Author Topic: Calguns Foundation Sues California Over Firearms Waiting Period (Read 2168 times)

FMJ · « **on:** December 24, 2011, 02:21:35 PM »

http://calgunsfoundation.org/news-blog/press/197-calguns-foundation-sues-california-over-firearms-waiting-period-.html

Quote

San Carlos, CA (December 23, 2011) â€“ The Calguns Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit against the California Department of Justice and Attorney General Kamala Harris challenging the policy of requiring gun owners to wait at least 10 days before taking possession of an additional firearm. The case is entitled Jeff Silvester et. al. vs. Kamala Harris, et. al.

The Calguns Foundation is joined in the lawsuit, filed today at the District of California Federal District Court in Fresno, by the Second Amendment Foundation and three individual plaintiffs.

sarge712 · « **Reply #1 on:** December 24, 2011, 03:27:18 PM »

FMJ is that 10 day wait for ALL firearms or just handguns?

scarville · « **Reply #2 on:** December 24, 2011, 07:08:17 PM »

Quote from: sarge712 on December 24, 2011, 03:27:18 PM

FMJ is that 10 day wait for ALL firearms or just handguns?

All.

FMJ · « **Reply #3 on:** December 24, 2011, 08:32:05 PM »

Quote from: sarge712 on December 24, 2011, 03:27:18 PM

FMJ is that 10 day wait for ALL firearms or just handguns?

All.

Long guns, handguns, probably even water guns.

The only thing that is cash and carry are old C&R guns, from private sellers. If you buy a Mosin or Enfield (for example) from any FFL, you must then wait 10 days and pay the $25 DROS fee.

And remember, selling non-C&R long guns (like any Remchester) or handguns without going thru an FFL is a "crime" in California.

There are certain exmeptions for the waiting period, but I am not sure of what they are. But what I described above is SOP.

sarge712 · « **Reply #4 on:** December 24, 2011, 08:38:59 PM »

Good grief! I can barely comprehend that kind of interference. We buy, sell and trade guns with each other around my neck of the woods like they were baseball cards.

FMJ · « **Reply #5 on:** December 26, 2011, 01:54:01 AM »

Quote from: sarge712 on December 24, 2011, 08:38:59 PM

Good grief! I can barely comprehend that kind of interference. We buy, sell and trade guns with each other around my neck of the woods like they were baseball cards.

My understanding is that quite a few do around here too, they just don't talk about it.

I don't take part, because I never have money.

Funny how is perfectly legal over there but here the very same thing is a crime. Then again, in some places they can't sell booze on Sundays.

GaBoy45 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 26, 2011, 05:42:55 PM »

Quote from: FMJ on December 26, 2011, 01:54:01 AM

Then again, in some places they can't sell booze on Sundays.

Yeah its a Southern Thing

Langenator · « **Reply #7 on:** December 26, 2011, 06:08:04 PM »

Quote from: GaBoy45 on December 26, 2011, 05:42:55 PM

Yeah its a Southern Thing

Well, in WA, the state-run liquor stores (before they voted to get rid of them last election) weren't open on Sunday. You could still buy beer and wine at the grocery store, though.

Panhead Bill · « **Reply #8 on:** December 26, 2011, 06:09:53 PM »

Yup - it sucks here in CA. SAF and Calguns are doing a lot of work behind the scenes and in the courts to get things changed. It's pretty much guaranteed that any changes will have to be in the courts as the legislature here has a large Democrat majority and the districts have been so gerrymandered that most of the seats are locked in for dems with a few locked in for the repubs, who have very little power.

Iirc, the court in which this case is venues is friendly - I believe it's the same court that got the ammo ban/registration bill overturned. Of course this is only the first step, whichever side loses will likely appeal it up the chain. Hopefully this silly waiting period can be overturned.

The stated intent of the wait period is to allow a person to "cool down" for 10 days before they get a gun and go shoot someone. I mean come on, what's the point of making someone that already owns firearms wait ten days before they can pick it up?! During the wait period they would grab one they already own and "take care of business". (or more realistically, they won't bother with a dealer and will buy one illegally off the street or steal one). The only people these stupid laws hinder are the law-abiding. Of course, I'm preaching to the choir here.

