Five Gun Rights Cases to Watch in CA

[mhendo]

Sure, but that begs the question: how do you define what it means “to inconvenience people…just for the sake of inconveniencing them”? After all, those who want these laws argue that they serve a purpose beyond mere inconvenience. While you might disagree with RNATB’s example, offered earlier in the thread, the fact is that some people believe that there are good reasons to require the waiting period even for those who already own guns.

I’m not arguing for or against the waiting period. I’m simply pointing out that other products in our society come with restrictions, and that just because you feel there is no good reason for the waiting period doesn’t mean that everyone else agrees with you.

[Bone]

@mhendo

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 prescription is meant to satisfy the requirement that the drug being purchased has been prescribed. It is inconvenient but as long as we prohibit certain controlled substances the prescription serves that purpose.

This is not really the best analogy - it would be more apt if after the prescription is presented and the medication is purchased, the person would have to wait an additional amount of time and return to pick up their meds. The rationale would be that this helps prevent impulse overdose of prescription medication and would reduce incidents of suicide or poisoning. Even though they already have quantities of said medication on hand.

That’s a tortured analogy that I don’t think is very good. There’s also the issue of an enumerated constitutional right, but hey we work with what we have.

[Cheesesteak]

@Scumpup

Okay, it’s a cooling off period. What evidence is there that having the cooling off period reduces criminal use of guns enough to be worth inconveniencing the purchasers who are not putting them to criminal use? Is there evidence that it has any effect at all?

This is a fair question. It’s similar to my questions regarding Voter ID. You want to inconvenience someone in the legal exercise of their rights, you should have conducted a study prior to proposing the law. A study to identify the scope of the problem, and give you a reasonable view into the efficacy of the ‘solution’.

I’d apply an ‘index card’ rule to this type of analysis. If you can take every instance of firearm crimes that used newly bought guns, and list them on a single index card, it’s not worth making a whole new law to protect us from it.

I’m generally in favor of laws to reduce gun violence, but if this cooling off period doesn’t do that, you’re burning political capital on a law that does nothing.

[mhendo]

@Bone

The prescription is meant to satisfy the requirement that the drug being purchased has been prescribed. It is inconvenient but as long as we prohibit certain controlled substances the prescription serves that purpose.

But again, all you’re doing is begging the question in a way that happens to be convenient for your own position on gun control.

Why have controlled substances at all? Leaving aside the explicit wording of the Constitution for the moment, i don’t believe that you have any greater (or lesser) natural right to own a gun than you do to use a drug.

I understand that courts are required to consider the explicit language of the Constitution in making their determinations, but i’m not bound by that in making my own evaluation of what constitutes a natural right, or what constitutes good and bad social policy.

[The_Joker_and_the_Thief]

@mhendo

But again, all you’re doing is begging the question in a way that happens to be convenient for your own position on gun control.

Why have controlled substances at all? Leaving aside the explicit wording of the Constitution for the moment, i don’t believe that you have any greater (or lesser) natural right to own a gun than you do to use a drug.

I understand that courts are required to consider the explicit language of the Constitution in making their determinations, but i’m not bound by that in making my own evaluation of what constitutes a natural right, or what constitutes good and bad social policy.

Well, we have controlled substances because we have collectively decided that there are some things that are beneficial when limited but may be harmful if widely used.

I agree that you probably have an equal natural right to own drugs and guns, but one of the main impetuses for prescription drugs is that they can be addictive or alter moods. Guns are means to an end; they may allow someone to actualize their feelings, but they won’t change what’s in someone’s head. Addictive or mood-altering drugs can distort someone’s beliefs, and that’s why we rightly limit their use. I’m not sure what the rationale is behind limiting non-addictive drugs.

[Bone]

@mhendo

But again, all you’re doing is begging the question in a way that happens to be convenient for your own position on gun control.

Why have controlled substances at all? Leaving aside the explicit wording of the Constitution for the moment, i don’t believe that you have any greater (or lesser) natural right to own a gun than you do to use a drug.

What question is being begged - I’m not clear here.

This aspect of the thread is specifcally about a particular court case so there is some basis to look to the law as it stands. FTR I don’t think we should have any controlled substances. The law is not on my side, unfortunately.

[mhendo]

@Bone

What question is being begged - I’m not clear here.

Precisely what i said: Why have controlled substances at all?

We have controlled substances for particular reasons that have been articulated and decided upon by society, through its representatives, as suggested by The Joker and the Thief. But that doesn’t mean that there is any greater inherent logic to controlling drugs than there is to controlling guns.

@Bone

This aspect of the thread is specifcally about a particular court case so there is some basis to look to the law as it stands. FTR I don’t think we should have any controlled substances. The law is not on my side, unfortunately.

I appreciate that, because we are talking about specific cases, there is a basis to look at the law as it stands. I think you did an admirable job of outlining the different cases in the OP. Remember, though, that my original contribution to this thread was in response to a more general point about what is and is not acceptable social policy:

@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?

