Results 1 to 9 of 9

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

  1. #1
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428

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

    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...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    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>

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    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 ?

  4. #4
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    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.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  5. #5
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    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...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    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.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    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.
    There ya go... that's the way I see it also. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    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.
    +1 I would say even a tax of any kind would be an infringement.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •