Skip to comments.Federal Judge Says California ‘Waiting Period’ Gun Laws Are Likely Unconstitutional
Posted on 12/10/2013 10:17:20 AM PST by ColdOne
Senior Federal District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii on Monday denied California Attorney General Kamal Harris arguments in a federal civil lawsuit, indicating that Californias 10-day waiting period laws are likely unconstitutional.
The judge said in his order that the 10-day waiting period laws have not passed strict enough scrutiny.
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
Has AG Harris been audited yet?
“Has AG Harris been audited yet?”
Never happen, she’s a “Holder’s Person.” And she’s from San Francisco
If a 10 day waiting period is constitutional, why not a 365 day waiting period or such. The waiting period is not tied to a process, procedure or the execution of anything of substance. It was originally a “cooling off” period so “psychos” couldn’t run into a gun store all angry and stuff so they could go shoot someone in a heated rage....
It’s all unconstitutional...
The article gives no indication of the procedural posture of the case, so the statement “likely” is meaningless.
IF someone had sued to enjoin enforcement of the law pending a full trial, then “likely unconstitutional” might be a basis for suspending the law until a final determination could be made. In which case “likely” is “good enough for now.” It gets the job done for now.
But the article provides no context. Even a judge who KNOWS that a law is SLAM DUNK unconstitional is not going to go any further than “likely” when that is all that is needed to suspend it pending further legal action.
Of course we have no way of knowing if that is what was happening based on this article.
The article is just clear enough to stall for time, giving the Lefty respondents a heads up and time to gather their strike forces.
...”..the right to bear arms...shall NOT be infringed...”
“... then likely unconstitutional might be a basis for suspending the law until a final determination could be made. In which case likely is good enough for now. It gets the job done for now.”
Thanks for the explanation and detail. Well, it would be nice to see the anti-Constitution radicals of California’s system suffer a setback to their anti-gun agenda. Hopefully it will go to the courts. May be moot if the honest judges can be found in this state that will uphold the law, instead of changing it from the bench.
Non the less, it's good to see some in the legal industry still try.
In the Reynolds case, the 9th Circuit held that a California man could NOT be guilty of violating the federal ban on possession of an unlicensed machine gun, because the machine gun in question had been made (homemade even) in California, and never left Reynolds' house.
SCOTUS ordered the 9th Circuit to reverse its decision, using the Raich (pot) case as rationale. Anything and everything has a connection to interstate commerce, even if the thing is entirely homemade.
At any rate, California has no monopoly on loony judges. When it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, the federal courts are totally corrupt.
Likely? He’s a federal judge — is it or is it not unconstitutional? — Guess he needs to think about it some more.
If that’s the only purpose, I’d be okay with a “close your eyes and count to ten” waiting period, but not much more.
The 9th circuit took a limited view of interstate commerce? Interesting.
US v. Stewart, 9th Circuit, 2003.
Based on the four-factor Morrison test, section 922(o) cannot be viewed as having a substantial effect on interstate commerce. We therefore conclude that section 922(o) is unconstitutional as applied to Stewart.
As said before, SCOTUS was offended by this, and ordered the 9th Circuit to find 922(o) constitutional as applied to an article that was fabricated in one's own house, and never left that house, and was never offered (e.g., for sale) outside that house.
On the other hand, at least this did give enough info to get some intel using the google. There’s a good discussion over at Volokh’s:
That is going be tough for the AG to do.
The judge points out that she has already admitted that the law burdens the 2A. Under any new level of scrutiny applied she is going to have to find some study which shows that 10 days has been studied by the state and found to be better than either 9 days or 11 days. Since the legislature pulled the 10 days out of the air, the backup data doesn't exist.
And since other states in the 9th circuit get by with no waiting period, and there have not been bloodbaths as a result, she may have to show why CA is extra special different than Oregon.