Patterico's Pontifications

8/26/2014

Judge: California 10-Day Waiting Period Unconstitutional — As to Some People

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:35 am

Namely, those who have already passed background checks before:

A federal judge in California has struck down a law that requires a 10-day waiting period for gun purchases, but only for current gun owners who have already passed a background check and those who have a permit or certificate of eligibility to own a gun.

Eastern District of California Judge Anthony W. Ishii said Monday that the waiting period provision violates the Second Amendment rights of those who have already been approved to own a gun. This includes those who have previously undergone a background check and own a gun, people with concealed-carry permits and people who have a state certificate of eligibility to own a gun.

First-time gun buyers would still be subject to the waiting period, which Ishii emphasized in his ruling.

This does not seem like a huge development — but it does show that judges are now willing to consider arguments like this, post-Heller. The judge, by the way, was appointed by Bill Clinton . . . so there goes the left’s narrative that this is a partisan decision.

26 Responses to “Judge: California 10-Day Waiting Period Unconstitutional — As to Some People”

  1. Lawmakers, including judges, are not afraid to let black people have guns, anymore. I’m not joking. From the mid-60s on stricter gun control laws parallel advances in civil rights.

    nk (dbc370)

  2. Greetings:

    So, what about those silly Cali 10-round magazines ???

    A couple of decades back when police officers were clamoring about having their revolvers replaced by automatics, the most common logic was that criminals already had access to automatics so police officers needed to have them too. Regular citizens not so much.

    11B40 (6abb5c)

  3. What about the all the restrictions on which handguns you can buy? Why can’t I get a Beretta PX4 Storm subcompact, but can get the full size model, even though the SC is more suited to a small magazine? It really does seem arbitrary.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  4. Kevin M, the registry is ridiculous and only designed – as all Calif gun laws – to harass gun owners.

    SPQR (c4e119)

  5. I don’t think the Progs are going to get their legal relief vis a vis citizens before smack up.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  6. ” Why can’t I get a Beretta PX4 Storm subcompact, but can get the full size model, even though the SC is more suited to a small magazine?”

    That’s because the a-holes that make the laws don’t know squat about firearms Kevin. You’ve got a bunch of lefty metrosexuals passing gun laws that would piss themselves if they ever actually heard a gun go off.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  7. The 10-day waiting period is to prevent gun owners from buying a gun only to resell it, possibly illegally.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  8. The 10-day waiting period is to prevent gun owners from buying a gun only to resell it, possibly illegally.

    It would make sense to put a 10-day delay on beer and cigarettes then. Or Vicodin prescriptions.

    These rules are simple harassment, colored up to meet a now-defunct rational-basis test.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  9. Now that they’ve reached the laugh limit on magazine sizes, they will probably start working on large calibers. They’ve already banned .50′s, how long before all we can get are .22′s?

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  10. The 10-day waiting period is to prevent gun owners from buying a gun only to resell it, possibly illegally.

    No, Sammy. The original justification was a “cooling off” period — so you don’t rush out to buy a gun and kill your neighbor because his dog went on your lawn. In California, it’s to prevent shopaholics from impulse buying which would be followed by buyer’s remorse followed by depression followed by suicide with the gun they wish they had not bought.

    nk (dbc370)

  11. Kevin M (b357ee) — 8/26/2014 @ 12:21 pm

    It would make sense to put a 10-day delay on beer and cigarettes then. Or Vicodin prescriptions.

    Pennsylvania has a strict law against buying liquor from out of state and having it shipped to your home if you are not a dealer. Someone is in a lot of trouble for that now.

    http://www.wbtw.com/story/26347060/lawyer-wants-seized-125k-wine-collection-back

    See also:

    http://www.delcotimes.com/general-news/20131220/buyers-beware-police-target-bootleggers-who-buy-liquor-in-delaware

    http://articles.philly.com/1993-09-03/news/25986354_1_liquor-industry-liquor-control-enforcement-pennsylvania-liquor-code

    The Pennsylvania Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement is beefing up border patrols and undercover operations to catch people who buy alcohol in Delaware, New Jersey and other states where there is either no tax, the prices are cheaper or the selection more plentiful.

    Authorities say the crackdown is in response to citizens’ complaints

    This sort of thing makes sense when there are restrictions on purchases to begin with. (alcohol and cigarettes don’t have licenses or quantity restrictions only on age)

    They can’t do that with medicines because these preescriptions need to be filled immedciately.

    There are restructions on how much somebody can buy of some prescriptions and more comoming into forrce, recisely because of the idea that somebody would sell them. And there are complaints about these restrictions – most users are not reselling them

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  12. nk,

    I thought it was to stop people from killing politicians in blinding fits of anger.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  13. Sammy,

    If you understood people more, you’d know they are lying.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  14. Pennsylvania has a strict law against buying liquor from out of state and having it shipped to your home if you are not a dealer. Someone is in a lot of trouble for that now.

    A similar New York law was struck down a few years ago; dormant commerce clause.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  15. The 10-day waiting period is to prevent gun owners from buying a gun only to resell it, possibly illegally.

    that would already be a violation of various other federal and #Failifornia laws…

    the waiting period, like pretty much all other gun laws here in this bassackwards third world monument to idiocy are to discourage or render impossible the private ownership of firearms by the average citizen.

    an intellectually honest person would see that.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  16. the first, and biggest proof, that the handgun “safety” list is a joke is that cops as individuals and government agencies are NOT bound by it.

    kindly voxsplain, Sammy (or anyone else), how a list that purports to be designed to ensure that people only have access to “safe” handguns doesn’t apply to those who are most likely be carrying them around, and using them near, the same citizens who can’t own them at all for “safety” reasons.

    for bonus points, explain why models that have no changes made to them, and that are mechanically identical to the item that was tested, are no longer legal because the manufacturer didn’t re-certify them with the DOJ. (hint: the approval *didn’t* used to expire, but now it does.)

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  17. i’d also point out that, even after the recent Perulta (sp?) holding, getting a CCW in most of #Failifornia is about as likely as me being Miss America next year.

    the Certificate of Eligibility, also referenced in the ruling mentioned in the post, appears to be designed for people who either hold, or are employed by, an FFl holder or who possess a C&R license.

    those of us who live inside the boundaries controlled by the fascist LAPD can forget about ever getting any of those. i spent over a year trying to get answers from the relevant LAPD office about how to get a C&R (they never did answer the phone or return a call), and it took a lawsuit at several levels just to get those black shirted scum to have CCW applications available to the public.

    this is what fascism looks like: permits & licenses for the privileged, guns galore for their goons, and Sweet Fanny Adams for the rest of us.

    for our own good, of course. 8-)

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  18. i spent over a year trying to get answers from the relevant LAPD office about how to get a C&R

    Not surprising; a Curio and Relics License is Federal – it was BATF you should have contacted. http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/curios-relics.html might help.

    CA police agencies are impaired in understanding CA law; getting them to comprehend Federal law as well is unlikely.

    Anyone can get a COE. It’s a state document, with no input from any lower agency.

    John S (edc933)

  19. Sammy, just why is it that you make up the silliest nonsense?

    SPQR (c4e119)

  20. 19. He’s paid by the line.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  21. Sammy, just why is it that you make up the silliest nonsense?

    There are people who think that they can suss out everything de novo when any given question comes up, because they are so very very smart. Obama is one of those. Sammy may be another.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  22. John S (edc933) — 8/26/2014 @ 6:52 pm

    my understanding was that the C&R took a local LEO sign off (LAPD, in my case) and thus there was no point in going farther until i knew what their fetish was.

    having figured out that having a C&R would also open me up to the random BATFE colonoscopy of fame and legend, with the inevitable felony witch hunt to follow led me to re-consider my goals.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  23. As to the questions of the other restrictions that gun-owners, and buyers, have to deal with in CA and what is to be done with them:
    Alan Gura (the Atty in Heller) has a host of cases on file in CA dealing with the magazine limit, the Not Unsafe Gun List, and others, that will be making their way to the fore. This case dove-tails quite well with Peruta in that both are a direct infringement on the ability of The People to defend themselves by utilizing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

    A Question:
    This was a Fed. District Court decision, and is sure to be appealed to the 9th-Circuit.
    When cases arrive at the 9th, are they assigned willy-nilly to panels, or does the Chief Judge have discretion of to whom they may be sent?
    It CJ Kozinski was to send this to the same panel as heard Peruta, AG Harris is dead-meat – again.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  24. If you want a Certificate of Eligibility (COE) from the CA DoJ/Firearms Bureau, go to their website
    http://oag.ca.gov/firearms
    and click on
    Certificate of Eligibility Application (BOF 4008), pdf
    under “Forms and Publications”

    askeptic (efcf22)

  25. my understanding was that the C&R took a local LEO sign off (LAPD, in my case) and thus there was no point in going farther until i knew what their fetish was.

    One is required to send a copy to the local Chief LEO; that worthy does not get a veto.

    John S (edc933)

  26. I read a lot of interesting posts here. Probably you spend a
    lot of time writing, i know how to save you a
    lot of work, there is an online tool that creates readable,
    google friendly posts in seconds, just type in google – laranitas free content source

    Steffen (68123d)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1757 secs.