This is big.
It's a huge win over the patently Anti Gun bastards in Kalifornia, especially that no good AG Kamala Harris.
The fact that a federal judge saw these laws for what they are -- baseless restraints on the exercise of a fundamental civil right -- is monumental," explained Gene Hoffman, Chairman of The Calguns Foundation. "California's waiting period laws for those who own guns is not Constitutional and this order really underlines the point."
In his order, Judge Ishii said that Harris has "not presented sufficient evidence to show that the [10-day waiting period laws] passes either intermediate or strict scrutiny."
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."
"This is certainly an exciting development in Second Amendment case law," noted Brandon Combs, an individual plaintiff in the case and the Executive Director of The Calguns Foundation. "If our Constitution means what it says, then California's gun waiting period laws have to be overturned and law-abiding people must be allowed to exercise their rights without irrational infringements."
Regardless of the final decision at the district court, the case is virtually certain to end up at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and possibly even the United States Supreme Court.
Read more here.
Update;
My sincere thanks to the fine gentlemen over at WRSA for green lighting this.
H/T FARK.
8 comments:
It'll get appealed, and the appeals court will overturn the lower court decision and uphold the law and the Supreme Court will refuse to accept the case for appeal. That's because "reasonable" waiting periods have already passed Supreme Court scrutiny in Mack and Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), with a Supreme Court whose makeup was not much different from the current one. The only question is whether 10 days is a "reasonable" waiting period. Personally I think so because a gun is something I intend to keep for years and waiting a couple of weeks to get it is no big deal, but who knows what the Supremes will say? If they do accept the case, it will be only to define what is a "reasonable" waiting period. The 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to own and hold guns, it doesn't guarantee a right to instant gratification, after all... only a waiting period that had the effect of prohibiting the ownership of guns would violate the 2nd Amendment, if the Supreme Court sticks with its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570. Which, given that today's Supreme Court is the exact same one that decided D.C. v. Heller in 2008, seems likely.
One of the foundations and main selling points of The Brady Act was the development and implementation of the NICS system, providing the seller with an instant answer to the question of a buyers legal ability to purchase a weapon. All waiting periods pervert the intent of Brady and as such, in a sane world, would be considered unconstitutional, regardless of "reasonableness". The fact that many, if not a majority of current weapons purchasers are already firearms owners shows the absolute absurdity of the waiting period. As for the first time buyer, is it the State's business to speculate that he or she "might" do something illegal with their purchase, or that making them wait will in any way thwart their plans should they actually have evil on their minds?
Lastly, to address the previous comment on the Second Amendment: "If they do accept the case, it will be only to define what is a "reasonable" waiting period. The 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to own and hold guns, it doesn't guarantee a right to instant gratification, after all..."
The Constitution, and in particular the Second Amendment, is pretty specific about who and what is restrained and what isn't. If something isn't addressed then we have to look to the Founders intent on what they DID address and how they addressed it. "Shall not be infringed". Precise language written by deliberate men. No qualifiers. No exceptions.
I thought the 2nd forbade congress from touching guns, PERIOD.
I am sorry, I meant to say government from touching guns.
Uhm, there's the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that this does allow states and cities to regulate guns, but does *not* allow them to outright ban gun ownership (see the case quoted above, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 2008). The Constitution says that the Supreme Court decides what the 2nd Amendment says, not you and I -- the judiciary (deciding) power is vested by the Constitution in the Supreme Court, not in me, not in you, not in Busted, not in any of us reading this blog (unless you're reading this blog, Clarence Thomas!). And that's what the Supreme Court said in 2008.
What they'll say today... (shrug). It's been 5 years and it's the same basic court (traded one left wing judge for another left wing judge but that's it), but who knows? But chances are they won't take the case after the appeals court cites D.C. vs. Heller. It's rather embarrassing to overturn your own ruling only five years after you made it, after all. Usually Supreme Courts wait a few decades for older judges to retire before doing something like that.
"Well-regulated" meant something different in 1789 than it does now. I'll leave it to you to google that one; but think about it: A Militia is necessary to the security of a free State. If the Militia is encumbered with "regulations" in the modern sense of the word, is security increased, or decreased?
Nowhere in the Constitution, is it declared that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution means. It was written in plain English, that any literate person can understand. It does not need a Masonic priesthood, Greek oracle, Rosetta Stone, or Joseph Smith's spectacles to decipher it. And the "deciding power" of the Supreme Court is only as good as long as people heed its decisions. Today they do; tomorrow, who knows?
Say what? What Constitution are you reading, anyhow? The Constitution of Tahiti?!
Article III of the Constitution is quite clear: all judicial (judging) power rests in the Supreme Court and inferior courts beneath it. You don't get to judge. I don't get to judge. The Supreme Court gets to judge. That's what judicial power is all about. So what do you think Article III of the Constitution is about? Barbecue?!
The Bill of Rights are not up for debate. That's why they're called "rights".
Post a Comment