Quote of the day—Anthony W. Ishii

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

  1. The 10-day waiting periods of California Penal Code § 26815(a) and § 27540(a) violate the Second Amendment as applied to those individuals who successfully pass the BFEC/standard background check prior to 10 days and who are in lawful possession of an additional firearm as confirmed by the AFS system;a. If the BFEC/standard background check for such an individual is completed and approved before 10-days, Defendant shall immediately release the firearm for delivery to such individual and shall not wait the full 10-days;
  2. The 10-day waiting periods of California Penal Code § 26815(a) and § 27540(a) violate the Second Amendment as applied to those individuals who successfully pass the BFEC/standard background check prior to 10 days and who possess a valid CCW license issued pursuant to California Penal Code § 26150 or § 26155;a. If the BFEC/standard background check for such an individual is completed and approved before 10-days, Defendant shall immediately release the firearm for delivery to such individual and shall not wait the full 10-days;
  3. The 10-day waiting periods of California Penal Code § 26815(a) and § 27540(a) violate the Second Amendment as applied to those individuals who successfully pass the BFEC/standard background check prior to 10 days and who possess both a valid COE issued pursuant to California Penal Code § 26710 and a firearm as confirmed by the AFS system.a. If the BFEC/standard background check for such an individual is completed and approved before 10-days, Defendant shall immediately release the firearm for delivery to such individual and shall not wait the full 10-days;

Anthony W. Ishii
Senior United States District Judge
August 22, 2014
Jeff Silvester, et al. v. Kamala Harris, Attorney General of California
[This ruling in Federal court may impact the five day waiting period on handguns in Washington State which appears to be extended to ten days under I-594. California intends to appeal this ruling but the stay on enforcing this order is about to expire and it appears California will have to drop the waiting period for certain categories of people during the appeal.

SAF was one of the plaintiffs in this case and with their strong presence in Washington State perhaps before the end of the year we will see another lawsuit over the waiting period there. It would be nice to get a quick slap down on I-594 even if it were a just minor part of the injustice inflicted upon us.—Joe]

10 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Anthony W. Ishii

  1. But, but, I thought the pro gun side never won anything, and that the Antis had an unerring string of victories behind them…

    Heh.

    • The anti-libertarian never actually wins at anything. Motivated by hate and misery, to spread hate and misery, he is either saved from himself by being prevented from achieving his evil ends, or, in achieving his ends he is brought one step closer to certain destruction.

      That is something we should all understand, and the sooner the better; the anti WANTS to be stopped. Believe it. Just like the errant little child, testing his parents’ strengths and weaknesses by misbehaving, the leftist is testing you, wanting more than anything to find the good, principled, rock solid father figure that he never had, so he’ll be loved and corrected like he never has been. Every time you cave or compromise like a shitty, girlish, drunken Republican on anything, the leftist is disgusted with you, and will ramp up the volume and rattle the cage even harder. It’s a search, you see, for even one good, principled individual. So far it’s been in vain.

  2. First reaction: “Isn’t Washington in the 9th Circuit?”
    Upon reflection: yes, but this wasn’t an appeal, nor was it Federal Question.

  3. Given that the WSP apparently doesn’t believe that 594 covers “transfers” that don’t involve change of permanent ownership, and has gone on record saying they don’t plan to enforce the law against folks participating in the Capital protest, it will be interesting to see what happens next. Will the AG’s office issue a letter of clarification? (if so, would have liked to have seen a different individual occupying the AG seat…) It may well be that the AG will provide a less-nonsensical interpretation of “transfer” than the law, which really doesn’t define the term.

    • Much as the WSP are, for the most part, good guys on gun rights, I am troubled by this. There is nothing about their refusal that establishes any precedent or anything you can rely on; indeed they could keep their hands off the upcoming protest, but the day after the Gov could strong arm them into changing the policy, and everyone identified in photos of the event could be prosecuted.

      Similarly, the AG’s opinion is a nice opinion, and that’s all.

      And 591 does provide some kind of definition of “transfer”, it’s defined as planning to deliver, or actually delivering, a firearm to someone else.

  4. Probably not. In WA the waiting period already does not apply if you have a CPL, and the law (as amended) states that the firearm shall be released as soon as the background check approval is received. The 10-day (or 90-day absent proof of residency) period is a *maximum*. (Except the PD can get a 30-day extension if they need to do more detailed records checks. I wonder how often that will happen?)

    • There is still the case of someone already owning a gun but yet has to wait. If the state has record of the previous gun purchase and didn’t flag him has being a prohibited person as some earlier time then why can’t he have the gun immediately upon sale? It is a stretching things a bit further than what the judge ruling in the case above. But the judge wasn’t presented with this situation. It seems like a reasonable extension of the principle to me.

  5. Pingback: Quote of the day—Lyle | The View From North Central Idaho

Comments are closed.