California Gun Waiting Period Laws Ruled Unconstitutional

[Lucky Derby]

Having lived in CA for 26 years, it's great to hear news such as this.
Remember that court wins for all of us will mostly come from 2A unfriendly places like CA, NY, IL etc and not so much from 2A friendly like AZ, AK, WY etc. This will help keep the latter the way they are.

 

[Trent]

Very cool! Congrats!

 

[LiveLife]

Wow! Awesome!!!

 

[9mmepiphany]

If it's not a 2nd class right, then why are 1st time buyers treated like 2nd class citizens?

Was it really necessary to post the question in both Post #13 and #23...especially when the answer is in the portion that you quoted?

The original 10 day waiting period wasn't before the Court. That is what, "Given the nature of the challenges made," is referencing...and why the Court isn't expressing a legal opinion regarding it.

 

[ilbob]

I have always thought it odd that a "cooling off" period was needed to prevent someone who already owns firearms from buying another one just so he can use the new gun to commit some crime.

Or in the case of some states, waiting a few extra days to acquire a firearm after waiting weeks or months to get a piece of paper that allows you to purchase one.

 

[steve4102]

So, lemmy see if I got this right. Odds are NO.

After considering the evidence and the arguments, the Court concludes that Penal Code § 26815(a) and § 27540(a)‟s 10-day waiting periods impermissibly violate the Second Amendment as applied to those persons who already lawfully possess a firearm as confirmed by the AFS, to those who possess a valid CCW license, and to those who possess both a valid COE and a firearm as confirmed by the AFS system, if the background check on these individuals is completed and approved prior to the expiration of 10 days.

No waiting.

1) Already own a firearm in the AFS.

2) Possess a valid CCW, with or without a firearm in the AFS.

3) Possess "Both" a COE and a firearm in the AFS.

If #1 is correct (applied to those persons who already lawfully possess a firearm as confirmed by the AFS), then why #3 possessing both COE AND a Firearm in the system?

 

[Sol]

If all these laws in California are being deemed unconstitutional, how did they get through legislature in the first place?

 

[Midwest]

If all these laws in California are being deemed unconstitutional, how did they get through legislature in the first place?

That is a great question...I like to know the answer myself.
.

 

[bainter1212]

If all these laws in California are being deemed unconstitutional, how did they get through legislature in the first place?

Because our lovely politicians can knowingly violate the Constitution with the laws they author, with absolutely no consequences whatsoever. Their voter base is OK with overriding government authority and will keep electing them to office.
Look how many voted for Yee even when he was in jail.

 

[Center fire]

As a Califorian and a gun owner for over 30 years this is fantastic news.

 

[Spats McGee]

If all these laws in California are being deemed unconstitutional, how did they get through legislature in the first place?

It is the province of the legislature to pass laws, not to determine their constitutionality. That belongs to the judiciary.

 

[Sol]

It is the province of the legislature to pass laws, not to determine their constitutionality. That belongs to the judiciary.

I get that, but isn't there a checks and balances system in the process?

 

[Spats McGee]

A court ruling that the law is unconstitutional is the checks and balances system at work.

 

[Frank Ettin]

It is the province of the legislature to pass laws, not to determine their constitutionality. That belongs to the judiciary.

I get that, but isn't there a checks and balances system in the process?

Spats McGee has described "checks-and-balances" at work.

 

[steve4102]

The problem in the "checks and Balance" system is the Judiciary doesn't get involved until someone or some group with $money& enough to fight it, takes the first step and also has enough money to follow through to the end.

In a true "check and ballence" system the constitutionality should be "checked" by the judiciary befor these laws are unleashed on the public.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...In a true "check and ballence" system the constitutionality should be "checked" by the judiciary befor these laws are unleashed on the public.

Sorry, but no. That's not reasonably possible of realistic. A court really can't effectively consider such questions in a vacuum.

Courts look at "cases and controversies." The judicial process is a process for deciding disputes and only functions properly when there is an actual dispute in front of a court with actual facts and advocates on each side of the issue zealously arguing each side of the issue.

