Gil223
Regular Member
Fair use applies:
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...
(Complete article at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/judge-says-waiting-period-burdens-2nd-amendment/#9uQTykqhTKh2ejeL.99)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.”
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...