Difference between revisions of "OOIDA v. Lindley"

From Calguns Foundation Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Status)
m (OOIDA v. Lindley: Formatting)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
[http://ia360709.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.caed.211363/gov.uscourts.caed.211363.1.0.pdf ''OOIDA v. Lindley''] is a case seeking to a judicial declaration that Penal Code section 12318 (AB962) is unconstitutional and unenforceable because it is in direct conflict with federal law.
 
[http://ia360709.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.caed.211363/gov.uscourts.caed.211363.1.0.pdf ''OOIDA v. Lindley''] is a case seeking to a judicial declaration that Penal Code section 12318 (AB962) is unconstitutional and unenforceable because it is in direct conflict with federal law.
  
  OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ERIK ROYCE, BRANDON ELIAS, FOLSOM SHOOTING CLUB, INC.,  
+
  OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,  
 +
ERIK ROYCE, BRANDON ELIAS, FOLSOM SHOOTING CLUB, INC.,  
 
  THE CALGUNS FOUNDATION, INC., and  NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, INC.  
 
  THE CALGUNS FOUNDATION, INC., and  NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, INC.  
 
   
 
   

Revision as of 23:06, 19 August 2010

OOIDA v. Lindley

OOIDA v. Lindley is a case seeking to a judicial declaration that Penal Code section 12318 (AB962) is unconstitutional and unenforceable because it is in direct conflict with federal law.

OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC., 
ERIK ROYCE, BRANDON ELIAS, FOLSOM SHOOTING CLUB, INC., 
THE CALGUNS FOUNDATION, INC., and  NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, INC. 

                  Plantiffs, 
            vs.
 
STEVE LINDLEY; THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; 
THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; DOES 1-10

                  Defendants.

Status

The case is case number 2:10-cv-02010. Docket filed in U.S. District Court Eastern District of California Sacramento Division

Commentary and Analysis

Calguns Discussion Threads

Intent

Specifically, Plaintiffs seek:

  1. A declaration that Penal Code section 12318 is preempted by federal law under the FAAAA and the Supremacy Clause – because those provisions purport to regulate the routes, rates, and services utilized for shipping and delivery and sale of ammunition to a person in California, and what data delivery services must now collect from shippers of such packages;
  2. A declaration that California Penal Code section 12318 is preempted by federal law under the FAAAA and the Supremacy Clause as applied to motor carriers and air/ground intermodal carriers – because the provision purports to regulate from whom and to whom such carriers may make a delivery of ammunition in California; and
  3. A permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from enforcing California Penal Code section 12318 altogether, and from enforcing them against motor carriers and air/ground intermodal carriers and otherwise legal recipients of ammunition

Case Files

All files are here