CGF Seeks Review by Full 9th Circuit Court in Waiting Period Case

By Dave Dolbee published on in General, News

It sounds like the punchline to bad joke, “So, a guy is concealed carrying a handgun while filling out paperwork to buy another handgun, but he is in California, so he has to wait 10 days to pick it up—to give him time to “cool off” (guard against impulsive acts of violence). Unfortunately, that is not a joke. It is the logic of the gun control crowd… and a recent court ruling.

Attorneys for The Calguns Foundation (CGF), Second Amendment Foundation, and two individual plaintiffs filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking en banc (full-court) review of a wrongly-decided opinion that overturned the trial court’s judgment that California’s Waiting Period Laws violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Calguns Foundation logo

A number of California firearms retailers have filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit against state Attorney General Kamala Harris and the state’s Department of Justice on free-speech grounds.

We hope that the full Ninth Circuit will correct the panel opinion’s numerous injustices and affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, we are prepared to take this case to the Supreme Court should that extraordinary action be necessary to restore the fundamental, individual Second Amendment rights of law-abiding people.

CGF Executive Director Brandon Combs, who is also an individual plaintiff in the case, issued the following statement:In December, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals bizarrely ruled that even a person legally carrying a concealed handgun as he buys another gun at retail needs to be ‘cooled off’ for another 10 days before exercising his Second Amendment rights and taking possession of a constitutionally-protected firearm.

We believe that the Ninth Circuit’s panel opinion was wrong as a matter of law. Not only did the panel incorrectly decide the Second Amendment issues in favor of the State of California, but in doing so it ignored important legal rules that govern the review of a lower court’s judgment after a trial.

After undertaking significant discovery, depositions, and a three-day bench trial, Federal District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii issued his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which held the State of California’s 10-day waiting period laws to be irrational and unconstitutional as applied to three categories of gun purchasers.

As our attorneys noted in the petition they filed for us today, “maintaining the proper standard of review for fact-finding in constitutional litigation is a matter of exceptional importance that is worthy of en banc review.”

We hope that the full Ninth Circuit will correct the panel opinion’s numerous injustices and affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, we are prepared to take this case to the Supreme Court should that extraordinary action be necessary to restore the fundamental, individual Second Amendment rights of law-abiding people.

The petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc can be viewed or downloaded at www.calgunsfoundation.org/silvester.

Jeff Silvester, et al. v. Attorney General Xavier Becerra (formerly titled Silvester v. Kamala Harris) is supported by civil rights organizations The Calguns Foundation (Sacramento, CA) and Second Amendment Foundation (Bellevue, WA).

The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.

Tags: , , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (13)

  • left coast chuck

    |

    @Kevin: Please go back and read the whole article. The plaintiff in the case, a gun owner sued the kalyfornia because they made him wait 10 days to pick up a gun he had purchased when he was already on record with the state as owning guns. The trial court having heard the evidence as described in what you call a terrible article, found that the state’s position was ridiculous and ruled that where the state already had gun ownership by the purchaser on record it didn’t make any sense at all to say he had to wait 10 days to “cool off” when he already possessed the means to illegally use the firearm he owned if that was his intent. Okay, still with me? The state appealed that ruling and because it was a constitutional issue the case was being tried in federal court. Appeals are usually heard by one appellate justice (the kind of judge who sits on an appeals court)who ruled that the state was correct in requiring a “cooling off” period because the prospective gun owner could be buying a “more dangerous” gun than the one he presently was ON RECORD WITH THE STATE AS OWNING. I’m sorry to shout. I apologize but your comment says to me that either you didn’t read the article or your reading comprehension is approximately at the third grade level. If you didn’t read the article, then I would recommend that you do so before commenting. If you did read it and still don’t understand it, they have reading classes for adults who have trouble reading and comprehending. I would sincerely urge you to sign up for one. Contact your local public library. They can put you in touch with a program that will help you.

    Reply

  • left coast chuck

    |

    @Craig: Much to my chagrin and dismay, I still live in the peepuls republic of kallyforniya. Our masters in sacramento already know who has a handgun and now, also, who has a rifle because all firearms must be run through sacramento and they ARE keeping a record of who has what. So it is disingenuous so say that the NRA is blocking record keeping. In the case of the peepuls republic, the records are there. Until she died too early of cancer, I knew a lady who worked for the ca dept of justice (what a travesty that appellation is) whose job it was to go out and collect firearms from folks the CDOJ had discovered shouldn’t be in possession of a firearm because in 1968 they had pled guilty to assault during bar ruckus when they were 22 years old. The justice from the 4th Circus (that’s what it is laughingly called out here, the most overruled circuit court in the U.S.) who issued that tortured opinion that even though the state already knew that you owned one or more firearms, you still had to wait ten days to pick up a new one. The original trial judge had it right. The appellate judge must be one of the pot smoking boys in black muumuus. HOWEVER, don’t look for any kind of intelligent ruling from the 9th circus. They draw those clowns from the San Francisco Bay Area lawyers, so that should tell you all.

    Reply

  • hike

    |

    My state has no such regulations. In the days before “instant check”, there was a wait period but carry permit holders could buy and leave the same day. Despite the great beauty of California, it is a crazy place because of its political leaders.

    Reply

  • Lorenzo

    |

    “It sounds like the punchline to bad joke, “So, a guy is concealed carrying a handgun while filling out paperwork to buy another handgun, but he is in California, so he has to wait 10 days to pick it up—to give him time to “cool off” (guard against impulsive acts of violence). Unfortunately, that is not a joke. It is the logic of the gun control crowd… and a recent court ruling.”

    That’s not much different than walking in to a Walmart carrying a loaded pistol on my belt, with one or two spare mags, to buy more ammo and being told I have to complete my shopping and be walked to the cashier to pay before I can take possession of it.

    Reply

    • Craig

      |

      I don’t disagree but what’s missing from the discussion of this court decision and the associated rulings is how we got to the place where these decisions get made. I’m a 2nd Amendment supporter but not an NRA supporter because they have contributed to this problem. The NRA has frustrated any effective and comprehensive documentation of firearm ownership that would allow a seller to know that they’re selling a gun owner yet another firearm or more ammunition. If we could get to a place where there was a thoughtful process to document and license “superusers”, a lot of the state regs would be unnecessary and easily overruled. I can drive anywhere in the US with my license. Why not document and regulate firearm ownership in a similar fashion and issue national ID’s??

      Reply

    • Doug

      |

      Craig, you mean you trust government bureaucrats with your info and how many and what kind of guns you have purchased? Gun registration is the utopia of the left. “Not so they can take your guns away” or so they say. However, besides keeping track of what and how many guns an individual is buying and having a list of people to confiscate guns from, there is no beneficial purpose for a list/registry. The person legally purchasing a gun is rarely the one who uses it in a crime. in fact, it takes 3-13 years before crime guns come to attention of authorities. If the government has a list of gun owners, besides losing it to hackers (which has occurred), there are all sorts of targeted laws they could implement giving them free reign to confiscate the offending ones. When Barry and Hitlary said they didn’t want to take our guns, they were probably being pretty truthful. They knew it couldn’t happen all at once. They were merely laying the groundwork for someone else, of the politically left persuasion, to come along and do it. Not for me. No thanks. But for the NRA,, GOA and NAGR, many of these steps may have already been put in place.

      Reply

    • JPrize

      |

      Craig, I’m not sure in which state you reside, but there are several states where having a valid CCW permit has been accepted by the ATF as an alternate method of meeting the Brady Law requirement for a NICS background check. While that approach doesn’t help all firearm owners, it does cover the situation described in this article — without any form of ownership registry.

      However, looking at the ATF’s “Permanent Brady Permit Chart” web page right now I’m finding it both slightly amusing and utterly revolting and absurd that California already appears to have such exception process in place — but only for the entertainment industry’s purposes.

      Reply

    • JJ

      |

      You don’t have to show your drivers license to buy a car. It is not the business of the government to tell a law abiding citizen how many weapons he can purchase. We don’t need gun control, we need criminal control!

      Reply

    • Cam

      |

      Politician control as well. Term limits and a law that does not allow them to exempt themselves from any law passed.

      Reply

  • Doug

    |

    Don’t hold your breath. The Ninth Circuit is the one that came out with the ridiculous ruling in Peralta(?) v San Diego and they have reinterpreted the Constitution on Trumps immigration vetting action. Ruling by public sentiment seems to be the rule of the day with liberal judges installed by Obo. The Ninth has proven it repeatedly so to look for logic from this court is like looking for unicorns on Coronado Island.

    Reply

  • abelhorn

    |

    Judges are going to keep on until they feel the real reason for
    the 2nd Amendment.

    Reply

  • Rich K.

    |

    What do you expect from liberal institutions like the 4th and 9th courts, intelligent decisions? Hardly! Those courts need to be bypassed entirely and any left-leaning decisions they have made rendered invalid.

    Reply

  • Kevin

    |

    This article is terrible. Who are you talking about and what crime are he/her being charged with?

    Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: