Parker v. California

From Calguns Foundation Wiki
Revision as of 22:02, 25 May 2015 by John.Simutis (Talk | contribs) (Parker v. California)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Parker v. California

"Parker" is Sheriff Clay Parker of Tehama County, plaintiff, along with Herb Bauer Sporting Goods, California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation, Able's Sporting Goods, RTG Sporting Collectibles, LLC, and Steven Stonecipher.

Michel and Associates case link

CA Supreme Court case link


  • August 17, 2014 Michel and Associates file reply brief.
  • May 6, 2014 State files opening brief.
  • February 19, 2014 - California appeals the judgement and the California Supreme Court has granted the State's Petition for Review.

UPDATE 1/18/12: Reports indicate that the judge affirmed his earlier tentative decision issued Sept. 21, 2011, and denied plaintiffs' fees requests.

Nov 16, 2011 the Court issued a minute order into the docket:

"Minute Order from Dept.: 402 Clerk: M.Santana Reporter: Not Reported Nature of Hearing: From Chambers -- The Court is in receipt of fax from Atty. Michel requesting modification of 11/09/2011 Order. The Court was very specific. It meant what it said in the Order. Should you choose to deviate or modify, you do so at your own risk. mgs"

Nov 9, 2011 the Court issued a minute order into the docket:

"Minute Order from Dept.: 402 Clerk: M.Santana Reporter: Not Reported Nature of Hearing: From Chambers 2nd Minute Order -- Amendment: Following its order earlier today, the court received an uninvited written objection by the State to Plaintiffs late-filed evidence (which was also improperly filed without seeking leave of court and serving upon Defendants prior to the September 21st hearing). The court, upon review of Defendants' objections, , initially agrees with the State's arguments. However, to protect the Plaintiffs' due process interests, the court will allow 5 days to respond. The response is limited to the issues raised in the objection and limited to 5 pages. The response must be filed and served on the court and Defendants by November 16, 2011. The Court will not allow a reply. The Court will allow service and filing by fax. If the court remains persuaded by teh State's argumetns, the court will adopt its prior tentative ruling. If the court does so adopt, the parties will be immediately notified and the other dates set will be removed from calendar. Otherwise, the parties are ordered to comply with court's previous order of today's date. IT IS SO ORDERED. mgs"

Sept. 21, 2011 the court denied C.D. Michel & Associates motion for attorneys fees, issuing a tentative order:

"In this case, the Court is unable to determine if the Plaintiffs' financial burden of attorneys' fees is out of proportion to their personal stake in litigating the case because the Plaintiffs have failed to provide the Court with evidence establishing what the private financial or pecuniary interest each Plaintiff had, or did not have...the Plaintiff has provided no evidence to support these assertions. Further, while the Plaintiffs acknowledge that Plaintiff Able's Sporting, Inc. does have pecuniary interest in the action and allege in the memorandums of points and authorities that this Plaintiff received no direct pecuniary gain and any indirect gain is highly speculative, the Plaintiffs have also failed to present any evidence to the Court to support those allegations."

April 28, 2011 the State of California appealed the ruling.

Feb 22, 2011 the court entered the following into the docket:

"Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiffs against Defendants Plainitffs shall recover their costs of suit based on a memo of costs This court's jurisdiction to determine whether Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys' fees and, if so, in shat amount, shall be retained. Entitlement to and the appropriate amount of attorney fees will be determined on noticed motion to be submitted to the Court by plaintifs in accordance with California Rule of court Rule 3.1072 and code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 Signed by Judge Hamilton 02/22/2011 csp"

Feb 2, 2011 the final order from Fresno Superior Court here.

Jan 24, 2011 Permanent injunction order

Today the Fresno Superior Court issued an Order of Permanent Injunction
in the NRA - CRPA Foundation funded legal challenge to AB962, Parker v.
California. The order permanently prevents the state and its agents
from enforcing the provisions of AB962 (Penal Code sections 12060,
12061, and 12318). 

Jan 18, 2011 link to .pdf


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. The Court enjoined
enforcement of the statute, so mail order ammunition sales to California
can continue unabated, and ammunition sales need not be registered under
the law.

Commentary and analysis

Case web site is here.

CRPA website for the case is here.

Calguns discussion threads


Stop enforcement of AB 962

Case Files

Documents for the case are at CA Gunlaws.