PDA

View Full Version : CGF: Silvester v. Harris - Second Waiting Period Unconstitutional


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

hoffmang
12-23-2011, 4:16 PM
Calguns Foundation Sues California Over Firearms Waiting Period

San Carlos, CA (December 23, 2011) – The Calguns Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit against the California Department of Justice and Attorney General Kamala Harris challenging the policy of requiring gun owners to wait at least 10 days before taking possession of an additional firearm. The case is entitled Jeff Silvester et. al. vs. Kamala Harris, et. al.

The Calguns Foundation is joined in the lawsuit, filed today at the District of California Federal District Court in Fresno, by the Second Amendment Foundation and three individual plaintiffs.

“The State has absolutely no reason to infringe the rights of California gun owners who already possess firearms when they buy another one,” said Jason Davis who is the attorney for the plaintiffs. California currently requires the registration of handguns in California. And, beginning January 2014, it will also require the registration of all newly-purchased rifles and shotguns. Notably, California keeps a current database of all residents who are prohibited by state or federal law from owning or possessing firearms.

Individual plaintiffs Jeff Silvester, Michael Poeschl, and Brandon Combs each have firearms registered with the State of California. Mr. Combs and Mr. Silvester also have firearms licenses from the State that constitute ongoing background checks.

“In just about every other state in the U.S., I as a law-abiding gun owner could walk in and, after passing an instant national background check, walk out with a firearm to defend myself in my home,” said Michael Poeschl. “What’s really frustrating is that California is one of the very few states that forces gun owners to register all handguns that they buy. If the State’s database saying that I already lawfully own a gun isn’t proof that I don’t need a ‘cooling-off’ period, then what is?”

“I have a license to carry a loaded firearm across the State,” noted Jeff Silvester. “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.”

“As a collector, I submitted to a Live Scan background check and obtained a Certificate of Eligibility to Possess Firearms from the State of California at my own expense,” said Brandon Combs. “In the Internet era, where every California gun dealer has a computer connected directly to the State’s databases, there is no logical reason to force me to wait 10 days and make another trip simply because California doesn’t want to acknowledge the Certificate that it issued to me. I have registered guns, and I have the State telling me that I can possess guns, but for some reason I can’t exercise my constitutionally protected rights for another ten days? That’s insane.”

“Laws that infringe on the right to purchase arms have to be more than just merely rational and must directly serve important governmental interests,” added Hoffman. “Here, the law is not just irrational but actually contradictory. We filed this case right before Christmas in the hopes that, by next Christmas, gun owners will not suffer this continuing infringement on their right to acquire firearms.”

The complaint is available from http://bit.ly/10daywait

___

The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org)) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization which serves its members by providing Second Amendment-related education, strategic litigation and the defense of innocent California gun owners from improper or malicious prosecution. The Calguns Foundation seeks to inform government and protect the rights of individuals to acquire, own, and lawfully use firearms in California.


Please remember that freedom isn't free and cases like these to recover your rights cost money. Please donate (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/donate.html) - It's tax deductible!

-Gene


=====================

Current status, via wildhawker 12-2-2014

Appeal to the 9th Circuit:
The opening brief and excerpts of record are due February 23, 2015;

the answering brief is due March 25, 2015;

and the optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. [9332608] (WL) [Entered: 12/02/2014 08:53 AM]

ke6guj
12-23-2011, 4:19 PM
woo hoo

mag360
12-23-2011, 4:26 PM
Go CGF team go! Beautiful!

taperxz
12-23-2011, 4:28 PM
Bravo! And Merry Christmas to CA gun owners!!!

safewaysecurity
12-23-2011, 4:28 PM
Yay! This.SHOULD be rather easy to smack down since it really doesn't even survive rational basis.

Bhobbs
12-23-2011, 4:29 PM
Nice. Keep putting the pressure on them.

thayne
12-23-2011, 4:29 PM
Sweet! Thanks for the birthday present!

Robidouxs
12-23-2011, 4:29 PM
Sweet.

Lagduf
12-23-2011, 4:30 PM
Calguns and SAF's XMAS gift to all of us!

From the bottom of my heart, thank you. I could not have asked for me.

berto
12-23-2011, 4:34 PM
Merry Christmas! Happy Hannukah! Joyous Kwanza! Groovy Solatice!

CGF rocks. The 10 day wait after the first time irks to no end. One trip to parts unknown is fine, the second trip kills too many deals. Thanks guys.

Josh3239
12-23-2011, 4:34 PM
Damn, right when I am 10 days away from leaving CA and you guys challenge the 10 day wait! :D

Seriously though congrats and good luck. CGF is friggin awesome!

Librarian
12-23-2011, 4:35 PM
Hey!

Document drops on Fridays, especially before holidays, are for things you don't want people to notice.

:)

Chosen_1
12-23-2011, 4:36 PM
So, from now until next Christmas is about two weeks, right?

hoffmang
12-23-2011, 4:38 PM
Hey!

Document drops on Fridays, especially before holidays, are for things you don't want people to notice.

:)

We thought our friends at CA DOJ BoF needed some holiday cheer and more DROS fees next year! How can we not oblige?

I expect you'll hear more about this case from SAF on boxing day too.

-Gene

707electrician
12-23-2011, 4:50 PM
Nice! One ten day wait is ridiculous enough

Smokeybehr
12-23-2011, 4:54 PM
I wish Brandon had let me know about the lawsuit. I would have been a plaintiff, since I bought one of his ARs, and I already have several guns that I had to wait for.

bwiese
12-23-2011, 4:54 PM
Nice! One ten day wait is ridiculous enough

The first 10 day wait is a harder fight, legally speaking.

But a 10day wait for a guy to buy his N+1th gun and who already
has N guns is downright unsupportable for a fundamental right.

thayne
12-23-2011, 4:57 PM
The first 10 day wait is a harder fight, legally speaking.

But a 10day wait for a guy to buy his N+1th gun and who already
has N guns is downright unsupportable for a fundamental right.

May not be required. CA may just throw in the towel and start using NCIS checks like most other states :D

CitaDeL
12-23-2011, 5:00 PM
Merry Christmas! Happy Hannukah! Joyous Kwanza! Groovy Solatice!

CGF rocks. The 10 day wait after the first time irks to no end. One trip to parts unknown is fine, the second trip kills too many deals. Thanks guys.

And you forgot Festivus.

Thats okay- Its time to raise a toast to the Calguns Foundation and spread the pre-Christmas cheer...

Paladin
12-23-2011, 5:01 PM
:thumbsup:

More seed being sown.

I can hardly wait for some crops to come in (Rossow, Scocca, Peruta, Richards, Pena, etc.).

ke6guj
12-23-2011, 5:02 PM
interesting little tidbit:

42. Eighteenth, the ten-day waiting periods generally do not apply to lawful transactions involving cane guns, firearms that are not immediately recognizable as firearms, undetectable firearms, wallet guns, unconventional pistols, and zip guns. Penal Code §21740 (exempts from §26815); §27740 (exempts from §27540).

"shotgun-based" AOWs like the Super Shorty are considered unconvetional pistols in CA and would therefore be exempt from the 10-day wait after the Form 4 was approved.


27540
No dealer, whether or not acting pursuant to Chapter 5
(commencing with Section 28050), shall deliver a firearm to a person,
as follows:
(a) Within 10 days of the application to purchase, or, after
notice by the department pursuant to Section 28220, within 10 days of
the submission to the department of any correction to the
application, or within 10 days of the submission to the department of
any fee required pursuant to Section 28225, whichever is later.
(b) Unless unloaded and securely wrapped or unloaded and in a
locked container.
(c) Unless the purchaser, transferee, or person being loaned the
firearm presents clear evidence of the person's identity and age to
the dealer.
(d) Whenever the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice
that the person is prohibited by state or federal law from
possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm.
(e) (1) Commencing April 1, 1994, and until January 1, 2003, no
handgun shall be delivered unless the purchaser, transferee, or
person being loaned the firearm presents to the dealer a basic
firearms safety certificate.
(2) Commencing January 1, 2003, no handgun shall be delivered
unless the purchaser, transferee, or person being loaned the handgun
presents a handgun safety certificate to the dealer.
(f) No handgun shall be delivered whenever the dealer is notified
by the Department of Justice that within the preceding 30-day period
the purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun and
that the previous application to purchase involved none of the
entities specified in subdivision (b) of Section 27535.





27740
Section 27540 does not apply to the sale, delivery, or
transfer of a firearm regulated pursuant to any of the following
statutes, if the sale, delivery, or transfer of that firearm is
conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the
statute:
(a) Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 18710) of Division 5 of
Title 2, relating to destructive devices and explosives.
(b) Section 24410, relating to cane guns, and the exemptions in
Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Title 2, as they relate
to cane guns.
(c) Section 24510, relating to firearms that are not immediately
recognizable as firearms, and the exemptions in Chapter 1 (commencing
with Section 17700) of Title 2, as they relate to firearms that are
not immediately recognizable as firearms.
(d) Sections 24610 and 24680, relating to undetectable firearms,
and the exemptions in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of
Title 2, as they relate to undetectable firearms.
(e) Section 24710, relating to wallet guns, and the exemptions in
Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Title 2, as they relate
to wallet guns.
(f) Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 30500) of Division 10,
relating to assault weapons.
(g) Section 31500, relating to unconventional pistols, and the
exemptions in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Title 2,
as they relate to unconventional pistols.
(h) Sections 33215 to 33225, inclusive, relating to short-barreled
rifles and short-barreled shotguns, and the exemptions in Chapter 1
(commencing with Section 17700) of Title 2, as they relate to
short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns.




and the old code, as far as I can tell,

12078(o) Section 12071 and subdivisions (c),(d), and paragraph (1) of Section 12072 shall not apply to the delivery, sale, or transfer of firearms regulated pursuant to Section 12020, Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 12200), or Chapter 2.3 (commencing with Section 12275), if the delivery, sale, or transfer is conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 12020, Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 12200), or Chapter 2.3 (commencing with Section 12275).


that could make getting a "shotgun-based" AOW a one-stop trip instead of a 2-3 stop deal.

glockman19
12-23-2011, 5:07 PM
Thanks

CHS
12-23-2011, 5:14 PM
The first 10 day wait is a harder fight, legally speaking.

But a 10day wait for a guy to buy his N+1th gun and who already
has N guns is downright unsupportable for a fundamental right.

I still don't understand how ANY wait can survive strict scrutiny or any constitutional scrutiny. I have a right to self defense NOW, not 1, 3, or ten days from now. Plus, if the whole idea is to prevent crime and we've instituted background checks, well the background check is instant. And can the state actually show in court that a background check waiting period truly prevents the so-called "crimes of passion" that it seeks to get rid of? I doubt it.

Anyways. It's still great news. Merry Christmas to me, Merry Christmas to me!

Sometimes I think Gene, Bill, Jason, Brandon and CGF in general are just one big multi-part jolly Santa :)

ivsamhell
12-23-2011, 5:19 PM
the marketplace is going to be a whole new world.

sreiter
12-23-2011, 5:20 PM
LOL - Brilliant!!! We hold these truths to be self-evident. I just wish to god politicians would take their heads out of their lower intestinal tract and see common sense.

OleCuss
12-23-2011, 5:20 PM
I dunno, it feels just a little like Christmas is two days early. And yeah, I know that final resolution will be a long way down the road.

But what I find most interesting is that (IIRC) this was a relatively low priority. This suggests to me that there has been (or this is) a strategic or tactical shift.

taperxz
12-23-2011, 5:21 PM
I still don't understand how ANY wait can survive strict scrutiny or any constitutional scrutiny. I have a right to self defense NOW, not 1, 3, or ten days from now. Plus, if the whole idea is to prevent crime and we've instituted background checks, well the background check is instant. And can the state actually show in court that a background check waiting period truly prevents the so-called "crimes of passion" that it seeks to get rid of? I doubt it.

Anyways. It's still great news. Merry Christmas to me, Merry Christmas to me!

Sometimes I think Gene, Bill, Jason, Brandon and CGF in general are just one big multi-part jolly Santa :)

Low hanging fruit though. Just sayin. Once this gets picked the rest would be easier to get.:D

thayne
12-23-2011, 5:22 PM
I dunno, it feels just a little like Christmas is two days early. And yeah, I know that final resolution will be a long way down the road.

