“In a rejection of California Attorney General Kamala Harris’ stance on the rights of law-abiding gun owners, Senior Federal District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii denied Harris’ motion for summary judgement today in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by The Calguns Foundation, indicating that California’s 10-day ‘waiting period’ gun laws are likely unconstitutional.” So reports sacbee.com. This surely won’t make the nation’s most attractive attorney general very happy. Nor is it likely to motivate her to ease her hideously hoplophobic inclinations much. But it’s definitely a nice win for the pro-civil rights crusaders at Calguns. For now anyway. Not to harsh anyone’s mellow, but the Ninth Circus awaits…. [h/t Tom S.]
Good for California! Florida has a 3 day wait for handguns (waived for those with a CCL), none for long guns.
A small victory, one soon to be nullified by the 9th Judicial Politburo.
Oooh! That was excellent. I was thinking along the same lines but my response would have been nowhere near as eloquent or witty.
This was one small battle won, the war is far from over.
My guess is they will go to the ninth. If it stands great, then they can do an en banc if they choose, but if the appeals court stand in position of CalGuns, then chances are not to good.
If it is reversed at the ninth which is highly likely then there could be an en banc and possibly overturned, to support the lower court.
The case has to go to trial first. No one can appeal the denial of a motion for summary judgment. The District Judge could still rule against Calguns after hearing the evidence at trial.
Exactly this. This not a “victory” in the sense of a definitive judicial ruing; rather it says that there are issues that have to be resolved at trial. The Ninth Circuit will be waiting for some time unless Kamala files a petition for writ of mandate. Not having read the opinion–or the pleadings that led up to it–I will defer opining on the probability of (a) such an action or (b) the probability that the Ninth will grant relief.
IF–and ONLY if–the trial court concludes that the statute is unconstitutional–will there be at least an inkling of a victory, but you can be absolutely certain that (a) Kamala WILL appeal, and (b) that Ninth will grant a stay on any judgment pending review. Therefore, relief, if any, from this silly law is years away.
Bet they would like some financial help for the heavy lifting they are doing!!
http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
I sent my $25 last week or so.
If the ruling is in favor of gun owners you can expect an appeal to the 9th district court with a reversal and then a trip to the SCOTUS to have the district court decision overturned.
Peter, you mean the Ninth Circuit Court. And if the Calguns suit succeeds in the District Court, it would be a victory for potential gun buyers since they’re the ones who have to wait.
Is that shot of her from an upcoming musical number or something?
It may be from a past dinner theater performance. I don’t know why the “most beautiful AG” meme keeps…popping up. We don’t get to shtup AG’s. AG’s get to shtup us. Apparently.
A pretty face doesn’t necessarily make for an attractive person, not that the face is all that pretty anyway. There’s nothing attractive about a hoplophobe in a position of power.
Obama, king of the Oval Office, conferred the title upon her.
So to be clear, they denied Harris’ motion for dismissal, but the case still has to be litigated, correct?
Matt, check out Joe Grine’s comment below. Yes, there will be further litigation. We don’t know what form it may take.
A denial of a Motion for Summary Judgment does not necessarily mean that the other side wins the case. At its core, it means that there is a disputed issue of material fact that must be decided by a fact-finder (often a jury). Thus, it is saying that moving party is not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law irrespective of any disputes in the facts as set forth in the pleadings. Granted, in some cases, a judge’s denial of MSJ indicates that he is rejecting the core legal theory advanced by the moving party. This is particularly true in a high-profile case such as this, where the judge is likely paying more attention than usual. Other times, however, it could simply mean that the judge was too lazy, inexperienced with the subject matter, or indecisive to make a decision, and simply punts on the issue and lets it go to trial (knowing that in most cases, the parties will instead settle the case rather than incur the expense and uncertainty of a trial). I haven’t looked into this case enough to know what to read into the judge’s decision.
I think the comment that it is likely unconstitutional is the source of hope here.
I’m not holding my breath until the law is revised.
Lol at you guys reading into this. Losing a SJ doesn’t mean you lose the case. Even by the grace of God the waiting period loses at the district court level, the 9th is surely to overturn. No way SCOTUS would grant cert anyway.
