# Five Gun Rights Cases to Watch in CA **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 19, 2014, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089 "2014-11-19T17:08:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2014, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/21 "2014-11-19T19:59:30Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’m okay with it for any product I don’t intend to buy. I am, of course, passionately against it for products I do intend to buy. > > Either way, it seems silly to make a federal case out of it. I think so too. The state has already lost. The AG could let it go and not appeal. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/22 "2014-11-20T02:27:20Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I think so too. The state has already lost. The AG could let it go and not appeal. Well, except it would be political suicide to not oppose it, hopeless or not. Which, if we look objectively at near all gun control proposals and laws, is really the point. Very few proposals for gun control are in any way effective at controlling crime, and the vast majority exist because it is a relatively easy way for politicians to point out something that they’ve “done” to fight crime, as opposed to the much more difficult and nebulous efforts to actually, you know, deal with the root causes of most criminal activities, e.g. socioeconomic inequality, broad criminalization of a wide spectrum of controlled substances, effective identification and treatment of mental illness, the normalization of violence in popular media, et cetera. I would be in favor of any legitimate efforts at gun control that were egalitarian and non-discresionary, did not unduly penalize the indigent, do not place arbitrary and cosmetic restrictions on firearms, and were otherwise intended to prevent the inappropriate possession and use of firearms, e.g. by convicted felons, mentally ill, unsupervised minors, et cetera. Background checks, reasonable training or certification requirements (with training made available to all free or at nominal cost), et cetera are all fine. But purely arbitrary restrictions are just a way for politicians to claim to have done “something” while doing absolutely nothing useful at all, and not only creating an inconvenience but a precedent for further erosion of Constitutionally recognized rights. Like “free speech zones” at public events, attempts to restrict encryption technology, and so forth, passing arbitrary and capricious laws and regulations regarding firearms ownership does nothing more than create would-be criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens while doing nothing about actual crime. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/23 "2014-11-20T02:33:42Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Do you actually have a problem with the 10 day waiting period, **Bone**? Why? > [@Bone](#): > > As it is applied in CA, I do have a problem with it. Now, this does leave the impression that there are other places that have 10 day waiting periods that you do not object to, otherwise you would not have added the “as it is applied in CA” caveat. Could you give an example or two of places that have 10 day waiting periods that you approve of, and why? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/24 "2014-11-20T05:21:32Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Now, this does leave the impression that there are other places that have 10 day waiting periods that you do not object to, otherwise you would not have added the “as it is applied in CA” caveat. Could you give an example or two of places that have 10 day waiting periods that you approve of, and why? My use of the appositive in that phrasing was meant to clarify that I was specfically adressing the CA scheme in question - not making a comment on the general efficacy of a waiting period in general. It should not be inferred that I am accepting of the 10 day waiting period in the general sense. For dealer sales to folks who do not already possess a firearm, I am okay with the background check requirement and to the extent that the process takes some reasonable amount of time with an upper limit of or around 10 days. Do you care to comment on the merits of any of the cases presented? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/25 "2014-11-20T07:32:23Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Is it okay to inconvenience people who want to buy guns just for the sake of inconveniencing them? For what other legal products would you consider it okay? Prescription drugs. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/26 "2014-11-20T16:09:41Z")
There is a ‘cooling off period’ for the purchase of prescription phamaceuticals? Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/27 "2014-11-20T16:11:26Z")
I’m not understanding that, either. It’s okay to inconvenience people who want a prescription filled just for the sake of inconveniencing them? Why is that? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/28 "2014-11-20T16:22:54Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > My use of the appositive in that phrasing was meant to clarify that I was specfically adressing the CA scheme in question - not making a comment on the general efficacy of a waiting period in general. It should not be inferred that I am accepting of the 10 day waiting period in the general sense. > > For dealer sales to folks who do not already possess a firearm, I am okay with the background check requirement and to the extent that the process takes some reasonable amount of time with an upper limit of or around 10 days. Thank you for the clarification. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/29 "2014-11-20T16:36:20Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > If you already own a hundred guns, it seems hard to argue that your second amendment rights have been infringed in any serious way. Really? The New York Times has already been permitted to print hundreds of thousands of pages. Let’s shut them down. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/30 "2014-11-20T17:45:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Really? > > The New York Times has already been permitted to print hundreds of thousands of pages. Let’s shut them down. Don’t be ridiculous. All that is being suggested is that we make them wait 10 day before they can print another paper. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/31 "2014-11-20T20:10:35Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Don’t be ridiculous. All that is being suggested is that we make them wait 10 day before they can print another paper. Well, to be fair we need to do a background check on the publishers, editors, and writers, to be sure they will not misuse their rights under the Constitution. Similarly, we don’t impose a waiting period before a woman can have an abortion, provided it is her second. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/32 "2014-11-21T00:27:56Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Don’t be ridiculous. All that is being suggested is that we make them wait 10 day before they can print another paper. Have you seen modern printing “presses?” Those are _fully-automatic_ printing machines, and as such, we need the text of each page, before it is actually printed, to be sent to the BATF for approval, with a $200 tax per page. The BATF will then approve/deny the printing of each page, and issue a tax-stamp for same, that must be kept on file by the printer, and presented on-demand to a BATF auditor who has the unlimited right-of-inspection, 24/7/365. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/33 "2014-11-21T00:34:50Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > Have you seen modern printing “presses?” Those are _fully-automatic_ printing machines, and as such, we need the text of each page, before it is actually printed, to be sent to the BATF for approval, with a $200 tax per page. > > The BATF will then approve/deny the printing of each page, and issue a tax-stamp for same, that must be kept on file by the printer, and presented on-demand to a BATF auditor who has the unlimited right-of-inspection, 24/7/365. I think we need to limit the number of letters allowed in a given printing press at any one time. Ten should be enough. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/34 "2014-11-21T01:05:22Z")
Today the [district court in #1 above (Silvester v. Harris) rejected the AG’s motion](http://ia700803.us.archive.org/13/items/gov.uscourts.caed.233362/gov.uscourts.caed.233362.123.0.pdf) to modify the court order. Harris had moved for a modification of the original August court order – which gave the state Department of Justice six months to take whatever steps were necessary to bring the agency’s policies in line with civil rights standards – to allow it a year to comply with the ruling, and also to delay the court’s enforcement of the order entirely until the appeals process had concluded. Both motions were denied. From the ruling: > [@](#): > > The Court notes that Defendant has not identified any error of law or any erroneous factual finding. The Court stands by its analysis and its findings that the waiting period laws violate the Second Amendment as applied to three classes of individuals. In discussing the AG’s argument that it would take time and money to implement the changes that were ordered, the court had this to say: > [@](#): > > A bench trial has concluded, and a law that is actively being enforced has been found to be unconstitutional. The Court does not know how Defendant or the BOF prioritizes projects, but dealing with an unconstitutional law should be towards the top of the list. Harris has said they will appeal to the 9th circuit. > [@](#): > > The Court is not unsympathetic to the changes that BOF is required to make in order to > follow the Court‟s injunction. That was the primary reason why the Court stayed its order for 180 > days.13 > The Court also understands that technological changes can take time. If additional > information shows that outside vendors are necessary, and that they require additional time, and > assuming that Defendant exercises due diligence in attempting to follow the Court‟s injunction, > the Court will likely grant requests for additional time for Defendant to comply. For now, the > Court‟s order remains stayed for a total of 180 days, and Defendant has time to request a stay > pending appeal from the Ninth Circuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(g); Fed. R. App. P. 8(a) ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/35 "2014-11-21T07:00:14Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I think you might be missing the point. It’s a cooling off period, yes? Not a delay for background checking. And if a woman needs to defend herself against a stalker, I don’t think she should have to wait for a “cooling off period” – it’s not she who needs to cool off. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/36 "2014-11-21T17:50:18Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Do you actually have a problem with the 10 day waiting period, **Bone**? Why? “A waiting period? But I’m mad now!” - Homer Simpson ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2014, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/37 "2014-11-23T02:57:34Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think we need to limit the number of letters allowed in a given printing press at any one time. Ten should be enough. Obviously, nobody needs more than ten letters. If they do, they need to go back to journalism school. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/38 "2014-11-24T17:05:12Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Obviously, nobody needs more than ten letters. If they do, they need to go back to journalism school. And why do people need newspapers anyway? If they need the news, they can just call the government for all the revelant info they need; there’s no need for privately owned sources of information. Privately owned newspapers with large mechanized printing presses should be banned, as the constitution’s framers had no idea what the world would look like 200 years in the future. And don’t even get me started on this whole internet thing, with blogs and stuff! ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/39 "2014-11-24T18:26:29Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > There is a ‘cooling off period’ for the purchase of prescription phamaceuticals? > > Stranger No, but it seems to me that you’re missing the analogy. The very requirement for a prescription is, by itself, an inconvenience. Why can’t i just walk into a pharmacy and get my painkillers or my cancer medicine or my cock-hardening pills off the shelf? ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089/40 "2014-11-24T18:44:33Z")
The question, though, wasn’t simply what other products have inconvenience associated with their purchase. The question was > [@](#): > > Is it okay to inconvenience people who want to buy guns just for the sake of inconveniencing them? For what other legal products would you consider it okay? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch-in-ca/705089.md?page=3)