• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Not specifically an OC article, but an FYI we might all be interested in...

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
Fair use applies:
A federal judge in California has ruled in a Second Amendment case that a state-imposed waiting period to take possession of a firearm is a burden on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The ruling came in a challenge brought by the Second Amendment Foundation to the state’s mandatory 10-day waiting period to obtain firearms. The case, Silvester v. Harris, continues.




It was Senior Judge Anthony Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California who said in an 11-page decision that California Attorney General Kamala Harris “argues that the WPL (Waiting Period Law) is a minor burden on the Second Amendment, [but] plaintiffs are correct that this is a tacit acknowledgement that a protected Second Amendment right is burdened.” He wrote: “The court concludes that the WPL burdens the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”
(Complete article at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/judge-says-waiting-period-burdens-2nd-amendment/#9uQTykqhTKh2ejeL.99)

This is a step in the right direction. As I recall from my days stationed in San Diego, Kalifornia has had this waiting period for around a half-century. It's about time somebody questioned its constitutionality, and that a federal court Declared it a "burden to 2a". The only question remaining in my mind is this - does the court see a "burden" something less than an infringement? Pax...
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
What burden??? It infringes. Period.

Anything short of walking into a store, pointing at a gun, paying for it, and walking out with it is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to keep.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
Certainly is an infringement .... but it highlights that we should no longer be buying guns ... we should be making them ..

Want a serial #????? !! How about 1-2-3- Ka-Pow ?
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
What burden??? It infringes. Period.

Anything short of walking into a store, pointing at a gun, paying for it, and walking out with it is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to keep.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

And this is how it was in my youth. The first two firearms, which were handguns, I purchased required no 4473, no "special" forms, no background check, and no waiting period. The process was no different than buying a toaster or an electric razor. And one of those purchases was across state lines.

In the 50's, it was common place to see firearms sold in hardware stores, gas stations, of course hunting and gun stores, department stores, and even an occasional drug store. And we didn't have the problems back then that we see today. Gee I wonder why. The thing is I do know why. We have lost a major part of our freedom. That door was opened years ago; the gun issue is merely one loosing example. You can bet more will follow.
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
What burden??? It infringes. Period.

Anything short of walking into a store, pointing at a gun, paying for it, and walking out with it is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to keep.

and davidmcbeth
Certainly is an infringement .... but it highlights that we should no longer be buying guns ... we should be making them ..
I believe it is our (gun "keepers and bearers") natural inclination to see any administrative (or physical) action that interrupts or causes deviation from the direct and immediate acquisition of firearms and/or ammunition to be an "infringement".

Maybe I wasn't quite as clear as I could have been, when I said, "The only question remaining in my mind is this - does the court see a "burden" something less than an infringement?" My question was supposed to ask what the participants in the forum thought about the court's, somewhat weasel-worded finding of a "burden" rather than a crystal-clear infringement. Do we, as a group, believe that the court used the term "burden" specifically because of an intentional lack of expressed clarity, or was it simply a semantic fuax pas?
bur·dennoun

2: something oppressive or worrisome

in·fringe verb

: to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US )
: to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)


"Oppressive or worrisome" is, itself, worrisome. Is "oppressive" essentially the same thing as the above two definitions of "infringe"? Personally, I believe it is. Oppression is the disallowance (with the force of law) of someone's rights. Pax...
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The problem I have with the court's use of the word burdensome is that such implies that if the burden is small enough, it is not an infringement. Hooey.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
Some folks think 20+ minutes is not a undue burden on your liberty either. Until judges are held to account for their obviously unconstitutional decisions there will be no remedy. Precedent is more precious than air to these...these...folks.

The denial of immediate access to the purchase of a firearm is a infringement, but no judge will wander down that road.
 
Top