From California: 10-Day Waiting Period Potentially Unconstitutional

[vvvvvvv]

(Authoring judge was appointed by Clinton, by the way)

...Plaintiffs do not argue that background checks are constitutionally improper, nor do they argue that California should not perform background checks. What Plaintiffs essentially argue is that the 10-day period is arbitrary and/or substantially overbroad, and that an adequate background check can be performed in a significantly shorter period of time. Although Harris has made arguments that support a waiting period in general, Harris has presented insufficient evidence to justify the actual 10-day period.

For example, there is no evidence regarding the nature of the background checks performed, how much time is necessary to perform a background check, or why 10-days are necessary in order to perform a background check. Harris admits that in the past California has had waiting periods that have ranged from 1 to 15 days. However, there is nothing before the Court to suggest that the 10-day period is a “reasonable fit” that is not substantially broader than necessary to determine if an individual is disqualified from owning a firearm. More information is needed. The Court will not grant summary judgment on this issue based on the bare arguments presented.


As for the “cooling down” rationale, Harris has not presented sufficient evidence that the 10-day waiting period is a “reasonable fit.” For example, there is no evidence concerning how the 10-day period was determined for purposes of “cooling off,” any evidence concerning “cooling off” and gun violence in general for those wishing to purchase a firearm, or that the 10-days is not substantially broader than necessary.


Additionally, as applied to individuals who already own a gun, the Court has great difficulty envisioning how the “cooling off” rationale could pass the appropriate level of scrutiny. If an individual already possess a firearm, then nothing about this rationale would prevent that individual from acting on a sudden impulse to commit gun violence with the gun already in his or her possession. The Court will not grant summary judgment on this issue based on the bare arguments presented.

Silvester v. Harris (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2013)

 

[Coded-Dude]

Saw this yesterday. Another win for CGF in a mountain of unconstitutional laws currently being passed out there. This was a huge gripe of mine when I lived out there; if I already own several firearms, why do I need "a cool down period" to buy another. Kamala Harris, et al were unable to provide enough evidence for it to pass scrutiny. I know most of you guys are NRA supporters, but the Calguns Foundation(CGF) is a good one, as well as the Second Amendment Foundation(SAF); they have worked together on some cases. They(CGF) have been able to set some decent precedent out there, just in case some of those absurd laws try to trickle out to other states.

If you dont want to directly donate, you can always use their amazon link and proceeds go to the foundation. www.shop42a.com

 

[Old Fart]

I recently read the west coast ruling on semi's.
It a good look into what kind of mentality they're fighting out there.

http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/20...s-second-amendment-doesnt-protect-semi-autos/

 

[Coded-Dude]

Yeah, SAF has had a lot more luck winning cases in the 5th(MCDonald, etc.) than the 9th. But CGF has had some favorable rulings out west or even had Cities & Counties(or Sheriff departments) change their CCW policy, Local Firearm Laws, etc. due to lawsuits. While the Democratic super majority works tirelessly to pass as many unconstitutional laws as possible(each and every year), CGF is fighting back with all their power. It is certainly dire, but promising to see them fight the good fight. Which is why its nice to throw them some support. I donated a lot when I was out there, but haven't since I move back(besides using shop42a a few times)....and need to.

The Democratic Super-majority was one of the main reasons I left. I knew what was coming and did not want to comply.