10-Day Waiting Period For Gun Purchases Upheld By Federal Appeals Court

[rangerrebew]

10-Day Waiting Period For Gun Purchases Upheld By Federal Appeals Court
Photo of Kevin Daley
Kevin Daley
Legal Affairs Reporter
9:24 AM 12/15/2016


The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a California state law requiring a 10-day waiting period for the purchase of all firearms.

Judge Mary Schroeder, a President Jimmy Carter appointee, wrote the opinion for the three judge-panel. Chief Judge Sidney Thomas wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment.


Completing this poll entitles you to Daily Caller news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
The challenge to the California law was brought by a coalition of pro-Second Amendment groups who claim it infringes a constitutional right.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/15/10-day-waiting-period-for-gun-purchases-upheld-by-federal-appeals-court/#ixzz4T0V6bp2m

[Mom MD]

The 9th circus   Who would have guessed   Hopefully to be smacked down by SCOTUS again

[Jazzhead]

What's the purpose of the waiting period?  To discourage the purchase of firearms by persons contemplating suicide,  or seeking a gun in anger in order to settle an argument?    I've seen such "cooling off" periods proposed with respect to abortions as well,  to give a women a chance to contemplate just what she's doing.

Not sure if it's sound policy in either case,  but it doesn't strike me as unconstitutional.  To be unconstitutional,  the waiting period would need to be so intrusive that it effectively takes the right (to a gun, to an abortion) away.     

[andy58-in-nh]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

A waiting period, besides having no demonstrable value, is nothing if not an "infringement". The Bill of Rights, of which the 2nd Amendment is a part, has long been held to apply to the states under the incorporation doctrine as applied to the 14th Amendment.

[Bigun]

The 9th circus   Who would have guessed   Hopefully to be smacked down by SCOTUS again

Getting slapped down by SCOTUS seems to be the primary objective of that court!  Congress has the power to fix all that but won't!

[GtHawk]

What's the purpose of the waiting period?  To discourage the purchase of firearms by persons contemplating suicide,  or seeking a gun in anger in order to settle an argument?    I've seen such "cooling off" periods proposed with respect to abortions as well,  to give a women a chance to contemplate just what she's doing.

Not sure if it's sound policy in either case,  but it doesn't strike me as unconstitutional.  To be unconstitutional,  the waiting period would need to be so intrusive that it effectively takes the right (to a gun, to an abortion) away.     

In California the only purpose is to restrict the people exercising their Constitutional rights as much as possible, at least we can still own guns.

[Jazzhead]

A waiting period, besides having no demonstrable value, is nothing if not an "infringement".

Well, that's why I asked the question.  What's the purpose of the waiting period?   Is it to provide a cooling off period, similar to what is occasionally proposed for abortions?   A gun purchased on impulse by a emotional wreck determined to commit suicide is a deadly weapon.   Why do you say it has no demonstrable value?    As for your narrow reading of infringement,  I don't think is it supported by the case law.  There are a variety of gun regulations and restrictions that are perfectly Constitutional.  What the government can't do, as set forth in Heller,  is impose a restriction or limitation that takes away the essential right.  That's the plain meaning of "infringe" (as per Websters, to "defeat or invalidate").   

In ten days you'll get your gun.  In ten days you'll have your abortion.   If such a law isn't efficacious, it isn't worthy of support, on the merits.  But, arguendo, neither strikes me as an unconstitutional infringement. 

[txradioguy]

Well, that's why I asked the question.  What's the purpose of the waiting period?   Is it to provide a cooling off period, similar to what is occasionally proposed for abortions?   A gun purchased on impulse by a emotional wreck determined to commit suicide is a deadly weapon.   Why do you say it has no demonstrable value?    As for your narrow reading of infringement,  I don't think is it supported by the case law.  There are a variety of gun regulations and restrictions that are perfectly Constitutional.  What the government can't do, as set forth in Heller,  is impose a restriction or limitation that takes away the essential right.  That's the plain meaning of "infringe" (as per Websters, to "defeat or invalidate").   

In ten days you'll get your gun.  In ten days you'll have your abortion.   If such a law isn't efficacious, it isn't worthy of support, on the merits.  But, arguendo, neither strikes me as unconstitutional.   

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I know I'll be flamed for this, but if California wants to do this, let them. Gun laws should be a states issue IMO.

