The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) along with the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and other groups and individuals challenged the state’s extraordinary requirement that prospective gun buyers wait for an extended time.
As SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb succinctly declared, “A right delayed is a right denied. There is nothing in the Second Amendment about waiting more than a week in order to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.”
He added that “California’s waiting period relegates the Second Amendment to the status of a government-regulated privilege, in direct conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court, which declared in its 2008 Heller ruling that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.”
All gun rights advocates would agree that there is nothing in the nation’s historical tradition that warrants a 10-day waiting period. And that, sadly for gun control zealots, is the bar set by the Supreme Court.
The case is Richards v. Bonta.
SAF Executive Director and practicing attorney Adam Kraut also noted the conflict between the state’s onerous regulation and the Constitution and historical tradition.
He called the waiting period instituted even for those legal buyers who already own other firearms “silly.” After all, what will the new purchase enable the buyer to do that the other firearms they already own will not?
Kraut correctly pointed to perhaps the main reason for owning a firearm — self-defense. If a person needs immediate protection, having a 10-day waiting period defeats a key purpose of the Second Amendment. That same person, in desperation, is likely to turn to other avenues to be able to defend themselves or their loved ones.
And who can legitimately blame them?
As Kraut concluded, the egregiously long waiting period “must be declared unconstitutional and enjoined, which is the purpose of our lawsuit.”
FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack criticized the state for holding a constitutional right hostage for a completely arbitrary period.
“Delaying access of life-saving and constitutionally protected tools to peaceable people is immoral and unsupported by the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment in this country. This law must be struck down.”
The SAF’s Gottlieb also asserted there is a Fourteenth Amendment issue at stake in the case against the California law. The edict tells average state citizens that they must wait for ten days to legally purchase a firearm while carving out exceptions for almost two dozen categories of “favored individuals.”
He observed that these parties do not have to wait to possess their weapons, which obviously violates the Equal Protection clause. Gottlieb said the plaintiffs want to end this discriminatory practice.
The only reason California has not banned and confiscated all firearms of every type is that the Constitution stands in their way. In lieu of a complete prohibition, the state exploits every trick in the book to work around the pesky Second Amendment and erect barriers against law-abiding citizens protecting themselves.
But thanks to activist organizations such as SAF and PFC, the Golden State may not unilaterally strip liberties away from its citizens.
There is absolutely nothing constitutional about being forced to wait for ten days to legally purchase a firearm. Rather, it is simply a flaming hoop lawmakers enacted to discourage the people from exercising their rights. It is the hope here that an honest judiciary will see the California law for what it is and end it for good.
