Kynoch
member
Don't lie to yourself -- there are no free states. Before 1989 California was every bit as "free" as Georgia and it will be again. I'm sure your posting made you feel better about living in a place Georgia though.
California Gun Waiting Period Laws Ruled Unconstitutional
- Thread starter Kynoch
- Start date
-
- Tags
- caf california waiting period
- Status
Don't lie to yourself -- there are no free states. Before 1989 California was every bit as "free" as Georgia and it will be again. I'm sure your posting made you feel better about living in a place Georgia though.
Yup, I remember that when I purchased my first gun (70s), the waiting period was 15 days.
When I was much younger. I remember when OC was not uncommon in the state. Then Gov. Reagan signed that went away in 1967 after a OC demonstration at the State Capital
This describes that event
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/1/
"It was May 2, 1967, and the Black Panthers’ invasion of the California statehouse launched the modern gun-rights movement. "
.
Librarian
Member
Had to go back and read what Gene Hoffman posted.
COE is 'shall issue' and requires live scan fingerprinting; once that is done, the state gets notification of any arrests of that person. ("Rap-back")
If the COE holder doesn't get a clean check immediately, something is wrong at DOJ.
Frank Ettin said:
Thanks Freank and Spats, I understand the limitation of the system we have, I really do, I think.
My point is that with the "Checks and Balance" system we have, we are at the mercy of our law makers, unless. Unless someone or some organization involved in a "case or controversy" with a bus load of money and a boat load of time sues their own Government. So, basically without Big Bucks to fight them, our lawmakers can pretty much do what ever they please as it is not their money used to defend their actions, that's ours too.
danez71
Member
Its a zoo there. Its a shame too.
Read that forum for several days and its more evident as to why its taken so long for CA to turn the corner to being 2A tolerant.
I'll go on record as saying Librarian is a great, maybe best, asset to that forum in particular...and no slouch here either.
CA has had a few big rulings recently. As someone pointed out, the most far reaching rulings will come from the anti states and will help ensure the right for all states.
So be careful saying things like "abandon ship" because if the anti states hold on to anti 2A laws... the laws spread to the rest of the country eventually.
bainter1212
Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,175
This is the point I was trying to make earlier. Lawmakers can outlaw the color blue and nobody can do anything about it until a lawsuit is in place or an election occurs. It is SO easy to make a law that disenfranchises your political enemies while riling up your base, even if you KNOW it is unconstitutional from the get-go.
There are no consequences for this action, especially if you are in a safe district.
Librarian
Member
I beg a 1-post indulgence from the moderators - and if you think that undeserved, or off-topic for the site, I understand.
Calguns is overtly political.
The other, national forums where I am a member generally are not.
We cannot afford to reject allies, so quite a few things are tolerated there which are far too extreme for THR or TFL.
Calguns vBulletin stats show
Members: 189,915, Active Members: 26,617
THR shows
Members: 198,307, Active Members: 8,048
TFL shows
Members: 138,543, Active Members: 4,885
An 'active member' is apparently one who has posted in the last 30 days.
Calguns, primarily with California-domiciled members, has over twice the active members the other two relatively 'serious' sites have, combined.
Suppose we accept the statistic that 35% of households have guns, and that the number is accurate for every state. Suppose that each member at each site, ignoring duplicates, represents one household. (Unlikely to be true, but simpler to discuss.)
The United States, in the Census Quickfacts, has US total households at about 115 million. 35% of that is about 40 million households we might expect would have a gun. THR's active members are 8,000 of 40 million.
California has 12.4 million households; 12.4 x 35% is 4.34 million households which might be expected to have a gun. Calguns active members are 26,617 of 4.34 million.
That's about 6/10 of 1% of the expected gun owning households. I think we've had a lot of influence for that little capture of the population. But until we get up to 400,000 or so active members - around 10% of the households we need to reach - we really need to be a 'Big Tent'.
That said, without getting into too much detail, there are around 40,000 accounts whose behavior even we couldn't stand.
Each site is appealing to a different audience; frankly, I like it here - it's like a vacation.
But it's always good to get home.
Okay, but that's it. The forum wars are now over, and the particular topic is closed.Librarian said:
So that ends here.
Field Tester
Member
How likely do you think it is that they will do away with the "Previous Purchase" caveat? Or will that require another lawsuit?
No, it's not really that easy.bainter1212 said:
- If a legislator introduces a bill to outlaw the color blue, the folks who elected him would have to keep going along with that, or come next election he'll be out of a job.
- And if that bill is going to pass, enough other legislators will have to be voting for it; and the folks who elected those guys will need to be going along with them or they won't get re-elected.
- And for the bill to become law, an executive needs to sign, or at least not veto, it. His future political employment will also be dependent on the voters supporting what he does.
- And the whole process by which a bill gets introduced, considered, debated and perhaps becomes law is largely public, is under the scrutiny of the media, and with considerable input from interested groups. There will be committee meetings, which are public. There will also be non-public maneuvering by various lobbying contingents.
- And after that whole process, if a bill becomes law the law is still subject to challenge in court.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
As has already been posted, it is the purview of legislatures to write the laws. In doing so, there is an expectation that they have a duty to uphold the basis, or foundation, upon which those laws must stand.
This is part of the legislation process, which involves many legislatures writing, debating, editing, debating, re-writing, debating, and finally passing any given law. In doing so, legislators avail themselves to legal council along the way, perhaps even having legal background of their own to draw upon. Even so, they are not acting unilaterally, given that they are elected representatives who have constituents driving much of their actions.