[SZonian]

Well, that's why I asked the question.  What's the purpose of the waiting period?   Is it to provide a cooling off period, similar to what is occasionally proposed for abortions?   A gun purchased on impulse by a emotional wreck determined to commit suicide is a deadly weapon.   Why do you say it has no demonstrable value?    As for your narrow reading of infringement,  I don't think is it supported by the case law.  There are a variety of gun regulations and restrictions that are perfectly Constitutional.  What the government can't do, as set forth in Heller,  is impose a restriction or limitation that takes away the essential right.  That's the plain meaning of "infringe" (as per Websters, to "defeat or invalidate").   

In ten days you'll get your gun.  In ten days you'll have your abortion.   If such a law isn't efficacious, it isn't worthy of support, on the merits.  But, arguendo, neither strikes me as an unconstitutional infringement.

The 10 day waiting period law, on its face was an end run on gun control by liberals to begin with...created out of some shooting event.  So there's that...but since you appear to want to play devil's advocate, a couple of situations come to mind where victims are forced to remain potential victims without the ability to protect/defend themselves.

It prevents someone with a brand new restraining order from backing up that restraining order until 10 days later...we know how effective restraining orders are with regard to actually restraining the person...right?  Domestic abuse victims who make the break are vulnerable to their abusers for at least 10 days once they make the break...

If I were the victim of an armed robbery or home invasion and suddenly decided that getting a 12 ga. was the way to go, I can't do anything about protecting myself or family for 10 days...

It takes away my "essential right" to protect myself for a window of 10 days...10 very long days.

[txradioguy]

I know I'll be flamed for this, but if California wants to do this, let them. Gun laws should be a states issue IMO.

Totally agree.

However the 9th Circus rulings...IIRC cover more than just California correct?  Or was this just a California only ruling.

[SZonian]

I know I'll be flamed for this, but if California wants to do this, let them. Gun laws should be a states issue IMO.

9th Circuit...feds.

CA firearm owners trying to get it overturned.

Sucks paying taxes to those against you so they can fight against you and then have to pay someone else to fight for you.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

The 10 day waiting period law, on its face was an end run on gun control by liberals to begin with...created out of some shooting event.  So there's that...but since you appear to want to play devil's advocate, a couple of situations come to mind where victims are forced to remain potential victims without the ability to protect/defend themselves.

It prevents someone with a brand new restraining order from backing up that restraining order until 10 days later...we know how effective restraining orders are with regard to actually restraining the person...right?  Domestic abuse victims who make the break are vulnerable to their abusers for at least 10 days once they make the break...

If I were the victim of an armed robbery or home invasion and suddenly decided that getting a 12 ga. was the way to go, I can't do anything about protecting myself or family for 10 days...

It takes away my "essential right" to protect myself for a window of 10 days...10 very long days.

I guess you've never heard of the NRA five day loaner.

SNL skit (described on their site: "In response to the new Brady Law, an act which mandates a five-day waiting period upon purchasing a hand gun, Charlton Heston promotes the NRA's new store that loans guns to citizens for five days at no charge. [Season 19, 1993]")

[skeeter]

I know I'll be flamed for this, but if California wants to do this, let them. Gun laws should be a states issue IMO.

Considering the amount of complaining folks in red states do over California transplants bringing their values into their communities I wish they'd take more of an interest in what happens in this benighted state. It starts here and spreads.

[Jazzhead]

The 10 day waiting period law, on its face was an end run on gun control by liberals to begin with...created out of some shooting event.  So there's that...but since you appear to want to play devil's advocate, a couple of situations come to mind where victims are forced to remain potential victims without the ability to protect/defend themselves.

It prevents someone with a brand new restraining order from backing up that restraining order until 10 days later...we know how effective restraining orders are with regard to actually restraining the person...right?  Domestic abuse victims who make the break are vulnerable to their abusers for at least 10 days once they make the break...

If I were the victim of an armed robbery or home invasion and suddenly decided that getting a 12 ga. was the way to go, I can't do anything about protecting myself or family for 10 days...

It takes away my "essential right" to protect myself for a window of 10 days...10 very long days.

I think that's a reasonable response.   Thank you.  I think the domestic abuse situation is compelling - I agree a woman may need to act quickly to defend herself, especially if her partner is likely to be enraged by her engaging the legal system to obtain a restraining order.

 I think this California law ought to be unconstitutional

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I will agree that a 10 day waiting period in and of itself is pretty useless.

