The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a lower-court decision that would have struck down a 10-day waiting period for certain firearm purchases. The lower-court decision would have allowed existing gun owners and people with concealed-weapons permits to immediately take possession of a lawfully purchased firearm.
The judgement is yet another chapter in an ongoing battle between pro-gun Californians and their anti-gun elected officials. The 10-day waiting period issue began with Silvester v. Harris, a case litigated in 2014 by The Calguns Foundation (CGF) in the U.S. District Court. The Court agreed the waiting period violated the Second Amendment rights of individuals who successfully pass the standard background check and who are in lawful possession of an additional firearm, possess a Certificate of Eligibility, or have a CCW.
U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii said in his 2014 ruling that the state’s goal of implementing a cooling-off period to prevent impulsive acts of violence will not deter those who already own a gun. As reported by BearingArms.com, in the most recent ruling, 9th Circuit Judge Mary Schroeder contradicted Ishii saying someone who already owns a hunting rifle may want to buy a larger-capacity weapon that will do more damage when fired into a crowd.
“A 10-day cooling-off period would serve to discourage such conduct and would impose no serious burden on the core Second Amendment right of defense of the home,” Schroeder said.
Yesterday, attorneys for CGF, Second Amendment Foundation, and two individual plaintiffs filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking an en banc (full-court) review. The petition maintains that the California waiting period laws violate the Second Amendment.
CGF Executive Director Brandon Combs, one of the plaintiffs, issued a statement saying:
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.