(via Legal Insurrection)
Federal Court Rules California 10-day Waiting Period Unconstitutional (for Some)
As reported by Calguns, California’s 10-day waiting period for gun purchases has been ruled unconstitutional (for at least some residents), in Silvester v. Kamala, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California (full decision embedded below):
California’s 10-day waiting period for gun purchases was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge this morning in a significant victory for Second Amendment civil rights. The laws were challenged by California gun owners Jeffrey Silvester and Brandon Combs, as well as two gun rights groups, The Calguns Foundation and Second Amendment Foundation.
In the decision released this morning, Federal Eastern District of California Senior Judge Anthony W. Ishii, appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton, found that “the 10-day waiting periods of Penal Code [sections 26815(a) and 27540(a)] violate the Second Amendment” as applied to members of certain classifications, like Silvester and Combs, and “burdens the Second Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs.”
Under the court order, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) must change its systems to accommodate the unobstructed release of guns to gun buyers who pass a background check and possess a California license to carry a handgun, or who hold a “Certificate of Eligibility” issued by the DOJ and already possess at least one firearm known to the state.
BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!
Louisiana Court Rules Ban on Gun Possession Near Alcohol Unconstitutional
As reported at the Volokh Conspiracy, a Baton Rouge ordinance (§ 13:95.3) that banned the possession of guns on property where alcohol is served or sold–inclusive of the parking lots of such establishments, the scope of which includes grocery stores and Walmart–has been found unconstitutional in Taylor v. City of Baton Rouge by the US District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (decision embedded below). Interestingly, this decision was made in response to a motion for default judgment, indicating that the city of Baton Rouge had simply failed to adequately respond:
[T]he Court finds that Taylor’s allegations, which the Court accepts as true based on Defendants’ default, are sufficient to establish a viable claim for relief under the Second Amendment. Consequently, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has established a sufficient basis for judgment in his favor.
Our Rights are being gradually re-acknowleged, one court decision at a time! – Guffaw
National Association for Gun Rights on my list of worthy organizations.
I’ve been getting numerous emails from them for some time now, alerting me to dealings in Washington which could use my attention.
Usually a day or two in advance of the NRA-ILA emails.(?)
I don’t have any money, but I sent them a small amount, anyway.
Go check out their site. It’s worth a look.
The Manchin-Toomey background check amendment, one of nine proposed changes to a gun control bill currently being debated in the U.S. Senate, on Wednesday failed to get the 60 votes required for passage.
Fifty-four U.S. Senators voted “aye” and 46 voted “nay.”
The proposal, named for Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) and Patrick Toomey (R-Pa.), would have expanded existing background checks on gun buyers to cover firearms sold at gun shows and via the Internet.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid voted against the proposal. He was joined by Democrat Sens. Baucus, Begich, Heitkamp, Pryor.
“Reid voted no for procedural reasons,” CBS News’ Major Garrett explains. “As Majority Leader, a ‘no’ vote allows him to bring the amendment up again.”
Arizona Republican John McCain voted in favor of the bill. He was joined by Republican Sens. Collins, Kirk, and Toomey. (The Blaze)
There were nine amendments proposed. None passed, including some pro-rights amendments. BUT, debate continues on so-called ‘gun control’ in the Senate.
In short, we’re not done yet. Perhaps we’ve won a battle, but certainly not the war.
THIS has yet to occur…
We must stay on-point and remain vigilant!
h/t Glenn Beck
Part of my morning routine, after doing my blog post thing, is to peruse other blogs on my blogroll, The Gun Blog Black List, and elsewhere. And I read the ‘news’ (such as it is.) To search for blogfodder, jokes, and to see the state of the World.
I truly hope the following is another April Fool’s joke, like I fell for the other day. If NOT, well…SIGH.
Monday, April 8, 2013
Via Steven Peter Yevchak, Sr.
Manasquan, NJ --(Ammoland.com)- Remember all those who denied that firearms confiscation as a result of New York’s new gun laws was too “insane” to even consider?
That it was strictly in the realm of paranoid conspiracy theorists and the “it cant happen here crowd”?
Those were and remain some of the standard replies to anyone who even thought about the possibility, let alone gave voice to it, despite the fact that Gov Cuomo and numerous other officials made public comments about such a plan, as I discussed in my article “Feinstein & Cuomo Admit Planning Australian Style Government Gun Buy Back” .
