10-day wait is unconstitutional for CCW permit holders and licenses collectors those who already own at least one firearm that is registered with the state of California.

Does not change background check requirments. Wont result in cash and carry in the short term.

Saw the good news!  To bad the 30 day wait wasn't included. Regardless, being able to walk in, purchase and leave with a gun will be a good feeling.

Wont result in cash and carry.

Ruling simply says if the background check is done on day 8 or 9 they gotta release the gun then instead of waiting 10-days.

CALDOJ will likely come up with a system of notifying gun stores once the background check is finished. Then the store can call the buyer to come get the gun.

This is great news. Liberals must be going nuts. We need to go after the ammo bill next. Hopefully Scary Brown will veto it.

Please correct me if I am wrong...

In 1997 when I lived in California I was being my sarcastic self and saying to the guy behind the counter: "You guys need to come up to speed. In the rest of the country, background checks are instantaneous. Step into the late 20th century and get rid of your 10-day bullshit"

He told me (and I heard this repeated numerous times while in my exile to the Golden State): "The DROS is an instant background check, once we hit submit, we know. The 10-day wait is a cooling off period"


So what is it?

Anyway, congrats on the win, I hope it does allow you to leave the shop the same day with your lawfully owned property and will allow interstate commerce for long guns due to the removal of the unconstitutional 10-day wait.

I don't think the rationale for the law is relevant.  Whether the legislature intended it as a "cooling off period" or to allow time for a proper background check, the 10 days was legislated.

Quick Link to Discussion on a legal level and and a copy of the actual ruling.  This board is primarily devoted to Lawyers, Law Professors, neckbeard comments probably won't survive.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/08/25/california-10-day-waiting-period-to-buy-gun-violates-the-second-amendment-as-to-people-who-are-known-to-the-state-to-already-own-guns/

I've seen mention about 20% get auto-approved "instantly" (up to a few minutes to process). The other 80% get dumped in the review queue but won't usually get looked at till day 8 or 9. Most (over 99%) of those delayed ones get approved.

So there is a lot of inefficiency in the CADOJ process that may have to be dealt with later.

Used the APPS against then, Nice!

This is great news.  

All across America libtards heads are exploding.  

I think I get more enjoyment  out of the exploding heads tho.

Would have been a cool ruling 11 days ago  

So does this mean I can go pickup my gun now instead of waiting until 8:54PM to do it?

This is what makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

if it only applies to those who already own guns, then it must be a cooling off period which was struck down.

will read opinion and see.

OK I read the excerpts in the link, and the decision is not bad.  it is limited ("Plaintiffs do not challenge the 10-day waiting period on a facial basis, do not challenge the waiting period laws as applied to first time firearms purchasers, and do not challenge the requirement that firearm purchasers pass a background check") and it does not resolve the level-of-scrutiny question.  it is subject to appeal in the Ninth Circuit, and there is no reason I know of to expect a good appellate panel.

anyways, I am glad for it, it is definitely a step in the right direction, but it is only a trial court case.

here is the full decision: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2014/08/silvester.pdf

M&P 9

StevenH,

I already heard the news. So when does this new law go into effect?

Impala

Make no mistake, I am pleased at any/every firearms win.  I do have a question, though.

My recollection of California's laws is that the 10 day waiting period is given as a simple ten days, as quoted below:

CA Penal Code Section 26815.  
No firearm shall be delivered:
  (a) Within 10 days of the application to purchase, ...

There is no provision in the law about "...three rationales that it contends are “reasonable fits” that justify the 10-day waiting period: (1) conducting a background check; (2) providing a “cooling off period” to prevent impulsive acts of violence; and (3) investigating straw purchases. The Court will assess each of these justifications in relation to the three “as applied” groups. "  

If the 10 days is prescribed by the law, how can the judge assume it was related to a background check and use that assumption as the basis for his ruling?