But what I find most interesting is that (IIRC) this was a relatively low priority. This suggests to me that there has been (or this is) a strategic or tactical shift.

Maybe the time for shock and awe has arrived :cool:

SoCal Bob
12-23-2011, 5:23 PM
So, I see this, but as usual I don't know what it means - "Seventh, the ten-day waiting periods generally do not apply to persons who have an ―assault weapons‖ permit pursuant to Penal Code section 30500, et seq. Penal Code §21740 (exempts from §26815); §27740 (exempts from §27540)."

Does this mean that someone that has a RAW is exempt from the 10 day wait?

freonr22
12-23-2011, 5:25 PM
Happy holidays!

ke6guj
12-23-2011, 5:25 PM
So, I see this, but as usual I don't know what it means - "Seventh, the ten-day waiting periods generally do not apply to persons who have an ―assault weapons‖ permit pursuant to Penal Code section 30500, et seq. Penal Code §21740 (exempts from §26815); §27740 (exempts from §27540)."

Does this mean that someone that has a RAW is exempt from the 10 day wait?AW registration is different from an AW permit.

most of us with RAWs do not have AW permits.

SoCal Bob
12-23-2011, 5:28 PM
AW registration is different from an AW permit.

most of us with RAWs do not have AW permits.

Thanks, I figured there had to be more to it.

CHS
12-23-2011, 5:33 PM
So how long until this is delayed pending the Nordyke En Banc? :)

ke6guj
12-23-2011, 5:34 PM
:twoweeks:

m03
12-23-2011, 5:34 PM
Great job!

EBR Works
12-23-2011, 5:41 PM
Bravo! This is long overdue.

mattmcg
12-23-2011, 5:44 PM
Fantastic guys! CGF moving forward again on improving what little freedom the state of CA attempts to allow.....

Great work!

CHS
12-23-2011, 5:46 PM
Holy crap, this is priceless (reading the complaint):

California, however, has placed restrictions on the access to and delivery of firearms – generally subjecting firearm purchasers to a minimum ten-day ban on the delivery of firearms

I never thought of calling the "waiting period" a ban. But this complaint hits the nail right on the head. It's nothing more than a temporary ban.

I'm going to start calling it a 10-day ban now instead of waiting period.

triplestack3
12-23-2011, 5:53 PM
freaking awesome

wildhawker
12-23-2011, 5:53 PM
Maybe the time for shock and awe has arrived :cool:

You bet your sweet bippy! :43:

-Brandon

Ding126
12-23-2011, 6:00 PM
Celebrating my wifes birthday today in Napa, St Helena & Calistoga. Shopping, olive oil tasting, WoodHouse Chocolates and wine tasting & Lunch at V Satui. I didn't think today could get much better.....I was wrong. This is great news. 2012 is going to be a good year. Thank you CGF, SAF ( if you could see my smile )

creekside
12-23-2011, 6:06 PM
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Time is money. I never thought I would get such a big Christmas present from CalGuns Foundation . . .

shooting4life
12-23-2011, 6:06 PM
Great news!!! Is the 1 in 30 mixed into this as well?
Cannot wait for the day that I can give someone money and leave with a gun.

spgripside
12-23-2011, 6:09 PM
I had a feeling CGF had a nice holiday gift for us all. Thanks to CGF, SAF and all the plaintiffs on this. F'n sweet.

ke6guj
12-23-2011, 6:19 PM
Great news!!! Is the 1 in 30 mixed into this as well?


I don't see the 1-in-30 mentioned at all in this lawsuit.

Steve1968LS2
12-23-2011, 6:22 PM
I had to explain the 10-day wait to my friend today.. he didn't understand why he needed a "cooling off" period when he already had registered guns at home. It's a stupid rule that is only in place to discorage and punish gun ownership.

Merry Christmas to us!

Librarian
12-23-2011, 6:23 PM
Of course, this is obviously just step 1.

South Carolina wants to have voter ID.

The US Attorney General (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/us/justice-department-rejects-voter-id-law-in-south-carolina.html) has opined (http://www.scribd.com/doc/76397189/Justice-Department-Letter-To-South-Carolina-Blocking-Voter-ID-Law) that allowing the new requirement to go into effect would have “significant racial disparities.”

Gee, if ID is violating access to voting, wouldn't an ID requirement violate access to gun ownership? Civil rights are important - all of them.

(h/t to Instapundit)

kanikas
12-23-2011, 6:23 PM
A toast! A toast to CGF!

:cheers2:

Skidmark
12-23-2011, 6:28 PM
The bestest xmas gift ever... thanks, guys.

CGF ROCKS!!!

ZirconJohn
12-23-2011, 6:34 PM
Get on'em CalGuns... Get ON'EM...!

Daggum stupid ridiculous asinine 10-Day waiting period... freaking HATE IT...!!!!! :mad:

Blackhawk556
12-23-2011, 6:45 PM
so has long as the system shows you own a firearm we shouldn't have to wait 10 days right? it seems that if
CGF wins here it won't go into effect until 2014. otherwise how will the system know you already own a firearm?

currently only handguns are registered so that might be a problem.

Sent from Los Alamos Nuclear Facility

Drivedabizness
12-23-2011, 6:47 PM
Not to be accused of being a curmudgeon...I can't see a 10-day wait - EVER - but so appreciate this latest action by CGF!!!!

Merry Christmas - donation coming!

Joe
12-23-2011, 6:51 PM
Great job guys! Thanks for all the hard work.

ke6guj
12-23-2011, 6:53 PM
so has long as the system shows you own a firearm we shouldn't have to wait 10 days right? it seems that if
CGF wins here it won't go into effect until 2014. otherwise how will the system know you already own a firearm?

currently only handguns are registered so that might be a problem.

Sent from Los Alamos Nuclear Facility

why couldn't it go into effect tomorrow? Just because rifles aren't currently automatically registered with AFS doesn't mean that for us that do have firearms in AFS couldn't benefit from the elmination of the second waiting period. if you have never purchased a pistol, you might be able to do a vol-reg of a rifle to get you AFS'ed to earn the exemption (or you might have a RAW or .50BMG rifle that is in AFS that gets you the exemption even though you don't have any AFS'ed pistols.

yellowfin
12-23-2011, 6:55 PM
I'll get my local distiller to start aging some whiskey for celebrating it.

wildhawker
12-23-2011, 6:56 PM
so has long as the system shows you own a firearm we shouldn't have to wait 10 days right? it seems that if
CGF wins here it won't go into effect until 2014. otherwise how will the system know you already own a firearm?

currently only handguns are registered so that might be a problem.

Sent from Los Alamos Nuclear Facility

Our lawsuit does not turn on the 2014 long gun registration. The reference simply highlights how irrational the law it.

An order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from enforcing Penal Code sections 26815 and 27540 as against those persons that may lawfully possess and acquire a firearm and possess proof of firearm possession or ownership in their name within the State of California and from enacting, publishing, promulgating, or otherwise enforcing any polices, rules, or procedures prohibiting or otherwise restricting the delivery of firearms to said individuals within ten-days of applying for the purchase of any firearms

bwiese
12-23-2011, 7:04 PM
Great news!!! Is the 1 in 30 mixed into this as well?

No.

And you do have a workaround on that - get a C&R & COE.

bwiese
12-23-2011, 7:06 PM
why couldn't it go into effect tomorrow? Just because rifles aren't currently automatically registered with AFS doesn't mean that for us that do have firearms in AFS couldn't benefit from the elmination of the second waiting period. if you have never purchased a pistol, you might be able to do a vol-reg of a rifle to get you AFS'ed to earn the exemption (or you might have a RAW or .50BMG rifle that is in AFS that gets you the exemption even though you don't have any AFS'ed pistols.


In a perfect execution of this, just walk into a gun shop with a gun you own.

California evidence code already says this is an indicator of ownership, etc

Black Majik
12-23-2011, 7:06 PM
Bravo!

madjack956
12-23-2011, 7:13 PM
Very very:cool:

jumpthestack
12-23-2011, 7:13 PM
Good stuff. I just contributed to both CGF and SAF.

kcbrown
12-23-2011, 7:17 PM
I dunno, it feels just a little like Christmas is two days early. And yeah, I know that final resolution will be a long way down the road.

But what I find most interesting is that (IIRC) this was a relatively low priority. This suggests to me that there has been (or this is) a strategic or tactical shift.

Well, this is battle, and battle is a fluid situation.

If this does indeed telegraph a shift in the strategy, then I for one am glad that our side has the flexibility to do such a thing when needed.

:43:


(It's almost Christmas, so I guess I'm feeling a bit more upbeat than usual. Enjoy it while it lasts. :D )

Window_Seat
12-23-2011, 7:22 PM
Signature updated, and here is a PACER Link (https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?233330).

We're ROCKIN' THE BOAT!!!

FfBwsG8ubFw

Erik.

jgraham7897
12-23-2011, 7:22 PM
Gee, if ID is violating access to voting, wouldn't an ID requirement violate access to gun ownership? Civil rights are important - all of them.

I had never thought about that...I am going to start using that.

Connor P Price
12-23-2011, 7:33 PM
I still don't understand how ANY wait can survive strict scrutiny or any constitutional scrutiny. I have a right to self defense NOW, not 1, 3, or ten days from now. Plus, if the whole idea is to prevent crime and we've instituted background checks, well the background check is instant. And can the state actually show in court that a background check waiting period truly prevents the so-called "crimes of passion" that it seeks to get rid of? I doubt it.

Anyways. It's still great news. Merry Christmas to me, Merry Christmas to me!

Sometimes I think Gene, Bill, Jason, Brandon and CGF in general are just one big multi-part jolly Santa :)

I was thinking about this earlier today. I don't see a first wait surviving strict scrutiny either. Although we wouldn't be likely to get actual strict scrutiny, it'd probably be intermediate or somewhere in between. That's why it seems uncertain to me, scrutiny could go a few ways. Doing it this way makes sense though, subsequent waits after the first one shouldn't survive any level of scrutiny at all so this seems like low hanging fruit.

I'm really looking forward to seeing CA try to defend this one. They will be tripping over themselves trying to come up with justification.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

JaMail
12-23-2011, 7:39 PM
i just cried a little.. merry xmas to us all.. since i see this as a precurser to killing "the list"


Confirmation number: 7KM17153FU942394T
Donation amount: $10.00 USD

Window_Seat
12-23-2011, 7:43 PM
Plaintiffs challenge the State of California’s ten-day waiting periods for firearm acquisitions facially and as applied to individuals who already have at least one firearm registered in their name with the State of California.

OK, I'm a bit confused, so a quick ? (and I should probably know already:facepalm:)...

Is this a "facial attack" or an "as-applied challenge" on the statute, and what's the difference?

I've heard that the Roberts Court favors as-applied over facial. If that is so, why would that be?

Erik.

wildhawker
12-23-2011, 7:45 PM
Read closer.

-Brandon

Plaintiffs challenge the State of California’s ten-day waiting periods for firearm acquisitions facially and as applied to individuals who already have at least one firearm registered in their name with the State of California. Said challenge is asserted as being in violation of the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

robcoe
12-23-2011, 7:48 PM
Well, CGF has finally done it, it got me to dust off the credit card and send a donation to the CGF.

Treb5
12-23-2011, 7:48 PM
Great work, CalGuns....Keep it up..

383green
12-23-2011, 7:50 PM
I thought my holiday season was going to be crappy this year because of needing to work through it, but this surprise really makes up for it. Woohoo! I think I need to send a little Festivus present to CGF!

Window_Seat
12-23-2011, 7:54 PM
OK, I didn't quite know that you could have "one with the other", but I'm still learning (even after all these years). :laugh:

Erik.

Nor-Cal
12-23-2011, 7:57 PM
This is great news!

trashman
12-23-2011, 8:02 PM
Outstanding news - a great bit of holiday cheer to start the season early.

CaliforniaLiberal
12-23-2011, 8:12 PM
Well, this is battle, and battle is a fluid situation.