The waiting period is going nowhere.
conspiracy!!!!!!!111111
You may want the legal system to be a conspiracy, but it’s pretty obvious and straightforward.
A group of people working together to commit crimes is indeed a conspiracy. Denying the rights of law abiding citizens is definitely a crime.
Calguns finally might win a lawsuit.lol
The way to kill off the waiting period on guns is to legislate a waiting period on abortion procedures.
The feminists will (with great certainty) go ape, start screeching something about a “right delayed is a right denied” and they’ll do the precedent-setting litigation – on their dime.
When the courts (predictably) find reasons to allow no-waiting period abortions, then the RKBA people take that into court, and smile as they watch the lawyers posing as drag queens on the bench try to evade the precedent.
Excellent idea. I’ve used this type of tactic in my law practice with great success.
even though I am very pro-choice, I think that’s a great idea.
Waiting periods on abortions have been passed and litigated. They are generally lawful provided they are not too lengthy. The Volokh Conspiracy had a good analysis on various waiting periods that have been imposed and upheld in other constitutional contexts.
Before you can legislate an abortion waiting period in Kalifornia, you’ll have to significantly change the political complextion of the legislature there. The group in power there now will have no part in that effort. You might as well just stick with trying to update the state house with pro-gunners as to go with that convoluted plan. Seems like there was a movie where while the two operators were discussing extensive plans to get some info, the girl just went up and asked…
It wouldn’t have to be in California, just in the Ninth circuit.
What’s important to note here is that the judge did not buy her argument about the cooling off period. She will need to prove at trial that the cooling off period has worked and or resulted in less gun crime.
I (and most others) think that will be a stretch.
“…indicating that California’s 10-day ‘waiting period’ gun laws are likely unconstitutional.”
Duh!
Exactly. The real question is whether they will be found or determined to be unconstitutional.
Refer to ST’s “9th Judicial Politburo” comment at the top.
I have nothing against the 10 day wait. If they need the time to run a background check and a cooling off period then it’s fine. Why do you need a gun at the moment? if it’ll prevent crazy people from shooting anyone a little inconvenience is ok. My FFL already knows me from buying 2-3 guns a year(3-6 face to face meetings) so it builds customer relations and is good to allow people to take steady stance on attitude on guns.
Well, that’s one way to look at it.
The background check is instant. As soon as the ffl inputs your info they know if you’re passed or not. The waiting period serves no purpose other than to harass gun owners. Unless it’s your first gun purchase it doesn’t even make a good argument in favor of cooling off periods.
Not in California. California does not use NICS. In fact, delays in performing background checks in California is the subject of another lawsuit, as some people have been held up for periods approaching a year while the AG does a full investigation. It has gotten so bad that the Legislature passed a bill that allows the AG to take up to 30 days to complete its work if questions remain after the 10 day period.
bill,
What if a stalker calls his victim and finally announces his intention to harm her? Forcing the victim to wait 10 days before they can take possession of a firearm for self-defense is shameful and dangerous. No one wants to be defenseless when they face a stalker. If you choose to foolishly send your adult daughter or wife out to engage a stalker in hand-to-hand combat, that’s your choice. But who in the hell are you to condemn other women to face their stalker’s with nothing but their bare hands?
I’m laying 3-1 he won’t reply.
Based on his previous comments, I think it was a… well, I don’t want to call it a troll, so let’s say… “conversation starter.”
It would be difficult to “send your adult daughter” out with a newly purchased handgun in CA anyway, if she didn’t already have a carry permit. All the more reason to purchase early, even if the item lives in a big safe, take the item to the range until competent enough for the practical test, and move to a CA jurisdiction that actually approves permits. All before the stalker calls.
You are smoking crack right?
So if she has not done all of that, she should just wait until he shows up to kill her?
I don’t know. Maybe you just learned your psycho ex just got released from prison and he’s coming to see you now…..not 10 days from now?
Maybe a major jury verdict was just handed down and displeased masses are rioting right now…..not 10 days from now?
Maybe a hurricane is bearing down on the city and you cannot evacuate now….not 10 days from now?
Maybe it’s your God-given and Constitutionally-enshrined right to defend yourself now…..not 10 days from now?
Maybe there are infinite ways for a hothead to act out without acquiring a gun now…..not 10 days from now?
