Federal judge rules PRCalif's 10-day waiting period for gun purchase, unconstitutional

[turtledude]

I don't think you want to go head to head with me on a debate on anything to do with gun issues.

so tell me why someone who engaged in what is now not a crime in 48 states or so should be banned 40 years later?

tell me the public interest in that position

and why do you have a handle "save liberty" when you sound like a fascist?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It seems to me, the biggest threat the left can mount against the 2nd Amendment is the mentally ill in mass shootings. You make reasonable steps to reduce that and they have little argument .

Provided those steps don't cross the line and violate the Constitution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

and why do you have a handle "save liberty" when you sound like a fascist?

It's because he thinks that liberty is too precious to be squandered on the masses, and must be saved exclusively for the ruling elite.

Pretty much like all democrats....

 

[martybegan]

Today, a federal judge ruled that California’s 10-day waiting period is unconstitutional.

All 'waiting periods' are un-Constitutional, let's hope citizens in other states challenge their waiting periods as well where such provisions are also invalidated.

So you think it is Constitutional for a court to rule the AK-47 and AR-15 are unusual dangerous weapons not covered by the 2nd but that waiting periods are Unconstitutional?

Of course not.

To acknowledge the fact that current Second Amendment jurisprudence allows for the banning of AK and AR platform rifles by some jurisdictions doesn't mean one agrees with it; it means one understands and respects the rule of law and the authority of the Federal courts to determine what the Constitution means, where one is entitled to his subjective, personal opinion, provided he understands that his opinion is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

At some point New York's SAFE Act, for example, will be before a Federal court of appeals, where the constitutionally of the measure's provision banning AR and AK platform rifles will be reviewed. And if the constitutionally of the law is upheld upon appeal, it will likely find its way to the Supreme Court – where, one hopes, the High Court will invalidate the SAFE Act.

But until that happens we're still a Nation of laws, we're still subject to the rule of law, where it's incumbent upon each American to understand and respect the law even though we might disagree with it.

i.e. bend over, spread em, and take it.

 

[martybegan]

So how do we keep guns from the mentally unstable without a waiting period? I assume a person goes through some type of thought process in the purchase of a gun. Application of the weapon, type of round, barrel length, and some others I would imagine. Just how is the waiting period unfair to the purchaser? Since everyone legally purchasing a gun is subject to the same wait. Ten days seems longer than needed to get a background check, but three to five seems reasonable. What am I missing?

How does a waiting period keep guns from the mentally unstable to begin with? Obviously based on past history it doesn.t
It is an unnecessary burden on exercising a right. That's all it takes to be unconstitutional.

Waiting periods allow for background checks. Where does it say you get to have a gun instantaneously in the Constitution? Since the purchase of that gun can impact my Constitutional rights, there are legitimate reasonable limitations.

I have a right to own and keep arms un-infringed. Making me wait for no particular reason is infringement.

and unless the gun impacting you is owned by the government, how is me owning a gun impacting your constitutional rights?

 

[saveliberty]

Who said no particular reason? I was very specific about checking more carefully for mental stability. I have no problem with stable responsible people owning a gun or guns. Armed citizens are a help to detering crime and a government intent on removing freedom. What I don't see that some of you apparent ly do, is how a short waiting period damages you. None of you has given a good answer to that. As a general rule many of you agree with me on other issues. Amazing to me how quickly I went from ally to idiot.

 

[martybegan]

Who said no particular reason? I was very specific about checking more carefully for mental stability. I have no problem with stable responsible people owning a gun or guns. Armed citizens are a help to detering crime and a government intent on removing freedom. What I don't see that some of you apparent ly do, is how a short waiting period damages you. None of you has given a good answer to that. As a general rule many of you agree with me on other issues. Amazing to me how quickly I went from ally to idiot.

Will the police provide 24/7 coverage of me while I wait for my firearm?

In the end, what did making me wait a period of time accomplish, other than infringe on my right to keep and bear arms?

10 days is not a "short waiting period"

Is the motive of the waiting period to actually perform a check, or in reality just to make getting a gun harder for law abiding citizens?

 

[turtledude]

Who said no particular reason? I was very specific about checking more carefully for mental stability. I have no problem with stable responsible people owning a gun or guns. Armed citizens are a help to detering crime and a government intent on removing freedom. What I don't see that some of you apparent ly do, is how a short waiting period damages you. None of you has given a good answer to that. As a general rule many of you agree with me on other issues. Amazing to me how quickly I went from ally to idiot.

