Silvester 08/25/14 -Fed District Court Rules 2nd 10-day Waiting Per Unconstitutional!

[Sabesimpson]

Mods, want to merge this with the others? Looks like you all will be busy today!

[ap3572001]

Its not only unconstitutional , but its also stupid.

Why would someone with a gun need to wait 10 days to get a gun?

Would it somehow lower crime?

If I pick up my next S&W revolver ( I collect them) the same day when I buy it, will the crime go up ??????

[email]

Cooling off period.

[mabilis_matulis]

Awesome..

[Powder_Keg]

Love It!

[SDM44]

Already see Kamala's office drafting an appeal for this

[Untamed1972]

Next lawsuit I see coming......BOF getting sued for just intentionally not processing DROS until day #10 and trying to claim: "Oh, well we approved it as soon as the background check was complete."

[Untamed1972]

Its not only unconstitutional , but its also stupid.

Why would someone with a gun need to wait 10 days to get a gun?

Would it somehow lower crime?

If I pick up my next S&W revolver ( I collect them) the same day when I buy it, will the crime go up ??????

What I actually think is funny about the decision is how they basically used all the CA state tools against them....so basically Hey, you have this wiz-bang database, that should be all you need. And the states response is "well, but our database sucks and we don't trust it." Great defense there folks.

[Vaktathi]

This is great, there's nothing worse than that 10 day wait while you stew wanting to get out and shoot.

It was also something that always bothered me, even if you accepted the absurd idea that a cooling-off period is necessary, it's kinda pointless if they already own guns.

Glad to see they're at least finally realizing that sillyness for subsequent purchases, even if it still applies to the first purchase.

[Brian Nussbaum CO]

[Untamed1972]

There is already a thread on this in litigation (where it belongs).

In all fairness it should have been posted as a new thread even in the litigation forum. Taking it on to the end of a years long mega thread without any indication of new action would escape a lot of people...me included.

[dfletcher]

The "new stuff" starts page 33, post 1295

[Tincon]

In all fairness it should have been posted as a new thread even in the litigation forum. Taking it on to the end of a years long mega thread without any indication of new action would escape a lot of people...me included.

Key words bolded. There is benefit to having all the discussion in one place. I'll also note that the other thread has the parties and lawyers involved commenting.

[Untamed1972]

So here is the bigger question.....if its an infringement for someone who already owns a gun....how is not an infringement for someone who is buying their first gun. Isn't the person with no guns at all the one most in need of being able to exercise their 2A rights?

Or would this ruling then at least basically mean that once ANY DROS is approved the gun must be released?

[Untamed1972]

Key words bolded. There is benefit to having all the discussion in one place. I'll also note that the other thread has the parties and lawyers involved commenting.

Still should have posted as a new thread, or at least the title updated to indicate a significant update.

When an old mega thread has gotten that big I tend to stop paying attention to them.