Difference between revisions of "OOIDA v. Lindley"
From Calguns Foundation Wiki
m (→Status) |
m (→Case Files) |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
== Case Files == | == Case Files == | ||
| − | [http:// | + | [http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.211363/ All files are here ] |
Revision as of 07:22, 29 July 2010
Contents
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-at-01095. Docket filed in U.S. District Court Eastern District of California Sacramento Division
- July 28, 2010 - Complaint filed
Commentary and Analysis
Calguns Discussion Threads
Intent
Specifically, Plaintiffs seek:
- 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;
- 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
- 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
