Best
201 Comments
Post
  • #2
    !
    Common sense is catching on in California who would of ever thunk? Repetitive background checks are an infringement on individual rights, a waste of tax payer money and a political pissing post for a government that is way out of touch with the people who elect them.
  • #39
    !
    @John_Matrix Was it not a federal judge that struck down the NY 7 round limit on magazines? The limit has been dropped state wide now :) To bad the rest of the shit law stood.
  • #40
    !
    @Bigstroken

    I have no idea I'm simply asking if federal appellate judges are always judges that practice in the state the dispute originates from. If they're not, then the praise he gave towards California may not be warranted
  • #65
    !
    10,000 gun murders a year in a supposedly civilized country is an infringement on the rights of the sane....
  • R Load more replies

  • #13
    !
    I'm not gun crazy, but I appreciate our Constitution, including the 2nd amendment. The 10 day waiting period should have never been put in place. There was no good reason for that law to exist. When you infringe on my constitutional rights, you diminish what makes America great. Good on California for supporting our Constitution.
  • #106
    !
    The 10 day wait has nothing whatsoever to do with the 2nd amendment. It should depend entirely on local laws, not on the constitution. The 2nd amendment says nothing whatsoever about buying guns. Only about keeping them and bearing them. I'm not saying the 10 day wait is justified. Just that the constitution is not relevant to it.
  • #173
    !
    @McDuck People have very little understanding of constitutional rights. In some, interpretation comes into play, but it's pretty clear that the 2nd Amendment neither condones nor decries waiting periods. Here, here.
  • #11
    !
    check check and recheck,the pay pay and pay again all needs to stop. the gov takes enough already they need to keep their hands out of peoples pockets and get rid of all these foolish laws on this issue
  • #107
    !
    Maybe so, but not because of the constitution. There is nothing in the 2nd amendment about money or buying guns.
  • #10
    !
    I argued this point to no end when @JesseJaymes was on here.

    This ruling makes sense.D.C. and the various other states that have overstepped their powers are getting ridiculous laws overturned. It's nice to see some common sense for a change.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • R Load more replies

  • #8
    !
    MF! Common sense in action In Cali?!!!
    When the earth moves it shakes some sense into people.

    Can you imagine the ferguson like scenario amped by 100 after a major quake?

    Only criminals should be subjected to repeated background checks.
  • R Load more replies

  • #27
    !
    Is there a waiting period when you go to get a driver license or a voter I D? Responsible and legal citizen should not be penalized for the dead weight in society.
  • #131
    !
    @MellowGuy Some politicians believe that blocking freedoms and restricting honest people give purpose to their inability to apply common sense.
  • #115
    !
    And is a good reason to change the law. Which should be done by lawmakers, elected by the people. Not by power-grabbing judges, usurping the lawmaking power of elected representatives, and making their own laws.
  • #114
    !
    The constitution is eroded by this interpretation. It says nothing about buying guns. That's controlled by laws, not by the constitution. By favoring loose interpretation, you favor giving judges massive power to rule society by interpreting the constitution to their whims. If they favor you one day, by loose interpretation, then infringe on your rights year after year, by loose interpretation of other parts of the constitution, it will be your fault, for favoring their loose interpretation.
  • #127
    !
    @McDuck
    Oh, so now, exercising the 2nd Amendment means your guns have to be given to you, not bought? If bought they must be "controlled by laws".

    The Constitution itself is laws.
  • #128
    !
    Eroded? How!? Not even close. Public safety has been eroded in virtually every recent federal gun-control case. Of course, on the merits of this one, even I see it as a reasonable ruling. Of course you gun nuts will see it as some sort of fatal blow to waiting periods in general, which it's not.
  • #133
    !
    @captainentropy
    Public safety is eroded when restrictions are placed on law abiding citizens right to keep and bear arms.
  • #166
    !
    @WMCOL You always had the right to buy guns, just like you had the right to buy bicycles. But you have to pay tax on your purchase, and follow any other applicable laws. It has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, which is only about keeping and bearing arms, not buying anything.
  • R Load more replies

