Hat tip to the Volokh Conspiracy for the pointer:
Basically, the court is evaluating the restriction under intermediate scrutiny, and pointing out that the ten-day “cooling off” period might make sense to apply to a first-time buyer, it makes little sense when the purchaser already owns firearms.
Well done, Judge Ishii!
(By the way, Judge Ishii is a Clinton appointee, in case anyone’s wondering).
Nice. That’s the CGF and SAF doing good work. Note that the opinion misidentifies the CGF as the Cal Guns Federation. It’s actually the Cal Guns Foundation. I’m sure this win will yield more donations 
This is one of the many many California gun laws that makes no sense whatsoever, unless the purpose was to make the process of purchasing firearms harder. 1 down, many many more to go. (I assume CA will appeal, but who knows). It’d be nice if they do so that it can be applied to the whole 9th district.
Maybe we can eliminate the 24 hr waiting period for abortions if the woman has already had one.
Does the holding only apply to people who currently own registered firearms, or does it also apply to some other groups of people who may or may not own them?
Is the sole legitimate purpose of the law a “cooling off” period to avoid violent crime, or is there some other reason for the delay (such as to lower the expense of background checks, etc.)?
Also: California opinion-formatting is terrible. Most of the country manages without the line numbering, and without the arbitrary organization needlessly laying out the parties contentions separately from addressing them. Get it together, California.
Unusually snarky for you.
And of course it goes without saying – or would anywhere else – that the analogy doesn’t quite work. The state defended its restriction by speculating that someone inflamed by some sort of passion would have ten days to calm down – but of course if he already owned a gun, then he has the means to start shooting anyway.
Even if a woman has had an abortion, however, she may benefit from deciding not to have this abortion, since this is a new life-that-will-become-a-human.
So do you agree with a “cooling off period” for people who don’t have guns yet?
The ruling applies to:
[ul]
[li]People who already lawfully possess a firearm [/li][li]People who have a valid CCW license[/li][li]People who both a valid COE and a firearm as confirmed by the AFS system, if the background check on these individuals is completed and approved prior to the expiration of 10 days[/li][/ul]
The pleadings have the CA AG saying that the law reduces spur-of-the-moment crime and allows background checks to be completed, but she admitted that background checks don’t actually take ten days. She did not say anything about costs.
To be fair, that’s only the Eastern District – maybe their state courts are fine.
Me? Or the opinion?
The plaintiffs in the case did not challenge the cooling off period for first-time buyers, so the court did not consider the issue directly, and the court’s reasoning emphatically does not apply to first-time buyers.
So the opinion is pretty clear that cooling off periods are permissible.
My personal view Is that a right is a right, and I would not vote for a cooling off period law as a legislator. But if I were a judge, and enough people had already voted for it so that it was law, I’d uphold it.
ca is retarded with their anti-gun laws anyway. there is much cold-blooded and ridiculous shootings and beatingsdone by gangs and scum in general against regular people who for one reason or another due to a CA gun restriction measure (for example, someone temporarily 5150 due to death in family, old non-violent felony, or whatever) who can’t legally obtain a firearm, but unwilling to illegally acquire one for a myriad of reasons.
these people are victimized or killed on a daily basis due to ignorant and mentally retarded CA lawmkers and whoever else responsible for this BS.
Hmm. Seems to me that even the “cooling off” rationale applies to those with a CCW license but who lack a firearm.
Also, skimming the opinion, it looks like the judge discarded some other rationales for the law that seem a little more defensible than the judge gave them credit for.
The judge says that a 10-day period for completing a background check is too high a burden for this level of scrutiny because although additional disqualifying information may be discovered within 10 days, that is true for any time period. That’s true, but legislatures are nevertheless permitted to draw such lines in intermediate scrutiny.
It seems to me that the judge also gave short shrift to the “different kinds of guns for different purposes argument” and to the straw purchases issue, incorrectly concluding that if that single purpose would make the 10-day window overbroad in an of itself then that purpose could be discarded in analyzing the overall sufficiency of the state’s interest.
So, anyway, a few judicial errors there. Should be interesting to see what happens on appeal.
Objection! The counselor’s conclusion is spurious.
[quote=“Bricker, post:7, topic:696479”]
The ruling applies to:
[ul]
[li]People who already lawfully possess a firearm[/ul][/li][/quote]
So which is it? Does the ruling apply to people who own a gun or who already possess a gun? They are not the same thing.
The background check takes about 1 minute. The rest of the 10 days are for…bullshit.
At least his makes PPT easier. Currently because even PPT in CA are subject to background check and the 10 days, buyers have to make the trip to the FFL twice. The first time to complete the purchase, and the second time to pick up the item. Which was always bullshit if you own a bunch of guns already. You know on the spot if you pass the background check.
Not according to the Court. It said:
Hmm, learned something new. In all the cases of my firearm purchases, the approval took less time than it took me to chat up the seller.
I wonder why it takes so damn long.
I expect if this holds up on appeal it will be a piece to support challenging the waiting period all together.
It was meant to be a joke, although I expected someone would come in and make that argument seriously.
I think the analogy works better than you give credit for. The woman who has already had an abortion not only has thought of it in the past but has lived with the consequences of her decision. She knows better than anyone who has not had an abortion, regardless of the wait time imposed on them, how it will affect her.
… but I didn’t except someone to do so that quickly.
(post shortened)
“Does the ruling apply to people who own a gun or who already possess a gun?” In the context of your sentence, what is the difference between “owning” a gun and “possessing” a gun?
Based on the rationale in this opinion, it’s hard to see how the limit of one handgun purchase per 30 day period can be upheld. I suspect that will be litigated shortly. I’m sure the SAF and CGF are glad to collect attorney fees.
I’m not seriously advancing the argument. I just think Bricker’s idea that a woman who has already had an abortion should be given 24 hours as she might change her mind is very close to the idea that someone who is already a gun owner should be given a waiting period because the gun they own might not be the one they want to go on a spree with. But that is about abortion and not gun rights so I’m dropping the hijack.
Back on topic, I agree that anyone who already owns a gun should be able to purchase another without a waiting period although I’m not so sure how I feel about having a CCW being able to skip the wait if they don’t already have a gun. CCW holders are people to and, if there is any benefit to having a cooling off period, they should eiher be held to the same requirements or get rid of the waiting period altogether if there is no benefit.