PDA

View Full Version : Chances of removing the ten day wait?


Pulsar
09-16-2005, 5:07 PM
What do you think are our chances of getting rid of the ten day waiting period?

I'm just asking cause I was in reno with a neveda resident and it drove me nuts to watch him buy an enfield and a couple of 1911's at once, and walk out of the store with all guns in hand.

And from rhetoric I've heard from others, the california system suppoesedly costs more than the instant check system. Don't know if it's true, but if it is, it would probably help get a few politicians on our side.

09-16-2005, 5:47 PM
I agree, from a psychological point of view, the 10-day wait is most annoying.

But if I had to make a priority list of California "gun control" legislation that we need to get rid off, the top of my list would not be the 10-day wait. I would put removing the "safe handgun list" at the top, even ahead of getting rid of the AWB.

bwiese
09-16-2005, 6:43 PM
The 10 day wait is useless and inflammatory and infringing.

But CA's battles will be staying actions. We need to spend our efforts fighting duplicates of SB357 and AB352 ammo bills since that's dangerous to all gun ownership in CA.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

C.G.
09-16-2005, 7:34 PM
Originally posted by treelogger:
I agree, from a psychological point of view, the 10-day wait is most annoying.

But if I had to make a priority list of California "gun control" legislation that we need to get rid off, the top of my list would not be the 10-day wait. I would put removing the "safe handgun list" at the top, even ahead of getting rid of the AWB.

I wouldn't mind a ten day waiting period if I could get my hands on a real AR-10 and AR-15.

colossians323
09-16-2005, 10:05 PM
The ten day waiting period is supposed to be a cooling off period, so you don't go out and commit a crime of passion.
Lets face it, most of us have an arsenal and don[t need to cool off if we want to use a gun in a crime.

Pulsar
09-16-2005, 10:44 PM
The only reason I'm really picking the ten day wait is because I think it has the best chance of being revoked of all the gun laws in california.

I can live with a ten day wait for someones first gun purchase, but it seems kind of pointless after that. If someone wants to commit a crime of passion and already has a gun, why would they run out to buy a new gun to shoot someone with?

I would much rather have the AWB and the Hand Gun list gone, but I'm trying to pick my battles that I think have a chance of winning.

09-16-2005, 10:56 PM
As long as the lefties control the State's govt. the chances are slim and none of repealing the wait. And we know where slim is.

bwiese
09-16-2005, 11:19 PM
BTW it's already been reduced somewhat - in the 1980s it was a 15-day waiting period.

This has no chance of winning any further reduction given current and continuing political situation, the composition of the Assembly & Senate Public Safety Committees, etc. It will be demonized as "now they want more guns to get into criminals' hands faster".

Other states' results, etc. are irrelevant.

Concentrate on stopping future bad laws, not tilting at windmills.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

09-17-2005, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by bwiese:
BTW it's already been reduced somewhat - in the 1980s it was a 15-day waiting period.

This has no chance of winning any further reduction given current and continuing political situation, the composition of the Assembly & Senate Public Safety Committees, etc. It will be demonized as "now they want more guns to get into criminals' hands faster".

Other states' results, etc. are irrelevant.

Concentrate on stopping future bad laws, not tilting at windmills.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

Grudgingly, I must agree. Though, I do wish the California pro-firearm organizations would look into starting a marketing campaign, followed up with an initiative to get a proposition on the ballot supporting a roll-back to, at least, the federal standards with instant check.

Bruce
09-17-2005, 5:59 PM
Originally posted by treelogger:
I agree, from a psychological point of view, the 10-day wait is most annoying.

But if I had to make a priority list of California "gun control" legislation that we need to get rid off, the top of my list would not be the 10-day wait. I would put removing the "safe handgun list" at the top, even ahead of getting rid of the AWB.

I'd settle for changing the wording to handguns manufactured after January 1, 2001.

stillbigmac
09-17-2005, 7:06 PM
Originally posted by bwiese:
BTW it's already been reduced somewhat - in the 1980s it was a 15-day waiting period.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

Fremont is still using the local licenses that were printed in the 80's. On my Fremont firearms dealers license it says I must hold guns for 15 days still to this day.
Fremont has not updated anything about their firearms laws for years.

I badgered the chief of police about my list of saturday night specials he is supposed to compile and keep up to date. It is supposed to be supplied to me with my license. His secretary finally called me and told me to go ahead and use the states guidelines for what I could or could not sell.

I'd like to see us go to the federal standard. The feds rules are much simpler and I hate collecting and paying DROS fees.

just4fun63
09-17-2005, 9:36 PM
For your thoughts:
If we are going to pick a law apart why not start with a law that has already allowed changes, that is the "safe handgun list".
Here is all we would have to do I think. Get a friendly law maker http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif to carry a change to the law that says, basicly; once agun has passed the safety test it is safe forever. the "safetyness" doesn't run out when the fee runs out. Or something like that. Grandfather in all weapons that have ever been on the list.

