Silvester v. Kamala Harris CA 10 Day Wait

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,560
    SoMD / West PA
    You know I don't disagree!!

    But there are realities at work, and among them is the toe-dance MD does with our Rights.

    Within the wording of the ruling, MD could easily apply DC as being "certain groups", and as there is really no encumberance to attain it they could innocently say, "Where's the problem??"

    I know

    Getting the courts to disagree is the problem. They are okay with licensing for now. Their reasoning: allow the state to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys.
     

    Maestro Pistolero

    Active Member
    Mar 20, 2012
    876
    It's quite a long decision and this judge did a fantastic job of tackling every detail. She didn't let the state get away with diddly. Kudos to this judge for applying reason and the law. So refreshing.

    Parts of this ruling calls out AG Harris on some major technical gaps in her defense, like requesting that the court take judicial notice of exhibits not used or relied upon for any arguments:
    If Defendant did not cite an exhibit or portion of an exhibit in her proposed findings and conclusions, then Defendant did not sufficiently rely upon such evidence. There was an inadequate demonstration of how such evidence was intended to be used and/or how the evidence is relevant. The Court will not comb through the hundreds of pages of proposed exhibits and make rulings if an exhibit is not actually cited and specifically relied upon by a party. Cf. Hargis v. Access Capital Funding, LLC, 674 F.3d 783, 792-93 (8th Cir. 2012) (courts need not take judicial notice of irrelevant evidence); Southern Cal. Gas Co. v. City of Santa Ana, 336 F.3d . . . .

    Kamala looks ridiculous and incompetent. If this is the best we can expect, then Peruta is looking safer by the minute.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,916
    WV
    One of my favorites from Harris was citing a book on early American life and how the 10 day waiting period would be OK since people didn't live near gunsmiths back in the day. Laughable.
     

    Maestro Pistolero

    Active Member
    Mar 20, 2012
    876
    One of my favorites from Harris was citing a book on early American life and how the 10 day waiting period would be OK since people didn't live near gunsmiths back in the day. Laughable.

    Right. It's quite a leap of logic to say that because purchasing firearms, well, purchasing anything, back in the time of founding might've taken 10 days or more, that the citizens, at the time of founding, would have accepted a 10 day wait imposed by the government. It is risible, to use one of my favorite Gura adjectives.
     

    fightinbluhen51

    "Quack Pot Call Honker"
    Oct 31, 2008
    8,974
    Right. It's quite a leap of logic to say that because purchasing firearms, well, purchasing anything, back in the time of founding might've taken 10 days or more, that the citizens, at the time of founding, would have accepted a 10 day wait imposed by the government. It is risible, to use one of my favorite Gura adjectives.
    Thereby, I guess we should go back and use pony express to ship arms in place of UPS FedEx and USPS?

    Wow.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,526
    Messages
    7,285,089
    Members
    33,473
    Latest member
    Sarca

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom