Posted on 01/02/2012 6:42:04 AM PST by marktwain
SAF, CALGUNS Foundation Sue California Over Firearms Statue
Golden State imposes 10-day wait between gun purchases by Neil W. McCabe
01/02/2012
The Bellevue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation joined the Calguns Foundation lawsuit against the California Department of Justice and Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris filed December 23 contesting the state’s 10-day waiting period between gun purchases.
"We've joined in this lawsuit because it makes no sense for California to require a gun owner who already possesses a firearm from buying another one within a few days," said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. "We recall what Dr. Martin Luther King said, that 'A right delayed is a right denied.'"
"Laws that infringe on the right to purchase arms have to be more than just merely rational and must directly serve important governmental interests," said Gene Hoffman, the chairman of the Calguns Foundation.
"Here, the law is not just irrational but actually contradictory. We filed this case right before Christmas in the hopes that, by next Christmas, gun owners will not suffer this continuing infringement on their right to acquire firearms,” he said.
“The state has absolutely no reason to infringe the rights of California gun owners who already possess firearms when they buy another one,” said Jason Davis, who is the attorney for the plaintiffs. California currently requires the registration of handguns in California.
The case, known as Jeff Silvester, et al., v. Kameal D. Harris, et al., was brought in the name of individual plaintiffs Jeff Silvester, Michael Poeschl, and Brandon Combs. Each man has firearms registered with the State of California. Combs and Silvester also have firearms licenses from the state that constitute ongoing background checks.
“I have a license to carry a loaded firearm across the state,” said Silvester.
“It is ridiculous that I have to wait another 10 days to pick up a new firearm when I’m standing there in the gun store lawfully carrying one the whole time,” he said.
Poeschl said, "What's really frustrating is that California is one of the very few states that forces gun owners to register all handguns that they buy. If the state's database saying that I already lawfully own a gun isn't proof that I don't need a 'cooling-off' period, then what is?"
Combs said, “As a collector, I submitted to a Live Scan background check and obtained a Certificate of Eligibility to Possess Firearms from the State of California at my own expense.”
The 10-day requirement is not appropriate in with current Internet-carried records, he said.
“In the Internet era, where every California gun dealer has a computer connected directly to the state's databases, there is no logical reason to force me to wait 10 days and make another trip simply because California doesn't want to acknowledge the cCertificate that it issued to me,” he said.
“I have registered guns, and I have the State telling me that I can possess guns, but for some reason I can't exercise my constitutionally protected rights for another 10 days?” he said.
“That's insane."
It has always been about delegitimizing the ownership of guns and making their ownership more difficult. This has the effect of reducing the number of gun owners. Eventually, the number is reduced to the point that they become politically ineffective. At that point, draconian controls are easily inacted.
Conservative gun owners are welcome in Arizona.
A Golden State Firearms Statue? WTF?
California seems to be able to place a lot of infringements on their citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights.................that “Shall not be infringed”!
Statue or statute? Series or serious? Hugh or huge?
So which dumbass California Democrat proposed this law?
So which dumbass California Democrat proposed this law?
Electronic, spellchecked internet databases?
Wait could go wonk?
Good catch. We are not allowed to change headlines unless they are too long to fit the space available.
Calguns bump
Just one of the 40,000 new Califoirnia laws that kicked in at 12:01 AM Jan.1, 2012
I believe you are in error. 40,000 was a number given for new laws across the country. In CA, where I live, we only average about a 1,000 a year.
Actually beginning with one day for handguns in 1923, the California Legislature increased the handgun waiting period from one to three days in 1955, to five days in 1965, and to 15 days in 1975. The current wait is 10 days from AB 671, effective April 1, 1997.
And the kicker is that it applies even if you already have a closet full of guns.
And my condolences to you for living in California.
Condolences accepted. Too old to leave now, but the weather is beautiful and living in the Gold Country of the Sierra Nevada mountains we are somewhat insulated from the craziness of the coasters. On top of that our Sheriff issues CCWs.
What the heck is a "governmental interest"? I don't recall seeing this defined anywhere.
This is probably better asked at the CalGuns forum, but why don’t they attack the one-gun-a-month rule as well? What good does it serve the state to restrict a person who owns 7 handguns from buying 2 more at the same time? Like for example a matching set of pistols for a collection? Or for spare parts?
“Governmental interest” is one of the ways the Roosevelt court found to justify infringements on the Constitution in 1938.
Here is a link to a wiki article about it:
You are correct of course. As with all gun control laws, there is no evidence that they reduce crime. They are all designed to restrict access, make ownership more difficult and to delegitimize guns and gun culture over time, so as to make the elimination of guns from those who are not in the governing elites easier.
I suspect that a lawsuit against the one gun a month rule is being contemplated in numerous circles.
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.