A recent ruling in California has stated that California’s 10-day waiting period for gun purchases was ruled unconstitutional because it burdens the Second Amendment rights. The ruling stated that CA must change its systems to accommodate the unobstructed release of guns to gun buyers who pass a background check and possess a California license to carry a handgun, or who hold a “Certificate of Eligibility” issued by the DOJ and already possess at least one firearm known to the state.
My question is, in applying this logic to interstate gun purchases, how is it constitutional to allow long gun purchases, but forbid handgun purchases especially in cases where the purchaser has a reciprocated gun permit and passes the background check? Even in the absence of the gun permit, if they can verify that the person if legally able to own and buy a certain long gun in their respective state, why can't they use the same technique to verify the eligibility of a hand gun purchase?
If I live 10 minutes away from my neighboring state, I'm legally about to conceal carry in both states, and I pass a background check, how on earth could it be constitutional to keep me from making a purchase in that state?
My question is, in applying this logic to interstate gun purchases, how is it constitutional to allow long gun purchases, but forbid handgun purchases especially in cases where the purchaser has a reciprocated gun permit and passes the background check? Even in the absence of the gun permit, if they can verify that the person if legally able to own and buy a certain long gun in their respective state, why can't they use the same technique to verify the eligibility of a hand gun purchase?
If I live 10 minutes away from my neighboring state, I'm legally about to conceal carry in both states, and I pass a background check, how on earth could it be constitutional to keep me from making a purchase in that state?
Last edited: