• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge says waiting period "burdens" the 2nd amendment

Montecresto

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Wow, coming out of California!


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.


Read more at Judge says waiting period ‘burdens’ 2nd Amendment
 
Montecresto said:
Wow, coming out of California!


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.


Read more at Judge says waiting period ‘burdens’ 2nd Amendment
Click to expand...
Yeah, well that's half the facts... It's because they've already gone through an approval process. In no way does it mean Californians can just go in a buy guns today or tomorrow without the usual California hoops to jump through.
“Judge Ishii’s comparison of the waiting period to a prior restraint is significant,” Gottlieb said. “He further stated that Harris, in her motion to dismiss the case, had not shown that the waiting period law is effective in reducing gun-related violent crime, or in keeping guns out of the wrong hands where the government has already issued that purchaser a License To Carry or a Certificate Of Eligibility.”
Click to expand...
 
I don't see a conflict there. The states imposition was redundant so this is a good development.
 
It just shows that no matter where you are the Constitution can in fact be followed
 
Looks like someone else noticed that "infringed" part.
 
Montecresto said:
Wow, coming out of California!


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.


Read more at Judge says waiting period ‘burdens’ 2nd Amendment
Click to expand...

Hell must have froze over.I would have thought a California judge didn't know there was such a thing as the 2nd amendment.
 
Summerwind said:
Yeah, well that's half the facts... It's because they've already gone through an approval process. In no way does it mean Californians can just go in a buy guns today or tomorrow without the usual California hoops to jump through.
Click to expand...

That's not what the judge ruled. That's not even what Gottlieb said.

This was a denial of a motion for summary judgment, not a ruling in a case. The court denied summary judgment because the state had not shown a 10-day waiting period was presumptively consistent with the 2nd Amendment. It did not rule on that based on any prior "approval process."

http://ia600803.us.archive.org/13/items/gov.uscourts.caed.233362/gov.uscourts.caed.233362.44.0.pdf

pp. 8-9
 
Harshaw said:
That's not what the judge ruled. That's not even what Gottlieb said.

This was a denial of a motion for summary judgment, not a ruling in a case. The court denied summary judgment because the state had not shown a 10-day waiting period was presumptively consistent with the 2nd Amendment. It did not rule on that based on a prior "approval process."
Click to expand...
Well you can try to spin it that way, but that's not what the reading of the entire article represents. So who am I going to believe, you ranting, or the article that seems reasonably well written?
 
Summerwind said:
Well you can try to spin it that way, but that's not what the reading of the entire article represents. So who am I going to believe, you ranting, or the article that seems reasonably well written?
Click to expand...

If you will look above, I linked to the pdf of the actual ruling and where you can find exactly what I said. There was no "rant." What is it with you people and your need to assign negative emotional weight to things you don't want to hear? You, grip, hatuey, and someone else who I can't remember have all done so within the last few days.

So, you can believe the actual ruling, or you can believe your erroneous interpretation of an "article" about the ruling. I'm going with the ruling.
 
Summerwind said:
Well you can try to spin it that way, but that's not what the reading of the entire article represents. So who am I going to believe, you ranting, or the article that seems reasonably well written?
Click to expand...

He's not ranting, you are, and emotional and coming unhinged.
 
Harshaw said:
That's not what the judge ruled. That's not even what Gottlieb said.

This was a denial of a motion for summary judgment, not a ruling in a case. The court denied summary judgment because the state had not shown a 10-day waiting period was presumptively consistent with the 2nd Amendment. It did not rule on that based on any prior "approval process."

http://ia600803.us.archive.org/13/items/gov.uscourts.caed.233362/gov.uscourts.caed.233362.44.0.pdf

pp. 8-9
Click to expand...

Wrong - see page one (of your link) lines 21 through 23. Note the word and before (2). This applies only to those people.
 
well the next step is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals perhaps (if its summary judgment, it may be appealed in some cases-if the Rule 56 motion was denied then it goes to trial) and the 9th Circuit is the most reversed Circuit in the USA. many people believe the 9th Circuit should be split and have one circuit just california. But we will see what happens-remember in McDonald the split was between the pro rights NINTH and the Anti Right decision of Judge Posner in the 7th
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Wrong - see page one (of your link) lines 21 through 23. Note the word and before (2). This applies only to those people.
Click to expand...

Ummm, yes, that "and" is quite important . . .

violates the Second Amendment facially and as applied to . . .
Click to expand...

"And," not "only."
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I would not be counting those chickens just yet. ;)
Click to expand...

There are no chickens to count. This was a denial of a motion for summary judgment, not a substantive judgment disposing of a case. I said that from the outset. Why are you so gung-ho to argue with me?
 
I like that part about "a right delayed is a right denied" :2razz:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom