The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 25, 2014, 04:30 PM   #1
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 551
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 Vanya; August 25, 2014 at 08:21 PM. Reason: inappropriate language.
HarrySchell is offline  
Old August 25, 2014, 04:33 PM   #2
Colt46
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: Campbell Ca
Posts: 858
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.
Colt46 is offline  
Old 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: 299
Colt46 - I hear you brother!
A good day in CA!
DennisCA is offline  
Old August 25, 2014, 04:45 PM   #4
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,192
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.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearm Safety and Pistol Instructor
"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci
CowTowner is offline  
Old August 25, 2014, 05:27 PM   #5
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 141
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.
Librarian is offline  
Old August 26, 2014, 10:00 AM   #6
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,202
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;
steve4102 is offline  
Old August 26, 2014, 01:52 PM   #7
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
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.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 26, 2014, 04:21 PM   #8
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 141
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
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Old August 26, 2014, 09:47 PM   #9
TDL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 162
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
TDL is offline  
Old September 13, 2014, 08:59 AM   #10
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,202
Has this ruling been appealed?
steve4102 is offline  
Old September 13, 2014, 09:13 PM   #11
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 141
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.
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Old September 14, 2014, 09:16 AM   #12
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
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.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 14, 2014, 06:08 PM   #13
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,405
I wonder if their filing for fees at this point is an indication that they know there won't be an appeal.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10314 seconds with 7 queries