Pay attention to California order in waiting period case

Quote:A federal judge in California has ruled in a Second Amendment fight that a state-imposed waiting period to take possession of a firearm is a burden on the right to keep and bear arms.

The ruling came in a challenge brought by the Second Amendment Foundation to the state’s mandatory 10-day waiting period to obtain firearms. The case, Silvester v. Harris, continues.

It was Senior Judge Anthony Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California who said in an 11-page decision that California Attorney General Kamala Harris “argues that the WPL (Waiting Period Law) is a minor burden on the Second Amendment, [but] plaintiffs are correct that this is a tacit acknowledgement that a protected Second Amendment right is burdened.”

He wrote, “The court concludes that the WPL burdens the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”

Alan Gottlieb, the executive vice president for the SAF, said the statement is important.

“Judge Ishii’s comparison of the waiting period to a prior restraint is significant,” Gottlieb said, “He further stated that Harris, in her motion to dismiss the case, had not shown that the waiting period law is effective in reducing gun-related violent crime, or in keeping guns out of the wrong hands where the government has already issued that purchaser a License To Carry or a Certificate Of Eligibility.”

Makes sense.

If the state has already issued you the permit, why should you have to wait 10 more days for the specific gun? What purpose is served?

In other news: It'll now take 10 days to have a background check processed in California...

Background checks, waiting periods...all violate 2nd Amendment.

The only Constitutional gun waiting period is at 2000 feet per second.

(12-13-2013 03:48 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  The only Constitutional gun waiting period is at 2000 feet per second.

you have some great one-liners.

Make that one up myself. Thanks.

This will backfire. California will just come up with something more severe and draconian. I mean, this is a state with a city that tried to ban circumcisions.

(12-13-2013 03:41 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  In other news: It'll now take 10 days to have a background check processed in California...

Well, they STILL have to get a court to decide that the time frame is not egregious. I don't disagree with this as an alternative, but they'd do that anyway... AND increase the waiting period for the gun.

This is an instance where I believe these details should be left to the individual states.

All of these kinds of laws should get a good ole rational basis test and then call it a day.

I don't understand what the 10 days are for so it would fail but other than that the vast majority of gun legislation should originate from the various states.

The United States has an expansive law called the Second Amendment that says we all have the right, as granted by god or whatever creator you believe in, to keep and bear arms. The Courts have ruled that States may place prudent restrictions on that right. In this case the Court has ruled that the 10 day waiting period is imprudent. Sounds like the system worked.