California Gun Waiting Period Laws Ruled Unconstitutional

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kynoch

member
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
1,481
Location
California Coast
Huge news from here in the Golden State:

"Federal court decides 10-day waiting period laws violate Second Amendment rights

ROSEVILLE, CA (August 25, 2014) – California’s 10-day waiting period for gun purchases was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge this morning in a significant victory for Second Amendment civil rights. The laws were challenged by California gun owners Jeffrey Silvester and Brandon Combs, as well as two gun rights groups, The Calguns Foundation and Second Amendment 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.

“We are happy that Second Amendment rights are being acknowledged and protected by our courts,” said Donald Kilmer, lead attorney for the plaintiffs. “This case is one more example of how our judicial branch brings balance to government in order to insure our liberty. I am elated that we were able to successfully vindicate the rights of our clients.”

Attorneys Victor Otten of Torrance and Jason Davis of Mission Viejo were co-counsel for the plaintiffs.

“This ruling clearly addressed the issue we put before the court,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “We are naturally delighted with the outcome.”

“California gun owners are not second-class citizens and the Second Amendment doesn’t protect second class rights,” noted plaintiff Brandon Combs, also CGF’s executive director. “This decision is an important step towards restoring fundamental individual liberties in the Golden State.”

“This victory provides a strong foundation from which other irrational and unconstitutional gun control laws will be challenged,” concluded Combs. “We look forward to doing just that.”

The court’s decision can be read or downloaded at http://bit.ly/silvester-v-harris-decision.

The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to defend and advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Media Contacts:

The Calguns Foundation - Brandon Combs
[email protected]
(800) 556-2109 ext. 5775

Second Amendment Foundation - Alan Gottlieb
(425) 454-7012"
 
Wow....now if they could do away with the waiting periods for an interview to apply for a permit. If that's not a violation of the 2nd, I don't know what its....

Laura
 
Actually, the order is more expansive:
1. The 10-day waiting periods of California Penal Code § 26815(a) and § 27540(a) violate the Second Amendment as applied to those individuals who

successfully pass the BFEC/standard background check prior to 10 days

and

who are in lawful possession of an additional firearm as confirmed by the AFS system;

a. If the BFEC/standard background check for such an individual is completed and approved before 10-days, Defendant shall immediately release the firearm for delivery to such individual and shall not wait the full 10-days;
Pass the background check, have any other gun in the AFS system, no need to wait the 10 days.

Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order cover the CCW holders and the Certificate of Eligibility holders.

Implementation has been stayed 180 days
7. Paragraphs 1 through 6 of this order are stayed for a period of 180 days from entry of this order;

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

Why, yes, the Calguns members are quite pleased by this; thank you for asking.
 
Last edited:
Anyone else catch the irony of staying an illegal 10 day wait period for 180 days? I'm surprised addressing the logic of that wasn't part of the judge's decision...:rolleyes:

TCB
 
Great news! I not-so-fondly remember that waiting period: ten days for every gun you bought, long gun or hand gun, new or used. Like many of that state's gun laws, this was intended solely to deter gun ownership, all under the guise of "safety."
 
Actually, the order is more expansive: Pass the background check, have any other gun in the AFS system, no need to wait the 10 days.

Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order cover the CCW holders and the Certificate of Eligibility holders.

Implementation has been stayed 180 days

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

Why, yes, the Calguns members are quite pleased by this; thank you for asking.

You're correct. But I must mention that the background check is "instant" while one is still in the store/dealer. Already owning another gun in the AFS System is a non-issue for most of us, although it's still an unwelcome requirement.
 
From the judge's ruling:

“Given the nature of the challenges made, the Court emphasizes that it is expressing no opinion on the constitutionality of the 10-day waiting period in general or as applied to first time California firearms purchasers,” he said.



If it's not a 2nd class right, then why are 1st time buyers treated like 2nd class citizens?
 
.
Wow! This is fantastic news!

...however, I just waited 10 days to pick up my lil' Browning 1911-22 this afternoon. Heh.

Dunno when my next acquisition might be, but if I wait six months...

Thank you, calguns foundation and calguns!

:)
 
It's very strange to hear of good news coming from Cali.
Congrats to you guys, hopefully this will be the beginning of a trend.
Not really, tides have been changing in some ways the past few years, not so well in others however.
The ruling by the 9th Circuit at the beginning of the year was huge. I think this is another great step to something that has been underway for a while.

Just another reason not to count us out and give to Calguns.
 
You're correct. But I must mention that the background check is "instant" while one is still in the store/dealer.
Well, that's apparently true in other places. Why California believes it should not be so here is not yet explained satisfactorily, in my opinion.

There is also the complaint from DOJ that they are running as fast as they can just to stay in one place - DROS evaluators are supposedly working immense amounts of mandatory overtime - yet the Legislature thinks it can take money out of the DROS fund and apply it to other programs. Seems like hiring some more analysts with the DROS funds might be a better idea ...
 
If it's not a 2nd class right, then why are 1st time buyers treated like 2nd class citizens?

I don't necessarily agree with this reasoning, but the explanation is that the 10 day waiting period served as a "cooling off" period for people who might be purchasing a first gun in anger.

This made no sense at all for people who already owned a gun, hence the provision for no 10 day wait if you already own a gun.
 
It's very strange to hear of good news coming from Cali.
Congrats to you guys, hopefully this will be the beginning of a trend.

The trend here in CA began with Peruta v. San Diego and Richards v. Prieto (concealed carry/just cause) earlier this year...
 
Not really, tides have been changing in some ways the past few years, not so well in others however.
The ruling by the 9th Circuit at the beginning of the year was huge. I think this is another great step to something that has been underway for a while.

Just another reason not to count us out and give to Calguns.

Very well said. That's Calguns FOUNDATION and not the questionable website with a similar name which is a separate entity.
 
From the judge's ruling:

“Given the nature of the challenges made, the Court emphasizes that it is expressing no opinion on the constitutionality of the 10-day waiting period in general or as applied to first time California firearms purchasers,” he said.



If it's not a 2nd class right, then why are 1st time buyers treated like 2nd class citizens?
 
If it's not a 2nd class right, then why are 1st time buyers treated like 2nd class citizens?

Given the nature of the challenges made, the Court emphasizes that it is expressing no opinion on the constitutionality of the 10-day waiting period in general or as applied to first time California firearms purchasers,” he said.

Because thats not what they asked for?
 
CA has a long term strategy that is playing out well. It is maddening to watch and wait, but it is working.

Hats off to SAF and Calguns, they are both on fire right now. More donations on the way to both groups!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top