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

[txradioguy]

All constitutional rights are subject to reasonable regulation.

And there's that whole "the Constitution is a living document" thing rearing it's ugly head.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

And there's that whole "the Constitution is a living document" thing rearing it's ugly head.

Think he meant interpretation?


The whole yelling fire in a crowded theater thing.

[txradioguy]

Think he meant interpretation?


The whole yelling fire in a crowded theater thing.

Maybe. But IMHO theres not much to interpret with the BoR. Those are absolutes as far as I'm concerned.

[driftdiver]

Think he meant interpretation?


The whole yelling fire in a crowded theater thing.

Name one other right that has a waiting period.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Name one other right that has a waiting period.

You don't have an absolute right to weaponry. Do you have a right to buy a nuke?

[driftdiver]

You don't have an absolute right to weaponry. Do you have a right to buy a nuke?

The discussion was about waiting periods not nukes.

[EC]

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.

With respect to the first point - amend the law. Permit no waiting period in circumstances where the purchaser has reasonable, documented fear of their life and safety - such as a restraining order against a violent ex.

Your second point, about the burglary, is invalid. If you wait until you have your burglary/home invasion to think about protecting yourself, you are an idiot who deserves everything they get.

[driftdiver]

With respect to the first point - amend the law. Permit no waiting period in circumstances where the purchaser has reasonable, documented fear of their life and safety - such as a restraining order against a violent ex.

Your second point, about the burglary, is invalid. If you wait until you have your burglary/home invasion to think about protecting yourself, you are an idiot who deserves everything they get.

@EC

People are not stupid if they choose not to buy a firearm.  They are not stupid because someone else chose to break the law.

What's stupid are the mandatory waiting periods and the people who support them.  Waiting periods accomplish nothing except make it more difficult to own a firearm.   Which of course is their purpose.

[EC]

@EC

People are not stupid if they choose not to buy a firearm.  They are not stupid because someone else chose to break the law.

Nope, you are correct. No one is stupid for not owning a firearm - it is a personal choice (and I can think of MANY people I know who I'm happier that they don't have things that go bang in their possession!). No one is stupid because someone else breaks the law is also true.

However, someone else breaking the law needs a target. Stupidity is assuming you won't be that target and failing to take action accordingly, in advance.

[Bigun]

And this will affect people who ignore the law exactly how?

VERY few of those people buy guns via legal sources!

[driftdiver]

And this will affect people who ignore the law exactly how?

VERY few of those people buy guns via legal sources!

@Bigun

Law abiding people are the target of this law.

[Jazzhead]

@Bigun

Law abiding people are the target of this law.

The only rational reason (note I'm not saying justifiable reason) I can think of for this law is to help prevent suicides.   And a whole lot of people are able to commit suicide because of easy access to a gun.   Yes,  there are other ways to off oneself,  but nothing beats the speed and sureness of a gun.   

[Doug Loss]

The only rational reason (note I'm not saying justifiable reason) I can think of for this law is to help prevent suicides.   And a whole lot of people are able to commit suicide because of easy access to a gun.   Yes,  there are other ways to off oneself,  but nothing beats the speed and sureness of a gun.

I'd be greatly surprised if this law had any noticeable effect on suicide rates.

[rangerrebew]

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.

If the founders saw fit to leave it to the states, they would have done so but they apparently could see places like Mejifornia screwing up the need.  The Constitution is about federal concerns and they clearly saw a need for people to have weapons. Again, the founders don't say the states can't have a militia if they want one, or not have one, but to do so they need guns; rocks and arrows wouldn't do.

[rangerrebew]

I bought another gun yesterday and the whole thing took less than 20 minutes.  I have a 9 mm which I keep handy in the car and a 380 which I carry.  With all the nut jobs running around these days, a person is taking a huge risk by not arming him/herself.

[SZonian]

All constitutional rights are subject to reasonable regulation.

Who gets to define "reasonable"?

[SZonian]

With respect to the first point - amend the law. Permit no waiting period in circumstances where the purchaser has reasonable, documented fear of their life and safety - such as a restraining order against a violent ex.

Your second point, about the burglary, is invalid. If you wait until you have your burglary/home invasion to think about protecting yourself, you are an idiot who deserves everything they get.

The burglary victim is now a "liberal who's been mugged", should they be forced to endure a second victimization because of a change of heart and a waiting period?

[EC]

The burglary victim is now a "liberal who's been mugged", should they be forced to endure a second victimization because of a change of heart and a waiting period?

To my mind - yep. Since, as a liberal before hand, they more than likely supported restrictions such as the waiting period.

[driftdiver]

To my mind - yep. Since, as a liberal before hand, they more than likely supported restrictions such as the waiting period.

@EC

Except the law applies to everyone.  It's stupid to just accept these laws.   We must fight back against them in every way.

[Jazzhead]

I'd be greatly surprised if this law had any noticeable effect on suicide rates.

I suspect it would prevent a fair number of suicides,  although as noted above the price would be the inability for, say, a woman to quickly purchase a gun to defend herself from an abusive spouse. 

As with most laws,  there are both intended and unintended consequences.   

I'm not doctrinaire when it comes to the Second Amendment.   I don't think it's any different from other Constitutional rights in allowing for reasonable regulation.   But such regulation,  to be reasonable in my view, must be efficacious.  And many proposed gun laws are of the feel-good variety;  they appear to be "doing something" about gun violence but in reality have little impact except making it more difficult for the law-abiding to purchase a lawful product.   

I evaluate each proposed gun law on its merits.   

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I suspect it would prevent a fair number of suicides,  although as noted above the price would be the inability for, say, a woman to quickly purchase a gun to defend herself from an abusive spouse. 

As with most laws,  there are both intended and unintended consequences.   

I'm not doctrinaire when it comes to the Second Amendment.   I don't think it's any different from other Constitutional rights in allowing for reasonable regulation.   But such regulation,  to be reasonable in my view, must be efficacious.  And most proposed gun laws are of the feel-good variety;  they appear to be "doing something" about gun violence but in reality have little impact except making it more difficult for the law-abiding to purchase a lawful product.   

I evaluate each proposed gun law on its merits.

Maybe but it would be nice to see some evidence. I doubt it will change anything.

[driftdiver]

I suspect it would prevent a fair number of suicides,  although as noted above the price would be the inability for, say, a woman to quickly purchase a gun to defend herself from an abusive spouse. 

As with most laws,  there are both intended and unintended consequences.   

I'm not doctrinaire when it comes to the Second Amendment.   I don't think it's any different from other Constitutional rights in allowing for reasonable regulation.   But such regulation,  to be reasonable in my view, must be efficacious.  And many proposed gun laws are of the feel-good variety;  they appear to be "doing something" about gun violence but in reality have little impact except making it more difficult for the law-abiding to purchase a lawful product.   

I evaluate each proposed gun law on its merits.

Suicide a very complex issue.  People who use firearms during a suicide are more likely to be successful.   If a firearm isn't available they'll likely use a different method.   Women tend not to use firearms whereas men do.

Restricting a Constitutional right on the basis someone MIGHT hurt themselves is unreasonable.