CA 10 day waiting period ruled unconstitutional

[Swedish K]

http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=812c9186a81db6434329bda16&id=9fec32dd78

The courts have determined that CA's 10 day waiting period is unconstitutional in a case brought by Cal Guns Foundation. Let's see what happens next.... It would appear that at least some of the courts are still on the right track down there, lets just hope that the politicians get the message. I truly wish that any politician who voted in favor of laws that violate the constitution would be automatically removed from office.

Read More

 

[Dave Workman]

In some cases....

It's an interesting ruling that contains some gems...

Fed. judge rules Calif. waiting period violates 2A in some cases

A federal judge in California today ruled that the Golden State's 10-day waiting period violates the Second Amendment "as applied to those individuals who successfully pass" the state's background check prior to the ten days, and who are already in lawful possession of an additional firearm.


<broken link removed>

 

[Riot]

"The nature and unique requirements of CCW licenses are such that it is unlikely that CCW license holders would engage in impulsive acts of violence. CCW license applicants must demonstrate good moral character. Engaging in unlawful acts of violence is inconsistent with good moral character."

Although a step in the right direction, I disagree with this statement. A CCW does not mean you are any less prone to violence any more than possessing a driver's license means you are less prone to drive drunk.

On the reverse, however, simply not having access to a firearm doesn't prevent crime or violence in the least...nor does having a ten day wait period discourage violence.

Waiting periods, as a whole, are unconstitutional. Period. Limiting a law-abiding citizen having access to a firearm is unconstitutional- no matter what the reason. Although two days, a week or ten days may not seem excessive or unreasonable, it is an impedance of your Constitutional right to bear an arm for your use however you see fit.

The problem is a Liberal society thinking that access to firearms is the issue with violence when, in fact, it is actually the lack of access to the proper mentality that is the true cause.

Do we blame the easy access of alcohol or vehicles for drunk driving? No. We blame the driver for choosing to place his/her own desires to drink and their lack of responsibility to ensure the safety of themselves and/or others to drive while impaired.

We need to stop treating firearms as weapons and treat them as tools. Like a knife or a chainsaw, in the wrong hands they can be deadly. Does that mean we need to place child locks on chainsaws and have ten-day waiting periods for the purchase of knives? Limit the size and type you can carry? Force training requirements and issue permits to people with "good moral character"?

Screw that!

A gun is a tool. Waiting periods are unconstitutional. Possessing a CCW doesn't mean you're any more or less likely to commit a crime than possessing a driver's license means you're more/less likely to drive drunk.

 

[timac]

The ten day waiting period is written into I-594.

 

[Norm0931]

The ten day waiting period is written into I-594.

Which if passed can be challenged and ruled unconstitutional by this precedent. I haven't read the full ruling but, I'd imagine the current 5 days waiting period on handguns is being eyed by SAF after this ruling.

 

[bunnybunny]

Getting a CCW in California isn't like Washington. There is an interview process, extensive background check including parking tickets, 16 hours of training, some counties even to residency checks.

This law invalidate the waiting for anyone who already owns a firearm that is registered in CA background check system. The way it works is as soon as you are cleared by the background check, you can pick up your firearms. From what I have read that takes about a hour for most and 20% are nearly instant. The others need to be verified by a human that you aren't someone else.

 

[GuyBMeredith]

California is may issue and in many counties it is nearly impossible to get a CCW, so this ruling is a positive step but means buttkiss where I lived in another life.

 

[Norm0931]

Getting a CCW in California isn't like Washington. There is an interview process, extensive background check including parking tickets, 16 hours of training, some counties even to residency checks.

This law invalidate the waiting for anyone who already owns a firearm that is registered in CA background check system. The way it works is as soon as you are cleared by the background check, you can pick up your firearms. From what I have read that takes about a hour for most and 20% are nearly instant. The others need to be verified by a human that you aren't someone else.

I know how the law works in Cali. I used to live there. In fact my last year in the Marines I was a shooting instructor in San Diego and San Diego County Sheriff's Dept had 2 ranges on our base. We used to give them tips and occasionally lend an RSO or two when they were shooting. One of the deputies flat out told me I was denied because I was military and "more prone to kill someone you had to engage."

However, in the case of Washington they can use the fact that if you already have a firearm then you have already been processed through the NICS system and therefore, the five day handgun waiting period is the same thing.

 

[bunnybunny]

Yup, we have got some insane counties. I am in LA with almost zero issue of CCW permits. I am moving to Oregon at the end of the year. The gun laws in this state are number 2 on my list why I am leaving.

Anyways, my point is that CCW holders in California have gone through a very extensive and rather asinine vetting process. Conceal carry holders are some of the most law abiding citizens in the country (google). It would make sense that people with CA CCWs would fall into that category of people who can be trusted with their firearm as soon as they cleared.

 

[Michael Js]

California is shall issue and in many counties it is nearly impossible to get a CCW, so this ruling is a positive step but means buttkiss where I lived in another life.

It's more of a May issue, not a Shall issue...Ever since the Peruta ruling, some counties went shall issue, but many - like the HUGE San Diego County, is still a may issue. Mostly, then issue you out the door with nothing...

 

[Swedish K]

Then you have SF that is essentially a "if you are an anti gun politician you can have a permit" kind of place. The number of permits issued by SF has varied between 4 and 17 over the last 20 or so years.

