Second Amendment Commiefornia AG gets her A$$ handed to her in Federal District Court......

Discussion in 'Bill of Rights' started by BTPost, Dec 9, 2013.

  1. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

    Silvester v. Harris Case Update (CGF’s Second Amendment challenge to 10-day waiting period ban)
    on December 9, 2013

    In an order issued today by Senior Federal District Judge Anthony Ishii, defendant California Attorney General Kamala Harris’ Motion to Dismiss our Second and Fourteenth Amendment lawsuit challenging the state’s 10-day waiting period (ban) as unconstitutional was denied outright. Said the Court:
    The WPL as applied against those who have previously purchased firearms or who possess
certain state licenses is the equivalent of a prior restraint, and thus should be analyzed under strict
scrutiny. However, under either strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny, the [10-day waiting period] fails. In terms
of strict scrutiny, Harris has not shown that the law is effective either in reducing gun violence or
in keeping firearms out of the hands of unqualified purchasers where the government has already
issued that purchaser a License To Carry or a Certificate Of Eligibility.
    In terms of intermediate scrutiny, neither of the bases argued by Harris is sufficient. There
is no indication that the WPL is necessary to weed out unqualified purchasers. While it is
appropriate to have a background check, the current systems and data available do not make the
10-day waiting period reasonable. In terms of cooling-off, there is no evidence to support the
efficacy of the law in preventing impulsive firearm violence. Moreover, for those who already
legally possess firearms, the WPL would have no effect in terms of creating a “cooling off”
period. Any spontaneous desire to perform a violent act can be manifested through the weapon
that is already in the individual’s possession. Because the WPL fails intermediate and strict
scrutiny, Harris’s motion must be denied.
    Harris moves for summary judgment on each of the claims alleged by Plaintiffs. With
respect to the Second Amendment claims, Harris has not sufficiently met her burden. Harris has
not presented sufficient evidence to show that the WPL passes either intermediate or strict scrutiny
for either the “background check” rationale or the “cooling off period” rationale. With respect to
the Equal Protection claims, Harris has focused exclusively on rational basis scrutiny. However,
Harris has not adequately demonstrated that rational basis scrutiny is appropriate. Therefore,
Harris’s motion for summary judgment will be denied in its entirety.

    A Clinton Appointee
    United States Chief District Judge Anthony W. Ishii (AWI) - New CAED
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2013
    techsar and ghrit like this.
  2. techsar

    techsar Monkey+++

    Is that a quadruple or a quintuple negative?
  3. Dont

    Dont Just another old gray Jarhead Monkey

    Clinton got an appointment right??
  4. -06

    -06 Monkey+++

    The libtards of commieformia will try something else. Just drives them nuts to think people can have firearms.
  5. Dont

    Dont Just another old gray Jarhead Monkey

    Just proves an old adage as correct! Pigs do defficate where they eat...
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary