Federal judge rules PRCalif's 10-day waiting period for gun purchase, unconstitutional

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Perhaps one of the more ridiculous examples of 'waiting periods' can be found in Florida, where there's a three day wait for handguns.

However, if one has a concealed weapon or firearm license, the waiting period doesn't apply, completely undermining the rationale of the waiting period.

 

[turtledude]

So how do we keep guns from the mentally unstable without a waiting period? I assume a person goes through some type of thought process in the purchase of a gun. Application of the weapon, type of round, barrel length, and some others I would imagine. Just how is the waiting period unfair to the purchaser? Since everyone legally purchasing a gun is subject to the same wait. Ten days seems longer than needed to get a background check, but three to five seems reasonable. What am I missing?

1) you don't get better accuracy in a 3-5 day waiting period.

2) if you already own a gun there is absolutely no valid reason for a waiting period

3) the federal government does not properly have the power to impose a waiting period-it infringes on the RKBA and is not allow under the tenth amendment

4) criminals won't wait, they cannot buy guns legally anyway

 

[turtledude]

Perhaps one of the more ridiculous examples of 'waiting periods' can be found in Florida, where there's a three day wait for handguns.

However, if one has a concealed weapon or firearm license, the waiting period doesn't apply, completely undermining the rationale of the waiting period.

what is the rationale of a waiting period? if someone has a CCW doesn't that mean that they have a clean record?

 

[turtledude]

So how do we keep guns from the mentally unstable without a waiting period? I assume a person goes through some type of thought process in the purchase of a gun. Application of the weapon, type of round, barrel length, and some others I would imagine. Just how is the waiting period unfair to the purchaser? Since everyone legally purchasing a gun is subject to the same wait. Ten days seems longer than needed to get a background check, but three to five seems reasonable. What am I missing?

How does a waiting period keep guns from the mentally unstable to begin with? Obviously based on past history it doesn.t
It is an unnecessary burden on exercising a right. That's all it takes to be unconstitutional.

Waiting periods allow for background checks. Where does it say you get to have a gun instantaneously in the Constitution? Since the purchase of that gun can impact my Constitutional rights, there are legitimate reasonable limitations.

what part of shall not be infringed do you fail to comprehend

you can do as accurate a background check instantaneously as you can in a 3 day period.

how does me BUYING or EVEN OWNING gun impact your constitutional rights

what a lame silly childish argument

You don't have a right to have crap stained underpants because you void your garments over someone else owning a gun

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So how do we keep guns from the mentally unstable without a waiting period? I assume a person goes through some type of thought process in the purchase of a gun. Application of the weapon, type of round, barrel length, and some others I would imagine. Just how is the waiting period unfair to the purchaser? Since everyone legally purchasing a gun is subject to the same wait. Ten days seems longer than needed to get a background check, but three to five seems reasonable. What am I missing?

That the waiting period is capricious, unfounded, and an undue burden on the Second Amendment right.

In order for the state to restrict a Constitutional right, it must demonstrate that there is a rational basis for the restriction, that there is evidence in support of the restriction, and that the restriction pursues a proper legislative end.

There is no rational basis supporting the idea that someone would go to a gun shop solely for the purpose of securing a firearm to commit an imminent lawless act, there is no evidence in support of the notion that a three or ten day waiting period prohibits gun violence, and consequently the state's desire to subject gun buyers to a waiting period does not pursue a proper legislative end.

Last, the NICS background check takes only a few minutes, ensuring that a prohibited person, such as a felon or someone mentally ill, does not take possession of a firearm, where any additional waiting period is clearly unwarranted.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Another crack in the dam.
Every little bit helps.

------------------------------------------

Federal Judge Rules California s 10-Day Waiting Period Unconstitutional - Matt Vespa

Federal Judge Rules California's 10-Day Waiting Period Unconstitutional
Matt Vespa | Aug 25, 2014

Today, a federal judge ruled that California’s 10-day waiting period is unconstitutional. Gun owners Jeffrey Silvester and Brandon Combs, along with Calguns Foundation and the Second Amendment Fondation, challenged the law, saying that the 10-day waiting period adds additional costs and disruptions preventing them from exercising their constitutional Second Amendment rights (via Calguns Foundation):

------------------
In the decision released this morning, Federal Eastern District of California Senior Judge Anthony W. Ishii, appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton, found that “the 10-day waiting periods of Penal Code [sections 26815(a) and 27540(a)] violate the Second Amendment” as applied to members of certain classifications, like Silvester and Combs, and “burdens the Second Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs.”

“This is a great win for Second Amendment civil rights and common sense,” said Jeff Silvester, the named individual plaintiff. “I couldn’t be happier with how this case turned out.”
------------------

Under the court order, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) must change its systems to accommodate the unobstructed release of guns to gun buyers who pass a background check and possess a California license to carry a handgun, or who hold a “Certificate of Eligibility” issued by the DOJ and already possess at least one firearm known to the state.

Additionally, Judge Ishii said that the defendant, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, had to “show that the 10-day waiting period either falls outside the scope of Second Amendment protections as historically understood or fits within one of several categories of longstanding regulations that are presumptively lawful.” The State of California failed in that exercise.

From the ruling, it said [emphasis mine]:

******************
First, in terms of relevant historical understandings, Defendant has not established that waiting period laws were understood to be outside the protections of the Second Amendment. Defendant has cited no statutes or regulations around 1791or 1868 that imposed waiting periods between the time of purchase and the time of delivery. Nor has Defendant cited historical materials or books that discuss waiting periods or attitudes towards waiting periods between 1791and 1868. There is no evidence to suggest that waiting periods imposed by the government would have been accepted and understood to be permissible under the Second Amendment. Cf.Peruta, 742 F.3d at1153-66.Second, in terms of Heller?s longstanding presumptively lawful regulations, Defendant has not established that the 10-day waiting period is a presumptively lawful longstanding regulatory measure that imposes a condition and qualification on the commercial sale of a firearm.
…
Moreover, Defendant has not established that the waiting period law is sufficiently “longstanding” to be entitled to a presumption of lawfulness. Included in the concept of a “longstanding and presumptively lawful regulation” is that the regulation has long been accepted and is rooted in history.
*******************

It looks like the only people who want to try to reply to this post, are those who either bring up things that I never said, or people who try to change the subject to silly things and pretend they are still on topic.

In other words, looks like nobody who opposes people' right to own and carry a gun, have any coherent reply at all.

Looks like a clean sweep for the Federal court on the side of ordinary people's rights! For a change.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So how do we keep guns from the mentally unstable without a waiting period? I assume a person goes through some type of thought process in the purchase of a gun. Application of the weapon, type of round, barrel length, and some others I would imagine. Just how is the waiting period unfair to the purchaser? Since everyone legally purchasing a gun is subject to the same wait. Ten days seems longer than needed to get a background check, but three to five seems reasonable. What am I missing?

All that is legally required to purchase a firearm is a background check and those are nearly instantly done. I am sure that IF the purpose of a waiting period was solely to provide time for a background check no Court would find it Unconstitutional. A waiting period for any other reason IS in fact an impediment to exercising ones 2nd Amendment rights. And a 10 day wait is an undue burden on the exercise of ones Constitutional rights.

 

[g5000]

Today, a federal judge ruled that California’s 10-day waiting period is unconstitutional.

All 'waiting periods' are un-Constitutional, let's hope citizens in other states challenge their waiting periods as well where such provisions are also invalidated.

Agreed.

Fucking syxyst McDonald's, their drive-thru wait times are horrific at lunch. I can't wait for the wait times there to be abolished.

Allow me to explain the idiocy of your post: Equivocation

Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).

 

[g5000]

So how do we keep guns from the mentally unstable without a waiting period? I assume a person goes through some type of thought process in the purchase of a gun. Application of the weapon, type of round, barrel length, and some others I would imagine. Just how is the waiting period unfair to the purchaser? Since everyone legally purchasing a gun is subject to the same wait. Ten days seems longer than needed to get a background check, but three to five seems reasonable. What am I missing?

You are missing the fact that a background check only takes a few minutes.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Today, a federal judge ruled that California’s 10-day waiting period is unconstitutional.

All 'waiting periods' are un-Constitutional, let's hope citizens in other states challenge their waiting periods as well where such provisions are also invalidated.

This ruling seems to leave that possibility wide open.

There's no doubt that waiting periods are unconstitutional, of course. The only "maybe" is whether the courts will learn to read plain English and point it out, as this court did.

I disagree with the ruling, and your assessment. Simply because I believe the 2nd was NEVER meant to apply to states. I however stipulate that incorporation is incorrectly assumed and therefor understand why the ruling was made.

 

[saveliberty]

Several of you have pointed out background checks are very fast. Can anyone detail what that information checks? If you look at many of the more recent school attacks, the attacker purchased multiple guns with in a relatively short period. So having purchased a gun before is more of a red flag true? Perhaps the background checks are missing important elements? Elements which might be helpful? For instance, has the purchaser had any recent domestic problems with police contact? Restraining orders?

I have no problem with a mentally healthly adult owning 50 guns and lots of ammunition. A responsible owner should also want guns to stay out of irresponsible owners hands. Reasonable steps to accomplish that seem good. No one is denying you your weapons, so there is no violation of your rights.

 

[OriginalShroom]

I love it when the gun grabbers

Cry

 

[Bush92]

I love it when the gun grabbers

Cry

Lmfao!!Could sell these bottles at DNC convention in 2016!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Several of you have pointed out background checks are very fast. Can anyone detail what that information checks? If you look at many of the more recent school attacks, the attacker purchased multiple guns with in a relatively short period. So having purchased a gun before is more of a red flag true? Perhaps the background checks are missing important elements? Elements which might be helpful? For instance, has the purchaser had any recent domestic problems with police contact? Restraining orders?

I have no problem with a mentally healthly adult owning 50 guns and lots of ammunition. A responsible owner should also want guns to stay out of irresponsible owners hands. Reasonable steps to accomplish that seem good. No one is denying you your weapons, so there is no violation of your rights.

Background checks check for convictions certain types of charges not yet completed and whether or not a person has been adjudicated as mental unfit. That is all they check and that is all the law allows they check. Certain mentally unstable types have gotten through because State and Local officials are less then prepared to do the required leg work and court time to adjudge a person mentally incompetent.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Several of you have pointed out background checks are very fast. Can anyone detail what that information checks? If you look at many of the more recent school attacks, the attacker purchased multiple guns with in a relatively short period. So having purchased a gun before is more of a red flag true? Perhaps the background checks are missing important elements? Elements which might be helpful? For instance, has the purchaser had any recent domestic problems with police contact? Restraining orders?

I have no problem with a mentally healthly adult owning 50 guns and lots of ammunition. A responsible owner should also want guns to stay out of irresponsible owners hands. Reasonable steps to accomplish that seem good. No one is denying you your weapons, so there is no violation of your rights.

I personally believe a person should have to undergo a CAT scan once every five years in order to be able to buy and own firearms, No different than proving you are able to see in order to get a DL.

THe NCIC background check is relatively thorough in terms of uncovering any criminal activity, and also it checks for such things as TROs and other alerts, but that's it. It doesn't tell anyone if the person is sane or not, in fact a person can voluntarily lived in a physiatric ward and that won't show up on a back ground check

It's a useful tool, but a tool nonetheless.

 

[saveliberty]

Several of you have pointed out background checks are very fast. Can anyone detail what that information checks? If you look at many of the more recent school attacks, the attacker purchased multiple guns with in a relatively short period. So having purchased a gun before is more of a red flag true? Perhaps the background checks are missing important elements? Elements which might be helpful? For instance, has the purchaser had any recent domestic problems with police contact? Restraining orders?

I have no problem with a mentally healthly adult owning 50 guns and lots of ammunition. A responsible owner should also want guns to stay out of irresponsible owners hands. Reasonable steps to accomplish that seem good. No one is denying you your weapons, so there is no violation of your rights.

Background checks check for convictions certain types of charges not yet completed and whether or not a person has been adjudicated as mental unfit. That is all they check and that is all the law allows they check. Certain mentally unstable types have gotten through because State and Local officials are less then prepared to do the required leg work and court time to adjudge a person mentally incompetent.

Thank you RGS. I don't personally want a gun, but I would like my rights reserved in case I change my mind. Perhaps a graduated system? You score a zero threat rating, get the gun the same day. You score higher and a secondary check takes place in three days. This one is triggered for any violent tendency or repeated police contact.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Today, a federal judge ruled that California’s 10-day waiting period is unconstitutional.

All 'waiting periods' are un-Constitutional, let's hope citizens in other states challenge their waiting periods as well where such provisions are also invalidated.

Agreed.

Fucking syxyst McDonald's, their drive-thru wait times are horrific at lunch. I can't wait for the wait times there to be abolished.

got your panties in a knot because the flaming fairies of LaLa Land got slapped around by a CLINTON appointee?

So you WANT to have 20-minute waiting periods at McDonald's? Unbelievable.

Actually, I wouldn't mind the wait as long as McDonald's had accessories and ammo on the menu too. Now that would be sweet: "Make it a Big Mac, fries, Coke and an order of .45 caliber rounds, please. Puts a new meaning on drive-by. But I suppose you're right. I mean, seriously, I could eat my burger and fries, wash 'em down and rob the place in less time. Geez.

 

[saveliberty]

I suppose you could specify that your order is only good if served within five minutes. Then pay at the second window, not the first.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Today, a federal judge ruled that California’s 10-day waiting period is unconstitutional.

All 'waiting periods' are un-Constitutional, let's hope citizens in other states challenge their waiting periods as well where such provisions are also invalidated.

Agreed.

Fucking syxyst McDonald's, their drive-thru wait times are horrific at lunch. I can't wait for the wait times there to be abolished.

got your panties in a knot because the flaming fairies of LaLa Land got slapped around by a CLINTON appointee?

So you WANT to have 20-minute waiting periods at McDonald's? Unbelievable.

Actually, I wouldn't mind the wait as long as McDonald's had accessories and ammo on the menu too. Now that would be sweet: "Make it a Big Mac, fries, Coke and an order of .45 caliber rounds, please. Puts a new meaning on drive-by. But I suppose you're right. I mean, seriously, I could eat my burger and fries, wash 'em down and rob the place in less time.

As far as McDonalds goes, A) Gross B) They should have a weigh in before you can order. Sorry sir, you over 40 lbs overweight you can only have a salad"

 

[saveliberty]

No need your insurance company will be doing that for them.