BREAKING: California 10-Day Period for New Firearm Sales is Still Dead


Comely California Attorney General Kamala Harris has just lost another 2A battle in California. The Eastern District Court has ruled that her request of a stay on Silvester v Harris – ditching the 10-day waiting period for handgun purchases for buyers who’ve already passed a background check – shall not be granted. [Click here for the decision.] Unfortunately . . .

Harris can appeal. Yes, but – unless the California Department of Justice is unable to comply with the order, it will go forward. In 180 days, Californians who already own at least one registered firearm can be in and out of the store with their new gat in the same day.

The Peruta decision striking down the “just cause” provision for concealed carry applicants – a ruling upon which Kamala was denied standing to appeal – was a major win for Golden State gun rights. This is one more move in the right direction for California.


  1. avatar Bret says:

    Maybe my state of Wisconsin can drop its 2 day wait now. Good news for cali

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      In RI, concealed carry license holders don’t have to wait. Otherwise, it’s a seven – count it – seven day wait.

      1. avatar george says:

        Hawaii (handguns): 14 to 20 days. If they don’t have the background check completed on day 21 you get to pick up your gun anyway.

        They usually have it done in a few days, but you are not allowed to call and even ask about it until at least the 14th day, no matter how many firearms you have purchased previously with a background check for every handgun purchase… even if you completed a check the previous day… buy another handgun undergo another check and wait another 14 day minimum. Of course we have full registration here too, including for “unusable, unserviceable” firearms. Logic isn’t anywhere to be seen. Aloooooooha!

    2. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

      As a matter of right Kamala will appeal. Now whether or not the court of appeals upholds a stay remains to be seen. I have not seen any fillings on the matter.
      If this gets all the way to the 9th circuit court, there is a lot at stake. The 9th circuit court of appeals holds jurisdiction over places like Guam, and Hawaii. While places like Alaska, and Arizona are not really effected, other states might be. It also sets a precedent which could then be used in a case in RI, or Wisconsin. Yes I know it is a different circuit court, but it could be used to shore up the argument, much like the Peruta case. The judgment might not be used directly, however the legal basis for the majority of opinion certainly can be.
      So in this instance if we defend this all the way, it helps out other states as well.
      I say bring it on!

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Hold on there, Danny Boy. Your recitation of the effects of the ruling are not exactly right. What the ruling says is that someone who already owns a firearm, or has a COE or a CCW, may pick up the firearm as soon as the background check clears. In some cases that is the same day (minutes even), in others, according to the DOJ, it may take 6-8 days.
        About the stay. The original stay was 180 days, which expires (as I recall) sometime in February, a period of time intended to allow the Legislature time to act. Harris asked that the stay be extended to one year, which request was just denied. However, the Ninth Circus may also grant a stay pending appeal. And I am fairly certain that the notice of appeal has already been filed, so there will be a motion for stay in the Ninth Circuit before the original stay expires. It will be difficult to argue that there will be harm if the stay is not granted–every person allowed to pick up a firearm “early” will have necessarily just passed a background check AND will be a registered owner of another firearm.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          I understand and agree with what you are saying Mark N. What really, really bothers me is how a court strikes down a law because it is an unconstitutional infringement of our rights, but then stays the decision for up to one year!

          If a law is unconstitutional and infringes on our rights, how is it okay to continue to infringe on our rights?!?!?!? And by the way I mean from a simple common sense perspective, not some tortured legal perspective.

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          To uncommonsense. A couple of things. First, the stay was six months and expires in three. Second, the DOJ said that in order to be able to process background checks any faster than it is doing now would require new computer systems/software/analysts for which it does not have the resources (which is why it asked for a year). So the effect of mandate now (or February when the stay expires) is that for those who own firearms, they will be able to pick up new purchases as soon as the background check clears, whether that is the same day or ten days. The requirement of a background check is still good law, just not the waiting period. According to the trial briefs I perused, something like 80% will clear in 24 hours or less.

  2. avatar preston says:

    hmm a little less commie-fornia

    1. Yay. And I’ll be changing the k to a c.

  3. avatar Roll says:

    Another step in the right direction, but CA’s still full of turd laws and lawmakers.

    1. avatar Noah says:

      The politicians are a reflection of the mindless voters.

      I live in a conservative county in California…. surrounded by knuckleheads in the neighboring counties.

      1. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

        This sounds like me, and many people I know..

