California’s 10-day gun registration waiting period found unconstitutional

There are a couple of instances when a person might need a gun, then and there. What about stalkers, home invaders, rapist, predators of children, and theifs. I'm sure they're are many more situations then this, but to me I think I would feel safer being able to protect my family TONIGHT, then 10 days from now. What about parts of LA, a while back I had a friend tell me that in the area he lived in, there would be no less then 10 murders , in a 5 DAY PERIOD within a 1 BLOCK radius. My first question to that was "Do you have a gun?" I actually feared for his life. First of all, I agree with background checks and all, and a check for mental illness but that shouldn't take up to 10 days, no doubt. Any of that info should take at least 2 or 3 days at most, especially since alot of this background check crap is done electronically. If I'm wrong about that, someone enlighten me....please.

a reply to: greencmp

Well, if you want to go that route, I'd say anyone wanting a gun should have to have a gun permit showing they've completed a safety course and knows how to properly handle a firearm and store it correctly. The same way you have to have a license to drive a car.

At that point no waiting period would be needed for either.

Gun insurance might be something to consider too like car insurance. That way if you accidentally shoot someone you're covered and so is the victim.

a reply to: amsterdamn87

2 or 3 days sound reasonable to me too. Whatever is needed for a good background check whatever time frame that is.

More importantly to me would be that people know how to handle a gun. I think people should have to take a class or safety course or something that would make them familiar with not just their gun but other guns as well. Nothing major, they don't need to be an assassin or have military training or anything, but some overall understanding of what their doing.

We have permits for a million things that don't need them but nothing for one of things that do. It is a deadly weapon after all. It might be smart to make sure those that have them know how to handle it correctly.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: greencmp

Well, if you want to go that route, I'd say anyone wanting a gun should have to have a gun permit showing they've completed a safety course and knows how to properly handle a firearm and store it correctly. The same way you have to have a license to drive a car.

At that point no waiting period would be needed for either.

Gun insurance might be something to consider too like car insurance. That way if you accidentally shoot someone you're covered and so is the victim.

Perhaps a mandatory catalytic converter mounted on the barrel could capture some of the escaping toxic gases as well.

a reply to: greencmp

They have those already don't they??

Isn't that what a suppressor does??

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: mOjOm

I think there should be a 1 year waiting period on vehicle purchases just so people don't get the idea that they can just buy an automobile and drive it around willy nilly.

After all, someone could just buy a truck and smash into a gas station. This will give people the time it takes to not smash automobiles into gas stations.

Common sense really.

Don't forget liquor either.

That way drivers won't drive drunk without thinking twice !!

Or shooting somebody in a fit of rage.

"Authoritarianism" works !!

a reply to: mOjOm

Shhh, that's an unauthorized application of the apparatus.

Let's see - what if car control laws were applied to guns??

Tests, licences, taxes, registration, safety criteria in the design.....

What if gun control laws were applied to cars:

no tests, no licences (unless you want to carry one concealed!! ), maybe a 10 day wait in california,

a reply to: xuenchen

Well, the cars will be driving themselves pretty soon. Until then we can just install breathalyzers in every vehicle to guard against that.

Safety drinking classes and permits wouldn't work since being responsible goes out the window when you're drunk. Hell, that's half the reason people get drunk in the first place.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
Let's see - what if car control laws were applied to guns??

Tests, licences, taxes, registration, safety criteria in the design.....

What if gun control laws were applied to cars:

no tests, no licences (unless you want to carry one concealed!!

), maybe a 10 day wait in california,

On the first part, it would prove once and for all that our politicians and bureaucrats are constitutionally retarded.

On the second part, it would definitely keep a huge number of people out of jail.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: xuenchen

Well, the cars will be driving themselves pretty soon. Until then we can just install breathalyzers in every vehicle to guard against that.

Safety drinking classes and permits wouldn't work since being responsible goes out the window when you're drunk. Hell, that's half the reason people get drunk in the first place.

Why don't we just make alcohol illegal?

originally posted by: greencmp
Why don't we just make alcohol illegal?

Now you're just talking crazy talk.

Besides, we all know where that went the last time we tried that and we don't want to go there again.

The idea of never being able to have a drink makes me want to go get a gun and shoot someone!!

Besides what else other than bottles and cans are we supposed to use when we're out shooting target practice???

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: greencmp
Why don't we just make alcohol illegal?

Now you're just talking crazy talk.

Besides, we all know where that went the last time we tried that and we don't want to go there again.

The idea of never being able to have a drink makes me want to go get a gun and shoot someone!!

Besides what else other than bottles and cans are we supposed to use when we're out shooting target practice???

Thank for the playful banter, I have to admit, gun insurance (non-mandatory or regulated) actually sounds like a business model.

Similarly, I hope some of the spirit of my argument against the regulatory state is more understandable.

a reply to: greencmp

Oh yah. I wasn't serious about all that stuff I was saying. Except for the part about emptying bottles/cans to shoot at. Actual targets only come out for special occasions.

Although some ideas seem interesting. Liability insurance might be a good idea. Although it would be difficult in some situations.