In a free society, there are opposing rights or interests. when I was a government attorney. I had to deal with the fact that there were things such as patient-doctor, spousal, priest-penitent and lawyer client privilege. I knew that some mopes I was dealing with had most likely told their attorney, their pastor or their "baby mom" that they had whacked someone or had 30 Keys of cocaine stashed some place but society has decided that society's interest is best served by not allowing the government to make a priest, a doctor, a lawyer etc rat out a criminal's conversation to them


same is true here. If you are adjudicated mentally incompetent, you cannot own or possess a firearm and that information is almost always shared with NCIS or the other data bases. however, if you voluntarily go to your doctor and say "I'm depressed" or I "am angry" and then that doctor has to inform the government and that information leads you to be stripped of all your firearms, I suspect lots of gun owners will not seek treatment for what may be a minor or major mental issue. so its easy for do gooders to demand that medical privacy rights fall away in favor of society being able to prevent "nut cases from getting guns" but its much more complex than that

 

[The Rabbi]

So how do we keep guns from the mentally unstable without a waiting period? I assume a person goes through some type of thought process in the purchase of a gun. Application of the weapon, type of round, barrel length, and some others I would imagine. Just how is the waiting period unfair to the purchaser? Since everyone legally purchasing a gun is subject to the same wait. Ten days seems longer than needed to get a background check, but three to five seems reasonable. What am I missing?

How does a waiting period keep guns from the mentally unstable to begin with? Obviously based on past history it doesn.t
It is an unnecessary burden on exercising a right. That's all it takes to be unconstitutional.

Waiting periods allow for background checks. Where does it say you get to have a gun instantaneously in the Constitution? Since the purchase of that gun can impact my Constitutional rights, there are legitimate reasonable limitations.

Bakground checks are instantaneous. What will be discovered in 5 or 7 days that wont be known now? Back before computers and intenet there was a case to be made. But not anymore.

 

[saveliberty]

marty, in your stated case of immenient threat, if you made it to the gunshop it was a lucky thing. Purchasing a gun for the first time with a threat upon you and no experience sounds like a pretty bad outcome.

turtle, I liked you post. Not sure taking guns from a depressed person for a period of time is bad. If there is a procedure for removing gun rights, a procedure should also exist to return those rights.

 

[The Rabbi]

Several of you have pointed out background checks are very fast. Can anyone detail what that information checks? If you look at many of the more recent school attacks, the attacker purchased multiple guns with in a relatively short period. So having purchased a gun before is more of a red flag true? Perhaps the background checks are missing important elements? Elements which might be helpful? For instance, has the purchaser had any recent domestic problems with police contact? Restraining orders?

I have no problem with a mentally healthly adult owning 50 guns and lots of ammunition. A responsible owner should also want guns to stay out of irresponsible owners hands. Reasonable steps to accomplish that seem good. No one is denying you your weapons, so there is no violation of your rights.

It checks records as follows:
Arrests
Restraining orders
Criminal charges and their disposition
Probably now they also check involuntary commitments to mental institutions.
Military service record.
For non citizens they also check residence status.

 

[saveliberty]

Whatever might be done, it doesn't prevent criminals from being armed. We are really discussing law abiding citizens and how they can best exercise their rights, while preventing at least one avenue for a mentally unstable person to obtain a gun. Anything over a week seems excessive to me too. Just looking to discuss options.

 

[The Rabbi]

Several of you have pointed out background checks are very fast. Can anyone detail what that information checks? If you look at many of the more recent school attacks, the attacker purchased multiple guns with in a relatively short period. So having purchased a gun before is more of a red flag true? Perhaps the background checks are missing important elements? Elements which might be helpful? For instance, has the purchaser had any recent domestic problems with police contact? Restraining orders?

I have no problem with a mentally healthly adult owning 50 guns and lots of ammunition. A responsible owner should also want guns to stay out of irresponsible owners hands. Reasonable steps to accomplish that seem good. No one is denying you your weapons, so there is no violation of your rights.

I personally believe a person should have to undergo a CAT scan once every five years in order to be able to buy and own firearms, No different than proving you are able to see in order to get a DL.

