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