 

[Spats McGee]

...In a true "check and ballence" system the constitutionality should be "checked" by the judiciary befor these laws are unleashed on the public.

Sorry, but no. That's not reasonably possible of realistic. A court really can't effectively consider such questions in a vacuum.

Courts look at "cases and controversies." The judicial process is a process for deciding disputes and only functions properly when there is an actual dispute in front of a court with actual facts and advocates on each side of the issue zealously arguing each side of the issue.

To elaborate just a little on what Frank Ettin correctly stated:

First, the US Constitution dictates that courts decide things that involve a "case or controversy." In other words, our courts do not issue advisory opinions. If there's no actual "case or controversy," then our courts will not hear the case. For example, I do not like NY's Safe Act. However, I do not live in NY. I have not traveled to NY in many years, and I have no plans to do so. As a result, there is no realistic possibility that I will be prosecuted under the SAFE Act, barring some change in my plans. Therefore, I cannot chanllenge NY's SAFE Act right now. There is no "case or controversy" involving myself and the SAFE Act.

Second, imagine how the caseload of our (already-overburdened) judicial system would increase if every potential statute had to be vetted for constitutionality before "unleashing it on the public." As a corollary, if laws got a "judicial stamp of constitutional approval" prior to enactment, what would the remedy be for one that slipped through the cracks.

Third, it's important to understand that, in broad strokes, there are two possible constitutional challenges to a law: a facial challenge, and an as-applied challenge. The first claims that a law is unconstitutional "on its face," meaning that there is no possible set of circumstances under which the law can be constitutional. The second means that the plaintiff claims (in essence) "this law is unconstitutional as applied to me." In either case, the plaintiff will have to develop some facts upon which the court can determine whether or not he has standing to bring the case in the first place and the latter cannot be decided without developing a factual basis upon which the court might rule.

 

[harrygunner]

If all these laws in California are being deemed unconstitutional, how did they get through legislature in the first place?

They determine that themselves.

Unfortunately the particular video on http://www.calchannel.com/ is unavailable any longer, where during the passing of AB144 (ban open carry of unloaded handguns) the speaker turned to a sleepy eyed other and asked if the proposed law is constitutional. The other looked up and said "Yes".

 

[Frank Ettin]

Another wrinkle Spats McGee alluded to is the concept of "standing." In order to bring a matter to court there must not only be an actual dispute, but the person bringing the question to court must have "standing", i. e., he must have a real stake in the issue and there must be the possibility that his interests will actually be adversely affected depending on how the question is resolved.

 

[Librarian]

Very well said. That's Calguns FOUNDATION and not the questionable website with a similar name which is a separate entity.

Questionable website?

How so?

 

[NGIB]

Reading posts like this makes me really thankful that I live in a free state and I have hopes that everyone can experience this someday...

 

[9mmepiphany]

If all these laws in California are being deemed unconstitutional, how did they get through legislature in the first place?

You're under the mistaken impression that these laws were legally unconstitutional before the recent ruling.

Until there has been argument and a ruling, a law is neither constitutional nor unconstitutional...it is uncontested. Until a plaintiff files a complaint that they have suffered damage/loss from the implementation of the law, there is nothing for the Courts to consider

 

[Kynoch]

Because our lovely politicians can knowingly violate the Constitution with the laws they author, with absolutely no consequences whatsoever. Their voter base is OK with overriding government authority and will keep electing them to office.
Look how many voted for Yee even when he was in jail.

Posting #37 correctly answers the question you tried to answer.

Waiting periods (for handguns) go way, way back here in CA. A decade or two before the Stockton School shooting of 1989 when CA was pretty much as pro-gun as any other state and far more than some.

 

[Kynoch]

You're under the mistaken impression that these laws were legally unconstitutional before the recent ruling.

Until there has been argument and a ruling, a law is neither constitutional nor unconstitutional...it is uncontested. Until a plaintiff files a complaint that they have suffered damage/loss from the implementation of the law, there is nothing for the Courts to consider

What a terrific answer. Thanks.

 

[Kynoch]

Questionable website?

How so?

Hideous lack of leadership. The owner of the website acts like an infant far too often.