THe NCIC background check is relatively thorough in terms of uncovering any criminal activity, and also it checks for such things as TROs and other alerts, but that's it. It doesn't tell anyone if the person is sane or not, in fact a person can voluntarily lived in a physiatric ward and that won't show up on a back ground check

It's a useful tool, but a tool nonetheless.

I think you ought to have a colonoscopy in order to post on this board to make sure you're not full of shit.

 

[The Rabbi]

Whatever might be done, it doesn't prevent criminals from being armed. We are really discussing law abiding citizens and how they can best exercise their rights, while preventing at least one avenue for a mentally unstable person to obtain a gun. Anything over a week seems excessive to me too. Just looking to discuss options.

There is no preventing anyone from owning a gun who wants one. That's kind of the entire point. There are 300M or so guns in America, generlly unaccaounted for. We dont bakground checks on people getting DLs in case they're alcoholics. And driving is not a constitutional right.

 

[hazlnut]

Lazy fuckers, just drive to Arizona.

 

[The Rabbi]

Lazy fuckers, just drive to Arizona.

That's illegal for a handgun, you low information asshole.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

We don't let felons own guns and the mentally unstable probably shouldn't either. So the problem seems to be the lack of a system to determine that. Just how exactly are your right to arms violated with a mental/criminal background check?

Rabbi addressed that in much the same way as I would, so I guess I don't get the point of your question.

Some states do allow convicted felons to own guns, by the way, as long as they've fulfilled all the terms of their sentences, though, to my knowledge, none of these states will issue them permits that would allow them to carry concealed on government property. Also, other states provide for a process of review by which ex-offenders convicted of non-violent crimes may have this civil liberty restored.

But let us get down to the ultimate reason why many of us oppose the notion of prohibiting persons to own guns on the basis of past mental illness that is not the stuff of real psychosis: we don't trust the government to abuse that standard on the basis of a political agenda.

We see the writing on the wall.

You do understand that the ultimate essence of the right to keep and bear arms is the right of the people to resist usurpative government, right?

I don't have a problem with prohibiting schizophrenics from owning guns, but that condition is so rare as to be virtually moot, compounded by the fact that most schizophrenics are obvious. They're not going to walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun. And I don't know of any previously diagnosed schizophrenics who were responsible for mass shootings, do you? Violent schizophrenics are a very rare breed. Most schizophrenics are not violent at all, just hopelessly dangerous to themselves without medication or supervision.

In most of the instances in which schizophrenics attacked others with guns, they were diagnosed as such after the fact, as the dangerously violent ones are paranoid schizophrenics, most of whom, ironically, are reasonably functional from all outward appearances and socially isolated; and, by the way, even most paranoid schizophrenics are not dangerously violent either.

Generally, mass shootings are not perpetrated by schizophrenics; rather, they're perpetrated by ideologically driven or grievance-driven narcissists/sociopaths without previous criminal records. They're morally insane, not clinically insane. Only in very rare instances are we going to know who these people are, let alone have any actionable means of prohibiting them from owning guns, until after the fact of their mayhem. In the meantime, the best defense against them is a law-abiding, armed citizenry.

So based on this fallacious line of reasoning, we're just not willing to give an inch to those whose real agenda is to disarm us all.

Hope that helps.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We don't let felons own guns and the mentally unstable probably shouldn't either. So the problem seems to be the lack of a system to determine that. Just how exactly are your right to arms violated with a mental/criminal background check?

We already check for mental health restrictions with back ground checks. As for the supposed claim one can make a non subjective test that won't be politically charged or changed to check for mental health issues you are either naive or stupid if you believe that to be true. Basically you want to allow a Government to create a test that supposedly checks for mental problems when we all know that no such test can ever be without bias or purposefully made to prevent those that current Government in power don't want armed.

I will remind you that the Supreme Court ruled that Poll taxes and tests for the right to vote are ILLEGAL and so would be a test to determine who can and can not own a firearm.

 

[saveliberty]

Protecting yourself from the government isn't going to happen, since we are talking reality. They are better trained and have heavier firepower. I suggest joining a militia and a serious exercise program.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Protecting yourself from the government isn't going to happen, since we are talking reality. They are better trained and have heavier firepower. I suggest joining a militia and a serious exercise program.

It is Illegal and Unconstitutional to make a subjective test to exercise a Constitutional right.