Bill

the556GRIZZLY · « **Reply #9 on:** December 26, 2011, 06:44:25 PM »

do you have to wait to get black powder guns

FMJ · « **Reply #10 on:** December 26, 2011, 07:35:19 PM »

Quote from: the556GRIZZLY on December 26, 2011, 06:44:25 PM

do you have to wait to get black powder guns

No. You order them online like anything else.

As s___ty as CA is, I still can't believe that other states have worse laws, like MA & IL and all those.

the556GRIZZLY · « **Reply #11 on:** December 26, 2011, 09:03:45 PM »

Quote from: FMJ on December 26, 2011, 07:35:19 PM

No. You order them online like anything else.

As s___ty as CA is, I still can't believe that other states have worse laws, like MA & IL and all those.

and that just brought down the reason for the 10 day wait period. I personally think all the people should get out of california. All it seems to be is a snowball rolling down hill, headed for hell.

FMJ · « **Reply #12 on:** December 28, 2011, 03:06:02 AM »

Quote from: the556GRIZZLY on December 26, 2011, 09:03:45 PM

and that just brought down the reason for the 10 day wait period. I personally think all the people should get out of california. All it seems to be is a snowball rolling down hill, headed for hell.

Oh, it is. It's probably gonna be one of the first to go when the country collapses (sorry if this sounds pessimistic).

sarge712 · « **Reply #13 on:** December 28, 2011, 08:44:28 AM »

That's too bad FMJ. I served in the Pasadena & East L.A. areas as an LDS missionary back in the mid 80's and I loved California.

An elderly friend of mine, who served as a test pilot back in the late 50's, told me that once upon a time California used to be quite a conservative state. Hard to believe now.

FMJ · « **Reply #14 on:** December 30, 2011, 03:00:21 AM »

Quote from: sarge712 on December 28, 2011, 08:44:28 AM

That's too bad FMJ. I served in the Pasadena & East L.A. areas as an LDS missionary back in the mid 80's and I loved California.

An elderly friend of mine, who served as a test pilot back in the late 50's, told me that once upon a time California used to be quite a conservative state. Hard to believe now.

Aye, this was a pretty conservative place once upon a time, (still is in the inland/rural counties), but it's just that the major population centers here (all along the coast) seem to be a concentration of blue. Hell, I'm like 25 miles (or less) from Ground Zero aka San Francisco.

It's a shame because this could have been the best state of the union. I believe it.

Panhead Bill · « **Reply #15 on:** December 30, 2011, 03:20:06 PM »

I second what FMJ mentioned about some areas still being conservative. Im fortunate enough to live in the central valley, and if you didn't know better, you'd be hard pressed to believe you were in CA based on the politics of the population. At least here I can get a CCW

I guess to a certain degree it mimics the rest of the country, with the coasts and large population centers being liberal, but the vast majority of the geographical area is awash in blue/conservative. Here we have LA and San Francisco with their liberal mindset, but the vast majority (geographically) of the rest of the state is much mire conservative, but for a few urban areas. But regardless, the urban population centers control the rest of the state.

Bill

scarville · « **Reply #16 on:** December 30, 2011, 06:34:59 PM »

Let us not forget that the lawn order Republicans in California were responsible for the building blocks of gun control here in this state. It was a Republican controlled legislature that gave us shall issue CCW, DROS and the first waiting periods in 1923. Then in 1967 they banned loaded open carry.

Just about everything else has been "fine tuning".

Panhead Bill · « **Reply #17 on:** December 31, 2011, 12:57:22 AM »

Yeah ... That's why I said 'conservative' and not 'republican.'

Bill

FMJ · « **Reply #18 on:** December 31, 2011, 04:46:20 AM »

Quote from: Panhead Bill on December 30, 2011, 03:20:06 PM

I second what FMJ mentioned about some areas still being conservative. Im fortunate enough to live in the central valley, and if you didn't know better, you'd be hard pressed to believe you were in CA based on the politics of the population. At least here I can get a CCW

I guess to a certain degree it mimics the rest of the country, with the coasts and large population centers being liberal, but the vast majority of the geographical area is awash in blue/conservative. Here we have LA and San Francisco with their liberal mindset, but the vast majority (geographically) of the rest of the state is much mire conservative, but for a few urban areas. But regardless, the urban population centers control the rest of the state.
Bill

Yup yup. Hell even the outskirts of Sacramento feel like Free America (and not to mention that's basically a shall issue county thanks to the organizations talked about in this thread).