As for the wait period, I think that could be removed completely if there was a way to verify that someone had completed a safety course. Because that is really the main concern. A guns purpose is to be a deadly weapon. So making sure someone knows what they're doing before owning one is just a good idea. Once that's done I don't see a problem.

I think a one time gun safety course and a simple gun registration should be all that's needed. Those are the basics just for safety.

Although before any such thing takes place I'd also remove a ton of useless registrations and permits that we don't need to allow room for this one.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Because of course that would be constitutional.......cough and cough and cough

Gotta love how free and careless you are with constitutionality when it comes to defending YOUR idea of constitutionality!!

What is unconstitutional about a horse whipping? if it was a punishment for the crime of proposing something that is actually against our rights as people, and was proven in court by a jury, the person intended to do that purposefully against the rights of a citizen, then please tell me, what is wrong about it, besides the fact that it is an obvious joke since our leaders are so flagrantly pompous and arrogant, and act in public like they are way above the law and would laugh at the idea of being horse whipped, let alone accountable for infringing on the rights of Americans (just like they are doing right now to everyone including YOU).

Idealist aren't ya? Whatever idealists think feels right by their own value system, they think is a law or is what everyone thinks is the law, and they don't even really have any clue. I see this often in the Obama camp, and even he does that himself quite often. Like ignoring congress because he just knows it must be right, so he ignores the actual law, expecting the public and media to go along with it.. Or any number of other numerous examples, but I'm stopping now since I doubt you could ever concede anything if it is contrary to that "Idealist" mindset which is forever spinning but stuck forever in neutral.

a reply to: mOjOm

Of course, I do agree that everyone who plans to ever use a firearm should educate themselves on its proper use and be responsible for its whereabouts at all times.

The problem with any form of verification (permits, safety classes, etc.) is that it requires a central registry and we all know how trustworthy the state is with such things. The incident in New York when they published the names and addresses of all gun owners was a major wake up call to many.

Maine has it right, concealed carry, no permit.

Lengthening waiting periods past a normal 3-5 day span appears to be an effort to discourage gun buyers, and no data between the two has been presented to bolster the stricken down 10 day wait. In some states waiting periods are negated by concealed weapon permit holders, as it should be. To those who believe long "cool off" periods are a good idea, would you deny the ability of self-defense to someone whose life has been threatened or has a restraining order against violent abusive partners? The SC ruled in Castle Rock vs Gonzales:

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband

The murder of Jessica Lenahan Gonzales' 3 girls was the fault of the stalker, and the mistaken faith in the police's ability to enforce the restraining order that was in place.

One only needs to look at what happened to Carol Bowne in NJ to see the effects of prolonged wait periods for guns. Ms. Bowne was stabbed to death while waiting for approval for a firearms permit. What should have taken 30 days stretched for several months, in spite of her repeated visits to inquire status as she feared for her life.
www.nj.com...

How many women have been murdered waiting for a permit, or the firearm itself while being stalked or victimized? Lawmakers that pat themselves on the back on how progressive their thinking is in enacting laws that seek to make a constitutional right as onerous and burdensome as possible should be drummed out of office.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: greencmp

Oh yah. I wasn't serious about all that stuff I was saying. Except for the part about emptying bottles/cans to shoot at. Actual targets only come out for special occasions.

Although some ideas seem interesting. Liability insurance might be a good idea. Although it would be difficult in some situations.

As for the wait period, I think that could be removed completely if there was a way to verify that someone had completed a safety course. Because that is really the main concern. A guns purpose is to be a deadly weapon. So making sure someone knows what they're doing before owning one is just a good idea. Once that's done I don't see a problem.

I think a one time gun safety course and a simple gun registration should be all that's needed. Those are the basics just for safety.

Although before any such thing takes place I'd also remove a ton of useless registrations and permits that we don't need to allow room for this one.

You have never bought a handgun in California,have you?

a reply to: greencmp

You know you could probably even do away with the permit if at the time of purchase you could prove you know what you're doing before they'd sell to you. It would shift some liability over to the gun shop owner and make it his duty to verify, even just personally between him and the buyer, that they were capable and understood what is needed. Which is really what any responsible seller should be doing anyway.

My buddy has a gun shop and he throws people out of there all the time if he feels unsure for any reason about selling a gun to someone. He has to deal with the FBI and stuff already anyway so the Gov. could easily verify the sellers are on the level and doing what they need to do.

Registering however is still important because if a gun is used in a crime it helps to be able to track it's ownership and so forth. But that is data, like you say, that needs to be safe and secure and not used for shady stuff. Unfortunately the Gov. is neither safe or secure and are almost always up to something shady.

originally posted by: Sunwolf

You have never bought a handgun in California,have you?

No, I've never bought a gun in Cali or any other state for that matter. I know lot's of people that own guns and have been shooting plenty of times though.

Most likely if I was going to buy a gun I'm not sure if I'd want to purchase it legally anyway since there are other ways to get a perfectly legal gun without jumping through the hoops.

**But of course that would be illegal for me to purchase one like that which is why I wouldn't do it. Because I always follow the law as a responsible citizen should.**