If this does indeed telegraph a shift in the strategy, then I for one am glad that our side has the flexibility to do such a thing when needed.

:43:


(It's almost Christmas, so I guess I'm feeling a bit more upbeat than usual. Enjoy it while it lasts. :D )


This made me laugh pretty good.:rofl::rofl:

So you DO know that there are those if us who look forward to reading the results of your skills at highlighting potential issues with or defects in our 2nd Amendment lawsuits.


But certainly this in not a "shift in strategy." There are already similar CalGuns suits brought over the last few years. This is surely a continuation of ongoing strategy.

Rossi357
12-23-2011, 8:13 PM
Would a handgun bought in 1983 show up as registered in the current system?

Purple K
12-23-2011, 8:15 PM
The wisest money I've ever spent are my contributions to Calguns! Thank You again.

repubconserv
12-23-2011, 8:16 PM
good news, I love it. I will be praying that everyone brings their common sense with them during the trial (of course CGF will... everyone else on the other hand....)

Yankee Clipper
12-23-2011, 8:17 PM
Of course, this is obviously just step 1.

South Carolina wants to have voter ID.

The US Attorney General (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/us/justice-department-rejects-voter-id-law-in-south-carolina.html) has opined (http://www.scribd.com/doc/76397189/Justice-Department-Letter-To-South-Carolina-Blocking-Voter-ID-Law) that

Gee, if ID is violating access to voting, wouldn't an ID requirement violate access to gun ownership? Civil rights are important - all of them.

(h/t to Instapundit)
I don't suppose Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., and his buddy Mr. Obama, who both hail from the Chicago area and are bonafide members of that corrupt political machine, would deign to impede anything that might block voter fraud. But now that those two have control of the Justice Department, they are using recently passed, and constitutionally questionable voting laws, to support voter fraud.
As that South Carolina suit moves through the courts it probably won’t be legally linked to our Second Amendment litigation but it might set up a two-pronged fight for our Constitutional rights. It should certainly call attention to an administration that’s been trying to castrate our rights and bastardize our laws.

Librarian
12-23-2011, 8:29 PM
Would a handgun bought in 1983 show up as registered in the current system?

If you bought it in CA from a dealer, probably yes. DOJ has been doing data-entry from older records.

You could always ask for your AFS report: http://oag.ca.gov/sites/oag.ca.gov/files/pdfs/firearms/AFSPrivateCitizen.pdf

shocknm
12-23-2011, 8:32 PM
Just saw the email. Woot !!!!!

Sgt Raven
12-23-2011, 8:33 PM
Would a handgun bought in 1983 show up as registered in the current system?

If you don't have anything in the system, you could vol reg one. ;)

sholling
12-23-2011, 8:36 PM
I don't suppose Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., and his buddy Mr. Obama, who both hail from the Chicago area and are bonafide members of that corrupt political machine, would deign to impede anything that might block voter fraud. But now that those two have control of the Justice Department, they are using recently passed, and constitutionally questionable voting laws, to support voter fraud.
The Supreme Court has already said that states may require valid ID to vote. Holder and Obummer are just hoping to sneak through voting the graveyard one more time (November 2012) before the courts toss out their objections.

Getting back on topic this law suit is great news. I have no doubt that we'll lose in district court just because of the ongoing judicial rebellion against the 2nd Amendment but don't see how the 9th doesn't side with us. I'm guessing 18-24 months.

mosinnagantm9130
12-23-2011, 8:36 PM
Nice! :D

CGF steamroller keeps on steamrollin'

kcbrown
12-23-2011, 8:50 PM
This made me laugh pretty good.:rofl::rofl:

So you DO know that there are those if us who look forward to reading the results of your skills at highlighting potential issues with or defects in our 2nd Amendment lawsuits.


Well, this case appears to be a nice narrow challenge. The best thing about it is that I see no real way the state can even argue a rational basis for the 10 day ban against people who already have firearms registered to them. I'm sure they'll come up with something lame that the district court will buy, and I'm sure the 9th Circuit will (in the relatively likely event we get an anti-gun panel) do its level best to find some reason to uphold the 10 day ban, but I have a great deal of trouble envisioning the Supreme Court buying into it.

Sadly, I can envision the Supreme Court denying cert in the event this should make it there, but that depends greatly on the set of cases already in front of them as well as where things are as regards 2A jurisprudence at that point.

Even so, that is something the Right People had to have accounted for when they timed this.


And so, I'm cautiously optimistic about this one. In any other venue, this would simply be a slamdunk. Here in California, even this is going to be a fight, but it's so lopsided against the antis that it's hard even for me to envision us losing it.



But certainly this in not a "shift in strategy." There are already similar CalGuns suits brought over the last few years. This is surely a continuation of ongoing strategy.

That's entirely possible.

hoffmang
12-23-2011, 8:56 PM
There are already similar CalGuns suits brought over the last few years. This is surely a continuation of ongoing strategy.

This case is right on time for an old schedule that's been there a while. After it's over, remind me and I'll explain. Hint - this might win a little faster than usual...

-Gene

mosinnagantm9130
12-23-2011, 9:01 PM
This case is right on time for an old schedule that's been there a while. After it's over, remind me and I'll explain. Hint - this might win a little faster than usual...-Gene

I love it when you talk dirty:43:

colossians323
12-23-2011, 9:10 PM
Great job CGF and SAF

Aspec5vz
12-23-2011, 9:32 PM
This case is right on time for an old schedule that's been there a while. After it's over, remind me and I'll explain. Hint - this might win a little faster than usual...

-Gene

How fast are we talking here? :D

D-Man
12-23-2011, 9:32 PM
Merry Christmas to all CA gun owners! Let that steamroller keep on going!

mbuna
12-23-2011, 9:40 PM
I have an idea for the first toy that should be sold in the CGF store just in time for next Christmas......A Steamroller. For the children of course.

Bravo.

thayne
12-23-2011, 9:46 PM
How fast are we talking here? :D

:twoweeks:

CaliforniaLiberal
12-23-2011, 9:50 PM
How fast are we talking here? :D


It takes as long as it takes....

I would have guessed a year or two, three years at the most, but we've just read here that perhaps it will only take a year.

Which makes me think that the smart money is on not having to go to the US Supreme Court to get a final ruling.

No one knows for sure how long this will take. Stick around and find out. And send in your donations to CalGuns Foundation to speed things up a bit.

El Gato
12-23-2011, 9:55 PM
feelin' warm and fuzzy... warm and fuzzy...

IrishPirate
12-23-2011, 10:14 PM
Hey Liberals.....Santa's got a present for you!!
http://files.sharenator.com/8520Santas20Pissed_Merry_Christmas_MOTHER_FCKERS-s500x313-24371-580.jpg


Thanks CGF, and Plaintiffs, for making this a special holiday season :thumbsup:

grommit666
12-23-2011, 10:18 PM
I love you guys.

GOEX FFF
12-23-2011, 10:25 PM
YOU GUYS ARE AMAZING! Thank you! Everyone who donates to help make this work is amazing too.


Holy crap, this is priceless (reading the complaint):

I never thought of calling the "waiting period" a ban. But this complaint hits the nail right on the head. It's nothing more than a temporary ban.

I'm going to start calling it a 10-day ban now instead of waiting period.


^^ I'm with this, because that's what it REALLY is.

Even if the state could try and argue that "though you at one time might be in the system as having a registered firearm, you might have sold it or be no longer in possession of one now." I don't see any opposing argument at all in bringing in an already owned functioning firearm to the dealer which they can certify and sign off on as proof of pre-ownership to nix the contradiction of the second or any foregoing "heat of passion" 10 day ban(s).

choprzrul
12-23-2011, 10:46 PM
This is another example of Progressive Libritarianism in action. A small incremental step taken to move the ball a bit closer to a distant goal line.

The Progressive Socialists used to be on offense, but now we have the ball and are driving. As long as we have our end goal in mind ( Vermont style gun laws perhaps???), we can keep working our way forward.

The Right People were smart enough to take a small bite out of the 10 day wait instead of challenging it all at once. Bravo! Well played gentlemen! This is how we are going to eat the elephant.

.

wash
12-23-2011, 10:49 PM
Well I was expecting my CGF challenge coin purchase to result in more litigation, I didn't know it would happen so quickly.

Keep it up!

wildhawker
12-23-2011, 11:00 PM
I have an idea for the first toy that should be sold in the CGF store just in time for next Christmas......A Steamroller. For the children of course.

Oh, it is on. Great idea.

-Brandon

vincewarde
12-23-2011, 11:07 PM
Even if the state could try and argue that "though you at one time might be in the system as having a registered firearm, you might have sold it or be no longer in possession of one now." I don't see any opposing argument at all in bringing in an already owned functioning firearm to the dealer which they can certify and sign off on as proof of pre-ownership to nix the contradiction of the second or any foregoing "heat of passion" 10 day ban(s).

Actually, it is very unlikely that in the case of handguns you would have sold it without the state knowing - possible, but unlikely.

Personally, I don't think that this battle will be particularly hard - because no matter what level of scrutiny is applied, the second and all subsequent waits fail. Since they serve little to no purpose, there is no rationale for infringing upon what is not a protected constitutional right.

If the AG is smart, she will simply concede this one - there is always the chance that a court may go beyond what is being asked and find ALL waits unconstitutional. My guess is this is what Brown would have done.

Too bad it's not in effect now, I am just finishing my 10 wait on an LC9.

twoforme2
12-23-2011, 11:09 PM
Great news for Christmas, and just in time to celebrate the end of my 10 day ban!

Feeling one helluva lot better about those automatic payroll deductions to CGF right now.

6sN7s
12-23-2011, 11:16 PM
Niceeee Go Get em!!!!

ulv
12-23-2011, 11:21 PM
Awesome! boy, I wish I could have been spared half of the trips to a distant FFL to trade/purchase firearms.

bomb_on_bus
12-24-2011, 12:02 AM
Sweet!!!!! Way to go GCF!!!!

With the state as broke as it is I cant really see the 10 day wait standing up much longer.

2009_gunner
12-24-2011, 12:08 AM
Man. I am getting way more than my money's worth from the CGF crew.

Amazing.

(just finished grad school... will have more to give soon!)

monk
12-24-2011, 12:09 AM
Sweet!!!!! Way to go GCF!!!!

With the state as broke as it is I cant really see the 10 day wait standing up much longer.

You never know. This state can be damned stubborn. Great example is the work done that got us in the hole to begin with. No matter who told the state that they couldn't keep spending what they were spending they kept on it anyway. The people running this state are the definition of insanity.

I also like this quote by Einstein. "An empty stomach is not a good political adviser."

big103
12-24-2011, 2:46 AM
CGF For the win

ALSystems
12-24-2011, 5:16 AM
Well, this case appears to be a nice narrow challenge. The best thing about it is that I see no real way the state can even argue a rational basis for the 10 day ban against people who already have firearms registered to them. I'm sure they'll come up with something lame that the district court will buy, and I'm sure the 9th Circuit will (in the relatively likely event we get an anti-gun panel) do its level best to find some reason to uphold the 10 day ban, but I have a great deal of trouble envisioning the Supreme Court buying into it.

The District Court and the 9th Circuit might use some lame legal reasoning like:
Since the Supreme Court ruled Second Amendment applies only to guns in the home and buying a gun that might be used ouside the home is enough to justify the [ir]rational basis underlying the 10-day waiting period to purchase a gun no matter how many are already previously owned. :wacko:

I don't expect any good result coming out of the full 9th Circuit on a gun related case no matter how obvious it is. We might get lucky with a 3-Judge Panel but that posative result would be squashed by a ruling of the full 9th Circuit. If so, will it make it the Supreme Court?

A more important question is what type of judges will be on the Supreme Court by the time cases like this make it there? :confused: :eek::eek:

bandook
12-24-2011, 6:23 AM
... CA may just throw in the towel and start using NCIS checks like most other states :D

Too much Eggnog??? :D

Kid Stanislaus
12-24-2011, 9:02 AM
Yay! This.SHOULD be rather easy to smack down since it really doesn't even survive rational basis.

Oh, you silly boy!!:D

Rossi357
12-24-2011, 9:22 AM
Or, we could get a ruling that says, you already own a gun, so what's the big hurry.
The "worst possible scenerio" posters here are having a bad influence on me.