Trollslayer, see below.

p. 18 of the decision:

"The legislative history indicates that the Legislature extended the waiting period from 3
days to 5 days in 1965 because the 3-day waiting period did not provide Cal. DOJ sufficient time
to conduct proper background checks on prospective concealable firearms purchasers, before
delivery of the firearms to the purchasers. See Bickston, 91 Cal.App.3d Supp. at 32; Def. Ex. CI
at AG000468 (June 30, 1965 letter from Cal. Assemblymember Beilenson letter to the Governor);
Def. Ex. CI at AG000470 (June 24, 1965 letter from Assistant Attorney General Barrett to the
Governor). Additionally, a report from the 1975-1976 session of the Senate Judiciary Committee
indicates that the “purpose of the 5-day provision is to permit the law enforcement authorities to
investigate the purchaser?s record, before he actually acquires the firearm, to determine whether he
falls within the class of persons prohibited from possessing concealed firearms.” Def. Ex. CH at
AG000298 (Cal. S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 1975-76 Regular Sess., Rep. on A.B. 1441, at 1-2
(1975)). No legislative history relating to the 1965 law has been cited that relates to a 'cooling
off' period."

p. 19:

"The California Legislature reduced the waiting period from 15 days to 10 days because the
California Department of Justice (“Cal. DOJ)?s Bureau of Firearms (“BOF”) switched to an
electronic database system, which allowed for faster processing of background checks. See Def.
Ex. CG at AG000061, AG000212 (Cal. S.B. 671, 1995-96 Regular Sess., S. Third Reading, as
amended Jun. 4, 1996); see also Def. Ex. CG at AG000057 (“This bill will assist the Department
and gun dealers in expediting the background check process.”). BOF is the agency within Cal.
DOJ that conducts background checks on prospective firearm purchasers. See Trial Tr. 167:11-13."

pp. 19-20:

"A report from the Senate Committee on Criminal Procedure and a report from the
Assembly Committee on Public Safety indicate that the waiting period is used to provide time to
complete a background check and to provide a 'cooling off' period. See Def. Ex. CG at 2099-
0051 and AG000075. However, no legislative history related to the 1996 law has been cited that
deals with specific findings or evidence related to the 'cooling off' period.
One California court has opined: '[I]t appears that an original intent to provide at least an 1
overnight cooling-off period from 'application for the purchase' was supplemented over the years
with additional time to allow the Department of Justice to investigate the prospective purchaser of
the weapon.' Bickston, 91 Cal.App.3d Supp. at 32."

When the DOJ was arguing their case, did they claim the three explanations for a 10 day waiting period were comprehensive, or did they just use the three as examples of what the 10 days might be based upon?

the decision refers to three justifications proffered by the State for the 10-day wait:

p. 15

[according to the AG] The 10-day waiting period reasonably fits these interests in three ways. First, it provides
sufficient time for the Department of Justice to perform a background check. The nature of the
databases utilized often require analysts to seek out information and dispositions from other
agencies, entities, and states, which can be extremely time consuming. Further, sometimes
prohibiting information is entered into the system after the initial check. Without the 10-day
waiting period, there could be an incomplete check and prohibited individuals could obtain
firearms. Relying on a CCW license or a COE is not a substitute for the background check
because new prohibiting events may have arisen after a person obtains the CCW license or COE.
Second, it provides a cooling off period so that individuals will have time to re-think committing
impulsive acts of violence. Suicide is often based on transient thoughts. Studies show that
waiting periods limit a person?s access to firearms, and allows time for the transient suicidal
thoughts to pass. Even if a person has a firearm in the AFS system, there is no guarantee that the
person still has the firearm. Further, a firearm may be in an inoperable condition, or a person may
not have ammunition for the weapon. For those individuals, a cooling off period could be
beneficial. Further, some guns are not suitable for some purposes, and a cooling off period for a
newly purchased firearm is beneficial. Finally, the waiting period laws provide Department of
Justice agents with additional time in which to investigate straw purchases. It is better to intercept
a weapon before it is delivered to a purchaser. If the waiting period laws did not exist, law
enforcement would have to perform more retrievals of firearms from straw purchasers. Therefore,
the 10-day waiting period is a “reasonable fit” and constitutional.

that was what the state argued.

I honestly do not mind the 10 day "cool down" period all that much. It was painful when I made my very first firearm purchase, then again when I made my first AR purchase, after that it was like.. whatever... The 30 day wait between firearm purchases and that ammo bill on the other hand are ridiculous.

It's a pain in the ass,especially when you find something you might like but then have to figure in the time and costs associated with driving back to where you might have bought it.  I was on a road trip this last weekend and found a pistol I was interested in, but finding the time and day off to drive 4 hours each way to pick it up at at store not open 7 days a week, or similar, so I passed it by.  And since the state knows I have several guns already, why should I have to wait for another?

