Quote:
Originally Posted by Maulerrr
"Cooling off periods" and "red flag protections" sounds pretty reasonable and euphemistic to someone who isn't big into guns.
|
I think you are giving them too much credit
Waiting periods do not generally sound reasonable to, for example, the 9th.
There are only examples of intellectual dishonesty in the service of a political agenda (IOW, a deliberate failure to be impartial).
Look at the 9th. They always hate waiting periods which affect rights, and are quick to apply elevated scrutiny, except in the case of the 2A:
Quote:
Originally Posted by some SCOTUS Justice named C. Thomas
The Ninth Circuit invalidated an Arizona law, for example, partly because it “delayed” women seeking an abortion. Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Humble, 753 F. 3d 905, 917 (2014). The court found it important there ...that the State “presented no evidence whatsoever that the law furthers [its] interest” and “no evidence that [its alleged danger] exists or has ever [occurred].”
|
and more from Justice Thomas about the hypocrisy in the 9th:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justice Thomas
Similarly, the Ninth Circuit struck down a county’s 5-day waiting period for nude-dancing licenses because it “unreasonably prevent[ed] a dancer from exercising first amendment rights while an application [was] pending.” Kev, Inc. v. Kitsap County, 793 F. 2d 1053, 1060 (1986). The Ninth Circuit found it dispositive there...that the county “failed to demonstrate a need for [the] five-day delay period.”
|
and yes, still more from Justice Thomas about the hypocrisy in the 9th:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justice Thomas
In another case, the Ninth Circuit held that laws embracing traditional marriage failed heightened scrutiny because the States presented “no evidence” other than “speculation and conclusory assertions” to support them. Latta v. Otter, 771 F. 3d 456, 476 (2014).
|
No reasonable human could believe that these imaginary or otherwise rights deserve protections denied to the 2A, and with so many examples, no reasonable human could conclude that this is an accident on the part of the 9th. They are entirely aware that they are treating the 2A like a 2nd-class right, and simply don't care, because there are no negative consequences for them whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth
Person needs his first ever gun quickly when they are not thinking straight. In an emergency, if there is time and opportunity to go to a store, there is time to consider other protection options, like going to police, that are less likely to end up badly for everyone.
As I said - I am OK with first time wait, or basic competency check or exam. It is not my goal to persuade you, or anybody for that matter.
|
It doesn't really matter what you are OK with, nobody is asking you to change your personal opinion. You can be OK with slavery if you want, just as long as you don't participate in it, because it is unconstitutional.
Same thing with waiting periods. It's totally fine to be OK with them as a personal opinion, but as the courts have held that waiting periods are not constitutional when applied to so many "rights", waiting periods against other rights must be given the same evaluation.