Elected Officials, the media, various Gun Control Groups and their zealous forced disarmament supporters, even some firearms owners themselves all insisted it was to crazy to even consider.
There’s just one huge problem it is happening now in New York State!
It seems those that tried desperately to warn of such an insidious plot had hit the bullseye with their warnings after all. News came from multiple NY State based firearms enthusiast websites late Friday that confiscations of Pistol Owner ID Cards, as well as firearms and accessories has commenced in NY under the provisions of the horribly flawed, draconian and blatantly unconstitutional NY SAFE Act.
Those folks having their weapons and FID cards confiscated have been discovered to have been prescribed multiple different types of psychotropic drugs, such as those for Depression or Anxiety.
These are known as SSRI ( Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors) class drugs and have the potential to cause serious and adverse side effects, something I wrote about extensively last week in an article that went viral in days and caused multiple Anti Gun and Progressive News Groups to initiate a concentrated denial of service hacker attack against Ammoland Shooting Sports News (see Daily KOS ” Keeping Track Of The RKBA Crowd” http://tiny.cc/ug67uw), in an effort to keep the information from the public.
From NY http://tiny.cc/nyfirearms
“John Doe, an upstanding professional with no outstanding criminal convictions and no history of violent action received a letter from the Pistol Permit Department informing him that his license was immediately revoked upon information that he was seeing a therapist for anxiety and had been prescribed an anxiety drug. He was never suicidal, never violent, and has no criminal history. The New York State Department of Health is apparently conducting a search of medical records to determine who is being treated for anxiety drugs and using this as a basis for handgun license revocation.
Those are the facts. Nothing more, nothing less.”
We’re in for a truly bumpy ride, folks!
h/t Brock Townsend
I don’t know about you, but with the now-ubiquitous attempts to deprive us of our natural rights to assemble, access the Internet (or tax it – a vote TODAY! Call D.C.!), speak freely, worship (or choose not to), keep the constabulary from our homes without benefit of warrant, eat unhealthy food and of course, deprive us of the right to keep and bear arms, there seems to be more and more of a movement on the part of the Fourth Estate to POLL US with these concerns:
- Should we ban (insert offensive machine here)?
- Should we prohibit (insert offensive content) from the Internet?
- Should the government monitor all our Internet accesses and emails?
- Should free enterprise and marketplace be disallowed with regard to commerce in firearms?
I’m sick of seeing such polls. I don’t care if the entire population of New York votes en masse to prohibit me from having a soft drink larger than 16 oz., or a firearm magazine greater then 7 round capacity, or a poll in USA Today (the primary coloring book of newspapers) supports such a vote.
My rights are my individual rights. Period. Guaranteed. And no attempt at ‘democracy’ (tyranny of the majority) will convince me otherwise.
Take your polls elsewhere, about other things. Like a preference for apple or cherry pie.
Mama Liberty commented on my post yesterday, mentioning the National Rifle Association’s flip-flopping with regard to various issues involving federal law. Specifically the whole ‘no guns in school’ thing.
It seems they initially supported such a thing, then became wiser. They’ve done the same thing with regard to other gun control laws and politicians (giving some folks a Grade of A, when they voted mostly in the anti-rights tent).
In short, they’re wafflers and inconsistent, at best.
I’ve thought on more than one occasion about sending back my Life Membership Card (which I paid for in monthly installments!) with a better-than-terse letter regarding many of these inconsistencies.
But I’ve not yet done that. Why not, you ask?
Well, because, in spite of their failings, they’re still one of the best tools we have in this battle. There are others: The Second Amendment Foundation and Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership come to mind.
Find the group or groups you can support and do so. Four-and-one-half million people coalesced into a lobbying force is remarkable! 47% of American households reportedly possess firearms. The NRA and other pro-rights groups memberships should be even larger.
Yeah, they aren’t perfect. But…
“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately” – Benjamin Franklin
National Conservative Examiner reports on behind-the-scenes groundwork being laid to pass ‘new’ gun control legislation, in spite of growing opposition.
Conservatives and gun rights groups have said from the beginning that the gun ban legislation does not arise from the Newtown massacre but from an overriding, longstanding desire on the part of anti-gun politicians and activist groups to ban as many guns as possible. Massacres are thus easily used by such persons to whip up citizen frenzy, making it possible for the politicians to pass unpopular legislation that has little or nothing to do with the shootings themselves.
In this case, GOA director Larry Pratt stated that U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is secretly working with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to change Senate rules so that a simple majority of 51 votes would be all that is necessary to pass the gun bans. McCain is reportedly working with U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., to prevent the filibuster from holding up the legislation, which U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., vowed to to use to prevent any new gun ban legislation.
McCain and Levin are also working secretly to change the rules so that gun ban legislation could be easily added to any bill being considered in conference, and then when it is presented on the Senate floor it must be voted upon on an “as is” basis with no changes.
Another stealth measure McCain and Levin are attempting to weasel through the Senate is a provision that would bar any senator except for McCain and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., from offering amendments to bills coming out of conference.
These measures have the full blessing and approval of the Democratic majority, led by Reid and Levin.
Isn’t this the same John McCain who was the
Republican RINO Presidential candidate in 2008, who stood along side pro-gun Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin?
And we we’re supposed to trust this guy to keep the Democrat out of office and away from our rights?
And he ‘represents’ my State, dag-nabbit!
h/t Anthony Martin, The Liberty Sphere
Just in case you encounter someone with no knowledge of history or the Constitution in your travels. Some appropriate responses:
h/t Blue’s Blog, Modern Musket
Seriously? The President finally comes out from his behind-the-curtain position on gun control (he’s NEVER had a pro-gun position in his entire political career), with yet another call for the reissue of the so-called Assault Weapons Ban. Based on previous utterings by his like-minded minions in Congress, a ban that has no sunset, and does have more bells and whistles!
Already there are predicted runs on commercial ammunition, components and firearms, especially those with the dreaded magic ‘over 10 and you can’t help but commit mass murder’ magazines, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs (because there have been so many drive-by bayonettings!), and the dreaded ‘shoulder thing that goes up’.
Which begs the question: How many guns do we NEED?
The answer: The right to keep and bear arms (if you buy the arguments of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Jay et al) is implicit in our humanity! Some say given from God. This means mere government cannot either issue, nor take way rights. The Bills of Rights isn’t a menu of the bill of fare available at government’s discretion (one from column A), it’s an enumeration of those rights already known and restrictions on government action. What if they tried to pass legislation regarding exactly how many letters-to-the-editor, blog posts, or redresses-of-grievance to government we were allowed? Or how many churches were authorized to exist by government? Or promoting warrantless seaches? (Whoops – they already did that!) Or limiting trial-by-jury (done) Or promoting cruel-and unusual punishment (most jails and prisons had color TV before I could afford one – just saying)
Okay, so my argument is flawed, because they (the United States Congress) has already abrogated many of our natural rights. This doesn’t mean this trend should continue, in fact, it should be reversed!
So, posing the question: How many guns do we NEED?
As many as we can afford is my direct answer.
Field & Stream asked this very question. And answered with a list of preferred hunting guns. I don’t think we’re on the same page.
They need to catch up, because it’s very possible we could end up like Great Britain or Australia, where violent crime is rampant, criminals have guns, and they are restricting glass beer mugs and restaurant cutlery!
I was reading A Girl and Her Gun (which if you’re not reading, you should!) and she linked to The GunDivas, wherein she was a guest blogger (!)
And there was an earlier post in The GunDivas that caught my eye, specifically, How Many is Too Many?
I’ve never considered this concept as valid. How much Free Speech is too much? How much Religious expression (OR purposeful avoidance of Religious expression) is excessive?
Or petitioning redress of grievances? How many complaints are allowable?
It’s a spurious question, as in “When did you stop beating your wife?”
Whether I own one firearm (a single-shot H&R Topper shotgun) or three-hundred (assorted pistols, revolvers, military-style rifles, shotguns) is of no consequence. And it’s certainly no business of anyone else, or the government.
It’s Our Right. Period.
And the blog post made mention of the word arsenal. Sadly, in today’s culture, this word has developed a negative connotation.
I use the word collection. It’s more benign. Even though I no longer have one.
PS – It always kills me when I hear, especially in media reports “the alleged bad guy had X number of guns AND Y amount of ammunition.” Again, how much is too much?
There are reports of more small arms ammunition shortages, as we had in 2009. Because we are running up to the election? Whether Tweedledee or Tweedledum win, both are not ardent proponents of the civil right enumerated in Amendment the Second.
h/t GunDiva, A Girl and Her Gun