BlackTydeTactical
12-24-2011, 9:34 AM
Well done guys! Keep up the good work.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-24-2011, 10:18 AM
Or, we could get a ruling that says, you already own a gun, so what's the big hurry.

And pretty soon after that we'll start seeing the anti-arsenal laws. How many guns do you really need for self defense anyway? :p I'm only half kidding haha. The second waiting period does seem like a decent target but the fact that you already have a gun or guns means it's less of a burden on the core right, less rigorous review, easier to justify the regulation, etc.

taperxz
12-24-2011, 10:30 AM
And pretty soon after that we'll start seeing the anti-arsenal laws. How many guns do you really need for self defense anyway? :p I'm only half kidding haha. The second waiting period does seem like a decent target but the fact that you already have a gun or guns means it's less of a burden on the core right, less rigorous review, easier to justify the regulation, etc.


What's the governments compelling interest in the 10 day wait/cooling off period/ban for someone who already owns a firearm?

TheExpertish
12-24-2011, 10:51 AM
This case is right on time for an old schedule that's been there a while. After it's over, remind me and I'll explain. Hint - this might win a little faster than usual...

-Gene

I love it when you talk dirty:43:
Hahaha. Calgun's FTW!

postal
12-24-2011, 10:56 AM
That was a long time ago- I'm not sure of my facts.... but as I recall.... Wally world stopped selling guns in CA because one of their stores sold a shotgun to a person, and did not enforce the 10 day BAN. The customer went out of the store with his new shotgun, to his GF's/wifes whatever and shot her.

Because of this type of incident, I can concede to a short BAN as a cooling off period for a FIRST TIME PURCHASER. Maybe more like 5? days?

However, for *YEARS* I've explained to people just how stupid our laws are using this 10 day BAN as the perfect example. I already own a number of guns. If I wanted to do something stupid with a gun, I have a number to choose from... Why should I have to wait 10 days to get ANOTHER one?


OUTSTANDING WORK CGF!!!!!!
Great job

Maestro Pistolero
12-24-2011, 11:20 AM
Am I understanding correctly that because of the non-sensical nature of the law, that it shouldn't even pass a rational basis test?

Cokebottle
12-24-2011, 11:28 AM
Sometimes I think Gene, Bill, Jason, Brandon and CGF in general are just one big multi-part jolly Santa :)
That's why my avatar never took off his Santa hat in 2011... and it looks like he'll be keeping it for 2012.

repubconserv
12-24-2011, 11:35 AM
That was a long time ago- I'm not sure of my facts.... but as I recall.... Wally world stopped selling guns in CA because one of their stores sold a shotgun to a person, and did not enforce the 10 day BAN. The customer went out of the store with his new shotgun, to his GF's/wifes whatever and shot her.

Because of this type of incident, I can concede to a short BAN as a cooling off period for a FIRST TIME PURCHASER. Maybe more like 5? days?

However, for *YEARS* I've explained to people just how stupid our laws are using this 10 day BAN as the perfect example. I already own a number of guns. If I wanted to do something stupid with a gun, I have a number to choose from... Why should I have to wait 10 days to get ANOTHER one?


OUTSTANDING WORK CGF!!!!!!
Great job

If you go out and buy a gun to kill someone, that is pre-meditated, not "heat of the moment". A "cooling off period" will not make a difference for a premeditated act. Even if it did, that is no reason to infringe the rights of a person to prevent an act that probably will not happen.

Its like a ten day wait to speak, because you might yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

The amount of time is also an insane arbitrary decision, if you concede that a waiting period is appropriate, but 10 days is too much, and 5 is all that is necessary, then someone will counter your argument with "5 days is not enough". All because you conceded waiting periods work. They do not work, get it out of your head

notme92069
12-24-2011, 11:50 AM
What's the governments compelling interest in the 10 day wait/cooling off period/ban for someone who already owns a firearm?

^^^This^^^^

hoffmang
12-24-2011, 1:16 PM
The second waiting period does seem like a decent target but the fact that you already have a gun or guns means it's less of a burden on the core right, less rigorous review, easier to justify the regulation, etc.

And should a court follow any of the modes of analysis in Heller there is no way to justify the 2nd waiting period under intermediate scrutiny, much less Ezell's almost strict scrutiny. The waiting period is even worse under the historical categorical analysis as the waiting periods didn't show up until the early 20th century.

Fundamental enumerated rights have higher standards of review than the now vacated Nordyke opinion.

-Gene

microwaveguy
12-24-2011, 2:28 PM
Well as much as I would like to see the 10 ban vanish , this is California :mad:

I am thinking the first compromise offered by the state might be that if you have a COE then there won't be a wait.
The state is going to TRY to still make money off of us somehow :rolleyes:

Thanks CGF and Merry Christmas :D

safewaysecurity
12-24-2011, 2:47 PM
BTW is CGF asking for a preliminary injunction? I'm guessing that's what Gene means by this being quicker than the others.

wildhawker
12-24-2011, 2:54 PM
No and no.

kcbrown
12-24-2011, 2:58 PM
Watch it be held pending Nordyke. Everything else is... :facepalm:

safewaysecurity
12-24-2011, 3:03 PM
Hmm.. are they expecting the legislature to change the law and moot the case?

Ubermcoupe
12-24-2011, 3:14 PM
Heard about this when I was @ VA yesterday night. Didn’t think anything of it until I checked my email this AM.

Great Job CGF!!! Thank you again for helping to support my 2A rights.

gratefuldog
12-24-2011, 3:40 PM
Watch it be held pending Nordyke. Everything else is...

Now there's the kcbrown we've come to know and appreciate!

Drey
12-24-2011, 4:16 PM
This is long overdue!

Happy holidays to all!!!!!!!

DeanW66
12-24-2011, 4:20 PM
This case is right on time for an old schedule that's been there a while. After it's over, remind me and I'll explain. Hint - this might win a little faster than usual...

-Gene

I can't see how it could but....


Does this in any way relate to a soon to be delivered package:cool2:?

Big Jake
12-24-2011, 4:21 PM
Go get em!

Gray Peterson
12-24-2011, 5:03 PM
Hmm.. are they expecting the legislature to change the law and moot the case?

Ha, yeah right. Given the obstinacy of the Legislature, I seriously doubt this..

jonc
12-24-2011, 5:41 PM
yes!:facepalm:

foxtrotuniformlima
12-24-2011, 5:45 PM
:) Merry Christmas

huntercf
12-24-2011, 6:11 PM
Way to go Calguns!!!

Maybe the complaint could be amended to be a class action lawsuit stating that millions of subjects of PRK have been denied their constitutional rights and we are seeking lawyers' fees and punitive damages. I myself would be willing to negotiate the damages so instead of money they could give us the following:
1. Shall Issue LTC (open or concealed)
2. Lift the 10rd mag limit
3. NO more BB's needed
4. 1 in 30 is reversed
5. .50BMG are ok again
6. SBR & SBS registrations can be bought at local dealer for about $10 and are automatic if pass background check
7. Safe gun roster is gone
8. Anything else that my fellow calgunners feel we have been denied

CaliforniaLiberal
12-24-2011, 6:23 PM
Way to go Calguns!!!


.......4. 1 in 30 is reversed.......


I agree that limiting firearms purchases to 30 in any one day is fair.

:D

wash
12-24-2011, 6:38 PM
Well we have a 30 day ban after purchasing a handgun, maybe we can lather rinse repeat on that one if we can win this one.

Beatone
12-24-2011, 6:56 PM
Well I can only hope this is a win for all of us by next Christmas. Go Hoff.

adrenaline
12-24-2011, 7:12 PM
I agree that limiting firearms purchases to 30 in any one day is fair.

:D
What if for my 38th birthday I wanted 38 guns? :p

avneet
12-24-2011, 7:16 PM
Awesome news :D

Don29palms
12-24-2011, 7:35 PM
I hate to be a Devil's advocate but all the courts have to do like they have done so many times in the past is just say Um................. NO!

I hope it works but I'm not holding my breath.

cabinetguy
12-24-2011, 7:35 PM
and a merry xmas to cgf as well

1859sharps
12-24-2011, 7:49 PM
And pretty soon after that we'll start seeing the anti-arsenal laws. How many guns do you really need for self defense anyway? :p I'm only half kidding haha. The second waiting period does seem like a decent target but the fact that you already have a gun or guns means it's less of a burden on the core right, less rigorous review, easier to justify the regulation, etc.

well the anti "arsenal" laws have already been proposed and floated a few times over at least the last 30 years...so if your right, then we really aren't risking anything new.

But using the fact you already own a gun as an argument that a wait on a second or third or... isn't such a burden on a core right...wouldn't that open a can of worms for the other side. At the very least it would mean they would have to give up on the idea that the 2nd isn't an core right, that it doesn't give the individual the right to own a gun. I can just see our attorney now..."so, if the wait isn't a burden on a core right since you have already exercised it and have at least one gun, I am understanding you that we agree the ability to acquire arms is a core right...so how then do you justify the initial 10 day wait burden again?"

1859sharps
12-24-2011, 7:57 PM
I hate to be a Devil's advocate but all the courts have to do like they have done so many times in the past is just say Um................. NO!

I hope it works but I'm not holding my breath.

I hear you, and I get where the past really seems to support that idea....

However, the impression I am getting is the new "leaders" in the fight to reclaim our civil rights to own, buy, carry, use arms are building arguments that make that very hard to do.

In the past in California it went pretty much like this...cal rifle/pistol/nra lawyers would say... "But, But, the Second Amendment protects or was violated" or something like that.

But since the 2nd was never incorporated via the 14th and California didn't have it's own version of the 2nd in it's state constitution it was very easy for the Judges to say, NO...and even HA!, HELL NO!... see ya, do not pass go do not collect $200.

But things aren't quite the way they were...We have better lawyers, Heller, McDonald, possibly Nordyke ... The game has changed, the rules have changed and while not everyone has gotten the memo, the USSC did, they wrote it..and from what the "right people" here indicate, they don't like their memo's not being read correctly.

Me thinks the next 5 to 10 years are going to VERY, VERY interesting and VERY, VERY FUN as long as stupid mistakes aren't made by unqualified people.

Tier One Arms
12-24-2011, 8:06 PM
Job well done guys!

GaryV
12-24-2011, 8:06 PM
But using the fact you already own a gun as an argument that a wait on a second or third or... isn't such a burden on a core right...wouldn't that open a can of worms for the other side. At the very least it would mean they would have to give up on the idea that the 2nd isn't an core right, that it doesn't give the individual the right to own a gun.

Not at all. They merely have to say, "We don't agree that gun ownership is a core right, but even if it was, once you have one gun, that would be enough to exercise it, and any further purchases surely would rate lower protection. So even if the gun nuts are right (which we don't think is so), we can still put restrictions on subsequent purchases." In other words, they can argue from a hypothetical that they don't admit to and still make the same arguments.

stangmar
12-24-2011, 8:35 PM
Good luck. Thank you for fighting for all of our gun rights!!!:rockon:

Maybe next year there will be a lift on hi cap magazine bans!!! :)

Racefiend
12-24-2011, 8:48 PM
You should have had the COE holder buy two rifles of the same make and model. One with a date within the C&R range, and one outside of it. That way he would take one home immediately and have to wait 10 days for the other. That ought to make for a nice argument in court.

Funtimes
12-24-2011, 9:05 PM
Watch it be held pending Nordyke. Everything else is... :facepalm:

Don't jinx us!