Maybe it’s none of your business when someone takes delivery of their firearm now…..or ever?
I can think of one – what if you are a resident of say, Southern California, and are visiting family in Northern California (300+ miles away), and during that trip, you go to a gun store and see that rare gun you’ve been eyeing for weeks that isn’t available at any stores near your home. As it is today, if you wanted to buy it, you’d fill out the paperwork and have to come back after 10 days to pick it up. If you had to go back home tomorrow, that meant another 600+ mile roundtrip drive just to pick it up. Without the 10-day wait period, you’d be able to take delivery of it right then and there.
Of course, you could ask if the NorCal dealer would ship it to your SoCal FFL, but then you’d be hit with your SoCal FFL’s transaction fee and also shipping cost. But that’s only if the NorCal dealer would even allow such a transaction.
The same can be said about Private Party Transfers — in CA, these transactions are required to go through a licensed dealer (FFL) to perform the transfer, background check & 10-day waiting period. Most private party sellers that I’ve seen will not ship the guns to your local FFL, and only allow local sales. By foregoing the 10-day waiting period, it would make it easier for those who can buy a gun buy what they want when they want all while following the law. Criminals can disregard this entire blog entry.
Hey, bill, why don’t you wait ten days before posting, okay?
The issue at hand is actually more narrow. Specifically at hand is the application of the 240 hr waiting period to 1) CCW holders and 2) Those who already own guns 3) COE holders
The cooling off argument, even if such a policy were effective in any instance, has no bearing on these instances
I’ve already passed the California required hangun safety course which I’ve had to pay fees for. I’ve purchased a handgun and a rifle and paid the DROS fees for the background check twice. Both of my firearms are registered with the state. I’ve waited the 10 days both times. But why if I’ve passed the course, purchased and registered guns would I possibly need a cooling off period?! The ‘cooling off period’ idea is absolutely ridiculous. I would love to see some statistics on how a ‘cooling off period’ is effective in preventing violent attacks. Maybe there should be a ‘cooling off period’ for bows and arrow and clubs and hammers. Seems like projecting. BTW, who in the world thought that one up? Maybe someone who lived in the ‘Wild West’?
Keep in mind this case is ONLY about ending ten day wait for current CCW holders, not the general public.
“About the laws being challenged in the case, named plaintiff Jeff Silvester of Hanford, California, said, “I have a license to carry a loaded firearm across the State. It is ridiculous that I have to wait another 10 days to pick up a new firearm when I’m standing there in the gun store lawfully carrying one the whole time.”
True there is no reason that current owner of weapons shouldn’t have to wait as they already have other firearms available to them. But What about the new people wanting to purchase guns? are their reasoning at that moment justified for them to wait a few days as a period of reflection rather than impulse? think that’s not too much to ask. There is no reason why any purchaser needs a gun at the time of purchase, are you going to go shooting in five minutes? All my purchases I take it home, fiddle with it, clean it, stare at it for a bit and, put it in the safe till I have time to go out shooting. I have never loaded up out side the FFL and drive around with it. So it could be days to weeks before I go out shooting.
That’s just you and your circumstance. Let’s say you are in an abusive relationship, and finally decide to leave. How many women have been murdered by their irate (soon to be) ex who have hunted them down–restraining orders be damned?
And that is an excellent argument against waiting periods. That DEFINITELY infringes on the second amendment RKBA. And not just a little bit.
Not true. There are three plaintiffs, one has a CCW, one has a COE, and the other is just someone who already owns firearms, and to whom, therefore, the logic of the “cooling off” period is inapplicable.
You are correct, noting that all plaintiff posses handguns they petition that any additional 10 date is stupid.
Wonder what the state will make up to counter that simple logic.
I’m thinking their counter argument will be along the lines of “I know you are, but what am I?”
Nanananananana!
It’s California. I’m surprised they don’t simply make you wear a Mood Ring at the store, to see if you’re cool enough to own such a device. Perhaps a professionally-drawn horoscope for the coming month should be required?
It doesn’t take the perps 10 days to buy in CA. More like 10 minutes.
” I’m surprised they don’t simply make you wear a Mood Ring at the store, to see if you’re cool enough to own such a device.”