This law has been amended twice I think to allow special cases and since we are still maintaining the list it may slide through.

What do you think?

09-17-2005, 11:07 PM
I like just4fun63's suggestion. After all, it makes sense: Once a gun has been tested, it remains safe, so there is no reason for regular retesting, or gun makers having to pay a fee to keep the gun on the list. If the design of the gun is changed, a retest is already necessary.

This doesn't, however, fix what I see as the biggest problem with the list. The list contains maybe 10% of all the handgun models that are made, but it contains those 10% that make up 90% of all handgun sales. What I don't like is that the other 90% of all models (those that make up 10% of the handgun sales) are not on the list. There are many many interesting guns that people in other states can buy, and we in California can't. For a large fraction of them, there is no reason to suspect that they are unsafe (in the sense of the the droptest administered by the CA DoJ), because they are slight variations of guns that are on the list. Examples include many models in different finishes, different calibers, or different barrel length; for example, Taurus makes revolvers in .22 WMR, which are not on the list (rarely sold), while their brethren in .22 LR are on the list.

The other class of missing guns are those that are very expensive, and therefore rarely sold; the cost of submitting the required 4 or 5 examples to testing is too high for a manufacturer who only sells a dozen or two guns of that particular model per year in the US as a whole, of which maybe 1 or 2 might end up in California. My poster child for that class is the German-made Korth revolver (cost starts at $6K, a few dozen are sold in the US per year), which is obviously not available in CA. Another example in the H&K Mark23 in a version without the threaded barrel.

Initially, the safe handgun list law was actually not designed with handgun drop safety in mind. The original idea was to keep super-cheap "Saturday night special" guns out of the state. It was thought that these super-cheap guns would be badly built, therefore unsafe, so the drop test would be able to seperate them out. This law has failed to achieve this goal (whether it is a desirable goal or not is another question), as crappily built Bryco etc. guns did remain on the list, and we can still buy factory-new pistols for $99 at a good sale. What the law has achieved is actually exactly the opposite of what it intended, namely that expensive and very well-built guns are being kept off the list (and that all new gun models come to California with a several month delay).

The other argument one can use against this list is the old legal principle from criminal law: "innocent until proven guilty". If the state wishes to demonstrate that a certain handgun is unsafe, it certainly can do so, but it should do so at its own expense. I'm sure a maker of fine, expensive and rare firearms would be delighted (or at least willing) to sell a few of its guns to the CA DoJ at retail price, for the DoJ to destroy in drop testing, with the DoJ footing the bill for the testing process. Unfortunately, the "innocent until proven guilty" principle has never applied to regulatory law. For example, when you apply for a building permit, the applicant has to demonstrate that they are doing everything right, and has to shoulder the cost of the application and inspection process.

If the state of California were serious about keeping cheap Saturday night specials off the streets, all it would need to do would be to impose a minimum price on handguns, for example by imposing a $500 tax on each gun. If the revenue from that program were then used to fund some serious gun safety programs (for example a massive increase in law enforcement, to ensure that guns stay out of the hands of criminals), that would be a wonderful thing. But preventing collectors from buying $6000 guns because importing them into California is not economically viable is just laughable.

Turbinator
09-18-2005, 9:09 AM
Originally posted by treelogger:
The original idea was to keep super-cheap "Saturday night special" guns out of the state.

I'm no expert, but I would argue that the original "intent" of the law was not talked about nor publicized - to slowly work away at the bigger picture goal of banning ALL guns in CA. The guise of keeping so-called Sat. Night Specials was just a way to get the public to buy into the effort and to get members of the CA legislature to approve of such a non-sense law.

However, one thing about your post is fantastic - you clearly outlined how the drop-test scheme is really only a money making endeavor and is hardly anything to do with safety. I really wonder where the fees go that pay for the drop-test certification? I think it's something like $5,000 per gun?

all it would need to do would be to impose a minimum price on handguns, for example by imposing a $500 tax on each gun. If the revenue from that program were then used to fund some serious gun safety programs (for example a massive increase in law enforcement, to ensure that guns stay out of the hands of criminals), that would be a wonderful thing.

I agree with you that the law is not doing what it originally said it was supposed to do - but in my humble opinion I don't feel that taxing guns at $500 and increasing law enforcement is going to be something I'd want to support either. It's just trading one evil program for another. In fact, I'm going to guess that firearm violence in CA ranks fairly low as far as an overall list of CA ills that need to be addressed - I'd much rather see the legislature leave guns alone and go try to fix something else for a change.

Turby

just4fun63
09-18-2005, 5:29 PM
I still think the gun list is the weakest law. I mean even a lib can see that a mechcanical devise dosent suddenly become unsafe because a fee runs out. ( I know I know http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif) If we start with a weak law that we can mount a Unfair Law argument (you know libs think everything has to be fair) and pick it apart, then move on to another weak or stupid law. I know I'm just babbling here but we all spend hours every month writing letters aginst laws, I would like to spend hours writing for laws.