Quote from: scarville on December 30, 2011, 06:34:59 PM

Let us not forget that the lawn order Republicans in California were responsible for the building blocks of gun control here in this state. It was a Republican controlled legislature that gave us shall issue CCW, DROS and the first waiting periods in 1923. Then in 1967 they banned loaded open carry.

Just about everything else has been "fine tuning".

Yup.

Atlas8193 · « **Reply #19 on:** December 31, 2011, 04:47:22 AM »

I'll admit that I skimmed this thread, but has no one mentioned the per-firearm registration fee for Cali? Isn't it like $75 a unit BEFORE tax?

FMJ · « **Reply #20 on:** December 31, 2011, 04:58:32 AM »

No. I did mention the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) fee, $25 every time you have an FFL transaction. I believe you can have a certain amount of guns/lowers per each DROS. I don't know how many, but it could be up to ten.

Now, I'm not 110% sure about pistol registration because I've never done that, but long guns aren't registered. Not until 2014 anyway...

Panhead Bill · « **Reply #21 on:** December 31, 2011, 11:19:28 AM »

Quote from: FMJ on December 31, 2011, 04:58:32 AM

Now, I'm not 110% sure about pistol registration because I've never done that, but long guns aren't registered. Not until 2014 anyway...

Handguns are the same fee, but because of the one handgun per month limit, you can't put more than one on the DROS each time (but you can put a bunch of rifles on it).

It's my understanding that (and I could be wrong here) the number of rifles per DROS is unlimited, although many gun shops mistakenly believe they are limited to however many will fit on the face of the form, but I've talked to some dealers who say they add an additional sheet.

Of course, with Obama's/Holder's new unconstitutional reporting requirement, most people will only buy one rifle per week to get around the reporting. A lot of good that did, didn't it? (sarcasm dripping).

Bill

Bill

scarville · « **Reply #22 on:** December 31, 2011, 01:09:57 PM »

Quote from: Panhead Bill on December 31, 2011, 12:57:22 AM

Yeah ... That's why I said 'conservative' and not 'republican.'

Bill

Up until the late 1970's or early '80's, conservatives in California favored gun control as long as the impact was mostly on "those people". In California, those people were usually the dreaded hispanics, asians and blacks. The rhetoric surrounding the 1923 laws was openly aimed at Mexican and Chinese immigrants and, to a lesser exent, leftwing groups like the IWW. It was equally obvious that the 1967 law, introduced by David Mulford, was aimed at disarming the Black Panthers who carried guns while video taping police encounters in Oakland. The Mulford Act was signed into law, with great praise, by Ronald Reagan whom, you may remember, thought the Brady Bill was a good idea.

Why I'm for the Brady Bill. Opinion piece by Ronald Reagan in the New York Times. March 29, 1991.

While conservative politicians may oppose some of the more egregious examples of gun control now, past behavior gives me many reasons to believe that is little more than political posturing.

scarville · « **Reply #23 on:** December 31, 2011, 01:16:11 PM »

Quote from: Panhead Bill on December 31, 2011, 11:19:28 AM

Handguns are the same fee, but because of the one handgun per month limit, you can't put more than one on the DROS each time (but you can put a bunch of rifles on it).

The one a month restriction only applies to new guns. A California resident can buy as many handguns via PPT at one time as he can afford but, AFAIK, each must be DROS'ed separately.

FMJ · « **Reply #24 on:** December 31, 2011, 01:41:57 PM »

Quote from: scarville on December 31, 2011, 01:09:57 PM

Up until the late 1970's or early '80's, conservatives in California favored gun control as long as the impact was mostly on "those people". In California, those people were usually the dreaded hispanics, asians and blacks. The rhetoric surrounding the 1923 laws was openly aimed at Mexican and Chinese immigrants and, to a lesser exent, leftwing groups like the IWW. It was equally obvious that the 1967 law, introduced by David Mulford, was aimed at disarming the Black Panthers who carried guns while video taping police encounters in Oakland. The Mulford Act was signed into law, with great praise, by Ronald Reagan whom, you may remember, thought the Brady Bill was a good idea.

Why I'm for the Brady Bill. Opinion piece by Ronald Reagan in the New York Times. March 29, 1991.

While conservative politicians may oppose some of the more egregious examples of gun control now, past behavior gives me many reasons to believe that is little more than political posturing.

Not surprising, gun control's origins in this country in other parts were also racist.