Made me laugh!
How many lawyers does it take to define the word “infringe?”
God help them if they ever have to change a lightbulb.
Nine. And they all sit on the Untied States Supreme Court.
From the order:
“In terms of intermediate scrutiny, neither of the bases argued by Harris is sufficient. There is no indication that the WPL is necessary to weed out unqualified purchasers. While it is appropriate to have a background check, the current systems and data available do not make the 10-day waiting period reasonable. In terms of cooling-off, there is no evidence to support the efficacy of the law in preventing impulsive firearm violence. Moreover, for those who already legally possess firearms, the WPL would have no effect in terms of creating a “cooling off” period. Any spontaneous desire to perform a violent act can be manifested through the weapon that is already in the individual’s possession. Because the WPL fails intermediate and strict scrutiny, Harris’s motion must be denied.”
If she is attractive somebody has been living in upstate NY too long.
Here I go. I’m an honorably discharged vet. Retired school district employee. Out side of a few traffic violations I have no blemishes on my record. I have a safe full of legally purchased forearms.
And here I am undergoing still another useless waiting period to pick up my new hunting shotgun.
I feel safer. You look kinda sketchy from where I’m standing.
I wear a hoodie. Be very afraid.
Thug life~
I feel your pain. My official trangressions once consisted of tow speeding tickets on my WI driver license, which have been expunged due to my change to a CA driver license and the passage of more than 13 years. I’ve got to wait an additional 10 days for each and every purchase. That’s BS. I’ll be sending CalGuns some Christmas $$ to support this lawsuit.
The one thing that is particularly significant is that the judge required PROOF, not just the self-serving statements that “it is in the public interest.” The latter circumstance was the case in the 2, 3, and 4 cases, where the courts blindly accepted legislative pronouncements without any actual proof. And there are serious questions as to whether any proof can be offered that a 10 day wait is necessary for persons who already have firearms, or who have gone through additional levels of background checks. The fact is that waiting periods are an emotional and overbroad response to a rare occurrence, and there was and is no evidence supporting the proposition that crime is thereby prevented.
“5 days? But I’m mad now!”
Homer Simpson
So , fellow posters, HOW is this good news? In everybodies hoot to “not be infringed upon”, we forget very conviently WHY there was a waiting period( you know stuff like heat of passion crimes,premeditated murder,nutcases getting guns etc) . This isn’t a “liberal anti agenda or a conservative agenda” but a public safety agenda. I have even seen blogs where posters feel that background checks are WRONG and seem to disrevard the issue with FELONS simply walking in and buying guns.
Even in the most rural areas it is NOT 18th century or 19th century america; we have modern courts and policing, and despite paranoia, there are not daily mass shootings on every block! This nation seems to be head over heels rushing to an internal arms race, while we IGNORE solving poverty, lack of decent education and wellness( sad because I know WORKING FOLKS WITHOUT MEDICAL COVERAGEVOR INSURANCE who vote the party line against national healthcare!!)
I support gun ownership and even California’s slow moves to concealed permita for HONEST ,LAW ABIDING FOLKS, but really-will flooding the streets with MORE guns without proper checks to make sure people who shouldn’t have guns are identified is really a good idea???
Somolia has very “liberal gun laws”( like none,at all: has that made their country any safer?….
“This isn’t a “liberal anti agenda or a conservative agenda” but a public safety agenda”
The grabber agenda is always presented as a “public safety agenda.” For The Children™.
Which part of “shall not be infringed” is it that you don’t understand?
How is this “public safety” Please prove that. And don’t use the same old tired “common sense” BS because you have no hard facts to back up that position.
As far as criminals getting guns, I’m not sure how making us wait 10 days is going to change that. Either you are prohibited or not. If the government’s database is that flawed, they need to fix it. Infringing on law abiding citizens natural, civil and constitutionally protected rights is not the answer to their incompetence.
How is not making us wait 10 days going to increase the number of guns purchased? The only way for that to happen is if the current wait is discouraging law abiding citizens from purchasing firearms. If this is the case, the 10 day wait is not about “public safety” but a real infringement. You cannot have it both ways.
BTW, for a troll, you put in a lot of effort.
Comments are closed.