Personally, i have no real problem with the fact that some drugs require a prescription, although i find that somewhat hard to square with my belief that recreational drugs should be legal. Anyway, my point here was not to agree or disagree with waiting periods; it was simply to note that there are products other than guns where society has made an active decision to place restrictions on sale and use.

I understand that, legally, firearms enjoy a special status because they are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. But for me, as a matter of general principle, there is no less logic in placing restrictions on firearms than on any other product, and there may be more logic precisely because, unlike most other products, firearms are specifically designed to kill people (and animals, etc.) other than the operator.

As i’ve said on this board numerous times, i’ve moderated my position on gun restrictions considerably in the last 15 years. When i came to live in the US, i was aghast at the number of people with guns, and supported a system where gun ownership would be severely restricted like it is in my home country of Australia. Since then, i’ve changed my views for what i consider principled and pragmatic reasons, although i still support more regulation than some second amendment advocates would probably be happy with, especially regarding registration of weapons.

Whatever i think personally about gun ownership, i do agree with second amendment advocates that some gun regulation laws in the United states really can’t stand up to legal scrutiny. I’ll be interested to see what happens in the cases mentioned in the OP.

[Magiver]

@mhendo

Sure, but that begs the question: how do you define what it means “to inconvenience people…just for the sake of inconveniencing them”? After all, those who want these laws argue that they serve a purpose beyond mere inconvenience. While you might disagree with RNATB’s example, offered earlier in the thread, the fact is that some people believe that there are good reasons to require the waiting period even for those who already own guns.

I’m not arguing for or against the waiting period. I’m simply pointing out that other products in our society come with restrictions, and that just because you feel there is no good reason for the waiting period doesn’t mean that everyone else agrees with you.

Not really interested in someone else’s opinion of my purchases. There’s no legal basis for the restriction.

[mhendo]

@Magiver

Not really interested in someone else’s opinion of my purchases. There’s no legal basis for the restriction.

Gold star for missing the point.

[BigT]

@Bricker

Really?

The New York Times has already been permitted to print hundreds of thousands of pages. Let’s shut them down.

Printing multiple pages is nowhere near the same thing as owning multiple guns. The analogy would be to shooting 100 bullets. Or to complete it the other way, an individual with 100 printing presses.

It would be hard to argue that your freedom of speech was being limited when you can publish 100 different papers at once, and can still get more if you want. That’s the analogy with the guns. You’ve got 100, and you can get more if you want. The fact you have so many is a pretty good indicator you aren’t being restricted.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@BigT

Printing multiple pages is nowhere near the same thing as owning multiple guns. The analogy would be to shooting 100 bullets. Or to complete it the other way, an individual with 100 printing presses.

It would be hard to argue that your freedom of speech was being limited when you can publish 100 different papers at once, and can still get more if you want. That’s the analogy with the guns. You’ve got 100, and you can get more if you want. The fact you have so many is a pretty good indicator you aren’t being restricted.

I don’t see why it matters. That you have successfully exercised your rights 100 times before doesn’t mean that you can’t be restricted in exercising them the 101st time, nor does it mean that 101st time isn’t a restriction. The guy owning 100 guns who can’t get number 101 isn’t in the same boat as the guy with none who can’t own one, but he’s still restricted in his ownership.

[Bone]

Regarding case #5. The Brady Campaign today, and AG Harris later, filed papers requesting en banc review of the decision earlier this month to deny their motion to intervene.

No update on the timing of when the 9th will decide whether to review their decision to allow another party to intervene on a previous decision they made that was declined to seek review. This is a lot of effort to deny people their civil rights.

[Magiver]

@mhendo

Gold star for missing the point.

try making one in the first place next time instead of playing the “define a word” game.

This isn’t new legal territory. The laws in question were written to obfuscate the purchase of a gun and serve no real purpose.

[mhendo]

@Magiver

try making one in the first place next time instead of playing the “define a word” game.

This isn’t new legal territory. The laws in question were written to obfuscate the purchase of a gun and serve no real purpose.

Another gold star for missing the point.

If you don’t want to engage in the substance of the conversation i was having with someone else, that’s completely fine. But if you butt into that conversation with an irrelevant observation that completely and willfully ignores the substance of that conversation, you can expect to be dismissed out of hand.

[Magiver]

@mhendo

Another gold star for missing the point.

If you don’t want to engage in the substance of the conversation i was having with someone else, that’s completely fine. But if you butt into that conversation with an irrelevant observation that completely and willfully ignores the substance of that conversation, you can expect to be dismissed out of hand.

You again start a response with a gold star snark. You couldn’t get farther away from substance if that was your singular goal in life.

You made a statement about wanting to define the word “inconvenience”. One would presume you had some reference point that you wished to use a a legal gauge. I can’t think of any offhand that applies to the subject because states have demonstrated that period to be virtually instantaneous. Background checks are done over the phone during normal business hours in my state. That’s a fairly easy metric to apply. Anything less than that is an inconvenience.

[Scumpup]

@mhendo

Another gold star for missing the point.