Oh and by-the-way we all need to support a part-time legislature! No time for stupid laws. I think its one of the things we need to do to save this state. http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MadMex
09-18-2005, 7:59 PM
Burn resources fighting matters of greater significance.

Why does a ccw holder have to wait 10 days? Go figure...

09-18-2005, 9:01 PM
Originally posted by Turbinator:
I really wonder where the fees go that pay for the drop-test certification? I think it's something like $5,000 per gun?

As far as I know, the drop-test is performed by independent testing labs, not by the DoJ itself. The gun manufacturer has to pay the independent lab. And $5000 for all the work the drop test involves sounds quite reasonable (given the typical productivity of government consultants and such organisations).

I don't think the DoJ makes money off administering all the "gun safety" laws, rather on the contrary.

09-18-2005, 9:51 PM
State, like Federal government have bigger issues to tackle. Let's see the deficit and illegal immigration are just two that jump to mind. I agree, the left is working to make ALL guns in California illegal.

jnojr
09-19-2005, 5:24 PM
With our current Legislature, no positive changes to even the most insane laws are going to happen. Pray for redistricting to pass. If it does, it's guaranteed that a massive court challenge will be mounted by the left. But if it survives that challenge, or if we can get an emergency injunction forcing redistricting through now without waiting for years of challenges... we won't get a die-hard pro-2A Legislature, but we will get one that's a lot more moderate and representative of the people. Anti-gun majorities will shrink, and the Assembly Public safety Committee will almost certainly wind up with all-new members, instead of the rabidly anti-gun freaks on it now.

All of a sudden, CCW reform, removal of the ten-day wait, AWB repeal, drop-test repeal, etc. will be very possible.

If redistricting doesn't go through, then I'll say it's time to get out. The only reason I'm still here is because I'm in the last stages of the hiring process with the Sheriffs Department... if I get hired, most of those stupid laws won't apply to me anymore anyway. http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

imported_1911_sfca
09-23-2005, 4:21 PM
It would be nice to get rid of the 10-day wait. But on the scale of things, it is more of an annoyance than anything else, especially for the collector who already has plenty of other models to use while waiting.

Originally posted by jnojr:
With our current Legislature, no positive changes to even the most insane laws are going to happen. Pray for redistricting to pass.

Agreed. No one knows what's going to happen with this, but it has the potential to be monumental in bringing more moderation to Sacramento. We can only hope..

Charliegone
09-23-2005, 4:24 PM
Oh God, I'll fast for 10 days and 10 nights, just to get it passed. http://www.calguns.net/bow.gif

icormba
09-24-2005, 11:52 AM
these law makers make no sense!

Safe Handgun List? isn't that an oxymoron?

10 day wait? yeah... it prevents criminals from getting guns right away! what?

1 handgun a month? uhhhh

AW Ban? yeah... my AR15 is more dangerous & deadly than your M1A!!

El Capitan
09-24-2005, 10:50 PM
Rule #1:

No anti-gun laws EVER get repealed in the PRK, only strengthened...


http://www.calguns.net/banghead.gif

SunshineGlocker
09-28-2005, 9:58 AM
The ten day wait doesn't bother me. I'm neutral on it.
Originally posted by treelogger:
But if I had to make a priority list of California "gun control" legislation that we need to get rid off, the top of my list would not be the 10-day wait. I would put removing the "safe handgun list" at the top, even ahead of getting rid of the AWB.
Yes, I would put the "safe handgun" thing close to the top, ahead of AWB. The other item is to start thinking about CCW reform. That will be a long and hard road in CA, but it's one we need to start on. I would like to see someone introduce a bill, and keep on introducing it every year. In other states that have had CCW reform, it usually takes several tries to get it through the legislature, and then it make take one or two more tries to get it past the guv's veto. Look at what they're having to do in WI right now. We need to start that here.

SunshineGlocker
09-28-2005, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by jnojr:
With our current Legislature, no positive changes to even the most insane laws are going to happen. Pray for redistricting to pass.
Exactly.
If it does, it's guaranteed that a massive court challenge will be mounted by the left.
It could be tied up in court for a decade or more. I hope not, I hope they get an injunction right away. We'll see.
Anti-gun majorities will shrink, and the Assembly Public safety Committee will almost certainly wind up with all-new members, instead of the rabidly anti-gun freaks on it now.
100% right. It is a good chance for us to get CCW reform. The pressure is building. The people on the public safety committee right now are freaks and nuts. They are the LAST people in the state I want to have protecting the public safety.
If redistricting doesn't go through, then I'll say it's time to get out. The only reason I'm still here is because I'm in the last stages of the hiring process with the Sheriffs Department... if I get hired, most of those stupid laws won't apply to me anymore anyway. http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Good luck on it! I hope you get it, and hopefully you could influence the sheriff to change his issuance policy in SD. If enough sheriffs in CA start issuing, that also helps give momentum to CA-CCW.