I’ve been saying this for years. Why on Earth should someone who already owns a gun have to wait to buy another one. If they were intending to run out and kill someone, they could just use the one they already own! :smack: D’UH!!
What adds to the ridiculousness of it, is most states that have waiting periods, only have them on handguns. But you can cash & carry a rifle or shotgun. As if they’re not useful in committing a murder. :rolleyes:
I’m glade to see at least some of you are aware of the folly of gun laws that were written by people that not only know nothing about guns, they know nothing about how to combat crime.
I’m not sure a 10 day period has any huge utility nor hardship, besides annoyance. Just a small chip out of California’s incredibly byzantine and arbitrary laws.
[quote=“Bricker, post:7, topic:696479”]
[li]People who already lawfully possess a firearm[/li][/QUOTE]
I assume this is “lawfully possess a California-purchased firearm”? Had to go through NICS or CA-equivalent process? Does it apply to CA C&R purchases?
Certificate of Eligibility I see from google, but someone else would be better at explaining it more concisely.
I see from the link that de facto C&R applies, as you need 10 days or COE.
I’m curious (but admittedly not enough enough to read the decision) - the OP seems to be dividing people into two groups: first time buyers and people who already own guns. Obviously there are people who are in neither group.
Suppose I bought a gun in 2000 and sold it in 2005. But now I’ve decided to buy another gun. Am I classified as somebody who’s gone through the process and doesn’t need to do it again? Or does my current status as a current non-owner require me to go through the same process as somebody who’s never owned a gun?
In practice, handguns are used far more commonly to commit homicide than long guns. They are more easily concealed and more easily used at short range or in close quarters. The statistics bear this out:
For example: In Minnesota in 2010, 43 out of 51 of the homicides committed with a firearm were committed by handguns (6 by shotguns, 2 by rifles). The proportion committed by handguns rose from 1985-1997, peaking in 1995 with over 90% of firearms-related homicides being carried out by a handgun.
That’s why I think the court did not consider well enough the distinction for different types of guns. It’s one thing to say someone who owns a .30-.30 should be allowed to get a .30-.06 without a waiting period, but quite another to say that someone with their Little Tykes .22 “my first rifle” should be allowed to go get a Glock without a waiting period. I could very well imagine someone getting mad, and going to buy a handgun to kill someone, even if they already have a shotgun, or whatever, which, to me, puts them in close to the same boat as first-time gun buyers (I won’t say what I think about waiting periods in general, or for first-time buyers, but I think the blanket distinction owns no guns vs. already owns a gun of any type is not that huge in some cases)
Are you serious? I own a Caddilac, but I don’t have it at my house right now; it’s at a friend’s place until I can create enough room in the garage for it. I own a ladder that is also not in my possession, as it is at another friend’s house so he can paint. Owning and possessing aren’t the same thing.
If all we (the State) care about is that they own the gun, someone could live in San Diego, where they have a collection of guns. They could travel 500 miles north to San Francisco without their guns, get in a dispute and purchase a new gun to kill someone with. Without that “cooling off” period, they could have the gun immediately. Yet here was a situation where the person was not in possession of the gun he already owned, and thus could not commit the act he wanted to (shooting someone) because the guns he owned were not in his possession.
By that logic the guy couldn’t buy a gun if he was ten miles from home. After all, he doesn’t have a gun in his possession because he’s left them at home.
I dunno. My oldest wants a CCW license just to have one. Yeah, I know all that–and to think she’s the smart one. :rolleyes: I did talk her into the Beretta Model 71 as the perfect purse gun–if it’s good enough for the Mossad it’s good enough for my baby girl–and told her she would need LOTS of range time so she could make a .22 effective.
Good thing she doesn’t have any money.
As for the waiting period for current owners, it’s kinda silly, but how can they tell if Suzy Q Public owns any guns? Aren’t gun purchases expunged after a short time? Does she still qualify for that gun license she’s carrying, or is there a felony or insanity finding lurking in her recent past? As a person who should not be sold a gun but can probably buy one legally, I’m concerned there are others like me who are less self-aware.
And if the person lived in Santa Monica and worked in Culver City[sup]*[/sup], he could be stymied by traffic on I-10 and Venice Blvd. So if he got mad at someone at work, maybe he would go across the street to buy a gun instead of going home to get his. Oh noes! He must be stopped! Mad killer!
Seven miles apart, for anyone unfamiliar with the area.
I accept this as an admission that all guns are exactly the same, and that therefore nobody needs to own a handgun if they already have a rifle. Or any two guns, for that matter.
I am curious as to when you came around to this pro-gun control position, though.
That’s a silly little argument. Different guns have different utility even if they can all likely kill someone. Even ignoring that, Americans are guaranteed the RIGHT to bear arms, so there is no need to justify a need for more than one gun.
But since you clearly consider all guns the same, i guess you don’t think full auto assault rifles need special rules. When did you come to this pro-gun position?
ETA: I don’t think full auto assault rifles need special rules. There is nothing in the text or the history of the Second Amendment that allows the type of distinction that SCOTUS has drawn between categories of firearms.
Seems like a reasonable decision, taking reality into account and all.
If the abortion aspect has any relevance (and I’ll be happy to discuss it in a thread specifically for it rather than here), it’s in wondering why adults have to be made to wait some arbitrary period to engage in a legal activity, presumably in the hope that they’ll reconsider. It’s patronizing and intrusive.