        1. avatar tdgrafton says:

          I would characterize most of Cali that way.

      2. avatar Accur81 says:

        And if you want to go shooting, drop me a line at [email protected] .

      3. avatar Blake says:

        I live in the Central Valley of CA. Flyover country as far a San Francisco and LA are concerned.

        1. avatar MikeP says:

          Typical – where their food comes from = insignificant.

    2. avatar Ray Ficara says:

      AND political DA whore like that twat Harris.


  4. avatar Noah says:

    Another win for California!

    Now, to get rid of that dreaded safe handgun roster!

    1. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

      We are waiting to hear on a ruling on the Pena case. Once we get anything we will let you know.

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      B.S. – they just f themselves sideways so fast it doesn’t look like their sliding backwards until you check the slo-mo.

      CA sucks so bad (in politic-populace respects) that my ears are popping out here in flyover country.

      If you ‘live’ in a blue state, you may be part of the problem. If you have a (D) after your name, or are liberal or a rino, the problem is part-of-you.

      Quit your lotus eating beotches, the prez is giving CA to Mexico tonight, and you’ll have to pull-out and nuke the site from orbit to get it back.

      It’ll be like pre-President-Mandela S. Africa, except without the movie ending. (you’ll still have the “One Settlor, One Bullet” marches by, ohh? Monday). Good Luck.

      1. avatar Noah says:

        And if 2A proponents don’t stand together, regardless of geography, we are all sure to fall like dominoes.

        Some folks, including myself, fight the good fight behind enemy lines. I vote, give money to pro-2A organizations, educate non-shooters, carry a gun every day 365/24/7, etc.

        The problem is folks like you who think it will not happen to them (or their state)… California, then Washinton, then Oregon, then Arizona, then Nevada, then Idaho… the disease must be attacked within. The fight cannot be focused on one state, one population, one geographic location…

        For the record… I’m not even an native of CA but fully embraced the 2A-fight when I moved here (and will continue to do so when I leave in 2015).

    3. avatar PerplexedPistolero says:

      Hey, ho, roster’s gotta go! Especially now that Gov. Moonbeam signed the bill to get rid of SSE.

      And every time I hear safe handgun roster, I think of Hoot in Black Hawk Down: this is my safety, sir.

  5. avatar T-DOG says:

    Wonder how this will affect Washington states new 10 day waiting period under I-594.

    1. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

      If this ruling as it stands now is upheld through the 9th circuit court of appeals this will have a direct impact on the Washington State 10 day wait. The 9th circuit court of appeals covers Washington and Oregon alike.
      I would expect the 10 day wait in WA to be stricken if this happens.
      This alone might be a reason for Kamala not to appeal all the way up. Lick your wounds and move on.
      Of course it would be challenged in WA in court, but if there is a standing ruling from the 9th circuit, I would suspect the case would win on a summary judgement.

      1. avatar Scrubula says:

        Good point. Now I’m actually hoping she appeals and gets pushed away again.

        Their goals right now are to extend the old law as long as possible to annoy as many gun owners in Commiefornia as possible. It’s pure spite.

  6. avatar Mark says:

    We still have registration for all new guns, which kind of makes any incremental victory hollow in my mind. Welcome of course, but hollow. Every single one of your new guns is still a ward of this state, and there is nothing that will make me comfortable with that.

  7. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Illinois has a 3-day wait for handguns, despite the fact that we need a FOID card (background check every 10 years) to buy one.

    My guess is the gun stores are secretly in favor of waiting periods. That way we have to go into their stores twice. One more opportunity for them to sell us the high margin crap we absolutely must have.

    1. avatar MrMrMr says:

      FOID is renewed every 10 years but the background check is run nightly by IL State Police.

    2. avatar Former Water Walker says:

      And a FOID should be sufficient for concealed carry. I bought my last 7 guns in Indiana( 3 were handguns). Even with a transfer to Illinois I still paid less. And Cook County can kiss my OFWG a##…

    3. avatar JeffR says:

      Our waiting period drives me especially nuts now because of Cook County’s $25 firearm purchase tax, which I refuse to pay. So I have to drive 45 minutes to an hour to buy a firearm and then turn around and make that drive again to pick it up. And, usually, a full week later because buying a handgun on a weekend and then picking it up before the gun store closes on a weekday is near impossible.

