcher” are definately on the right track:

  4. jim peck says:

    It’s called “nanny government” – the pols think we can’t be trusted because our intellect is so inferior to theirs, therefore they must make things safer for us by taking away all that they deem to be dangerous. This plays well to the chicken-little voters in the bay and LA areas whose knowledge of guns is limited to movies, video games, and the 5pm news about bangers and psychopaths. Also, if the populace is totally disarmed, future pols can become dictators without fear of a revolt. Next month more fun – fingerprinting when you purchase ammo.

    1. jim's peck says:

      haha you’re a nut!

  5. scopedope says:

    Way to go California. Enact laws that are unconstitutional. Wonder how many other such laws exist? The State should pay a cash penalty to everybody who bought ammo while the law was in effect.

  6. average citizen says:

    It is time for the Citizens of California to take THE control of guns and ammunition away from the Pols in Sacto who hate guns. It is time to put the core rights “to keep and bear arms” including the right of citizens to carry concealed weapons into the Constitution of the State of California – by way of a ballot initiative to amend that Constituion in favor of gun rights. Instead of law-abiding citizens having to go to court to fight for their gun rights, the gun-grabbers would have to go to court to try to take away rights already guaranteed in the State Constitution……IT IS TIME!

  7. shanks says:

    Owning a gun and carrying them in public is such a heated emotional topic and rightly so. I come from a family that has had guns a part of our life since I was born. There is no way I will EVER give up my right to bear arms. I was taught how to shoot by the time I was 10 and was given my first shotgun as a birthday present when I was 12. I was never given “toy” guns as a kid because our family believed that there is no such thing as a “toy” gun. I have raised my kids to believe the same thing and have never lived in fear of one of my children pulling a gun out and not understanding the constant fact that there is no such thing as an unloaded gun. The old argument still applies and always will, only law abiding people will abide by the law. If your one of the bad guys you really aren’t going to say oh darn, I can’t buy a gun/ammo legally…. so I guess I’ll just forget about getting some. I mean please, lets use some common sense in this. I doubt that the shooter in Arizona would have been easily stopped just because someone in the crowd had a legally issued concealed permit gun on their person. In a split second crisis moment how many people are really going to respond rationally? Unless your trained in combat that situation would have taken any and all by complete suprise. It happened in Arizona in front of a grocery store, not in a war zone in Iraq so odd’s are nobody would be ready for what happened. Basically my point being is. I don’t think there is a legitimate need for 30 round clips, however I also don’t believe that the goverment should be allowed to limit me to purchasing only 30 rounds at a time (numbers are an example only). If your a bad guy, you’ll find a way to keep being a bad guy. Law or not. Look at how well a restraining order keeps a crazy person in check. Crazy is as crazy does right?

    1. nuggetlady says:

      Well said. My Dad was in law enforcement and told me at a young age a gun is no different than a car, both can kill, its about whos behind the trigger or wheel.

  8. JetManJR says:

    hey shanks… I think you’re needed somewhere: wants YOU!

  9. John says:

    a well regulated malitia being the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

    Guns don’t kill… people kill.

  10. Balram says:

    hello there and thank you for your information I have certainly picked up anything new from right here. I did however expertise some technical issues using this site, since I experienced to reload the site a lot of times previous to I could get it to load properly. I had been wondering if your web host is OK? Not that I am complaining, but slow loading instances times will very frequently affect your placement in google and could damage your quality score if advertising and marketing with Adwords. Well I’m adding this RSS to my email and can look out for much more of your respective fascinating content. Make sure you update this again soon..

  11. Cadman says:

    This is actually a nice and helpful piece of details. Therefore i’m thankful which you shared this handy info along with us. Make sure you keep informed this way. Thank you sharing.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s