I'm not saying you should have to wait, and yes, the idea behind the cool down period is complete nonsense for someone who already owns a gun. I'm not arguing FOR it, I'm only saying that compared to some of the other laws, it's not as bothersome. To me anyway. It's a nice win, but there are far more prohibitive laws potentially about to hit us.

I'm against the 10 day waiting period.  Especially so, in this day and age of huge government databases and high speed fiber optic internets.

If and when you really NEED a firearm, you cannot legally get one.  That is fundamentally wrong.  The more urgent the need, the greater the infringement on your 2A rights.

I understand where you are coming from 2IS, but having lived in another state and having purchased guns which I took home that day, the CA 10-day wait is even more of a huge PIA.  I have been here more than 4 years and I have bought 1 gun.  Largely due to the 10-day wait.  Obviously this is the reason some wanted this law instituted.  "If we make it so burdensome to buy a get, fewer people will do it".  

Nearly every other state has it figured out.  Living back home, I could go into the store, see something I liked, pay for it, fill out the paperwork, wait 10 minutes, GET BACKGROUND CHECK APPROVAL, and then be on my way with my new toy.  

Once I got my CCW, it was even better.  Because of the way the state managed the CCW database, they essentially ran a (simplified, passive) background on you every day.  I think it pretty much just scrubbed the list against incoming NCIC records or something.  Anyway, when I decided to purchase something I would fill out the 4473 and the gun store would call the BCI (similar to CALDOJ) and do a validity check of the CCW, if it was good, I was cleared to go.  no fee, no wait.  

There is absolutely NO GOOD REASON the background checks can't be done in 15 minutes or less.  If they claim a backlog or too much volume or something like that, I hear we have a surplus in the DROS account...hire more receptionists for the background lines.  



As to there claims about suicides, I'd like to see home CA is stacking up to other states in that regard.
And as for straw purchasers...puh-lease, we know they ain't investigating them.

Just visited the gun shop today, apparently it takes effect in 180 days if unopposed.

goddamned democrats hit us with one, last, 180-day wait!!!!  

Why do I not believe this will be unopposed

Is it normal and proper for the Attorney General's office to present to the court the "legislative intent" and for them to authoritatively define the scope and boundaries of that intent?  Shouldn't the legislation stand on its own, "on its own two feet"?

I ask because I do not believe those are the true intentions of the Legislators, at all.  I believe those are merely straw-man arguments for the ten day wait - peripheral consequences of the waiting period.

Normal and proper?? yep.   well it is part of the duties of the AG to represent the State in court actions.  Do they every time we think they should? no, do they take the side we think they should  when they do? No.  But doing it is part of what they do

Representing the State, yes, but I was intending the question to focus on their presenting "legislative intent".  

If the legislative intent is not written into the text of the Bill, how would they know?  Were they there during the writing and refinement of the bill and its debate in the Legislature?  If it is written into the Bill, the AG would not need to present it.

I am poking at this issue because I do not believe those three reasons are the true intents of the legislation.

Legislative intent was to screw with gun-owners, however, I'm sure they have some other reason to present.  They'll come up with something.  Should laws have a stated intent?  yes, a lot do.

If you read the full bill, it will generally have a preface, "In order to blah blah blah, the The Legislature enacts the following:  And the wording of the bill is add XZY to section 23152a, remove blahblah from section 23152c and replace with blahablhaha.  Of course that intent phrase might be not much more than the line on your resume where you say want a position with growth potential in a respected company.   They'll defend the intent in the preface.

Checking on the ammo bills

I looked up 505 and 503, 505 is about trout and 503 (should have been 53)

An act to amend Section 9656 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to cemeteries add Sections 19829.984 and 19829.985 to the Government Code, relating to state employees, making an appropriation therefor, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 503, as amended, Galgiani. Cemeteries. State employees: memorandum of understanding.

I think this is the sausage making part

Right, but if it's in the text of the Bill that was signed into law, they don't need to present it.  It's already there.  The law, itself, is not usually presented as a piece of the evidence or testimony, is it?

Legislative intent is found only in official sources.  It is what it is.  Either party to a case may offer it.  Nothing sneaky or improper about it.

In this case, it certainly was not against us.

As to whether or not the legislature really had the stated intent in mind, well that applies to everything humans do.  

I do believe you just compared CA's 10-day waiting period to prison rape.

Yee don't say?

DEAR GOD.  

I will never be able to look at buying guns the same again.

I'm waiting for the stoopid DOJ list/roster to be declared ridiculously unconstitutional.