858casper858
12-24-2011, 9:06 PM
Thank you calguns... This is why I donate.

rob474
12-24-2011, 9:25 PM
man i got so excited had to donated somes funds to the great cause
way to go CGF. as soon as this goes through i will buy a gun just to celabrated woooohooooooo

ALSystems
12-24-2011, 9:50 PM
Watch it be held pending Nordyke. Everything else is... :facepalm:
Nordyke is the case that never finishes. :oji:

Sgt Raven
12-24-2011, 10:01 PM
Nordyke is the case that never finishes. :oji:

Nordyke is the real life version of the movie Ground Hogs Day. :eek:

Fyathyrio
12-24-2011, 10:43 PM
I do see one potential defense the state can use, and likely they could be very successful with it. All they have to do is claim that the current gun owners database is so inaccurate and full of errors that they cannot confirm if an individual currently owns or has ever purchased a gun.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS-le5R8ZZVXhXOIOTindd7n1zuPI_kYW4UJAPVhHkFONxOADhZxQ

monk
12-24-2011, 11:08 PM
I do see one potential defense the state can use, and likely they could be very successful with it. All they have to do is claim that the current gun owners database is so inaccurate and full of errors that they cannot confirm if an individual currently owns or has ever purchased a gun.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS-le5R8ZZVXhXOIOTindd7n1zuPI_kYW4UJAPVhHkFONxOADhZxQ

Can't they argue that it would prevent Columbine style shootings by forcing the person to think about what their doing? What I mean is, say someone is going to shoot up a public place with a few handguns. They have two but want another one and a shotgun. So they purchase it. The 10 day wait may make them take pause? That would allow them to keep arguing the whole "cool down" point.

Someone tell me false scenarios like that aren't allowed in real courts.

Cokebottle
12-24-2011, 11:34 PM
I agree that limiting firearms purchases to 30 in any one day is fair.

:D
Of course.

Because if I'm buying guns that I intend to resell to the cartels or gangsters I'm going to buy them from Turner's and make sure that they are all registered in my name. ;)

hoffmang
12-25-2011, 1:37 AM
I do see one potential defense the state can use, and likely they could be very successful with it. All they have to do is claim that the current gun owners database is so inaccurate and full of errors that they cannot confirm if an individual currently owns or has ever purchased a gun.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS-le5R8ZZVXhXOIOTindd7n1zuPI_kYW4UJAPVhHkFONxOADhZxQ

Brier patch. Please throw us into it.

-Gene

AR-MAN88
12-25-2011, 3:00 AM
A job well done! Now, can we work on the high caps magazine?

One78Shovel
12-25-2011, 4:50 AM
This one is just ONE of the reasons I contribute to CGF.

Thanks for going to the mat for us law abiding Californians.

-178S

One78Shovel
12-25-2011, 4:58 AM
Happy Holidays I hate that politically correct phrase-

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

-178S

ALSystems
12-25-2011, 5:10 AM
A job well done! Now, can we work on the high caps magazine?
Gene said that's planned for first quarter 2012.

One78Shovel
12-25-2011, 5:17 AM
It takes as long as it takes....

I would have guessed a year or two, three years at the most, but we've just read here that perhaps it will only take a year.

Which makes me think that the smart money is on not having to go to the US Supreme Court to get a final ruling.

No one knows for sure how long this will take. Stick around and find out. And send in your donations to CalGuns Foundation to speed things up a bit.

Actually, I would not mind seeing the State have to endure continuing pain over this, in other words, break them slowly.

-178S

parb
12-25-2011, 7:43 AM
Happy Holidays I hate that politically correct phrase-

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

-178S

ditto!

compulsivegunbuyer
12-25-2011, 9:37 AM
I've passed up many guns because I would of had to go back later. What I find realy stupid is having to wait again for a warranty replacement firearm. I waited the 10 days, it took 2 months to come, and I have to wait another 10 days to take the thing home. Yet, if I sent it in and they just fixed it, they send it right back to my door.

Kavey
12-25-2011, 3:54 PM
Gene Hoffman for President

383green
12-25-2011, 7:39 PM
Gene Hoffman for President

Would Gene be as effective in a Presidential role as he is as an unlicensed steamroller operator? I mean, what could he actually do as President other than swinging the veto hammer, nominating 30 or 40 young pro-liberty Supreme Court judges, and appointing a coma victim to head BATFE?

VegasND
12-25-2011, 9:24 PM
Y'know, after some thought, I do believe there are worse choices.
Gene Hoffman for President




:p

Dreaded Claymore
12-25-2011, 9:29 PM
Briar patch. Please don't throw us into it.

Can we get someone to make a LOLbunny image out of this?

tomd1584
12-25-2011, 9:32 PM
This is awesome...made my day for sure!

I just made a donation this morning to the WWP (see sig). Next month was gonna be CGF, but I guess it's happening tonight instead!

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-26-2011, 7:37 AM
And should a court follow any of the modes of analysis in Heller there is no way to justify the 2nd waiting period under intermediate scrutiny, much less Ezell's almost strict scrutiny.

What will be interesting is how much the standard of review will be watered down, seeing as the plaintiffs' exercise of the core 2A right to use firearms in self defense is literally unaffected by the second waiting period. The plaintiff with the CCW is probably better situated than most gun owners in the state to exercise the core right and the waiting period does not put any restriction or limitation whatsoever on the possession/carry/use for self defense of the firearm(s) he already has, inside or outside of the home. The collector plaintiff just wants more guns, again with no reason alleged how the exercise of the core right to use his currently possessed firearms in self defense is impacted let alone burdened by having to wait 10 days to add another gun to his collection. "I want more guns" is what it boils down to. Similar to the "I want two-tone" plaintiff in the roster case. It's like, let's find a fact pattern as far away from the core right and as close to the margin of the right as we can (I want more guns just because) and plaintiffs who have less of a self-defense need for more firearms than most anybody else, and then we'll see just how weak of a standard of review we can get. How many other gun regulations are there where the argument can be made that the regulation does not burden the core right of self defense at all? True, acquisition of firearms is or should be protected activity (insofar as it corresponds to the core right to possess firearms for self-defense) and the second waiting period may be harder to justify than other regulations, but without a more compelling self-defense tie-in this lawsuit is not a good vehicle for heightened scrutiny.

DiscoBayJoe
12-26-2011, 7:44 AM
^ who's to say the primary gun isn't broken and in need of repair, lost, or stolen?

I have a friend who was on vacation and came home to his house ransacked - guns gone. He's not just looking for more guns. He's looking for protection. He had to resort to borrowing a gun for the 10-day wait. What if he didn't have a willing friend? Sure smells like a 2A/RKBA violation to me!

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-26-2011, 7:55 AM
^ who's to say the primary gun isn't broken and in need of repair, lost, or stolen?

Yeah, if only the plaintiffs in this case were in that situation rather than bragging about how they are already lawfully carrying a loaded, functional firearm into the gun store with them when they are purchasing more guns which they don't really need for self defense lol:

“I have a license to carry a loaded firearm across the State,” noted Jeff Silvester. “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.”

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-26-2011, 8:10 AM
The waiting period is even worse under the historical categorical analysis as the waiting periods didn't show up until the early 20th century.

1923 = presumptively lawful "longstanding regulation" according to Heller 1 and 2. ;)

taperxz
12-26-2011, 8:16 AM
FGG, I am waiting for your idea of the governments compelling interest in the 10 day wait/cooling off period/ ban for gun owners. Do they have one?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-26-2011, 8:26 AM
FGG, I am waiting for your idea of the governments compelling interest in the 10 day wait/cooling off period/ ban for gun owners. Do they have one?

Do they need a "compelling interest" in watered down heightened scrutiny? And what happens to heightened scrutiny anyway when there is at best de minimis and at worst no burden on the exercise of the core right? Seeing as scrutiny is unsettled at this point in time, my problem with this case and similar cases like the roster case is that as vehicles for heightened scrutiny they are factually weak and I would rather see cases that are factually strong.

dantodd
12-26-2011, 8:31 AM
What will be interesting is how much the standard of review will be watered down, seeing as the plaintiffs' exercise of the core 2A right to use firearms in self defense is literally unaffected by the second waiting period.

This will surely be the state's response. If they stipulate that the wait is an infringement they have essentially lost becuase it won't pass even relatively modest intermediate scrutiny. However; if they get the judge to accept that it is not an infringement on the core right then the law will likely have to pass no more than what equates to a rational basis test, even if it is disguised as heightened scrutiny.

It would have been nice to have a plaintiff who owns long guns only so that the 10 day wait would truly impact the right in a manner more directly analogous to the facts in Heller. Even in Ezell, it is not clear that the prohibition would necessarily fail of it weren't for the training requirement for a possession license.

I believe that Ezell would still win even of Chicafo didn't have a training requirement and I certainly hope that prior restraint on firearms acquisition beyond the first firearm would be viewed as inexcusable as prior restraint on multiple forms of reach once one form is exercised. However; I am not certain that the courts will agree.

M. D. Van Norman
12-26-2011, 8:38 AM
I think Fabio’s analysis is correct. However, I don’t think establishing a level of scrutiny for judicial review is at all a goal of this case. Subsequent waiting periods shouldn’t withstand any standard of review.

That’s probably why kcbrown was expecting a lower priority. Nevertheless, subsequent waiting periods do appear to be low-hanging fruit. I also suspect that a success here will make a future move against any waiting period that much easier.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-26-2011, 8:49 AM
The choice of plaintiffs in this case could have been better IMO, is it that hard to find someone whose handgun got stolen? Also, the "I've got plenty of operable loaded handguns, in fact I'm lawfully carrying one right now, but I want more!" marketing of the case in the press release.

model63
12-26-2011, 9:00 AM
Aside from the fundamental arguments....During the 10-days.... is there anything else the state is doing at present in terms of verification of information of the purchaser/x-checking information with other activity or is it strictly a cooling off period?

Wasn't it JB that touted his extension of the wait period from like 5 or 7 days to 10 days?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-26-2011, 9:00 AM
I think Fabio's analysis is correct. However, I don't think establishing a level of scrutiny for judicial review is at all a goal of this case. Subsequent waiting periods shouldn't withstand any standard of review.

Nevertheless, subsequent waiting periods do appear to be low-hanging fruit. I also suspect that a success here will make a future move against any waiting period that much easier.

Timing is a big issue for me here, heightened scrutiny may not be a goal of the case, but the case may result in crappy scrutiny which may be more harmful than helpful in other contexts. The case also has the potential IMO to harm future moves against waiting periods for initial purchases, e.g., by solidifying that waiting periods are good ideas for initial purchases. Heller 2 also opens the door for the argument that waiting periods are longstanding regulations that are presumptively lawful. Does all of this really need to come to a head right now?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-26-2011, 9:24 AM
The "cooling off" aspect of the waiting period couldn't possibly have any application to subsequent firearm purchases. If someone's going to impulsively shoot up his workplace or hunt down his ex-wife at hers, etc., he's already got a gun so if he snaps he's going to do it anyway. Also, how much worse can it be if he brings 2 guns instead of one? So there really shouldn't be any problem allowing instant second gun purchases with no waiting period.

curtisfong
12-26-2011, 10:17 AM
The choice of plaintiffs in this case could have been better IMO, is it that hard to find someone whose handgun got stolen?

You could lend a hand.

Connor P Price
12-26-2011, 11:04 AM
The "cooling off" aspect of the waiting period couldn't possibly have any application to subsequent firearm purchases. If someone's going to impulsively shoot up his workplace or hunt down his ex-wife at hers, etc., he's already got a gun so if he snaps he's going to do it anyway. Also, how much worse can it be if he brings 2 guns instead of one? So there really shouldn't be any problem allowing instant second gun purchases with no waiting period.

So with that in mind, how do you think a reduced scrutiny matters? I don't even think a second wait survives rational basis.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-26-2011, 12:23 PM
I was being tongue in cheek there, I don't think the cooling off/ public safety arguments necessarily disappear when it comes to second waiting periods. So scrutiny matters and this case is far from a slam dunk.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-26-2011, 12:36 PM
You could lend a hand.

I'll pass on stealing handguns to generate plaintiffs; )

hoffmang
12-26-2011, 12:40 PM
You keep forgetting that the burden is on the state to prove that they have any interest here. Articulate the state's interest and we'll have a conversation.

You'll note that even the Feds are having to justify MCDV (which they probably can.)

Also note that circuit splits are good. This is a slam dunk under the Ezell standard.

-Gene

taperxz
12-26-2011, 12:50 PM
I was being tongue in cheek there, I don't think the cooling off/ public safety arguments necessarily disappear when it comes to second waiting periods. So scrutiny matters and this case is far from a slam dunk.