To expect the judicial system to get involved in the process at this level takes them out of the judicial role and places them in the legislative role...they would be doing exactly what those debating an issue are already doing in the legislative process. It also removes those in the judicial system from their impartial role. Any laws passed under such a system as this would thus have no judicial "check-and-balance" available for recourse once the laws are passed.
Put another way, it's like s supervisor who gets too involved in the work of those under him and thus loses his supervisory perspective. The supervisor steps in when necessary, but does not become intimately involved in the nuts-and-bolts work or his other duties will suffer for it...and so will the overall system as a result.
You cannot mix the duties and responsibilities of the three branches of government together...if you do, then you effectively have a single branch which wields all the power and no way to redress issues legally and peacefully once such a government decides to exercise power without the consent of the people.
This is part of the legislation process, which involves many legislatures writing, debating, editing, debating, re-writing, debating, and finally passing any given law. In doing so, legislators avail themselves to legal council along the way, perhaps even having legal background of their own to draw upon. Even so, they are not acting unilaterally, given that they are elected representatives who have constituents driving much of their actions.
To expect the judicial system to get involved in the process at this level takes them out of the judicial role and places them in the legislative role...they would be doing exactly what those debating an issue are already doing in the legislative process. It also removes those in the judicial system from their impartial role. Any laws passed under such a system as this would thus have no judicial "check-and-balance" available for recourse once the laws are passed.
Put another way, it's like s supervisor who gets too involved in the work of those under him and thus loses his supervisory perspective. The supervisor steps in when necessary, but does not become intimately involved in the nuts-and-bolts work or his other duties will suffer for it...and so will the overall system as a result.
You cannot mix the duties and responsibilities of the three branches of government together...if you do, then you effectively have a single branch which wields all the power and no way to redress issues legally and peacefully once such a government decides to exercise power without the consent of the people.
Because the courts decide what's unconstitutional, not the legislature.
Sure it's obvious to us that these laws violated the 2nd amendment, but there are millions of people who managed to convince themselves that unlike any other amendment in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd restricted the rights of the people, not the government. They are now being shown the error of their ways.
Enough!
We're not here to discuss the merits or supposed lack thereof of any particular Internet forum.
We're not here to discuss the merits or supposed lack thereof of California.
We have a very interesting court decision on the table, and there is much of substance to discuss: exactly what it means and how it would apply; why/how did the court reach its decision; what this might mean in the context of other ongoing Second Amendment litigation; what are the next procedural steps, etc.
Let's see if we can have a substantive, worthwhile discussion. If not, I'll close the thread.
We're not here to discuss the merits or supposed lack thereof of any particular Internet forum.
We're not here to discuss the merits or supposed lack thereof of California.
We have a very interesting court decision on the table, and there is much of substance to discuss: exactly what it means and how it would apply; why/how did the court reach its decision; what this might mean in the context of other ongoing Second Amendment litigation; what are the next procedural steps, etc.
Let's see if we can have a substantive, worthwhile discussion. If not, I'll close the thread.
Field Tester
Member
I thought my post number 61 was contributing to that. No one seemed to want to answer.
bainter1212
Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,175
I believe waiting periods themselves have been upheld as constitutional thus far......this ruling addressed the intended purpose of those waiting periods.
Once you already can be proven to possess a firearm, the intent of the waiting period becomes moot and only serves to needlessly delay the exercise of your right.
But no, so far I personally don't see a way out of the waiting period for first time buyers. I am not a legal expert though.
JTHunter
Member
Does anybody have any theories as to what effect this ruling might have on other states (like Illinois) that have less onerous waiting times?
Illinois currently makes us wait either 1 day (long guns) or 3 days (handguns).
I'm not sure but I believe that these are the waiting periods that have been in effect since the early 70s.
Illinois currently makes us wait either 1 day (long guns) or 3 days (handguns).
I'm not sure but I believe that these are the waiting periods that have been in effect since the early 70s.
That's awesome guys. This is why I think the SAF is still a good organization even though they supported the watered down UBC last year. I don't think we can have much tolerance any more for organizations that are willing to compromise our Rights away but I think last year showed us that we're all in this together. The NRA compromised in the past, but they're seeing that can't be the way of things anymore.
The SAF has won some pretty important victories in the judicial system recently that benefit us all. (Not to downplay the part of California gun owners).
The SAF has won some pretty important victories in the judicial system recently that benefit us all. (Not to downplay the part of California gun owners).
It could help, but remember that it's not precedent. First, it's a trial court ruling, and second it's in a different jurisdiction. But we're beginning to see judges take the principle of the Second Amendment as an individual right more seriously.JTHunter said:
Elkins45
Member
I suspect it will, because that addresses a different set of circumstances. Making someone wait 10 days for another gun for the purpose of "cooling off" when the state already KNOWS they legally possess one is an obviously absurd act.
Making somebody who doesn't seem to already have a gun "cool off" will likely be viewed by the court as a different question, therefore requiring a different sort of challenge.
LiveLife
Member
Did a search to update any existing discussion and this thread came up. Life in California keeps getting better (relatively speaking).Frank Ettin said:
UPDATE: 1/12/15
The Ninth Circuit issued an order staying the District Court’s ruling that struck the 10 day waiting period for most firearm purchasers - “Appellant’s motion to stay the district court’s August 25, 2014 order pending appeal is granted."
Here's count down showing 33 days to go - http://www.calgunlawyers.com/end-californias-10-waiting-period-firearms-near-countdown-clock/
Deog
Member
33 days has come and gone. What is the status of this ?
Librarian
Member
No movement as of this morning, 4/6/15.
- Status
