Posted on 03/11/2015 6:06:40 AM PDT by rellimpank
Because "waiting periods" are petty tyranny. Because the State of Wisconsin has zero authority to impose "waiting periods". Because We the People are fed up with nanny-state assholes like you, Jimmy.
I believe that California was the first to impose a waiting period for handgun purchases. It always was a stupid law. In my opinion, the purpose of the law has always been to “chill” the exercise of the second amendment rights. The proponents of the bill say so; it is to require people to take time, “cool off” before they purchase a handgun. In spite of their emotional argument that this prevents crimes, there is no proof that it is so; but it clearly is another barrier to handgun purchases that has to be overcome.
A federal court in California has ruled that the waiting period is unconstitutional for people who already own a gun.
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/11/federal-judge-rules-against-californias.html
So, once again, 99.9% of us has to suffer because .1% of us can't control themselves.
Good link. Thanks.
Is there is place for a delay? Perhaps. It was conceived as a means of "cooling off" a firearms purchaser who was buying with intent to use it immediately in what would become a criminal act. That only applies to a first time purchaser with no access to any other weapon. As previously mentioned, it is harassment if you already own and possess firearms. It forces you to delay acquisition and make another trip to pick up your purchase.
Training and regular practice are good things to do. A demonstration of basic knowledge is a good idea, but should not be an impediment to taking possession of a legal purchase.
This shows just how bankrupt liberalism is. It’s the same vacuous argument that you cannot be trusted with your life.
Milwaukee journal Sentinel, and others, want Wlker to keep 48 hr. witing period to get guns in place.
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this wisconsin interest ping list.
Whenever you go to buy a firearm, you have to have the FEDERAL background check, phoned in by the gun shop, and the results back, BEFORE you can buy the firearm.
That might take a few minutes, a few hours, a few days, depending on each of us, separately.
So, let THAT dictate ‘the waiting period’, which has been installed by local politicians, for more control, of you.
“Does a person have to be licensed to use a gun before they can purchase one? I could see the point of a 48-hour hold to get some basic training on gun safety and use if the purchaser wasn’t already licensed to use that firearm.”
Here in California, a state not noted for gun freedom. a Federal judge has ruled our state’s 10 day waiting period to be unconstitutional and has given the state 180 days to change the law. The judge did say he would accept a minor carve out for anyone who is a first-time gun buyer, but he said it was ludicrous to make someone who already owns one or more firearms already to not be able to take his purchase with him immediately.
In the author's imagination, possibly. However, he should have the courtesy to cite a single case where someone got mad, went out and purchased a firearm from a licensed dealer, took it home, and shot someone immediately. Because if that has never happened, the waiting period is completely superfluous, isn't it?
Protection orders only have one real purpose. You can wave it in a cop's face after shooting a stalker/predator who needed shooting.
dear svar,
we have to stop them, from another layer of crap, on top of the already existing, crap, before we can begin to remove THAT crap. get it?
Unless We the People, in one huge moment of national insanity, barged in on every lawmaker’s house, as they did with Ben Franklin’s son and in like manner, we have to do it this way.
We can argue infringement, but the idiots that we have already elected in years past, were the ones who did this, as in 1998 to 1999. Have you ever tried to ‘undo a (tr)ucking’, and undo it successfully? That’s where we are at.
Oh yes, I fully agree with you. It needs to be gotten rid of. The unfortunate part is that Repubs passing this law (even if it’s removing bad laws) will, in lib eyes, validate that that’s an area that the Constitution allows them to pass laws on. If Repubs go one way, it’s permissible for Dems to pull the other way.
If the Gov’t isn’t allowed to do it, it doesn’t matter whether the law is good or bad, they don;t have that authority.
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.