Can you articulate theses public safety issues? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

Gray Peterson
12-26-2011, 12:58 PM
Timing is a big issue for me here, heightened scrutiny may not be a goal of the case, but the case may result in crappy scrutiny which may be more harmful than helpful in other contexts. The case also has the potential IMO to harm future moves against waiting periods for initial purchases, e.g., by solidifying that waiting periods are good ideas for initial purchases. Heller 2 also opens the door for the argument that waiting periods are longstanding regulations that are presumptively lawful. Does all of this really need to come to a head right now?

You forget that it's a facial challenge, too.

The choice of plaintiffs in this case could have been better IMO, is it that hard to find someone whose handgun got stolen? Also, the "I've got plenty of operable loaded handguns, in fact I'm lawfully carrying one right now, but I want more!" marketing of the case in the press release.

And you expect someone to wait 2 years for a replacement gun?

1923 = presumptively lawful "longstanding regulation" according to Heller 1 and 2. ;)

*buzz* wrong. Heller I never said that at SCOTUS. Heller II (is only applicable in DC) stated it was presumptively lawful as applied to HANDGUNS only. Long guns are still a big question mark, and as you know, the 10 day wait applies to all guns, not just handguns...

I was being tongue in cheek there, I don't think the cooling off/ public safety arguments necessarily disappear when it comes to second waiting periods. So scrutiny matters and this case is far from a slam dunk.

Then why don't you find better plaintiffs and file your own case if you think they are doing it wrong?

I'm noticing a disturbing pattern of behavior from you, in the sense that any time Don Kilmer files a case, you offer non-constructive criticism of it so in public to the point where you question his ability to litigate things properly. This sounds like a personal problem rather than a professional one for you. Out with it, man. Did he run over your puppy when you were a kid or something?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-26-2011, 1:08 PM
You keep forgetting that the burden is on the state to prove that they have any interest here.

As mentioned above the cooling off/public safety arguments do not go away. "Presumptively lawful" under Heller 2 doesn't help either. Nor does the de minimis burden/no burden.

This is a slam dunk under the Ezell standard.

If you really believe that you're dreaming. In Ezell there actually was a burden on the core right to possess firearms for self-defense so severe that it amounted to a prohibition. Factually there is no comparison and Ezell affirms the "the farther away from the core, the less severe the burden, the easier to justify the regulation." You still need burden under the "two-part approach" approved by Ezell to get heightened scrutiny in the first place.

Curious, why did you go with "I've already got functional loaded guns so the 10 day wait doesn't affect my exercise of the core right at all" over "my gun got stolen and having to wait ten days seriously burdens my exercise of the core right"?

hoffmang
12-26-2011, 1:15 PM
As mentioned above the cooling off/public safety arguments do not go away. "Presumptively lawful" under Heller 2 doesn't help either. Nor does the de minimis burden/no burden.
You keep saying it's a gun owner's burden to justify why the laws are unconstitutional when it's the state's to prove that the restrictions serves a valid public safety reason. "As mentioned" above is absolutely nothing that supports the state's regulation.



If you really believe that you're dreaming. In Ezell there actually was a burden on the core right to possess firearms for self-defense so severe that it amounted to a prohibition.
Nope. All the plaintiffs save one in Ezell had completed their training - and the court could care less about the one who was lazy. You keep applying the vacated Nordyke standard to a fundamental right. Your right to read isn't satisfied by just one book - even just one porn magazine.

The government has to show how imposing a 10 day wait on a carry licensee has more than even a rational basis. It doesn't even have that. As such, this is a "no standards of scrutiny" case.

If we treat the right to arms in court the way you're advocating it is no right at all.

-Gene

taperxz
12-26-2011, 1:17 PM
Why does a gun need to be stolen? Different guns for different purposes.

A 44 mag which I own may be to large to carry as a concealed carry weapon. Perhaps a small compact one is needed. Perhaps my shotgun is broken and it's the last week of bird season and I need one now before the season ends.

taperxz
12-26-2011, 1:22 PM
BTW, since hunting is part of the core right, would that not be an infringement on my right if the 10 day wait prevented a licensed hunter from exercising his right?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-26-2011, 1:34 PM
I'm noticing a disturbing pattern of behavior from you, in the sense that any time Don Kilmer files a case, you offer non-constructive criticism of it so in public to the point where you question his ability to litigate things properly. This sounds like a personal problem rather than a professional one for you. Out with it, man. Did he run over your puppy when you were a kid or something?

I could care less who is filing what lol. I don't agree with the strategy of filing cases at this point in time where the burden on the core right is de minimis if not nonexistent. Just because the same attorney is involved in Nordyke, Pena, and Sylvester which all fall into this category IMO doesn't make it personal. I don't think the misdemeanor domestic violence case is going to go anywhere but that is not because of the arguments the same attorney is or is not making, it's because I don't think the arguments will be enough to overcome the bad precedent that is pretty much right on point. I haven't even commented here on that case so how does that fit your "any time he files a case" theory?

*buzz* wrong. Heller I never said that at SCOTUS. Heller II (is only applicable in DC) stated it was presumptively lawful as applied to HANDGUNS only. Long guns are still a big question mark, and as you know, the 10 day wait applies to all guns, not just handguns...

So when did we start seeing the presumptively lawful felon in possession laws again? Back in the 1770's?

And you expect someone to wait 2 years for a replacement gun?

So which would you rather see, a plaintiff that doesn't need a replacement gun or a plaintiff who actually does?:rolleyes:

Gray Peterson
12-26-2011, 1:35 PM
Curious, why did you go with "I've already got functional loaded guns so the 10 day wait doesn't affect my exercise of the core right at all" over "my gun got stolen and having to wait ten days seriously burdens my exercise of the core right"?

Because gun owners, even people on this forum, do not tend to post on here that "All of my guns were stolen by a burglar, OMFG" at all.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-26-2011, 1:43 PM
Because gun owners, even people on this forum, do not tend to post on here that "All of my guns were stolen by a burglar, OMFG" at all.

I guess you guys have no other way of finding plaintiffs than waiting for someone to post on calguns.net lol.

Peter.Steele
12-26-2011, 1:44 PM
Can you articulate theses public safety issues? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.



I'm not saying that the argument is necessarily a correct one, but a guy that owns, for instance, a deer rifle is perhaps not the most equipped for post office rampages. A cooling-off period might prevent him from going on a rampage with a pistol and an autoloading shotgun or rifle.

Now, the reverse side of that is that if he's planning an activity such as this, then no cooling-off period is going to necessarily end his plans, just postpone them by a few days.

(And of course, it's worth mentioning that a guy with a deer rifle, who knows how to use it, is more than likely up to the challenge of just killing a whole bunch of people on his own from a tall building or something.)

Gray Peterson
12-26-2011, 1:44 PM
The basic core question:

What is the rational basis for imposing a 10 day waiting period for someone who already owns numerous guns?

Gray Peterson
12-26-2011, 1:49 PM
I guess you guys have no other way of finding plaintiffs than waiting for someone to post on calguns.net lol.

"you guys"?

Be careful attacking the educative volunteer who has no control over the litigation strategy of CGF and is not a board member. I was offering a possible reason why they couldn't find one, not that was necessarily the reason why.

wildhawker
12-26-2011, 1:52 PM
See, legislative intent and post hoc rationalization.

Rossi357
12-26-2011, 1:54 PM
How many people that live in a state with no waiting period, and own a gun, went and bought a gun and killed someone 1 hour later?

hoffmang
12-26-2011, 1:54 PM
I guess you guys have no other way of finding plaintiffs than waiting for someone to post on calguns.net lol.

1. You didn't adress the fact that all the Ezell plaintiffs already possessed firearms in their homes. For those reading along FGG tends to ignore arguments that undermines the straw men he's placing up.

2. Do you really want CGF to ask someone to remain unarmed in his home for the good of the movement? I don't want that on our head. You really ok with that? Also don't get me started on the BS standing argument that opens for the government. The stolen guns argument is also only an as applied challenge.

-Gene

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-26-2011, 1:55 PM
"you guys"?

Be careful attacking the educative volunteer who has no control over the litigation strategy of CGF and is not a board member. I was offering a possible reason why they couldn't find one, not that was necessarily the reason why.

"Attack" is a little too strong don't you think? Let's face it, the options were considered and the choice was made to go with "I've already got guns, they all work fine, and I want more" and it wasn't because of a lack of posts about stolen guns on calguns.net.

taperxz
12-26-2011, 2:03 PM
For those reading along FGG tends to ignore arguments that undermines the straw men he's placing up.



-Gene

Yep, I'm a nobody who knows nothing and FGG only likes to play with the big boys and ignore rational opinions by us lesser folks :rolleyes:

hoffmang
12-26-2011, 2:04 PM
I'm not saying that the argument is necessarily a correct one, but a guy that owns, for instance, a deer rifle is perhaps not the most equipped for post office rampages. A cooling-off period might prevent him from going on a rampage with a pistol and an autoloading shotgun or rifle.


Nice supposition. Got some evidence to back that up? It's gotta be real evidence that is statistically valid by the way.

Ezell (http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/E50XOP4P.pdf) is instructive:

Accordingly, if the government can establish that
a challenged firearms law regulates activity falling outside
the scope of the Second Amendment right as it was under‐
stoodatthe relevant historicalmoment—1791 or 1868—then
the analysis can stop there; the regulated activity is categori‐
cally unprotected, and the law is not subject to further
Second Amendment review.

If the government cannot establish this—if the historical
evidence is inconclusive or suggests that the regulated
activity is not categoricallyunprotected—then theremust be
a second inquiry into the strength of the government’s
justification for restricting or regulating the exercise of
Second Amendment rights. Heller’s reference to “any . . .
standard[] of scrutiny” suggests asmuch. 554 U.S. at 628‐29.
McDonald emphasized that the Second Amendment
“limits[,] but by no means eliminates,” governmental
discretion to regulate activity falling within the scope of the
right. 130 S. Ct. at 3046 (emphasis and parentheses omitted).

....

In the First
Amendment context, the government must supply actual,
reliable evidence to justify restricting protected expression
based on secondary public‐safety effects. See Alameda Books,
Inc., 535 U.S. at 438 (A municipality defending zoning
restrictions on adult bookstores cannot “get away with
shoddydata orreasoning.Themunicipality’s evidencemust
fairly support the municipality’s rationale for its ordi‐
nance.”); see also Annex Books, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis, 624
F.3d 368, 369 (7th Cir. 2010) (affirming preliminary in‐
junction where a city’s “empirical support for [an] ordi‐
nance [limiting the hours of operation of an adult bookstore]
was too weak”); New Albany DVD, LLC v. City of
New Albany, 581 F.3d 556, 560‐61 (7th Cir. 2009)
(affirming preliminary injunction where municipality
offered only “anecdotal justifications” for adult zoning
regulation and emphasizing the necessity of assessing
the seriousness of the municipality’s concerns about
litter and theft).



Further many are trying to say that the "core" is handguns in the home for self defense. However, under the historical categorical, the state is going to have a hard time justifying that acquisition of all firearms isn't part of the core as the British specifically attempted to stop Bostonians from buying arms. We're in core territory so now we hit at least scrutiny - if not historical categorical. There were no waiting periods in 1790 or 1868. But lets go past that. Now that we're in scrutiny land, under intermediate scrutiny, the state will have to justify increasing the expense of firearms acquisition to those the state knows are already armed.

We're going to hold the state to their burden - Fabio's attempt to burden shift not withstanding - just like Ezell is holding Chicago to their burden and also see all the MCDV cases that remanded to District Courts to force the Feds to provide recidivism evidence.

-Gene

problemchild
12-26-2011, 2:06 PM
The LEFT has been using the court system and legislate from the bench activist judges for decades. Why not do the same from the Right? Hell my tax dollars pay for it anyway no matter which side is suing. In fact the Right needs to form a group like the ABLU (anti-bias lawyers union) to sue the pants off everything that stinks of leftism. I can think of about 1,000 things to get started on.

Go team right.....:oji:

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-26-2011, 2:09 PM
1. You didn't adress the fact that all the Ezell plaintiffs already possessed firearms in their homes. For those reading along FGG tends to ignore arguments that undermines the straw men he's placing up.

