Narrow but definitive win on waiting periods in CA

[terraformer]

Full text of the decision. 10 day waiting period for those who already have a gun unconstitutional. Narrow but good.

http://ia700803.us.archive.org/13/items/gov.uscourts.caed.233362/gov.uscourts.caed.233362.106.0.pdf

 

[Whutmeworry]

Baby steps...but for ANY court, federal or state, within the confines of the PRK to come down on the side of 2a is no small miracle in my book!!!

 

[exo]

Full text of the decision. 10 day waiting period for those who already have a gun unconstitutional. Narrow but good.

http://ia700803.us.archive.org/13/items/gov.uscourts.caed.233362/gov.uscourts.caed.233362.106.0.pdf

I love these kinds of things. Comm2A type strategy... focus on a real narrow part of the law, box them in so that they basically have to render a verdict the way we want.

 

[browncoat]

This was in US District Court - so does it apply to other regions in the district? I'm thinking in particular of Hawaii, which has a waiting period on handguns.

 

[terraformer]

This was in US District Court - so does it apply to other regions in the district? I'm thinking in particular of Hawaii, which has a waiting period on handguns.

No, it only applies to CA and technically may only apply to a portion of CA, but I don't know how the courts in CA reconcile district by district decisions. I suspect they are district in name only and it applies across CA. But no further.

 

[jar]

This was in US District Court - so does it apply to other regions in the district? I'm thinking in particular of Hawaii, which has a waiting period on handguns.

District court is the lowest level and is either a state or part of a state. You're thinking of the 9th *Circuit* court of appeals, which covers:
District of Alaska
District of Arizona
Central District of California
Eastern District of California
Northern District of California
Southern District of California
District of Hawaii
District of Idaho
District of Montana
District of Nevada
District of Oregon
Eastern District of Washington
Western District of Washington

 

[Quiet]

The decision states that the section of the law found unconstitutional didn't even pass "intermediate scrutiny".

 

[xero2099]

Baby steps...but for ANY court, federal or state, within the confines of the PRK to come down on the side of 2a is no small miracle in my book!!!

indeed any win a a good win

 

[Hoover]

And the decision was from a Clinton appointee.

 

[KBCraig]

This wasn't a win over waiting periods, it was just a minor win over stupidity.

California said: "waiting periods, period". Californians said, "Huh? We're already licensed, we already passed background checks, and we already own other guns. You just went 0 for 3 on the justification for waiting periods."

And the 9th Circuit agreed.

They didn't strike down waiting periods, but they said that for those licensed approved gun owners, a waiting period for another gun makes no sense.

 

[terraformer]

Which is why I said it was a narrow win... But if you read the decision, a broader win was possible, but it wouldn't have been upheld by the 9th circus.

 

[Waher]

If a court rules that waiting periods aren't lawful, then how can "one gun a month", which is essentially a waiting period, continue to be found lawful?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

An important aspect of this soft of win is that it helps to change the public consciousness with regards to gun laws, and court decisions. As a result of decisions like this, it is no longer "obvious" that any regulatory scheme will be rubber stamped by the courts, and courts no longer have to ask the question "does this court want to be the first to go against long standing tradition of denying challenges to gun laws as kook cases".

Absent cases like this, any blustering that a small town that begins with N and ends with K might face substantial legal fees under 42 USC 1988 for enacting a local carry ban would be disregarded as ludacris. In today's environment, they are likely to be taken seriously.

 

[RedSoxandAKs]

[video=youtube_share;4mDcZGRKQ_M]http://youtu.be/4mDcZGRKQ_M[/video]

 

[Whutmeworry]

This wasn't a win over waiting periods, it was just a minor win over stupidity.

California said: "waiting periods, period". Californians said, "Huh? We're already licensed, we already passed background checks, and we already own other guns. You just went 0 for 3 on the justification for waiting periods."

And the 9th Circuit agreed.

They didn't strike down waiting periods, but they said that for those licensed approved gun owners, a waiting period for another gun makes no sense.

RI has a similar, asinine 7-day waiting period for gun purchases that doesn't discriminate regardless of whether the puchaser is a first-timer or 1000th-timer.

So hopefully this "minor win over stupidity", at least spreads to RI as well.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

RI has a similar, asinine 7-day waiting period for gun purchases that doesn't discriminate regardless of whether the puchaser is a first-timer or 1000th-timer.

So hopefully this "minor win over stupidity", at least spreads to RI as well.

Add in the stupidity that a RI resident who has a carry permit from the AG's office is still subject to the waiting period, but a RI resident who has a permit from a town PD is exempt.

 

[terraformer]

RI has a similar, asinine 7-day waiting period for gun purchases that doesn't discriminate regardless of whether the puchaser is a first-timer or 1000th-timer.

So hopefully this "minor win over stupidity", at least spreads to RI as well.

One of the things that made this possible is that CA has gun registration. Without it, RI is a very different case.

 

[Cheese_Head]

We have a 2 day mandatory wait on handgun purchases from FFL's here in WI. The state DOJ does these background checks even though they could just use NICS or valid CCW's. The bureaucrats never relinquish an opportunity to waste time on the clock pushing paper around. Hoping this ruling can be used to axe the waiting period.