• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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
 

Custodian

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Messages
283
Location
The Capital City of Oaks - Raleigh, NC
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.
 
Top