You don't address the absence of a burden on the core right and Ezell's approval of the "two-step" 2A analysis or Heller 2's "presumptively lawful" precedent, etc. The challenge in Ezell was to a law that burdened the right to possess firearms for self-defense in the first instance i.e. permit requirements. There was a range prohibition that prevented plaintiffs from maintaining proficiency. So again Sylverster is not on the same footing factually as Ezell.

2. Do you really want CGF to ask someone to remain unarmed in his home for the good of the movement?

Whoever said that lol? Would it have been too hard to wait for the right plaintiff who had more compelling facts for some kind of provisional relief? What's the big hurry?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-26-2011, 2:10 PM
Yep, I'm a nobody who knows nothing and FGG only likes to play with the big boys and ignore rational opinions by us lesser folks :rolleyes:

In case you didn't realize it you're helping prove my point by making better arguments than the lawsuit does.

SoCal Bob
12-26-2011, 2:13 PM
Much has been discussed out about how already having a firearm negates the need to eliminate subsequent waiting periods since you can already provide for self defense at home. What if the person, seeking a more appropriate home defense weapon, was a hunter and only had a .30-06 rifle or a 44 magnum revolver. I personally would rather have my next door neighbor use a 9mm or .40S&W, rather than a .30-06 or a 44 magnum, to defend himself/herself against an intruder.

Different jobs require different tools. This is like the State telling me that there is no need for me to have immediate access to a screwdriver because I already own a hammer. Both are tools but each has its own appropriate usage.

hoffmang
12-26-2011, 2:14 PM
Whoever said that lol? Would it have been too hard to wait for the right plaintiff who had more compelling facts for some kind of provisional relief? What's the big hurry?

In the California Federal courts you'll incorrectly lose on standing requiring an appeal and a trip back down. I'm sure you're aware of this problem, but don't care to explain it.

-Gene

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-26-2011, 2:15 PM
Nice supposition. Got some evidence to back that up? It's gotta be real evidence that is statistically valid by the way.

That remains to be seen even in the 7th circuit where there is de minimis or no burden and the regulation is "at the margins of the core of the right." The majority of the other circuits (maybe all of them? I haven't checked recently) do not necessarily require statisticaly valid with intermediate scrutiny, in some instances "common sense" was enough. There are a bunch of cites in one of my posts in a thread a couple years ago where you were making the completely bogus claim that "Daubert" evidence would be required for intermediate scrutiny. Why do you act as if this is a done deal when it's far from it?

taperxz
12-26-2011, 2:19 PM
In case you didn't realize it you're helping prove my point by making better arguments than the lawsuit does.


Only part of it. You claim there's holes in the argument. One is one who lost a firearm. AGREED! Could be helpful!

I also think its not needed on the rationale of the lawsuit or the law at hand.

I HAVE had firearms stolen and had to wait to replace identical firearms. (long guns). I still had others though. IMHO it shouldn't matter, the state has no compelling interest in keeping the 10 day cooling off period for people that already own guns.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-26-2011, 2:20 PM
In the California Federal courts you'll incorrectly lose on standing requiring an appeal and a trip back down. I'm sure you're aware of this problem, but don't care to explain it.

A prior gun owner with a stolen/broken/lost gun has standing problems, rrright.

hoffmang
12-26-2011, 2:20 PM
Fabio's core disagreement is this.

We believe that when it's regulating a fundamental individual right, a regulation that serves no purpose or a de-minimus purpose is invalid. Fabio believes that that tie (if you can even call it that) goes to the government.

That's not a right - that's rational basis review in the guise of constitutional review.

The bi-metal handgun where both same metal versions are approved is a perfect example. The state has no valid interest where it has approved the other two. If the state wants to ban all orange tipped firearms to stop confusion or fraudulent attempts to camouflage a firearm - that's got a compelling interest.

Fabio - making the Brady Campaign argument that the only scrutiny is that all gun laws are subject to rational basis - since 2006.

-Gene

hoffmang
12-26-2011, 2:24 PM
There are a bunch of cites in one of my posts in a thread a couple years ago where you were making the completely bogus claim that "Daubert" evidence would be required for intermediate scrutiny. Why do you act as if this is a done deal when it's far from it?

And you assured everyone that no Federal Appellate Court would so hold. Then the 7th Circuit so held.

Why do you undervalue circuit splits so much? I bet you were one of those who thought we'd lose Heller.

I personally posit that Judge Sykes, being on the short list for SCOTUS justice at the next Republican presidency, mirrors the way the Heller 5 would see these issues.

-Gene

hoffmang
12-26-2011, 2:25 PM
A prior gun owner with a stolen/broken/lost gun has standing problems, rrright.

She's either required to be disarmed or will have a bogus standing argument made that will allow a court to duck the 2A issue and force an appellate cycle, yes.

I know you're an attorney, but it's pretty clear that you don't practice in Federal Courts on gun issues - or enjoy misleading readers here.

-Gene

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-26-2011, 2:35 PM
And you assured everyone that no Federal Appellate Court would so hold. Then the 7th Circuit so held.

The 7th circuit never said Daubert evidence is required for intermediate scrutiny lol. In fact they've specifically rejected (http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/E50YY7QP.pdf) that argument! Where are you coming up with this stuff? :facepalm:

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-26-2011, 2:37 PM
Fabio - making the Brady Campaign argument that the only scrutiny is that all gun laws are subject to rational basis - since 2006.

You know that's not what I'm saying lol.:D Go ahead and keep dodging the problems with the case and mischaracterizing what I'm saying!

Peter.Steele
12-26-2011, 2:39 PM
Nice supposition. Got some evidence to back that up? It's gotta be real evidence that is statistically valid by the way.


Dude, seriously ... I said that it was not necessarily a correct argument, just that it's one that could be made, and then I went on to weaken that argument.

CenterX
12-26-2011, 2:42 PM
Yippee! Yippee! Yippee!

Thanks Gene - your posts are most uplifting and comforting.

Your service to the community brings joy.

taperxz
12-26-2011, 2:46 PM
From The posts I've read FGG thinks this case can be won but asks why a plaintiff who has lost a gun has not been added. FGG is this what you are saying?

wildhawker
12-26-2011, 2:58 PM
FGG's argument in re the lack of an individual plaintiff who had possession of a firearm(s) at some point but now does not is much adieu about nothing. Methinks he's read too many NRA cases.

-Brandon

kcbrown
12-26-2011, 3:10 PM
Fabio's core disagreement is this.

We believe that when it's regulating a fundamental individual right, a regulation that serves no purpose or a de-minimus purpose is invalid. Fabio believes that that tie (if you can even call it that) goes to the government.

That's not a right - that's rational basis review in the guise of constitutional review.


Even the Supreme Court has engaged in such shenanigans (more than once, I dare say, but Kelo, while it does not directly make use of a scrutiny test, does at least seem informative in how the Court can and will perform some Constitutional analysis with malfeasance).

And the 9th Circuit most certainly has attempted to turn most/all Constitutional review into some form of rational basis for 2A cases (see Nordyke).


From what little I've seen, there seems to be sufficient supporting case law that one can confidently say that if a court wants to perform a rational basis review when it should be performing a real Constitutional review, then that court will engage in a rational basis review and call it a Constitutional review, and that will be that. And that's true even of the Supreme Court.

mud99
12-26-2011, 3:18 PM
IMO, the ideal solution to many of the cases fought would be if CA opened up an "alternative path" to firearm ownership, where they offered LEO style training and credentials to ordinary citizens.

As in, you take a safety/law/training course, and at the end you receive a badge and LEO credentials, which removes all restrictions related to firearm ownership and purchases, i.e. you would get all the LEO exemptions written into law.

This would weed out the street criminals, who aren't willing to "work" for anything, along with people who don't know how to operate a firearm safely.

It somewhat frightens me that at the indoor range I go to, their is a bullet hole going sideways through several of the stalls. Whoever made that needs to get their 2A revoked.

IMO, A state filled with citizens trained as LEO's would be a great place to live, would save the state money, would ward off crime, would legitimize firearm ownership, and would present a formidable danger to any country willing to attack us.

taperxz
12-26-2011, 3:22 PM
IMO, the ideal solution to many of the cases fought would be if CA opened up an "alternative path" to firearm ownership, where they offered LEO style training and credentials to ordinary citizens.

As in, you take a safety/law/training course, and at the end you receive a badge and LEO credentials, which removes all restrictions related to firearm ownership and purchases, i.e. you would get all the LEO exemptions written into law.

This would weed out the street criminals, who aren't willing to "work" for anything, along with people who don't know how to operate a firearm safely.

It somewhat frightens me that at the indoor range I go to, their is a bullet hole going sideways through several of the stalls. Whoever made that needs to get their 2A revoked.

IMO, A state filled with citizens trained as LEO's would be a great place to live, would save the state money, would ward off crime, would legitimize firearm ownership, and would present a formidable danger to any country willing to attack us.


So you feel the need to be licensed to own a gun? I guess you should get a license to go to church and speak your mind also?

wildhawker
12-26-2011, 3:25 PM
Ask the Court about Kelo today. http://www.californiaeminentdomainreport.com/2011/10/articles/court-decisions/justice-scalia-predicts-kelo-v-city-of-new-london-will-be-overturned/

Also, let's please not derail this thread meant for this specific case; I think we're all aware of your general views on the court system and philosophy by now.

-Brandon

Even the Supreme Court has engaged in such shenanigans (more than once, I dare say, but Kelo, while it does not directly make use of a scrutiny test, does at least seem informative in how the Court can and will perform some Constitutional analysis with malfeasance).

And the 9th Circuit most certainly has attempted to turn most/all Constitutional review into some form of rational basis for 2A cases (see Nordyke).


From what little I've seen, there seems to be sufficient supporting case law that one can confidently say that if a court wants to perform a rational basis review when it should be performing a real Constitutional review, then that court will engage in a rational basis review and call it a Constitutional review, and that will be that. And that's true even of the Supreme Court.

CenterX
12-26-2011, 3:31 PM
Interesting comments with rotating points of view.

I'm sure it would be difficult to find a perfect plaintiff without posting for one.

Yet, why would any of the following be better than another under the scrutiny of a judge or AG that doesn't want anyone but police and themselves to possess a firearm?
Examples
1. Person owns a deer rifle and was invited to hunt ducks with a friend that didn't have a spare shotgun where the 10-day wait would result in a missed opportunity.
2. A carry license holder only owns one gun and needed to replace it cause of loss or damage thus needing to wait 10+ days unarmed at home or in public.
3. A regular Barbie learning that there are better designed firearms for her to shoot at the next deer hunt than her grand-dads cap and ball, having to miss the hunt.

Like what kind of argument would one have to make that would sway a judge bent on eliminating gun ownership?

And why can't the team work in harmony to support each other in this effort? Are there turncoats or spies in the crowd? Or, It is that maybe these preliminary arguments will make the case stronger when actually presented?

A united force does better. Doesn't it?

kcbrown
12-26-2011, 3:35 PM
The government has to show how imposing a 10 day wait on a carry licensee has more than even a rational basis. It doesn't even have that. As such, this is a "no standards of scrutiny" case.


The problem is that the state need only come up with some sort of fantastical scenario in which the 10 day waiting period proves useful to the supposed interest of the state for the law to pass rational basis. I would be very hesitant to say that there's no possible way for the state to come up with such a scenario.

I stated earlier that I don't believe the 10 day wait even passes rational basis for those who already own firearms. But rational basis is such a bogus hurdle that it doesn't even deserve the term "hurdle" -- it is merely a codified excuse for the court to uphold laws which should never have seen the light of day, a way for the court to give the appearance of legitimacy to a law that has no legitimacy.

And so, sadly, I must retract that prior statement, or rather to amend it to say that if one could take the term "rational basis" on its face, then the 10 day wait would have a great deal of trouble passing it, but since the real role of "rational basis" in the court is to make it possible for the court to uphold anything it wishes, no matter how improper, then of course the 10 day wait will pass that "hurdle".



If we treat the right to arms in court the way you're advocating it is no right at all.


Exactly.

