[Telperion]

I posted this argument on waiting periods a while back, but it was buried pretty so deep, it didn't see much action. Please also excuse my gross ignorance of applicable law...

Can waiting periods be considered warrantless seizure? Once I pay for a gun, it becomes my private property. Since it belongs to me, I have the right to carry it out the door. By forcing the dealer to hold my gun, the government conducts a warrant seizure of personal property by proxy.

Does anyone know if a challenge has been raised on these or similar grounds?

[Combat-wombat]

You know, you make a really good argument! Yes, I agree with you.

[tyme]

The government's argument might be that, first, whether the contract is mandated by the government is irrelevant, and second, that you are not engaged in a simple purchase of property, but rather are executing a contract for the property to be delivered after the waiting period.

[BogBabe]

Except, tyme, that my piece of paper says "sales receipt," not "contract to purchase."

[tyme]

Hmm, I don't know anything about contract law, but aren't payments a form of contract, and how would you argue that, knowing there was a waiting period, your purchase was not made under the assumption that it would be observed?

[greyhound]

Very good point, but most "laws" are almost impossible to repeal unless people are just ignoring them anyway (i.e. Prohibition). That's not happening with waiting periods.

[Augustwest]

Plain ol' Amendment II issue to me. Well, II and X. really.

Many things are paid for in advance of their receipt. I guess you can argue that sellers are acting as agents of the government, and therefore your property is being (temporarily) seized, but it's, IMO, a pretty big stretch, and I think complicates what's a black and white issue vis-a-vis II and X.

[TallPine]

And ...

what about not being able to sell your property to anyone who wishes to buy it?

[MicroBalrog]

That's not happening with waiting periods.

Weren't waiting periods replaced with NICS?:confused:

[Gordon Fink]

Not in all states, Micro.

~G. Fink

[Smurfslayer]

It's illegal for the dealer/seller to violate the waiting period, and thus, he would have standing were there a violation. That said, it is the seller who is compelled, under threat of deprivation of liberty, to enforce the waiting period. Using the same logic, is the "State" performing the act of an "unreasonable seizure" by compelling you to register and pay taxes on your vehicles in order to use public roads ? After all, you are compelled under threat of deprivation of liberty or property for not doing so, and using the vehicle on public property or conveyances...

I say that no, there is no 4AUSC violation for waiting periods ( not that I agree with them )...

How about this. If your state law says "... must disclose carrying a firearm to LEO..." does this violate 5AUSC protection against self incrimination ?

for example, you have a permit, and inadvertently cross into NPS property, and are detained while carrying. Ranger asks if you are carrying...

Law says must disclose. Constitution says, you need not speak to incriminate yourself, and courts have routinely held that invocation of 5AUSC is not grounds to infer guilt....

thoughts ?

[greyhound]

Not in all states, Micro.


For example, here in Maryland its 7 days (and Sundays and holidays don't count). Really stinks to have made a $400 purchase then have to wait to take it home!

[Standing Wolf]

Weren't waiting periods replaced with NICS?

Nope. It varies from state to state. When I left the People's Republic of California just over a year ago, the waiting period was ten days.

I'd never thought of waiting periods as a Fourth Amendment issue. It's worth filing a law suit over, I'd say.