Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to California gun law

[Cattledog]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to hear a challenge to a California law that requires there be a 10-day waiting period after all gun sales, even if the person is already a registered gun owner.

California’s "cooling off period" is the second longest in the country, according to court documents, and was enacted to give state authorities time to run a background check and give individuals who might want the firearm to harm themselves or others an opportunity to calm down.

Only eight other states and the District of Columbia have any kind of waiting period.

Two California residents, Jeff Silvester and Brandon Combs, who already own guns legally, challenged the application of law along with two nonprofits: The Calguns Foundation Inc. and The Second Amendment Foundation Inc.

They argued the waiting period is unconstitutional when it’s applied to "subsequent purchasers" — individuals who already own a firearm according to California’s AFS database or have a valid concealed-carry license and individuals who clear a background check in less than 10 days.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. It said the 10-day waiting period is a reasonable safety precaution for all purchasers of firearms and need not be suspended once a purchaser has been approved.


http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/374608-supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-challenge-to-california-gun-law

[bluestarone]

1. a good start here

[BigmanPigman]

2. There should be a q00 year waiting period.

I am glad for this small victory, but it is way too little.

This is how we can act to support gun control.
1. By calling, voting, etc our govt reps. Here are some links that I put together including which GOP reps took NRA money and how much, scripts for calling Fem and GOP reps, voting, changing laws, etc.

2. By actively supporting gun control through events and activities already planned for March and April throughout the country. There are maps, dates, info, for parents, students, educators, community members and local govt officials. Spread the word.

#ENOUGH
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10112196

[Justice]

3. Scalia recognized reasonableness of laws imposing conditions + qualifications on firearm sales

Scalia wrote majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. In Heller, SCOTUS reversed long held precedent and held the 2nd Amendment gave Americans an individual right to own firearms for defense - at least in their homes. BUT the court also said regulation of gun ownership was compatible with the 2nd Amendment.

Scalia noted in the Heller decision that it should NOT be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

NRA and GOP has taken Heller and tried to twist it into an unlimited right to possess guns and to carry them concealed anywhere in U.S.

SCOTUS has made it clear that reasonable safety precautions are quite legitimate. At a state and local level, we need to advocate for laws that condition and qualify the commercial sale of arms.

[AJT]

4. It was 8 to 1 to not take up the case. Crazy Clarence

was the single odd ball and wrote a nutty opinion.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/thomas-dissents-from-supreme-court-decision-not-to-review-california-gun-law/2018/02/20/342c378e-164d-11e8-92c9-376b4fe57ff7_story.html

[rpannier]

5. I figured it would have been the il douche's quisling that dissented

especially since Scalia wrote the Heller decision and in it he recognized that communities had the right to restrict firearms to some degree

And I can't remember too many times that Thomas disagreed with Scalia

[NutmegYankee]

6. If the GOP can impose a three day wait on a private medical decision...

They can damn well wait 10 days on a gun.

[ProudLib72]

7. 10 days! But I want it now!

Got me some shootin' ta do.

[edhopper]

8. so there can be restrictions to gun ownership?

And "well regulated" might fucking mean something after all!

[gratuitous]

9. That's why the NRA fights any regulation

They know how slippery that slope is, and the more regulations that are enacted and the longer they stay in place, they know their cozy and profitable relationship with firearms manufacturers, merchants, and foreign powers will get more difficult.