Posted February 22, 2016 9:00 pm by Comments

By Dean Weingarten

ninth_circuit

On February 9th, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments for two Second Amendment cases. In Jeff Silvester v. Kamala Harris, the [lower] District Court ruled against the California statute requiring a waiting period for a firearm purchase. In the second case, Tracy Rifle & Pistol LLC. v. Harris, the lower court upheld the California law forbidding guns stores from advertising handguns with the image of, wait for it, a handgun. Let’s take a closer look . . .

The District Court ruling a firearms purchase waiting period ban unconstitutional is simple common sense. Mr. Silvester owned a gun. He’d already passed a background check. How can there be any significant government interest in forcing a gun owner to wait an additional 10 days to take possession of the firearm?

The argument that the 10-day delay is a “cooling off” period is patently ridiculous, again, given that the purchaser has legal access to other firearms. “There is no government public safety interest in a waiting period if you already own a gun and have gone through a background check,” Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb told FoxNews.com. “This is clearly only …Read the Rest

Source:: Truth About Guns

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *