Harris loses on Sylvester. CA Waiting period overturned

HarrySchell · August 25, 2014, 04:30 PM

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

Colt46 · August 25, 2014, 04:33 PM

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.

DennisCA · August 25, 2014, 04:39 PM

Colt46 - I hear you brother!
A good day in CA!

CowTowner · August 25, 2014, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Decision today that the CA 10-day waiting period is unconstitutional under 2A.

Need to be careful here. Only the waiting period for previous gun purchasers that have endured the 10 waiting period and those that also have CCW permits. The first time California gun buyer still has to wait 10 days under this decision.

Librarian · August 25, 2014, 05:27 PM

PDF of the decision: http://ia700803.us.archive.org/13/it...3362.106.0.pdf

steve4102 · August 26, 2014, 10:00 AM

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;

Al Norris · August 26, 2014, 01:52 PM

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.

Librarian · August 26, 2014, 04:21 PM

There is a difference, but I had to go back to what Gene Hoffman posted

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoffmang
...

The reason it's important for COE holders who have a gun in AFS to be exempt are a couple fold. First, the COE is shall issue to anyone who wishes to get it. If you don't or can't get an LTC then you can get the COE. Because the COE is fingerprint based and subject to Rap Back, if a COE holder isn't immediately approved via the background check, CA DOJ is up to shenanigans unless the aforementioned law enforcement activity has already been started to disarm that individual. If you have a COE and don't get an instant approval, we'd like to sue on your behalf!

...
-Gene

TDL · August 26, 2014, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Need to be careful here. Only the waiting period for previous gun purchasers that have endured the 10 waiting period and those that also have CCW permits. The first time California gun buyer still has to wait 10 days under this decision.

Indeed. But what is interesting is the convoluted, indeed desperate grasping California mounted despite these persons already being gun purchasers

steve4102 · September 13, 2014, 08:59 AM

Has this ruling been appealed?

Librarian · September 13, 2014, 09:13 PM

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:

Time for Filing a Notice of Appeal.
(A) In a civil case, except as provided in Rules 4(a)(1)(B), 4(a)(4), and 4(c), the
notice of appeal required by Rule 3 must be filed with the district clerk
within 30 days after the entry of judgment or order appealed from.

Opinion was August 25, so September 25 would be the unmodified date for filing; requests to the Court might change that time.

Al Norris · September 14, 2014, 09:16 AM

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.

**Aguila Blanca** · September 14, 2014, 06:08 PM

I wonder if their filing for fees at this point is an indication that they know there won't be an appeal.

62coltnavy · September 25, 2014, 01:00 AM

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.

August 25, 2014, 04:33 PM	#2
Colt46 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, 05:27 PM	#5
Librarian 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 __________________ See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law. The FAQ page is here.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

August 25, 2014, 04:30 PM	#1
HarrySchell 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, 04:39 PM	#3
DennisCA 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 26, 2014, 10:00 AM	#6
steve4102 Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,952	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
Al Norris 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.

September 13, 2014, 08:59 AM	#10
steve4102 Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,952	Has this ruling been appealed?

September 14, 2014, 09:16 AM	#12
Al Norris 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
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,457	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
62coltnavy 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.