Waiting periods fail scrutiny

Via Calguns Foundation.

Calguns is challenging the law requiring a waiting period before taking possession of a firearm you have just purchased. The California AG, Harris, moved for a summary judgment dismissing the lawsuit. The judge slapped her down. A waiting period for someone who already owns a gun just doesn’t making any sense. The only reason for such a requirement must be to place a burden on the exercise of a specific enumerated right. If that is the only reason then the law is unconstitutional.

The complete decision is here.

The conclusion which makes me smile is:

Harris moves for summary judgment on each of the claims alleged by Plaintiffs. With respect to the Second Amendment claims, Harris has not sufficiently met her burden. Harris has not presented sufficient evidence to show that the WPL passes either intermediate or strict scrutiny for either the “background check” rationale or the “cooling off period” rationale. With respect to the Equal Protection claims, Harris has focused exclusively on rational basis scrutiny. However, Harris has not adequately demonstrated that rational basis scrutiny is appropriate. Therefore, Harris’s motion for summary judgment will be denied in its entirety.

The lawsuit challenging the waiting period will now go forward. It doesn’t means that the waiting period has been struck down, yet.

Sebastian has his own comments.

6 thoughts on “Waiting periods fail scrutiny

  1. If fortune frowns on liberty here, and not only is the waiting period upheld, but other restrictions are implemented and we develop a “knife culture” a la (f)GB, will there be waiting periods on knives? What will the dupes and fellow travelers say about waiting 10 days to buy a set of knives at Williams-Sonoma or Sur le Table?

    • That’s (hopefully) coming. This particular hearing was on the petition by AG Harris for a summary judgment dismissing CalGuns/SAF’s lawsuit. This petition was smacked down. It’s a step in the right direction; among other things, it affirms that the plaintiffs have a case.

      Due process is a double-edged sword. It’s necessary to protect individual rights, but it can make court challenges to bad laws require a million baby steps and take forever.

  2. Government unions don’t need a waiting period before they take to the streets to intimidate people and scream for communist revolution.

    Is there a waiting period before you can assert the fifth amendment, during which time you must incriminate yourself?

    Can troops be quartered in your home for a while, after which that “waiting period” expires, but only after a background check clears you for such a privilege?

    What we’re being told is, “your rights can wait, and you must qualify for them”.

    Justice delayed…

  3. This is Kali….anyone thinking a law that interferes with gun ownership or
    acquisition will EVER be nullified in any way is an idiot….and I have some
    prime ocean front property just north of Las Vegas I can sell to them for
    a very nice price.

    Nothing changes in Kali till AFTER the next revolutionary war.

Comments are closed.