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
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?
Prescription drugs.
There is a ‘cooling off period’ for the purchase of prescription phamaceuticals?
Stranger
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?
Thank you for the clarification.
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.
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
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.
Today the district court in #1 above (Silvester v. Harris) rejected the AG’s motion 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:
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:
Harris has said they will appeal to the 9th circuit.
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.
“A waiting period? But I’m mad now!” - Homer Simpson
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!
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?
The question, though, wasn’t simply what other products have inconvenience associated with their purchase. The question was