Silvester v. Kamala Harris CA 10 Day Wait

jrumann59 · Oct 22, 2013

The "cooling off" period is only on regulated purchases, is it not? I can go to Wally World and buy "Hunting" shotguns/rifles all week long.

Boxcab · Oct 22, 2013

Maryland does NOT have a "cooling off period". The 8th day release is to provide time for snail mail applications to be received by MSP. It does not apply to non-regulated guns.

It is a carry-over from a pre electronic communications time.

NY Transplant · Oct 22, 2013

Connecticut has a 10 day "cooling off period" for all firearms. The "cooling off period" is waived if you have a current CT hunting license or CT concealed carry permit.

Brooklyn · Oct 22, 2013

HT4 said:
I did not know about this case. It's interesting and, in a way, disappointing. Until now, the SAF always seemed to me very smart in picking its battles. This case seems a much closer call than others it has filed. While the analogies are not perfect, I can think of several contexts in which waiting periods/delays for constiutitonal rights have been approved by courts, including marraige licenses, registering to vote, abortion, demonstration/protest permits, etc... While there are (in my view) substantial arguments that the RTKBA is distinguishable from these, but I am not overly optimistic as I was with Heller and am with Wollard. Given the number of other more burdensome restrictions out there, I would think that te SAF's limited resources are better spent elsewhere.

That said, good luck to the SAF and CalGuns!

Its not about waiting periods its about the standard of review.
The state must make a case. Even RB is strained when they want waiting periods for existing gun. Owners.

We want the states briefs on this .. they will be useful elsewhere.

Even a loss here will help force the opositions hand.

How we lose is important even if we do. I see deep strategy at work here.

EL1227 · Dec 9, 2013

DENIED ...

Federal Judge Says California Attorney General Kamala Harris Wrong on Gun Control Laws

Court denies Harris’ arguments and agrees with gun rights group The Calguns Foundation, says state’s firearm waiting period laws fail to meet Constitutional muster.

As Emeril Lagasse would say ...

mxrider · Dec 9, 2013

Very interesting!

krucam · Dec 9, 2013

Great opinion and though not binding precedent, it IS precedent. Might be a good low-hanging-fruit opportunity...
:thumbsup:

danb · Dec 9, 2013

this did not actually strike the law as I read it, it merely denied a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Trial to follow?

EL1227 · Dec 9, 2013

Correct ...

danb said:
this did not actually strike the law as I read it, it merely denied a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Trial to follow?

Thus my Emeril graphic "Kick it up a notch". But the Judge's opinion was pretty damning, so unless Harris changes her tune going forward (which she probably will) it bodes well for the final outcome.

Kharn · Dec 9, 2013

Now apply the same logic in a state where a 12ga shotgun is just a 4473 & NICS and an HQL isn't an exemption from a waiting period. :innocent0

CrazySanMan · Dec 9, 2013

Interesting

Bravo · Dec 9, 2013

Feds Rule Against California wait period

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/12/fed...rris-wrong-on-gun-control-laws/#axzz2n263ENZf

Can anyone put this into context?

krucam · Dec 9, 2013

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=72289

Inigoes · Dec 9, 2013

This is a good omen for Patrick's deposition tomorrow!

Mooseman · Dec 9, 2013

I hope this helps us.

DavidMS · Dec 9, 2013

It may help us

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.

Brooklyn · Dec 9, 2013

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

teratos · Dec 10, 2013

Inigoes said:
This is a good omen for Patrick's deposition tomorrow!

Indeed it is. Good decision.

Minuteman · Dec 10, 2013

Bam! Another small victory for the good guys.

Someone make sure Patrick has this, please.

Pendragon · Dec 10, 2013

It is nice to hear some good news from the Left Coast.

Silvester v. Kamala Harris CA 10 Day Wait

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

DILLIGAF

MSI EM

Wabbit Season/Duck Season

I stand with John Locke.

R.I.P.

Attachments

Former MSI Treasurer

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

R.I.P.

Ultimate Member

2013'er

Bravo

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

R.I.P.- Hooligan #4

Member

I stand with John Locke.

My hair is amazing

Member

2nd U.S. Cavalry Veteran

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics