Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Silvester vs Harris: "10-day waiting periods of Penal Code violate the 2nd Amendment"

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Silvester vs Harris: "10-day waiting periods of Penal Code violate the 2nd Amendment"

    This issue kicked off three years ago, but has been brewing for decades. Interestingly, a whole slew of issues are before the courts these days, including whether or not and to what extent similar laws cross the line between "protecting the public" into infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

    "California Senior U.S. District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii found that “10-day waiting periods of Penal Code violate the Second Amendment” as applied to people who fall into certain classifications. He found this arbitrary wait time “burdens the Second Amendment rights of the plaintiffs.” (The decision can be read here.) This court decision orders the California Department of Justice to allow the “unobstructed release” of guns to those who pass a background check and possess a California license to carry a handgun, or who hold a Department of Justice-issued Certificate of Eligibility and already possess at least one firearm known to the state. Basically, it says if someone already legally has a gun in California the state can’t make that person wait 10 days for a second gun just because it wants to." - Source: Forbes
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Custodian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Capital City of Oaks - Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    293

    And so my question is this...

    Who pays the penalty for constructing such a law that infringes on the rights of all?

    If there ever was a case for extending the definition of treason(which should be higher than any felony), this is what iot should be for.
    Subsisto tutus. Subsisto secundus emendatio.

    Tyrants come in all shapes and sizes, as do those who do their bidding. Anyone who tells you that the threat of tyranny is long over, is either a fool, an enemy, or BOTH.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Custodian View Post
    Who pays the penalty for constructing such a law that infringes on the rights of all?
    You do silly.....see? The system works.

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    There are 56 other states to choose from...except those other states that do not recognize the 2A.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

Posting Permissions

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