If you don’t want to engage in the substance of the conversation i was having with someone else, that’s completely fine. But if you butt into that conversation with an irrelevant observation that completely and willfully ignores the substance of that conversation, you can expect to be dismissed out of hand.

Nah, Magiver has your number on this.

[mhendo]

@Magiver

You again start a response with a gold star snark. You couldn’t get farther away from substance if that was your singular goal in life.

You made a statement about wanting to define the word “inconvenience”. One would presume you had some reference point that you wished to use a a legal gauge. I can’t think of any offhand that applies to the subject because states have demonstrated that period to be virtually instantaneous. Background checks are done over the phone during normal business hours in my state. That’s a fairly easy metric to apply. Anything less than that is an inconvenience.

Missed it again. There must be some special award for a third gold star.

Please find me the place where i said that waiting periods do not constitute an inconvenience. I’ll wait here while you go and look. For the purpose of this discussion, in fact, i’m perfectly willing to concede that making people wait causes an inconvenience. Nor have i even made an argument against gun rights in this thread. In fact, i’ve already explicitly said, in an earlier post:

@mhendo

I’m not arguing for or against the waiting period. I’m simply pointing out that other products in our society come with restrictions, and that just because you feel there is no good reason for the waiting period doesn’t mean that everyone else agrees with you.

My whole point, which you’ve failed spectacularly to grasp, is simply that there are other products in society, the purchase or possession of which involves some inconvenience. People can disagree about whether the inconvenience is justified, and different people will undoubtedly come to different conclusions, but that doesn’t means that firearms are alone in being regulated in ways that inconvenience those who want to purchase them.

Since you seem determined to bitch and moan based on your political perceptions rather than based on rationality and logic, let me throw you a bone: I tend to believe that if background checks can be done quickly over the phone, there is no good justification for delaying them just to make someone wait. And making people wait longer IS, in fact, and inconvenience, something that i have never once denied in this thread, despite your irrelevant bleating on the subject.

Edit:

While the topic of inconvenience was originally brought up by someone else, i realize that pursuing it has led to something of a hijack. Apologies to the OP. I’ll leave it alone now, and let Magiver splutter away by himself on the subject.

[Magiver]

@mhendo

Missed it again. There must be some special award for a third gold star.

Please find me the place where i said that waiting periods do not constitute an inconvenience. I’ll wait here while you go and look. For the purpose of this discussion, in fact, i’m perfectly willing to concede that making people wait causes an inconvenience. Nor have i even made an argument against gun rights in this thread. In fact, i’ve already explicitly said, in an earlier post:My whole point, which you’ve failed spectacularly to grasp, is simply that there are other products in society, the purchase or possession of which involves some inconvenience. People can disagree about whether the inconvenience is justified, and different people will undoubtedly come to different conclusions, but that doesn’t means that firearms are alone in being regulated in ways that inconvenience those who want to purchase them.

Since you seem determined to bitch and moan based on your political perceptions rather than based on rationality and logic, let me throw you a bone: I tend to believe that if background checks can be done quickly over the phone, there is no good justification for delaying them just to make someone wait. And making people wait longer IS, in fact, and inconvenience, something that i have never once denied in this thread, despite your irrelevant bleating on the subject.

Edit:

While the topic of inconvenience was originally brought up by someone else, i realize that pursuing it has led to something of a hijack. Apologies to the OP. I’ll leave it alone now, and let Magiver splutter away by himself on the subject.

Seriously with the “gold star” nonsense?

“inconvenience” is not a hijack. It’s front and center in the ops post about unnecessary hoops to jump through to make a purchase. I already posted what my state does. We have no trouble verifying eligibility in real time. California may be able to slow a CCW license down slightly with paperwork but again I’ll point out that in my state it’s a simple procedure. You go through a class based on established standards and submit the paperwork. I got mine approved in 24 hrs after submitting it which makes it a 3 day process. My state coordinated it through the sheriff’s department and all the counties got together to standardize the process. It’s not rocket science. At some point California will have to make a case as to why they can’t duplicate the process of other states which will eventually force them to remove unnecessary delays.

[Bone]

@Magiver

California may be able to slow a CCW license down slightly with paperwork but again I’ll point out that in my state it’s a simple procedure.

Just to clarify - this isn’t a delay to get a CCW. This is a delay to purchase a firearm, either via dealer sale or PPT. Most of the population in CA (~30M) live in counties where it is virutally impossible to get a CCW. I submitted my application after Peruta was decided and it was mailed back to me unprocessed.

That is case #5 on the list.

[Magiver]

@Bone

Just to clarify - this isn’t a delay to get a CCW. This is a delay to purchase a firearm, either via dealer sale or PPT. Most of the population in CA (~30M) live in counties where it is virutally impossible to get a CCW. I submitted my application after Peruta was decided and it was mailed back to me unprocessed.

That is case #5 on the list.

I’m sorry but I actually started laughing at that. That is one messed up state. 24 hr turn on my CCW license. And I could pick it up any time day or night.