Vile Shadow
...
- Feb 28, 2013
- 28,953
It may not be much, but it's something.
Regardless of the outcome, its pretty clear that the case for a 10 day waiting period for someone already possessing a firearm is weak. The question to me is how to attack the unconstitutional law. If Harris looses, the HQL regulatory regime becomes much harder to defend. Even though precedents set in this case won't apply to MD unless its appealed to the Supreme Court, the arguments will be useful to us.
Regardless of the outcome, it builds on the body of law regarding the 2nd amendment which for us is a good thing because it makes future cases easier.
Regardless of the outcome, its pretty clear that the case for a 10 day waiting period for someone already possessing a firearm is weak. The question to me is how to attack the unconstitutional law.
http://www.ammoland.com/2013/12/fed...rris-wrong-on-gun-control-laws/#axzz2n263ENZf
Can anyone put this into context?
Yeah, it's only one a small step up the courts ladder.Geez. Guys, this is not a "case ruling". This is the judge denying summary dismissal against the Calguns suit. That's not a big deal to get in a case like this, and Ammoland is blowing it WAY out of proportion.
Mind you, this is a good thing in general, but let's not go crazy now.
The WPL as applied against those who have previously purchased firearms or who possess
certain state licenses is the equivalent of a prior restraint, and thus should be analyzed under strict
scrutiny
Geez. Guys, this is not a "case ruling".
Think about it for a minute, HT4.
You already have a handgun (or any other firearm). You passed the 10 day waiting period on that purchase. The State Knows this (the gun has already been through the process and is registered with the CA DOJ). What is the States rational reason for making you wait another 10 days to purchase another handgun (or any other firearm)?
It cannot be for a purported public safety purpose - you already possess a handgun (or any other firearm).
It cannot be for some sort of "cooling off" period - you already possess a handgun (or any other firearm).
The question being, under what rational basis does CA deny possession (for ten days) of firearms (after the purchase and transaction have been made) to anyone after the first waiting period has been served and subsequent purchases are made?
People read way too much into the "tea leaves" around here, and basically see what they want to see... again, the standard to avoid summary dismissal is not high. It does not mean the case is a sure-fire win or whatever.Procedurally, yes. But if you're in the business of reading tea leaves, this looks really good for the 2A. Judges can walk away from language like this when it comes to an opinion on the merits, but it doesn't happen all that often.
When a party requests summary judgment, he is in essence saying that there are no facts in dispute, and that the court can quickly make a ruling on the law alone. A denial just means that the court thinks that there are some facts that must be determined by a fact finder (in this case, the judge, as there will not be a jury).
The problem there is that you would now need to maintain a list of who has an evil gun, not that they don't already, but then it would be justified. It's not all good.....
Not necessarily. If you move from a "regulate the firearm" model to a "regulate the person" model, then all you have to do is require a one-time purchase license, with its own 10-day wait. Then the purchaser just shows the FFL the license, (optional: the FFL calls a state hotline to verify the number is valid), FFL conducts a NICS/state equivalent check, then the person walks out with his C&C firearm. State gets its "cooling off period," while people get to C&C whatever.
Obviously that only works if a waiting period isn't found unconstitutional across the board.
Kind of what I said. "keep a list of who has a gun"