“A federal appeals court upheld California’s 10-day waiting period and background check for existing gun owners and those with concealed-weapons permits, ruling that it did not violate the Second Amendment,” sfchronicle.com reports. “The safety precautions were reasonable, the three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit United States Court of Appeals said in a statement, reversing a decision by a lower court that had ruled requirements unconstitutional.”

Reasonable. I don’t think that word means what that the Ninth Circuit thinks it means. Wants it to mean. Needs it to mean. You can thank the U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller decision for opening the “reasonable regulations” loophole; a caveat large enough for California’s top court’s to drive a constitutional infringement through. An infringement based on the idea that a right delayed is a public saved. Like this:

The state already requires a waiting period to check of a purchaser’s criminal and mental health records, and a 10-day waiting period for first-time gun buyers. A waiting period for existing gun owners is reasonable, Judge Mary Schroeder said Wednesday.

“An individual who already owns a hunting rifle, for example, may want to purchase a larger capacity weapon that will do more damage when fired into a crowd,” Schroeder said. “A 10-day cooling-off period would serve to discourage such conduct.” . . .

Schroeder argued that the waiting period had little effect on existing gun owners, noting that before the age of superstores, most people wanting guns had to wait before purchasing one.

With president-elect Trump’s pledge to appoint a strict Constitutionalist to the Supreme Court, shifting the balance of power in that direction, there’s hope that the Court will close the Heller loophole. Meanwhile, Californians and the millions of citizens under the Ninth Circuit’s purview continue to suffer from judicial activism on what is the clearest of Constitutional rights.

Recommended For You

77 Responses to Federal Court Upholds CA’s 10-Day Waiting Period for All Gun Sales

    • The judges were Sidney Thomas (obama appointee), Schroeder (Carter nominee) and Nguyen (obama appointee).

      They had zero chance to win this case from the start with those 3 judges. Sidney Thomas, the obama appointee is the one who did that entire BS stunt to get the Peruta case reheard by the en banc panel after the San Diego Sheriff lost and did not want to appeal it further.

      The reason why the 9th is so anti gun, anti freedom, etc. is it’s stacked with clinton and obama judges and still quite a few carter ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit

      We need some time to get rid of all those terrible judges and get conservatives on the court.

      • It doesn’t matter which judges you get, you’re DOA on the 9th circuit. Even if you pull 2 pro-2nd judges somehow they’ll just get reversed in a do-over by the rest…

  1. The last time I bought a firearm in California I had to make two separate 200-mile round trips to the gun store. Since that kills a day each time, it turned into a de-facto 14-day waiting period, or at least one day off from work.

    Sure, that’s no burden.

    And if anything will make you want to go on a rampage, it’s California’s urban- and metro-area traffic.

    • Yes, it took me three 150 mile trips to buy my second handgun. One to order/buy the firearm, one trip when it arrived in-store to begin the 10-day waiting period, and a final trip to pick it up. And they suggested that I bring a gas and electric bill to prove my current place of residence and then they wouldn’t accept it because the bill used the short version of my first name. Fortunately, my auto registration worked as a substitute.
      Also, it almost never ends up being 10 days since most gun stores are closed 2 or 3 days in the middle of the week.

  2. Not. Surprised. One. Bit.

    Same circuit who pooped on the CCW issue and fingered Heller through a ridiculous en banc process.

  3. So their arguement is based off the supposition that every firearm owner is just itching to be the next mass-murderer…

    Stay classy 9th Circuit.

    • That is what grabbed me, too! They did not merely hint at it, they laid it right out there, anyone buying a rifle is assumed to be a mass killer.

    • The 9th Circuit’s argument is also based on the supposition that a 10-day waiting period will prevent a spree killer from acting out their plan. Of course there is no evidence to support that supposition.

    • Yes just itching, but the current guns they have are not deadly enough, they needed something with more capacity. That is the logic of this judge.

      “An individual who already owns a hunting rifle, for example, may want to purchase a larger capacity weapon that will do more damage when fired into a crowd,” Schroeder said. “A 10-day cooling-off period would serve to discourage such conduct.” . .

  4. I’m fine with a 10 day waiting period for purchasing a firearm provided they implement the same 10 day waiting period for voting.

      • And be required to fill out a 4473 and (under penalty of perjury) swear that they don’t smoke pot and aren’t fugitives from justice. Maybe for good measure have them list their race and ethnicity. Surely these things wouldn’t be considered ‘infringements’ on a constitutionally protected civil right.

    • Next thing you know, the courts will uphold a 10-day suspension of our Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. After all, public safety hangs in the balance and police might need those 10 days to beat a confession out of a suspect.

  5. Just another reason why CA and the 9th is

    B R O K E N

    You are not our founding fathers, neither were the people who appointed you (9th) or voted for you (CA governors). CA (and the 9th [there has not been a more overturned Circuit]) are telling us that we’re going to eventually come and get our Country’s real estate back. They better have their sh_t packed for a midnight move.

  6. Here’s what I think we should do: substitute “abortions” for “firearms” in all the gun control laws. How would the libs feel about those restrictions then? Then have them explain why they want to put more controls on a constitutionally-enumerated right than one that has merely been interpreted to be constitutional.

    (And this from someone who’s actually pro-choice – it’s the libertarian (small-L) way.)

    • Good point. And the 9th circuit think a 16 yr old girl should get an abortion if she wants one without any parental notification, etc. The 9th is hard left on every subject. There are some very good judges on the 9th but 2/3rds of the judges are obama and clinton nominees so most of the time the 3 judge panel will be 2 or 3 liberal judges.

    • Kyle,

      You are on the right track.

      I would substitute “computer”, “editorial”, “facebook post”, or “twitter post” for the word firearm in all of the laws and ask Progressives if that is fine.

  7. A 10-day waiting period on existing gun owners as a “cooling off period” defies all logic. What if you already have one of these “larger capacity” (hahahahaha) rifles, and want to add to your collection? What then, judge? Will THAT prevent a massacre?

    Of course not.

      • I work in Austin. You’d be surprised at how quick some folks are to forget the havoc he wrought with a “simple” hunting rifle, as well as the fact that armed civilians assisted the police in stopping him.

  8. This is a weird statement:-

    “Schroeder argued that the waiting period had little effect on existing gun owners, noting that before the age of superstores, most people wanting guns had to wait before purchasing one”

    They’re saying that because ‘back in the day’, people didn’t buy guns from stores, they had to wait anyway, that a mandated 10 day waiting period is now ok? Is every judgement that this circus of a circuit comes up with compared to ancient history?

    And are they implying that the alternative to gun stores i.e mail order gun purchases are acceptable?

    Sometimes it’s hard to figure out the mental leaps & gymnastics these idiots use to justify their rulings.

    • Yea, “back in the day” isn’t an argument usually used by progressives. Basing decisions on the way things were “back in the day” seems rather un-progressive…regressive?

    • “Back in the day” we had to wait for the town crier to get to the town square before anyone knew the news. Maybe CNN et al. would like to go back those times?

      • its funny you should reference that movie, the 9 circus and every legal body on this fruity left coast has a white rabbit issue with the 2nd amendment.

        They literally have no idea with that they are dealing with and so far they have not bitten yet. All it takes is a home invasion or robbery/rape of a loved one and they will get thier moment of clarity.

  9. Pretty confident that it was already ruled by the supreme court that a waiting period after you already own a gun is unconstitutional. Anyone else remember that? I couldn’t find it in a quick google search. They stated it was ok for the first, but anything after made no sense.

  10. When we want our rights as much as the potheads want their weed, we’ll get them back. Not til then. Notice the potheads didn’t bother with federal court for very long. The feds refused to make it legal, so the potheads lit up and said screw you. Now they have their weed and can get high every day with no consequences.

  11. “…“An individual who already owns a hunting rifle, for example, may want to purchase a larger capacity weapon that will do more damage when fired into a crowd,” ”

    Man, I sure wish I could get a bigger gun so I can go kill all those people over there! Too bad all I have is this gun right here, it’s never going to kill enough people to satisfy my illegal urges, it’s going to take ALL DAY to kill enough people to satisfy me.

    Said no one. Ever.

  12. At the risk of sparking the ever present “why don’t you just move” debate, why don’t you just move?

    There are neighboring states with good jobs, MUCH more reasonable tax structures, and fewer government regulations.

    Sure, out of state moves are a pain in the ass, but the ROI is HUGE.

      • While true, that is a moot point since none of the other states in the 9th Circuit have such atrocious laws and have no need for the 9th Circuit to provide relief — Hawaii excepted of course but we are not talking about Hawaii.

  13. “May want larger capacity weapon”?? There are NO larger capacity weapons in CA. The limit on magazine size is now 10 rounds, and mostly has been that, with a few exceptions. Making those who already have firearms wait 10 days to get another is just bureaucracy…not safety.

    • Since the average hunting rifle has a 4-5 round capacity, in the judge’s eyes a 10 round magazine IS a “larger capacity” magazine.

    • Andrew Lewis,

      I am not implying any condescension in my comment here … rather I am providing a matter-of-fact response:

      I don’t think your solution is even necessary. I have already stated on this forum that the existing 5 million firearms owners in California can bring near-as-dammit immediate change if they would simply apply their First Amendment right to petition government for a redress of grievances — and apply it to full effect.

      And what does that mean? Imagine if just one in 10 firearm owners all sent a LARGE envelope via certified mail (signature required) on the same day to the senior member of California’s Assembly and Senate. That LARGE envelope would contain a letter demanding that California immediately repeal all of their obscene firearm laws. And those same one in 10 firearm owners would also call the senior member of the Assembly and Senate on the same day demanding the same. That means the senior member of the Assembly and Senate would each receive 500,000 LARGE envelopes over the course of two to three days … as well as 500,000 phone calls over those two to three days.

      Think about that for a moment. How would your office conduct business if they suddenly received a half-million LARGE envelopes … all of which require a signature? How would your office conduct business if they suddenly received a half-million phone calls?

      I have to believe that such an exercise of the First Amendment would be wildly effective in providing the proper incentive for California’s politicians to change their laws. It worked in Illinois with far less participation when Illinois was marching down the road to a statewide ban on all military style semi-automatic rifles a few years ago. I don’t see why it would fail in California. And even if it did not immediately provide the proper incentive, I have to believe it would work if those same firearm owners repeated their petition two or three more times.

      • You fail the grasp the incomprehensible level of self-aggrandizement or classism inherent to the average Ca politician. Your grand #1a demonstrationwould utterly fail. Of those 500k certified envelooes only the first five would get signed, the remaining would simply be refused. Of the 500k phone calls only the first five would get answered, the remaining would simply go to Voicemail and be promptly deleted. Ca politicians will not give you the time of day unless you can vote for them (even then it’s simply lipservice unless you meet the other criteria) or donate 6 figures to their campaign.

        • That is certainly disappointing to hear.

          Well, you could slightly alter the strategy. Before applying your First Amendment right (to petition government) to full effect, announce to those senior members that you have raised over 2 million dollars for their next election campaigns … and you will be sending them several checks to hand over that 2 million dollars. Make sure to inform them that those checks will be arriving via certified mail (signature required) over the course of two or three days starting on date “x” … which just happens to overlap the very same span of two or three days that they would be receiving 500,000 letters from their constituents.

          That slight adjustment of the strategy would force them to accept and open all 500,000 letters … unless they want to flush $2 million dollars for their campaigns down the drain.

        • Now that actually might work. I’ll talk to my buddy who’s a whiz at organizing things, maybe we can make it happen.

  14. I thought that to be a lawyer you had to have some sort of edu-ma-cation kerjigger?

    “An individual who already owns a hunting rifle, for example, may want to purchase a larger capacity weapon that will do more damage when fired into a crowd,”

    That’s it. I’m building [another] trebuchet so that I can launch rifles into crowds of unsuspecting people.

    No, in all seriousness: What the actual fuck? Who the hell is launching “larger capacity weapons” into crowds and expecting them to do more damage than bullets would do? Does a “large capacity weapon” launcher exist to throw AR rifles at people? Is there an AK variant? FAL? If so why the hell has TTAG not reviewed these devices? I might want one dammit! (I mean, provided it gets at least three stars on something or other).

    This could be the Steel Rain weapon I’ve been looking for! You launch like 25 rifles… well… no for max effect on target you launch 25 ghost guns! They lock onto people via heat signature and then open fire with their .30 caliber 30 magazine clip and in half a second like 20 bazillion children are dead! IN HALF A SECOND! [Maniacal laughter]

  15. Sorry but not surprising. May Trump wreck havoc on these commie pricks…wha’ happened to the CZ post?!?

  16. The only way to truly fix the tragedy that is the 9th Circuit is to have congress disband it, and create new circuit courts in its place. Even better they could change the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction to only encompass the nasty public restroom across from Gavin Newstrom’s house…and his house.

  17. When I read crap like this it makes me wish Kasich did sign the Heartbeat Bill just to piss off libs that piss me off. But that’s immature I guess. Libs are such hypocrites it makes me sick.

  18. So let’s get this straight.

    Justice delayed is justice denied, as the 9th Circus has held many times.

    But a constitutional right delayed is just a reasonable restriction.

    Got it.

  19. I know everyone feels so much safer that I had wait 10 days to pick my 33rd addition to my collection 2 days ago. According to the Ninth Circuit, this last one could have been the Holy Grail, the enabler for me to go on my spree. Yes, that’s right we are all waiting for the right firearm to come along to send us on that spree. I imagine it like a Jerry Maguire moment. Walk into the the gun store, see something on the shelf and go “Hello beautiful, you had me at hello”.

  20. Hopefully trump will appoint solid conservatives to the Supreme Court as well as the lower courts and help to end some of this.

  21. Here’s a notion…Removed from the bench, derobed, Tarred and Feathered…Then sent express along with the rest of the morally broken DNC to the People’s Republic of China (PRC)…Where they would be more politically appreciated…..

  22. “…when fired into a crowd…”

    Ok so let’s imagine a crowd, say a group of people 12 deep.

    Scenario 1: 10 rounds (CA limit) of 5.56 are fired randomly into this crowd. i.e. Larger capacity.

    Scenario 2: 5 rounds .300 Winchester Magnum (common hunting round) are randomly fired into the same crowd. Standard hunting rifle capacity.

    Anyone want to place bets on which one creates more dead bodies?

    I don’t think this judge understands how guns work…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *