« Followup to DC v. Heller, in DC | Main | Data dump on Fast & Furious »
Motion win in case against California waiting period
The US District Court had enjoined application of the ten day waiting period to three classes of gun buyers (I forget them now, but seem to remember that the largest one was persons who already owned a firearm--and also those who have a current CCW license). California moved to stay this on appeal, and the District Judge denied the motion.
Some very nice language:
"Defendant‟s motion suggests that the public has an interest in preventing violence and keeping firearms out of the hands of those who have a propensity to commit violence. However, Defendant submitted no evidence that demonstrated that the 10-day waiting period will have that effect on the three as-applied classes to any appreciable degree, and all persons wishing to purchase a firearm will still have to pass the background check."
"Given the on-going constitutional violations that are occurring to the likely thousands of Californians by operation of the 10-day waiting period laws, the Court cannot conclude that the balance of equities tips sharply in Defendant‟s favor."
5 Comments | Leave a comment
I liked the language where he shot down their whining about the resources needed to fix this, and that he would hope correcting a violation of people's Constitutional rights would be a high priority for the state.
Ah, here we go, one paragraph, which is tighter than I had remembered:
The problem is that Defendant believes that other projects are deserving of greater priority. See id. There is no description of what these critical projects are or when the deadlines might be, nor is there an explanation of why outside contractors cannot be utilized for some of those projects, nor is there an explanation of why computer personnel from different departments or agencies cannot be utilized. A bench trial has concluded, and a law that is actively being enforced has been found to be unconstitutional. The Court does not know how Defendant or the BOF prioritizes projects, but dealing with an unconstitutional law should be towards the top of the list.
HT Only Guns and Money blog, which probably added the emphasis.
Just remember, if a law is unconstitutional its against the law, Blessings My Good People.
So what exactly does this mean are those of us who have already passed a background check still have to go through one and how long will that take? If we already own firearms will we be able to buy and leave the same day with a new firearm or if we have a CCW? What exactly does this ruling mean?
AG Harris is not doing so well at being an AG and picking fights she can win.
Good.