Richards v Bonta 2023- challenge 10-day wait

[Librarian]

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6746/attachments/original/1683038259/Richards_v_Bonta_Complaint.pdf?1683038259

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAIRE RICHARDS; ALISHA CURTIN; DAKOTA ADELPHIA;
MICHAEL SCHWARTZ; DARIN PRINCE; NORTH COUNTY
SHOOTING CENTER, INC.; JOHN PHILLIPS; PWGG, L.P.; SAN DIEGO
COUNTY GUN OWNERS PAC; CALIFORNIA GUN RIGHTS
FOUNDATION; FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, INC.; and SECOND
AMENDMENT FOUNDATION,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ROB BONTA, in his official capacity as
Attorney General of California; and
ALLISON MENDOZA, in her official
capacity as Director of the California
Department of Justice Bureau of
Firearms,
Defendants.

Case No.: 23CV0793 LAB WVG
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

54. California?s purported justifications for its Waiting Period Laws??to
allow sufficient time for law enforcement to complete a background check, and also
to provide a ?cooling off? period (i.e., a period in which weapons purchasers may
reconsider, particularly when an impulsive act of violence or self harm may be
contemplated),? Silvester, 843 F.3d at 823?seek to address general societal problems
that have persisted since the 18th century. And California cannot carry its burden in
any event, as no government (federal, state, or local) in the Nation imposed waiting
periods on the purchase of firearms on any firearms acquirers?first-time or
otherwise?in the constitutionally relevant period.

[big jim]

Glad I refreshed the page before starting a new thread.
Hopefully they use Judge Ishii’s logic and conclusion

[JiuJitsu]

The 10 day waiting period (or any waiting period) will be struck down post-Bruen. There is no way this is constitutional if someone has passed with a clean background check. A right delayed is a right denied.

[AlmostHeaven]

The 10 day waiting period (or any waiting period) will be struck down post-Bruen. There is no way this is constitutional if someone has passed with a clean background check. A right delayed is a right denied.

I am glad to see this issue being challenged. Even if we accept the premise that having a mandatory waiting period could deter impulsive acts of violence or suicide, the argument has no logical validity whatsoever for people who already own one or more guns.

For the record, I absolutely support striking down all waiting periods for all, but facially, there is no basis whatsoever to have one other than the very first gun purchase a person ever does.

If we can't strike down waiting periods altogether, at least it should cease to apply after the first firearm transaction.

[Squatch]

I am glad to see this issue being challenged. Even if we accept the premise that having a mandatory waiting period could deter impulsive acts of violence or suicide, the argument has no logical validity whatsoever for people who already own one or more guns.



For the record, I absolutely support striking down all waiting periods for all, but facially, there is no basis whatsoever to have one other than the very first gun purchase a person ever does.



If we can't strike down waiting periods altogether, at least it should cease to apply after the first firearm transaction.

A Right delayed is a Right denied.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[tast101]

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67307504/richards-v-bonta/

[CGZ]

Round 2 for 10 day wait. IIRC the previous case was Sylvester V. Harris, which ultimately lost at the 9CA back around (2014?)

[BigPimping]

All gun laws are illegal

[SpudmanWP]

No, they are not.
Just the ones that infringe are.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

This Firearms Policy Coalition page provides links to the Court Listener Docket, the complaint itself, and FPC's news release - Richards v. Bonta - FPC Law Challenge to CA 10-day firearm waiting period

So... There's a chance?

...This most recent lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court Southern District of California.

This is significant because gun-related cases in that court are generally handled by Judge Roger Benitez...

Since Benitez is a District Judge and the two the case is associated with currently are Magistrate Judges, it's potentially possible this could end up on the desk of Benitez; which, I'd guess, was probably part of what 'the plan' hoped for.

Round 2 for 10 day wait. IIRC the previous case was Sylvester V. Harris, which ultimately lost at the 9CA back around (2014?)

From the same article...

...A previous attempt to overturn it, Silvester v. Becerra, made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court but was not heard, and so the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the wait period stood...

That was 2017/2018, though the original opinion date was in 2014.

[Ishooter]

5 years wait for the case to be ruled for a 10 day wait on gun.

[CartridgeCalls]

No, they are not.
Just the ones that infringe are.

All gun laws infringe our right to be free.

[SpudmanWP]

All gun laws infringe our right to be free.

You might want to look up "infringe".
You also might want to go read Heller and especially Bruen.

[Vinnie Boombatz]

I never understood the 10-day wait. We know the background check takes a minute, and makes no sense as a "calling off period" when the person already owns other firearms.

[bwiese]

I never understood the 10-day wait. We know the background
check takes a minute, and makes no sense as a "calling off period" when the person already owns
other firearms.

This is why Silvester v Harris only attacked the *second* waiting period. Pre-Bruen, the
concern was clarity of possible suicide data for first time purchases esp in interest-balancing court
environments.

But for the "second waiting period" - i.e., for existing gun owners, esp with gun(s) in AFS already - any
delay is constitutionally punitive for most transfers given a CA DOJ background check only takes a few
minutes to an hour.

Silvester v Harris also revealed not-that-great behavior by DOJ.