Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

Court Upholds California’s “Wait for Waiting’s Sake” Gun Sales Law

Friday, December 16, 2016

Court Upholds California’s “Wait for Waiting’s Sake” Gun Sales Law

Earlier this week, a federal appellate court provided yet another reminder of the importance of the courts in defining the contours of Second Amendment rights following District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).   

In the first case to assess the validity of firearm purchase waiting periods, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit approved California’s mandatory ten-day waiting period as applied to gun buyers who are already documented as having a valid Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) license or a state-issued Certificate of Eligibility, or who are lawfully in possession of at least one firearm. 

California law requires any person who purchases a gun to wait a minimum of ten 24-hour days between the time of purchase and delivery, unless one of the statutory exceptions applies (for instance, dealer-to-dealer transfers, law enforcement transactions, or dealer sales to out-of-state residents). The “common sense” rationale advanced by the government is public safety – the wait time purportedly gives the State the necessary time to perform additional checks that prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals, and imposes a “cooling off” period for persons who would otherwise commit impulsive acts of violence or self-harm. 

Gun owners and gun-rights groups argued that in this case, the law was nothing more than a “wait for waiting’s sake.” The “cooling off” justification was irrelevant with respect to already-existing gun owners and holders of a valid COE (a certificate attesting that the person is eligible to possess or purchase a gun), and those with a CCW (a group statistically very unlikely to engage in acts of gun violence). As noted in a “friend of the court” brief filed by the Crime Prevention Research Center, there were no studies or evidence before the court that showed “waiting periods … reduce violent crime or suicides” or, more to the point, showed that a ten-day waiting period, when applied to the three categories of gun buyers, had any of the claimed public safety benefits.   

The government’s other concern underlying the waiting period – to prevent acquisition of guns by recently ineligible persons – was misplaced because the California Attorney General maintains an online database, the Armed and Prohibited Persons System (APPS), compiled for the purpose of identifying persons who own or possess guns and who subsequently become prohibited from such ownership or possession. APPS information is continually updated and immediately available to determine a person’s status as armed and prohibited.

For the classes of buyers represented in this lawsuit, the impact of the law was to interfere with property rights, increase the expense and inconvenience of acquiring a firearm, and impede the exercise of fundamental Second Amendment rights.  

Following a bench trial, Judge Anthony Ishii of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California agreed, concluding that the waiting period unconstitutionally violated the Second Amendment rights of the specified kinds of buyers. The State failed to show that the law either fell outside the scope of Second Amendment protections as historically understood, or that it fit within one of several categories of longstanding regulations that were “presumptively lawful” based on Heller. There were “no laws in existence at or near 1791 or 1868 that imposed a waiting period of any duration between the time of purchase and the time of possession” so as to show such restrictions were historically understood as not impinging on the Second Amendment. The court held, also, that the wait period did not qualify as either longstanding or as an accepted commercial regulation of sale. Simply pointing to the fact that California has had a form of waiting period since 1923 was “not enough.”

Next, using intermediate scrutiny analysis (whether there was a “reasonable fit” between the means chosen by the government and its stated public safety objectives), the court determined the law was excessive or overbroad. Delaying a sale for the full ten days despite the earlier completion of the background check “in case” some additional information on the purchaser came in was “unduly speculative and anecdotal,” particularly in light of the “safety net,” the APPS system. There was no evidence that a “cooling off” period prevented impulsive acts of violence by individuals who already possessed a firearm. Likewise, applying the waiting period to every gun sale for purposes of investigating possible “straw” purchases, “in the absence of any reason to suspect that a straw purchase is in fact occurring, is too overbroad.” 

The State of California appealed. 

This week, in Silvester v. Harris, a unanimous Ninth Circuit reversed and upheld the waiting period as a “reasonable precaution” applicable to all purchasers. The court assumed that the law was not a “presumptively lawful” regulation or one historically outside the Second Amendment and proceeded to evaluate (and uphold) the law using intermediate scrutiny. There was no substantial burden on gun rights because the wait period didn’t prevent anyone from owning a gun, and the “actual effect” of the law on buyers was “very small” (a “brief delay”). The same broad and lenient brush was used to paint the “reasonable fit” between the government objectives and the means. The law furthered the “common sense understanding” that a person’s violent or suicidal urges might dissipate in time; a waiting period’s deterrent effect would apply even to existing gun owners, who might be buying an upgraded weapon with which to achieve their criminal purposes. According to the court, the law’s overall effect was “to require individuals to stop and think before being able to use a firearm,” which might be logical if the law somehow regulated use instead of purchase.