  8. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    The pendulum may be slow, but it’s swinging back.
    Maybe Ms. Harris should go into corporate law?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Unfortunately, the two leading candidates for governor four years from now will be Harris and Lt. Gov. Newsom Gavin, who is just as bad as she is (meaning rabidly anti), and either one will sign any anti-gun legislation that hits the governor’s desk. Both are from San Francisco, he a former councilman and mayor, and she the city attorney.

      1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        didn’t he get busted for having an affair? oh wait, that must be a prerequisite in Cali.

      2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        Oh geez. What a pair to draw to. Gavin leans about as far left as you can. Just slightly worse than Harris.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Please don’t remind me. It hurts so bad as it is. We will be truly screwed, since there does not seem to be an able and well-known Republican anywhere to be seen.

        2. avatar Brandon Combs says:

          For our issue, both are bad — but Harris as governor should give gun owners (in and out of CA) nightmares. Between the two, Harris is the larger political and ideological threat.

  9. avatar Mark says:

    This is great news. I’m puzzled as to why my state, Wisconsin, has a 48 hour waiting period to take home a handgun. If you pass the background check, which, in my experience has usually taken no more than a couple of minutes, you should be able to go home with your gun. Anything else is a violation of my 2A rights.

    1. avatar Former Water Walker says:

      Cooling off period LOL…

      1. avatar KCK says:

        But not for a long gun.
        So if you’re really angry, buy a rifle

  10. avatar styrgwillidar says:

    About Peruta. The San Diego County Sheriff is still refusing to comply with the decision. Here’s what’s currently on their website: (wish I could just ignore court orders and laws and things like that…)

    “The issue of whether the State, the Brady Center, and/or CPCA and CPOA can intervene in the case has been settled – they cannot. However, the issue of whether or not the full Ninth Circuit will review the case en banc remains unanswered. The full court can accept a case for en banc review even if none of the parties make such a request – only time will answer that question.

    Therefore nothing has changed for us, we will continue to process applications as we have been doing. Others that wish to place an application in abeyance may do so in person, not by mail. Should the decision be upheld, we will contact the applicants in the order applications were received.”

    1. avatar RLC2 says:

      The optimistic view is that the Sheriff is waiting for the mandate to be officially re-issued, which was stayed pending the decision on Harris intervention and en banc request.

      The word on Calguns is the 9th DC Clerks office has said Friday, (Nov 21)

      Some speculate the delay from original 7 days, to 7+2 was due the possibility of decision on Prieto en banc request ALSO being issued, which would be sensible, but also surprisingly early, given past deliberations.

  11. avatar styrgwillidar says:

    Does that mean we don’t have to pay the $30 DROS background check fee when buying a new firearm?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      No. The DROS is part of the background and registration process.

  12. avatar PeterW says:

    Am I dreaming? I thought it was now 10 for handguns and 10 days for rifles as well ?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Yes, you are correct. That is what the law says. The trial court decision invalidated the law, at least in part. The 10 day wait applies to all first purchases.

      1. avatar RLC2 says:

        Mark, Calguns Foundation points out in their press release:

        1. This continues the trend of wins on the law…thanks to solid teamwork and well-funded lawyering:
        Congrats Calguns Foundation and Second Amendment Foundation!

        “The Court notes that Defendant has not identified any error of law or any erroneous factual finding,”

        2. This decision explained something I’ve been confused about, “rational basis scrutiny”– a weak form of judicial review that was expressly rejected in the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision – “than with intermediate scrutiny,” which forces governments to prove how a law impinging on a constitutional right serves an important purpose.”

        ” Conclusion
        When an applicant relies on “serious legal questions,” she must demonstrate that the balance of equities tips sharply in her favor. See Leiva-Perez, 640 F.3d at 966; Tribal Village of Akutan v. Hodel, 859 F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir. 1988); Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983). Given the on-going constitutional violations that are occurring to the likely thousands of Californians by operation of the 10-day waiting period laws, the Court cannot conclude that the balance of equities tips sharply in Defendant‟s favor. Combined with the public interest that weighs against granting an injunction, the Court does not find that issuing a stay is appropriate. ”

        3.The Judge had little patience with Harris’ whine that it would be too hard to program the computer or something…

        “A bench trial has concluded, and a law that is actively being enforced has been found to be unconstitutional. The Court does not know how Defendant or the BOF prioritizes projects, but dealing with an
        unconstitutional law should be towards the top of the list.”

        oh, snap!