And yet, that's exactly how the court system treats rights it doesn't like.

dfletcher
12-26-2011, 3:38 PM
"Attack" is a little too strong don't you think? Let's face it, the options were considered and the choice was made to go with "I've already got guns, they all work fine, and I want more" and it wasn't because of a lack of posts about stolen guns on calguns.net.

Who would be your version of the ideal plaintiff and why? From what I've read - choose someone with a gun, no core violation. Someone without a gun - the state has an interest.

taperxz
12-26-2011, 3:39 PM
Where it might help to have a person who lost a gun as a plaintiff, it's probably not needed to make the state show it has no compelling interest in the law as its currently written.

kcbrown
12-26-2011, 3:47 PM
Methinks he's read too many NRA cases.


:rofl2:

CenterX
12-26-2011, 3:54 PM
In "green" terms - the 10 day wait utilizes more resources by requiring the purchaser to return to the point of sale under pretense of a special trip, and as the purchaser has already shown competency of ownership by currently owning a firearm, the additional burden on the planet is wastefully unnecessary. The decrease in road traffic will extend road life, improve general road safety and lower the impact of emissions on the planet and society at large. Thus, there is a 'Green' benefit from the adopting the instant check system in California.

Working together, our rights can be maintained and passed to future generations.

mud99
12-26-2011, 4:15 PM
As far as my previous post, I was merely suggesting an "alternative path" which might pacify some of the fears of Californian antis while giving us back some of our stolen rights.

Now, you asked my personal opinion on gun rights, so here goes....

I feel that anyone who uses or intends to use a gun should be trained to use it safely.

A gun is a legitimately dangerous tool to others, like many others tools.

A gun, a car, a nuclear reactor, a Boeing 747, land mines, dynamite - these aren't things that people naturally know how to use safely.

In answer to your question - I believe that anyone who buys a gun should complete a safety course or test.

Should that safety course be ridiculous, useless, contrived, too expensive, otherwise worthless, or intended so that an ordinary person cannot pass it? NO

Could it be taught in school? YES

What if you do something unsafe, like firing into the air? Your license might be revoked or suspended either permanently or until you take more training, or if the offence was serious enough, you might go to jail.

Am I basically describing a system almost identical to a drivers license license? YES

Am I suggesting that ownership be restricted? NO

As a point of reference, even 1A rights are restricted - e.g. fighting words, copyright, etc.

I can't go into a church and yell out that I have a nuclear device and i'm going to blow this place up.

The constitution is absolute in that the rights promised to us in it will always exist, but it is not absolute in the sense that different people interpret the scope of those rights in different ways.


So you feel the need to be licensed to own a gun? I guess you should get a license to go to church and speak your mind also?

taperxz
12-26-2011, 4:23 PM
Your answers are contrived out of fear and assumptions. You can not compare a civil right to driving a car since driving is a privilege and not a civil right.

As far as my previous post, I was merely suggesting an "alternative path" which might pacify some of the fears of Californian antis while giving us back some of our stolen rights.

Now, you asked my personal opinion on gun rights, so here goes....

I feel that anyone who uses or intends to use a gun should be trained to use it safely.

A gun is a legitimately dangerous tool to others, like many others tools.

A gun, a car, a nuclear reactor, a Boeing 747, land mines, dynamite - these aren't things that people naturally know how to use safely.

In answer to your question - I believe that anyone who buys a gun should complete a safety course or test.

Should that safety course be ridiculous, useless, contrived, too expensive, otherwise worthless, or intended so that an ordinary person cannot pass it? NO

Could it be taught in school? YES

What if you do something unsafe, like firing into the air? Your license might be revoked or suspended either permanently or until you take more training, or if the offence was serious enough, you might go to jail.

Am I basically describing a system almost identical to a drivers license license? YES

Am I suggesting that ownership be restricted? NO

As a point of reference, even 1A rights are restricted - e.g. fighting words, copyright, etc.

I can't go into a church and yell out that I have a nuclear device and i'm going to blow this place up.

The constitution is absolute in that the rights promised to us in it will always exist, but it is not absolute in the sense that different people interpret the scope of those rights in different ways.

OleCuss
12-26-2011, 4:36 PM
Kinda late to the argument, but if I had my firearm stolen then a 10 day waiting period begins to make sense again.

After all, if I have no firearm because mine was stolen, then at this time I cannot use a firearm to commit suicide or murder. This means that purchasing a replacement firearm may be something I am doing in a fit of rage or in a severely depressed state. So the state begins to actually have an interest in delaying my taking possession of a firearm because my firearm was stolen.

In fact, if I knew who had stolen my firearm it might be that I am trying to purchase another in order to go and kill the thief?

I contend that while the denial of my RKBA is more clear if I'm subjected to a 10 day waiting period after my firearm is stolen, the state would also have a better argument that they have an interest in imposing that same waiting period.

I think that the plaintiff who has had their firearm stolen would make a remarkably bad plaintiff. I'm not even sure they would achieve standing (since the challenge is to the imposition of a waiting period when the person is already in possession of firearms, how would someone who no longer possesses firearms be a fit plaintiff?).

But IANAL so I could be missing this big time. . .

chris
12-26-2011, 4:41 PM
go get'em. this state will learn in the near future that infringing on Constitutional rights will be a non starter. and the B*TCH slap that comes with will be classic.

dfletcher
12-26-2011, 4:49 PM
In "green" terms - the 10 day wait utilizes more resources by requiring the purchaser to return to the point of sale under pretense of a special trip, and as the purchaser has already shown competency of ownership by currently owning a firearm, the additional burden on the planet is wastefully unnecessary. The decrease in road traffic will extend road life, improve general road safety and lower the impact of emissions on the planet and society at large. Thus, there is a 'Green' benefit from the adopting the instant check system in California.

Working together, our rights can be maintained and passed to future generations.

What if I was headed that way anyhow? Besides, I like driving the '65 XKE when I buy & pick up a gun. I never get lost on the return trip, just follow the oil drips on the road left 10 days earlier .... :p

dfletcher
12-26-2011, 4:55 PM
Does the state issuing a COE factor in to this at all? I've never understood how it's allowed for me to skip the 10 day wait (when used with C & R FFL) on a 51 year old 1911, but not on a newly made 1911.

Dreaded Claymore
12-26-2011, 5:03 PM
Your answers are contrived out of fear and assumptions. You can not compare a civil right to driving a car since driving is a privilege and not a civil right.

Actually, the right to travel is a civil right, albeit one not enumerated in the Constitution (as far as I know). Driving motor vehicles is a very common way to exercise that right in the United States.

I think it's possible to conceive of a scheme that would pass Constitutional review, where (in the context of my right to keep and bear arms) I would need a (easily obtainable) license to own a pistol, but would not need any license at all to own a combat knife with which to stab fools.

But I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know. :cool:

ke6guj
12-26-2011, 5:04 PM
Does the state issuing a COE factor in to this at all? I've never understood how it's allowed for me to skip the 10 day wait (when used with C & R FFL) on a 51 year old 1911, but not on a newly made 1911.
and you can't skip it for a 49-year old 1911 or Python either.

But you can skip it if you buy a 25-year old D&D Bren 10 or CZ-82.

gatdammit
12-26-2011, 5:12 PM
So if this case were to swing our way, would this ONLY apply to those who have had guns prior? Or would it apply to first time owners as well? 10 day 'cooling off' period has to cut both ways doesn't it? They assume that a first time buyer may go out and commit some illegal act but don't cover for the scenario where the first time buyer may want to protect themselves? Like right away? Some thug trying to harm me, isn't going to wait 10 days...11 days in some cases.

But then again, those types of plaintiffs will probably be dead before they can argue that the 10 day wait killed them.

hoffmang
12-26-2011, 5:22 PM
The problem is that the state need only come up with some sort of fantastical scenario in which the 10 day waiting period proves useful to the supposed interest of the state for the law to pass rational basis. I would be very hesitant to say that there's no possible way for the state to come up with such a scenario.
You're missing the second step. Once they come up with this supposed edge case then they have to show it actually happens and causes harm and the regulation actually helps keep it from causing harm.


And yet, that's exactly how the court system treats rights it doesn't like.
And the only way to get them to stop is to challenge them to uphold nonsensical regulation that they can't find a basis for.
Does the state issuing a COE factor in to this at all? I've never understood how it's allowed for me to skip the 10 day wait (when used with C & R FFL) on a 51 year old 1911, but not on a newly made 1911.
Yes. It's a wild violation of the equal protection clause.

-Gene

taperxz
12-26-2011, 5:31 PM
Actually, the right to travel is a civil right, albeit one not enumerated in the Constitution (as far as I know). Driving motor vehicles is a very common way to exercise that right in the United States.

I think it's possible to conceive of a scheme that would pass Constitutional review, where (in the context of my right to keep and bear arms) I would need a (easily obtainable) license to own a pistol, but would not need any license at all to own a combat knife with which to stab fools.

But I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know. :cool:

You have a right to travel, but not the right to operate a motor vehicle.

taperxz
12-26-2011, 5:34 PM
Isn't it interesting that a 10 day wait applies to guns in this state yet not cars. In a time when many police shootings are from the perception that a driver is trying to run over or hit LE.

1BigPea
12-26-2011, 5:54 PM
This is sweet! Just added 2 more guns to my collection last week and the 10 day wait pissed me off everyday. Such nonsense! To all involved, thanks!

kcbrown
12-26-2011, 6:35 PM
You're missing the second step. Once they come up with this supposed edge case then they have to show it actually happens and causes harm and the regulation actually helps keep it from causing harm.


Not to satisfy rational basis, they don't. That it's an enumerated Constitutional right doesn't change the calculus of rational basis. It only introduces the possibility that a higher level of scrutiny (if not an entirely different method of evaluation, e.g., categorical analysis) might be applicable.

Tons of laws would have been thrown out otherwise.



And the only way to get them to stop is to challenge them to uphold nonsensical regulation that they can't find a basis for.


Here, I think, you vastly underestimate the ability of the human animal to find justification for that which cannot be justified.

Of course, they should be challenged to uphold such regulations anyway, because there's always the possibility (however slight) that we may win. But in doing so, we're almost certain to discover that which has been learned by many challengers in the past: that the judiciary has the ability to meet the challenge by making use of that well-honed (but certainly not unique) ability of theirs to justify the unjustifiable.


In this particular case, of course, nothing matters other than what the Supreme Court thinks, on the assumption they won't deny cert, and I do expect them to treat this with something more than rational basis. The 9th Circuit almost certainly won't.

sandman21
12-26-2011, 8:42 PM
You have a right to travel, but not the right to operate a motor vehicle.

You have a right to keep and bear arms, but not use modern firearms. :facepalm:


Go CGF!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A waiting period makes no sense at all.

kcbrown
12-26-2011, 9:00 PM
You have a right to keep and bear arms, but not use modern firearms. :facepalm:


That is a great analogy!

Yes, if you have the right to travel, then you have the right to use any means you choose as long as doing so does not violate someone else's rights or place the public in unusual amounts of danger.

I would argue that in the beginning, automobiles presented an unusual risk to the public, so it was perhaps permissible to call ownership and usage of them something other than a "right". But today, the risk is no longer unusual, simply because of how common automobile usage is today. Hence, I would say you certainly have the right to travel via automobile.

And the same is true of airplanes. They, too, are now commonly used enough that their use no longer present an unusual amount of risk to the public.


It is, after all, the unusual amount of risk that a given type of arm might present that takes its ownership and use out of the scope of the right, is it not?

It is not merely the lack of commonality of a given firearm type that should take it out of the scope of the right, and I really hope the Supreme Court agrees with me on that and clarifies that, because as it stands right now, their "common use" test can (and thus, eventually, will) be used to limit firearm ownership to nothing more advanced than 20th century arms that are already commonly owned by the people.

orangeusa
12-26-2011, 9:12 PM
Go CGF.

That is why I support ya. I have had lots of free-staters tell me that they are sure that legal methods are a waste of time and money.

They often don't understand that CA is (in many cases), leading the way for 2A rights!

But, I'll let them figure that out for themselves later. :)

.

dantodd
12-26-2011, 9:20 PM
Hence, I would say you certainly have the right to travel via automobile.


The DMV would disagree with this. Try refusing a BAC test and see if you get full due process before losing your license, for example.