CA 10 day waiting period is getting over turned

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,954
Criminal Mexi Midget
http://ia700803.us.archive.org/13/items/gov.uscourts.caed.233362/gov.uscourts.caed.233362.106.0.pdf

This case deals with the constitutionality of various firearms related statutes. Plaintiffs
challenge the 10-day waiting period imposed by California Penal Code § 26815(a)1
and §
27540(a),
2
and approximately 18 categories of exemptions to the waiting period found in Penal
Code § 26000 et seq. and § 27000 et seq. Plaintiffs contend that the 18 exemptions violate the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs contend that the 10-day waiting
periods violate the Second Amendment. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that the 10-day waiting
periods violate the Second Amendment as applied to those who already lawfully possess a firearm
as confirmed in the Automated Firearms System (“AFS”), to those who possess a valid Carry
Concealed Weapon (“CCW”) license, and to those who possess a valid Certificate of Eligibility
(“COE”). See Doc. No. 91 at 29:23-30:8.
sweet, no more stupid 10 day waits to get a gun.
 

aerok

macrumors 65816
Oct 29, 2011
1,488
135
Stupid? It serves a purpose in reducing overall suicide.

Another way to measure the effects of the Brady Act is to focus on suicides, an important public health concern since more people die each year by gun suicides than gun homicides in the United States. We do find that the Brady states experienced a greater reduction than the non-Brady states in gun suicides to older people, who have the highest rates. While this drop was partially offset by an increase in non-gun suicides, our evidence suggests that the Brady Act has saved lives by reducing the overall suicide rate among older Americans. Interestingly, the effects of the Brady Act on suicide seem to be caused in large part by the act's original waiting period requirements, which were phased out in late 1998 as states moved to an "instant check" system.
http://today.duke.edu/2000/09/brady901.html

But I do admit this law should not exist for those who already own guns.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Not so fast here.

For this to occur, you must already own a firearm, and have already passed their background check, according to paragraphs 1 - 6 of the order. If you don't own a firearm, you're still waiting. Haven't passed your check? still waiting. Plus all is stayed for 180 days. So right now, nothing changes.

BL.
 

aerok

macrumors 65816
Oct 29, 2011
1,488
135
Not so fast here.

For this to occur, you must already own a firearm, and have already passed their background check, according to paragraphs 1 - 6 of the order. If you don't own a firearm, you're still waiting. Haven't passed your check? still waiting. Plus all is stayed for 180 days. So right now, nothing changes.

BL.
Thanks I was going to ask that.
 

aerok

macrumors 65816
Oct 29, 2011
1,488
135
TRY READING LINK.

10 day wait will NOT apply to those who ALREADY own firearms. not sure who it going to buy a shiny new gun just so they can kill themselves.
I did read, you called the law stupid. I'm saying it's not for those that do not own guns.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
TRY READING LINK.

10 day wait will NOT apply to those who ALREADY own firearms. not sure who it going to buy a shiny new gun just so they can kill themselves.
Try reading the link. You have 180 days to wait now.

BL.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,954
Criminal Mexi Midget
Not so fast here.

For this to occur, you must already own a firearm, and have already passed their background check, according to paragraphs 1 - 6 of the order. If you don't own a firearm, you're still waiting. Haven't passed your check? still waiting. Plus all is stayed for 180 days. So right now, nothing changes.

BL.
thanks for reading the link :)

yes, no changes for 180 days :mad:

----------

Try reading the link. You have 180 days to wait now.

BL.
Ha, posted at the same time.

somewhat sucks to keep waiting, but oh well. glad it is being dealt with :)
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,954
Criminal Mexi Midget
America. One step forward, many more steps back.
so violating the Constitution is ok with you as long as you agree with it?

Plaintiffs contend that the 18 exemptions violate the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs contend that the 10-day waiting
periods violate the Second Amendment. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that the 10-day waiting
periods violate the Second Amendment as applied to those who already lawfully possess a firearm
 

zioxide

macrumors 603
Dec 11, 2006
5,725
3,711
so violating the Constitution is ok with you as long as you agree with it?
The Constitution is 225 years old and was written for a different world than we have now. We can keep clinging to a 225 year old piece of paper and watch the country burn to the ground or we can start making sensible decisions to join the 21st century.

How exactly is it a step backwards, or lunacy, to not have a waiting period for someone who already owns a gun, and has already been vetted?
Its a step backwards when people in the country will fight more for "rights" related to stupid little killing machines than they will for attempting to fix real problems we have. Of course, the idiot lawmakers who put a pointless waiting period on people who already own a gun are just as bad.. hence my comment referring to "many" steps backwards.
 
Last edited:

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,954
Criminal Mexi Midget
The Constitution is 225 years old and was written for a different world than we have now. We can keep clinging to a 225 year old piece of paper and watch the country burn to the ground or we can start making sensible decisions to join the 21st century.
we live in a "sensible" world where police have no legal requirement to protect you or your loved ones at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

when things happen, you are on your own.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1765646