  13. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    The real question to ask is what does the “prettiest” AG in America plan to do with her future? If she wants to run for Governor, well, she needs to tread lightly. Like IL Speaker Madigan’s baby girl was made to recognize, an appeal can have negative implications for other states (read: rich liberal donors) so sometimes, it ain’t worth it. That’s why she jumped into the fray in Peruta after the fact. The Court spoke but she threw the dice: if she got in and overturned it, wow, she is a star. If she lost, she blames the sheriff and the other attorneys who shaped the litigation by saying how she tried, and make excuses. It is a strategy. Here, she has to do something. And sometimes, licking your wounds and recognizing that the people who get guns w/out a wait are already legit and have to go thru another background check. I am sure her people can manipulate the LA Times into a spin worthy of anti-nausea medicine.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      The Times doesn’t need her people; it already spins like a top. The editorials are already popping about how the Supreme Court screwed up Heller, and that screwed Peruta, which screwed up the grand plan to ban all guns from the county. The Times has never seen a gun control law it could not heartily support.

  14. avatar dwb says:

    Looks like Harris picked a bad week to stop sniffing glue.


    I wonder if she is dumb enough to appeal this all the way.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      The last appeal will be to the Ninth Circuit (to which she has already appealed). This case does not raise any issue that would interest the Supreme Court. Because of the unusual rules that apply to appeals, the odds are most definitely against her, but the goal may simply to delay the mandate for as long as possible, assuming she can convince the Court of Appeals to issue a stay.

      1. avatar RLC2 says:

        +1. “Dragged kicking and screaming by CalGuns into compliance with the law…” will be AG Harris’ tagline.

        That may well be a feature, not a bug, for California politicians, but it wont serve her nationally.

        Any adult supervision is highly unlikely given how the neutered CA Republican Party has become, and with the supermajority already in place, and growing, given illegal immigrant inflows, and middle class taxpayers and corporation out-migration, its actually BEST that the Democrats own this State for a little longer.

        The bottom is coming- it might as well be a hard one, that the Dems own. It will be an obvious conclusion that Dems cant be trusted to run anything, and provide a cautionary tale to the rest of the country, about what NOT to do.

        Like the Soviet Union- the rot and denial was obvious for a lonnngggg time, but when the fall came, it was fast.

        One more term by Jerry Brown out to do it. If the poor guy doesnt croak from dealing with the nitwits in Sacramento, he can prop it up a little longer, gluing patches on, and cooking the books, hoping the economy improves and FakeBookers make it big and tax revenues bail the state out… he’s playing roulette odds now.

  15. avatar Accur81 says:

    As much as I want to be positive, the 10 day waiting period is still very much in effect. It is clearly unconstitutional, and hopefully will remain that way in the understanding of the various courts.

    1. avatar RLC2 says:

      Correct. The stay was until February. And despite being unsympathetic, the Judge did leave open the option of granting more time, after then, if the State could show they were actually working on changing computer systems and doing work.

      Plus Harris can appeal, which would be unlikely to succeed, but then thats been her pattern all along.

      Kind of tells you where the Chief Law Official of California places her priorities. Ambition and the demands of Elite Progressives in the Bay Area and LA apparently matter more than the will of the people, more than the extra costs of non-compliance to all taxpayers, and more than the constitutional rights denied, as decided by the court.

  16. avatar Chris says:

    As someone in California who already owns several firearms, this is a welcome development. Hopefully all goes as it should and the 10-day waiting period is abolished.

    Maybe I won’t have to move after all.

  17. avatar GS650G says:

    Why ten days? Because it takes 11 for the cops to respond.

  18. avatar N703 says:

    Besides being another completely ignorant libtard, she is not “comely”, at all. Not even remotely. If the jokes are towards Obama making that claim, my bad.

    Call me crazy, but she almost looks like she needs to stand to urinate.

  19. avatar Roymond says:

    It’s not nearly enough for me to move to California, as several doctors have recommended for health reasons. They still lack two things Oregon has: better (though hardly perfect) firearms freedoms, and real freedom of expression.

    Until I can go out in public in California wearing just my NRA cap, sandals from L.L Bean, shades from Cabella’s, and a sidearm of my hoice, they don’t count as a “free state” to me.

  20. avatar Slab Rankle says:

    Kamala means “She Camel” in Hebrew.

  21. avatar Logez says:

    As a Californian, I’m pretty stoked with where things are headed right now. I’ll be needing a good concealed carry for my hopefully now approved CCW and it would be nice to walk out with it same day.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email