Posted on 02/25/2016 5:10:34 AM PST by marktwain
On February 9th, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments for two Second Amendment cases. They were Jeff Silvester v. Kamala Harris, in which the District Court found that the California statute that required a waiting period for people to purchase a firearm, even though they already owned a gun and had passed a background check, was unconstitutional.
The second case was Tracy Rifle & Pistol LLC. v. Harris, a case where California forbids shops selling guns to advertise handguns with the image of a handgun outside of their store.
That the waiting period ban is unconstitutional seems like simple common sense. How can there be any significant government interest in forcing a person who has passed a background check, and already has a firearm, to wait an additional 10 days to take possession of the firearm? Consider that major inconveniences may be entailed by the 10 day wait, and that a right delayed is a right denied. Here is a summation From foxnews.com:
Blanket application of the Golden Stateâs longstanding waiting period was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in August 2014, but Attorney General Kamala Harris has kept it in place while the state appeals the ruling. At issue in Silvester v. Harris, argued last week before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, is whether applying the waiting period to already-vetted gun owners serves a valid purpose.Here is a link for those who wish to listen to the oral argument presented.
"There is no government public safety interest in a waiting period if you already own a gun and have gone through a background check,â Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, told FoxNews.com. âThis is clearly only about a right delayed being a right denied.â
Cal. Civil Code § 26820 (which was first enacted 1923, but is still being enforced today) provides,Here is the link to the audio file of the oral arguments:No handgun or imitation handgun, or placard advertising the sale or other transfer thereof, shall be displayed in any part of the premises where it can readily be seen from the outside.
That, we argue, violates the First Amendment. The government generally may not ban advertising of lawful products â indeed, of constitutionally protected products â on the grounds that such advertising is offensive, or stimulates consumer interest in such products. Weâll be filing a more detailed legal argument in due course (what I link to is just the Complaint); when that happens, Iâll post it as well.
It’s just a out one on the foundational blocks of liberalism...control of the individual. And very typical of laws that serve absolutely no purpose.
Auto correct does strange things sometimes...
‘And very typical of laws that serve absolutely no purpose’
I disagree. The left uses them to discourage gun ownership. That is their purpose. It has nothing to do with safety or security.
..I disagree. The left uses them to discourage gun ownership...
Perhaps better wording would have been...no legitimate purpose.
Just spell out the word: G, U, N, S.
NO PICTURES.
After all, with new common core, who will be able to read anyway??
Where we previously had hope that Peruta would eventually be on the Supremes docket the Ninth Circuit probably rewrote their decision knowing that they now will not be overturned
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.