|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 25, 2014, 04:30 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
Harris loses on Sylvester. CA Waiting period overturned
Decision today that the CA 10-day waiting period is unconstitutional under 2A.
Decision is by a federal judge (Clinton appointee) and I guess the state will appeal to the 9th Circuit. In the meantime, the decision will be stayed so for the moment it may not have an impact. Combined with Peruta, AG Harris is losing more than winning. The Legislature is piling new bright ideas to further harass or limit the law-abiding gun owners faster than we can knock them down, however. Gov. Brown might be open to the argument that some of the new stuff is too ridiculous to sign, however. Maybe. Kinda. Sorta... http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...rles-c-w-cooke
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain Last edited by Evan Thomas; August 25, 2014 at 08:21 PM. Reason: inappropriate language. |
August 25, 2014, 04:33 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: Campbell Ca
Posts: 1,090
|
I cannot say enough about Calguns
They are an internet forum based advocacy group that operates very lean from a standpoint of what your donated dollars accomplish. Seriously, anybody in a state that fears where their rights are going ought to look into the Calguns model.
We have many, many more things to undo but we are making progress. |
August 25, 2014, 04:39 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 3, 2012
Location: Union City CA (a.k.a. Poople's Republik of CA)
Posts: 451
|
Colt46 - I hear you brother!
A good day in CA! |
August 25, 2014, 04:45 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
|
August 25, 2014, 05:27 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
|
PDF of the decision: http://ia700803.us.archive.org/13/it...3362.106.0.pdf
__________________
|
August 26, 2014, 10:00 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,955
|
From the ruling posted above, page 55 line 15.
Why the need for #3, 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 possess both a valid COE issued pursuant to California Penal Code § 26710 and a firearm as confirmed by the AFS system. ...when #1 already states that Legal possession of a "registered" firearm is acceptable? 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; |
August 26, 2014, 01:52 PM | #7 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
While it seem redundant to us, Steve, it is part and parcel of the requested relief, so the court included that specific portion of the requested relief.
|
August 26, 2014, 04:21 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
|
There is a difference, but I had to go back to what Gene Hoffman posted
Quote:
__________________
|
|
August 26, 2014, 09:47 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
|
|
September 13, 2014, 08:59 AM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,955
|
Has this ruling been appealed?
|
September 13, 2014, 09:13 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
|
For some reason I can not discover, I had thought it had already been appealed.
Looking at the Eastern District docket, there are no documents indicating that, so evidently I was wrong. If something may have been submitted to the 9th Circuit, I can't see it - no Pacer account. The rule is Quote:
__________________
|
|
September 14, 2014, 09:16 AM | #12 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I do have a PACER account. Further action by the State has yet to be taken.
You will find that the Plaintiffs have filed for attorney fees of $305,526.21. Doc #108 at the link provided by Librarian. |
September 14, 2014, 06:08 PM | #13 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
I wonder if their filing for fees at this point is an indication that they know there won't be an appeal.
|
September 25, 2014, 01:00 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
Further action by the state was taken today. First, the AG moved to extend the stay for a full year because (a) the legislature is not in session until January and therefore would have little time to write a new law, and (b) it will take lots of money (that the AG says it doesn't have despite the fact it has been raiding the DROS fund overcharges since last year for purposes other than processing 4473s) to hire new analysts or reprogram their computers to do it automatically. Second, the AG filed a protective notice of appeal.
|
|
|