[andy58-in-nh]

Well, that's why I asked the question.  What's the purpose of the waiting period?   Is it to provide a cooling off period, similar to what is occasionally proposed for abortions?   A gun purchased on impulse by a emotional wreck determined to commit suicide is a deadly weapon.   Why do you say it has no demonstrable value?    As for your narrow reading of infringement,  I don't think is it supported by the case law.  There are a variety of gun regulations and restrictions that are perfectly Constitutional.  What the government can't do, as set forth in Heller,  is impose a restriction or limitation that takes away the essential right.  That's the plain meaning of "infringe" (as per Websters, to "defeat or invalidate").   

In ten days you'll get your gun.  In ten days you'll have your abortion.   If such a law isn't efficacious, it isn't worthy of support, on the merits.  But, arguendo, neither strikes me as an unconstitutional infringement.

@SZonian has provided a very good response, and I would like to thank him for it.

The problem with laws purporting to restrict the purchase, sale and ownership of firearms is that they affect none but law-abiding citizens, whose behavior is not the object of such regulations. Also, a wealth of documentary evidence is currently available to demonstrate the futility of gun laws in preventing criminal behavior involving their use.

More broadly, such is the problem with all laws that attempt to regulate behavior which a legislature chooses to define as malum prohibitum (wrong because it is prohibited), as opposed to malum in se (wrong in and of itself).

[Doug Loss]

I know I'll be flamed for this, but if California wants to do this, let them. Gun laws should be a states issue IMO.

Yes, but gun laws must still pass US constitutional muster, i.e., they can't contravene the 2nd Amendment.

[driftdiver]

Well, that's why I asked the question.  What's the purpose of the waiting period?   Is it to provide a cooling off period, similar to what is occasionally proposed for abortions?   A gun purchased on impulse by a emotional wreck determined to commit suicide is a deadly weapon.   Why do you say it has no demonstrable value?    As for your narrow reading of infringement,  I don't think is it supported by the case law.  There are a variety of gun regulations and restrictions that are perfectly Constitutional.  What the government can't do, as set forth in Heller,  is impose a restriction or limitation that takes away the essential right.  That's the plain meaning of "infringe" (as per Websters, to "defeat or invalidate").   

In ten days you'll get your gun.  In ten days you'll have your abortion.   If such a law isn't efficacious, it isn't worthy of support, on the merits.  But, arguendo, neither strikes me as an unconstitutional infringement.

Cooling off period eh?

So driving down to a gun store, picking out a gun, filling out the paperwork, waiting for a background check, paying for the gun, then driving home doesn't provide an opportunity to cool off?

[Idaho_Cowboy]

What's the purpose of the waiting period?  To discourage the purchase of firearms by persons contemplating suicide,  or seeking a gun in anger in order to settle an argument?    I've seen such "cooling off" periods proposed with respect to abortions as well,  to give a women a chance to contemplate just what she's doing.

Not sure if it's sound policy in either case,  but it doesn't strike me as unconstitutional.  To be unconstitutional,  the waiting period would need to be so intrusive that it effectively takes the right (to a gun, to an abortion) away.     

Darn are just trying to my best Frenemy? You sure like the government sticking their nose into the market. 

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Come on! We all know that this is so the wife has a chance to find out how much the thing costs before you get it home. Marriages will never be the same. 

[ABX]

Sorry mam, I know a crack house opened up a block down the road and you just took out a restraining order on your abusive ex husband who is threatening you, but you will have to ask them all to leave you alone for 10 days until you are allowed to defend yourself.

[Taxcontrol]

What's the purpose of the waiting period?  To discourage the purchase of firearms by persons contemplating suicide,  or seeking a gun in anger in order to settle an argument?    I've seen such "cooling off" periods proposed with respect to abortions as well,  to give a women a chance to contemplate just what she's doing.

Not sure if it's sound policy in either case,  but it doesn't strike me as unconstitutional.  To be unconstitutional,  the waiting period would need to be so intrusive that it effectively takes the right (to a gun, to an abortion) away.     

Sorry, but you are incorrect.  The 2nd prohibits "infringement" i.e

verb (used without object), infringed, infringing.
2.
to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon):
Don't infringe on his privacy.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Yes, but gun laws must still pass US constitutional muster, i.e., they can't contravene the 2nd Amendment.

Does this contravene the 2nd amendment?

[Jazzhead]

Sorry, but you are incorrect.  The 2nd prohibits "infringement" i.e

verb (used without object), infringed, infringing.
2.
to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon):
Don't infringe on his privacy.

All constitutional rights are subject to reasonable regulation.