Court Overturns Previous Ruling on 10-Day Waiting Period

Symbol of law and justice in the empty courtroom law and justice concept blue toned.

Today, December 14, 2016, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling that declared unconstitutional, a portion of California’s requirement for a 10-Day waiting period before the purchase of ANY gun, even if the buyer has already purchased guns before and is registered with the CA DOJ.  The court used twisted logic and more insidiously, totally ignored the U.S. Supreme Courts warning about using various legal balancing methods to rule on Second Amendment issues.  It seems that some judges, especially the presiding Judge of the 9th, Chief Justice Thomas will be heading to the judicial woodshed once President-Elect Trump appoints another U.S. Supreme Court Judge who will most assuredly be pro-Second Amendment.



Civil Rights / Second Amendment

The panel reversed the district court’s bench trial judgment and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the state of California in an action challenging a California law establishing a 10-day waiting period for all lawful purchases of guns.

The panel first stated that this case was a challenge to the application of the full 10-day waiting period to those purchasers who have previously purchased a firearm or have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, and who clear a background check in less than ten days. The panel held that the ten-day waiting period is a reasonable safety precaution for all purchasers of firearms and need not be suspended once a purchaser has been approved. The panel determined that it need not decide whether the regulation was sufficiently longstanding to be presumed lawful. Applying intermediate scrutiny analysis, the panel held that the law does not violate plaintiff’s Second Amendment rights because the ten-day wait is a reasonable precaution for the purchase of a second or third weapon, as well as for a first purchase.

Concurring, Chief Judge Thomas agreed entirely with the majority opinion. He wrote separately because in his view the challenge to California’s ten-day waiting period could be resolved at step one of the Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Judge Thomas determined that as a longstanding qualification on the commercial sale of arms under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), a ten-day waiting period was presumptively lawful. Therefore, it was unnecessary to proceed to the second step intermediate scrutiny examination of the law.

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

To read the complete decision, click HERE