This case provides a useful illustration of the incremental “creep” that occurs once a gun-control law gets passed. California’s first waiting period was a law that imposed an overnight wait period for handgun purchases only, and codified in 1953 as part of the California Penal Code. Two years later, the handgun waiting period was expanded from one day to three days. In 1965, the wait period was again extended, from three days to five, and was extended yet again, ten years later, to 15 days (but reduced to ten days in 1996 because faster processing of background checks was available). In 1991, the wait period was expanded to apply to all gun sales, not just handgun purchases. 

This year, Californians voted to extend the background check requirement to the acquisition of ammunition, along with new restrictions on ammunition sales. While this measure lacks a waiting period element, it’s likely only a matter of time before California proposes a waiting period for ammunition sales, based on the same kind of speculative reasoning and weak “public safety” justifications found to be sufficient in the Silvester appeal.

BY NRA-ILA Staff

TRENDING NOW
NRA Scores Legal Victory Against ATF; “Pistol Brace Rule” Enjoined From Going Into Effect Against NRA Members

Monday, April 1, 2024

NRA Scores Legal Victory Against ATF; “Pistol Brace Rule” Enjoined From Going Into Effect Against NRA Members

NRA Members Among the Largest Class Protected from Draconian Rule

Fallout from Trudeau’s Gun Grab: Crime is Up, Number of Gun Ranges Drops

News  

Monday, June 17, 2024

Fallout from Trudeau’s Gun Grab: Crime is Up, Number of Gun Ranges Drops

In Canada, a ban on over 1,500 firearm makes, models and variants, together with a mandatory government confiscation (“buyback”) requirement, was imposed by Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over four years ago. 

NRA Releases Statement on Rahimi Decision

Friday, June 21, 2024

NRA Releases Statement on Rahimi Decision

Today, in United States v. Rahimi, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the federal prohibition on firearms possession by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders.

U.S. Supreme Court invalidates ATF Rule Classifying Bump Stocks as Machineguns

Friday, June 14, 2024

U.S. Supreme Court invalidates ATF Rule Classifying Bump Stocks as Machineguns

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives unlawfully exceeded its authority by classifying bump stocks as machineguns.

NRA Files Amicus Brief with Ninth Circuit in Challenge to California’s Billy Club Ban

Friday, June 14, 2024

NRA Files Amicus Brief with Ninth Circuit in Challenge to California’s Billy Club Ban

Today, NRA filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of a challenge to California’s prohibition on the possession of billy clubs.

Still no Trace of the Truth

News  

Monday, June 17, 2024

Still no Trace of the Truth

In our first installment of a critical analysis of an anti-gun propaganda podcast series from The Trace, we covered the lies, misinformation, and deceptive emotional arguments made in the first four episodes. 

NRA Secures Landmark Legal Victory; Supreme Court Unanimously Rules for NRA in First Amendment Case Against Former New York Regulator

News  

Thursday, May 30, 2024

NRA Secures Landmark Legal Victory; Supreme Court Unanimously Rules for NRA in First Amendment Case Against Former New York Regulator

The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) scored a historic legal victory today in one of the most closely followed First Amendment cases in the nation. In a stinging rebuke of New York’s “blacklisting campaign” against ...

Bob Barr Elected NRA President, Doug Hamlin Elected to Serve as NRA Executive Vice President & CEO

News  

Monday, May 20, 2024

Bob Barr Elected NRA President, Doug Hamlin Elected to Serve as NRA Executive Vice President & CEO

Today, the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association of America elected former U.S. Congressman Bob Barr as President of the NRA and Doug Hamlin as NRA Executive Vice President & CEO. The meeting ...

Delaware: Senate Committee Passes Legislation to Restrict Firearms on College Campuses and Properties!

Wednesday, June 19, 2024

Delaware: Senate Committee Passes Legislation to Restrict Firearms on College Campuses and Properties!

Last night, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed House Bill 311, restricting firearms on college campuses and college-owned properties, even for concealed carry permit holders. This legislation is now eligible for a floor vote. Please contact your state ...

Kansas: Legislators Seize Special Session Opportunity to Start Discussion for 2025 Session

Wednesday, June 19, 2024

Kansas: Legislators Seize Special Session Opportunity to Start Discussion for 2025 Session

Last month, Gov. Laura Kelly called a special session of the Kansas Legislature to deal with tax issues. The special session adjourned this week, lasting less than 24 hours. Despite the brevity, pro-gun Senators J.R. ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.