• 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!

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California's "1-In-30" Gun-Rationing Law

VySky

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
49,440
Reaction score
19,629
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
And now its time to get rid of the 10 day wait.

It was a silly law allowing only 1 gun purchase a month. Just like the 10 day "cool off" period.

Its iirrational.

Most gun purchases in CA are for a 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc.etc.etc guns.

So what again is the point in making them wait 10 days to "cool off" because obviously they already have a gun available to kill someone or commit some other crime.

================================


Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California's "1-In-30" Gun-Rationing Law | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
 
I agree a thousand percent. This country needs more guns.
 
I can picture some scenario where the one guy in the gang without a record drives off and comes back with a van full of guns. But a rare, cinematic image of potential wrongdoing doesn't change the fact that a right is a right, and won't stay a right if it is nibbled to death. On a related note, a "cooling-off" period sounds great if you think of a guy walking in full of rage looking for something with enough stopping power to take down a cheating wife ... but it isn't so grand if it's the wrongly accused wife in the shop, looking for a way to defend her hiding place. And which one of those two hypothetical characters would be more likely to have a gun already?

With laws, when in doubt, leave it out! Especially when they go against constitutional safeguards.
 
The only point of this law, like many other CA gun laws, is to try and frustrate the consumer to where they will not go through the effort (time, cost etc) to purchase a gun.
 

Not only is it irrational but it's like saying restricting the precursors to the right is fine because it isn't actually the right being infringed which is ridiculous.

"We're not restricting speech. We're just restricting ink, internet, the volume of your voice and air you are allowed to breath."

Unanimous opinion was the right one.
 
MD also has a 1 in 30 law as well for handguns. Sounds like we have a split in circuits that needs to to SCOTUS.
 
This is the result of a three judge panel of the Nith Circuit Court of Appeals. Despite following Supreme Court precedent, despite the unanimous ruling, I expect the entire court will hear California's appeal en banc and "randomly" select a larger panel to overturn this ruling.

The Ninth Circuit is a rubber stamp for whatever the state government of California wants as far as anything to do with guns is concerned. They have never upheld any pro-2A judgement.

Judge Van Dyke described the current situation with the 9th Circuit and California gun laws wonderfully in his dissent of the en banc overturn of Duncan v Bonta:

By my count, we have had at least 50 Second Amendment challenges since Heller—significantly more than any other circuit—all of which we have ultimately denied. In those few instances where a panel of our court has granted Second Amendment relief, we have without fail taken the case en banc to reverse that ruling. This is true regardless of the diverse regulations that have come before us—from storage restrictions to waiting periods to ammunition restrictions to conceal carry bans to open carry bans to magazine capacity prohibitions—the common thread is our court’s ready willingness to bless any restriction related to guns. Respectfully, Judge Hurwitz’s claim that our judges’ personal views about the Second Amendment and guns have not affected our jurisprudence is simply not plausible. Res ipsa loquitur. [It speaks for itself] Pages 155-156

The California legislature already has a 3-in-30 law in progress to replace this law. Sue, rinse and repeat.
 
The point is to interfere with your rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…