 

[Norm0931]

You would think given that a single political party has run that state completely in to the ground and on the verge of bankruptcy several times voters would wise up. Honestly Rand Paul' campaign slogan should be, "Do you really want America to be California or New York?"

 

[bunnybunny]

Well here in California we have three big issues that keep us stuck in the same ways. First are the voters of California. They really aren't much different than the extremely far to the right, neoconservative, "everyone is going to hell" type of person. They both blindly follow politicians based on some backwards faith instead of facts and objectivity. Because of this blind faith by CA voters, these politicians stay in office for their entire political careers. We do not have term limits so it prevents grassroot organizations from getting a more traditional conservative into state senate or assembly. Third, CA politicians are paid year round for their jobs. In many states, the state politicians assemble for three months and then go back to their normal careers as teachers, lawyers, doctors, executives, etc. California politicians have the ability to sit around all year and think of more and more ridiculous things. We get people like De Leon, the famous anti-2a politician, coming up with ideas like this (<broken link removed> unfitted bedsheets at hotels will now be a crime. It never passed, but yes, he really did introduce that to the California legislator.

 

[GuyBMeredith]

I incorrectly called California a "shall issue" state, but it is "may issue". The practice in many rural counties is "shall issue" in practice, but in other counties there is basically no hope unless your lips are permanently attached to the rear end of the sheriff or one of the other power players.

 

[Dave Workman]

Which if passed can be challenged and ruled unconstitutional by this precedent. I haven't read the full ruling but, I'd imagine the current 5 days waiting period on handguns is being eyed by SAF after this ruling.

I would imagine, since it was a SAF case to begin with. SAF and the Calguns Foundation teamed on this one.

 

[bunnybunny]

I incorrectly called California a "shall issue" state, but it is "may issue". The practice in many rural counties is "shall issue" in practice, but in other counties there is basically no hope unless your lips are permanently attached to the rear end of the sheriff or one of the other power players.

Many counties are virtual shall issue. The sheriff still has the ability to deny anyone they want for any prejudice. For example, he could not like that I have a bunch of tattoos, deem me irresponsible, and then officially deny me for good moral character based on a few moving violations. "Good cause" can be cited in court rulings but the mandate hasn't been issued due to AG trying to intervene. So counties like LA, SF, San Mateo, Marin, San Diego, and others are still not issuing. My application has been sitting at the sheriffs office in a stack of papers since mid February. Most likely I will have moved to OR in 2015 before they go through the entire process with me in LA county.

The only nice thing about CA LTC is that it has very few restrictions like the OR CHL. We still are limited to 10rds and firearms on the "safe handgun list", but the list will probably be ruled unconstitutional very soon. Still, there have been reports that people who went through the "Single Shot Exempt" loophole and bought guns that were not on the safe hand gun list and were told they couldn't put that firearm on their permit. So yes, a gen 4 glock would not be allowed but a gen 3 would...*sigh*. Oh ya, we are also limited to three firearms on our permits.

 

[Norm0931]

Many counties are virtual shall issue. The sheriff still has the ability to deny anyone they want for any prejudice. For example, he could not like that I have a bunch of tattoos, deem me irresponsible, and then officially deny me for good moral character based on a few moving violations. "Good cause" can be cited in court rulings but the mandate hasn't been issued due to AG trying to intervene. So counties like LA, SF, San Mateo, Marin, San Diego, and others are still not issuing. My application has been sitting at the sheriffs office in a stack of papers since mid February. Most likely I will have moved to OR in 2015 before they go through the entire process with me in LA county.

The only nice thing about CA LTC is that it has very few restrictions like the OR CHL. We still are limited to 10rds and firearms on the "safe handgun list", but the list will probably be ruled unconstitutional very soon. Still, there have been reports that people who went through the "Single Shot Exempt" loophole and bought guns that were not on the safe hand gun list and were told they couldn't put that firearm on their permit. So yes, a gen 4 glock would not be allowed but a gen 3 would...*sigh*. Oh ya, we are also limited to three firearms on our permits.

So don't just complain. VOTE! and help or donate to pro-2A candidates. Smokey the Bear's fire to rings true here too. Only you can prevent anti - constitution politicians from being elected.

 

[The Heretic]

Which if passed can be challenged and ruled unconstitutional by this precedent. I haven't read the full ruling but, I'd imagine the current 5 days waiting period on handguns is being eyed by SAF after this ruling.

While my knee jerk response to gun control laws is "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do they not understand?" - waiting periods are by far not the worst part of gun control laws like I-594, they are simply an inconvenience and window dressing to distract from the bad parts - gun registration, the latter being a prelude gun confiscation.

Some people argue gun confiscation can't or won't happen.

My one word response: Connecticut.

 

[Dave Workman]

My one word response: Connecticut.

Is that how you spell Bull$.... ? Egads, NO WONDER I never did well in spelling! And all these years, I just thought I was stupid.

 

[Michael Js]

voting doesn't help when 3/4 of the state are illegals and the dems let em in - why do you think this country is being overrun and going the way of the dinosaurs?
And yes, I vote! Not for dems, not for RINOs, which doesn't leave much...the "good" parties never get enough votes to matter...

this state is a lost cause and I can't wait to leave it...come on new job offer!!