  • #69
    !
    Gun owners who already have been through this process should not have to do it again once passing the background check. It's ridiculous! The criminals are not buying their firearms legally anyway! My husband surprised be a couple of weeks ago with a gift of a gun I wanted for carry conceal. My home handgun is far from being a carry conceal gun for a woman. I've had it for a long time and love it, but I can not use it for other than home protection. It's an Israeli made Desert Eagle .357 semiautomatic chrome. Definitely too big and too heavy for conceal carry for me. He was working and didn't tell me about a gun show. He bought me a S&W M&P Bodyguard semiautomatic with a built in Crimson Trace laser. It's exactly what I wanted! I don't like revolvers. I've never had to use my gun except for practice and that is exactly the way I want it to remain! I don't relish the thought of shooting anyone, but if it ever comes down to my daughter, myself and innocent people; I'm glad to have it! We are very responsible gun owners. Cont. in reply. The rest helps explain my position.
  • #70
    !
    I grew up skeet shooting with my dad. So I've only shot clay pigeons, targets and large hay bails on the farm. Living in Arkansas has it's perks when it comes to buying guns. You walk out with it when you pay for it! He went specifically to buy me that gun! I have a wonderful husband! He wants me to be able to protect our daughter and myself. Others also if necessary. People that see me would think I would be the last person who would be carrying a gun. Not in my purse either. I have a specifically made body hugging outside and inside the waistband holster that fits this gun. You can't see it even in my skinny jeans with a tight, or short, or both top. I also have a thigh holster. A bra or ankle holster can be too hard to draw if you need to do so quickly. I have no problem shooting through my top or skirt/ dress if I have too. Saving my daughter, myself or others is worth it. With the proliferation of gangs here after Katrina, I feel much better that I can protect us. After seeing a carload of gang members slowly driving though our neighborhood, it made me glad I had my Desert Eagle. They were far from their home turf which is the north side of town. Then seeing men just stare at me since I was 12 and now my daughter 9yr old daughter since she was 7; I will be glad to carry the gun my husband gave me after I get in enough practice with it! It's not our fault we look the way we do. My pic on the avatar is me, but a little old because I have waist length hair now and have lost the baby weight from being pregnant with my daughter. A bit older, but I look better. I will not carry a gun I don't have command of. We live in a new neighborhood on the south side just before the city limits. The police are far from here and have even gotten lost using their GPS trying to find a neighbors home.
  • #71
    !
    Oops, I didn't split that right. One more short reply. Stick with me. It explains a lot! Years ago I walked in on burglars in my home and had to get out quick! Thank God my children weren't with me! It still took police 20 minutes to get there. They must have just broke in because all they got was the living room's VCR, and not all of it. When they saw me they just jerked on it to get it and run. Instead of cables breaking, the whole backside came off. I was a single mother back then and my gun was in my room at the back of the house. It was in what you would think was a nice, safe neighborhood. I took call every Wednesday night and my young sons would spend the night with my parents. They must have thought I had left for a shift instead of just a call. The hospital did not allow you to be armed, so mace was it until I got a stunner(that is until the banned them too). They didn't care much for the safety of the women like me who would be coming in and out at all hours. Their guards were more concerned about where people parked next to the building itself, not safety of those out in the parking lots or the garage I rarely used because of cost. I'm glad this judge made this decision in California! What about the guns bought for protection? My first husband bought me my Desert Eagle after a very dangerous man started threatening me. He was only suspended when I turned him in for sexual harassment of me and a couple of other waitresses. We had gone camping one weekend and when we got home my husband hit the voicemail and he had called to tell me everything he was going to do to me in graphic detail. We couldn't hit off quick enough for our very young sons to not hear. He had been fired that weekend. Later he had waited behind the restaurant for me to come out. He knew I was working and that I was the next to last person to leave. The idiot didn't check to make sure my car was there. My husband picked me up in the front with the manager locking behind me. He was the reason for this! When I never came out he was so mad that he broke in the back, beat up the manager and robbed the place. When he got out of prison his agenda was me. He found out where my new house was and broke in. What if I and my little boys had been home? I would have had no choice but to shoot him on sight! I was also sexually assaulted when I was younger. I would have loved to have been able to be armed then!
  • #160
    !
    @BelinKS I think an American should be able to own any type of gun or weapon, even bombs and flame throwers, even Jets, and rockets, anything is ok if they can afford it.
    The founders in England discovered they needed the same weapons the government had, and so did they over here, Washington had a terrible time coming by weapons. And today with this tyrant in office we might end up needing some too. Who whould have guessed, but 2 Generals said we need to get control of our government or load up.

  • #67
    !
    I think the amount of time it takes to sign the check/slide the card/count the cash is a long enough waiting time,,,,, period.
  • #33
    !
    I doubt this will go all the way through to become law...I wish it would. The laws here are ridiculous. The 1 handgun per month and the CA roster is a joke. Not to mention 10 round limit in all firearms.
  • R Load more replies

  • #98
    !
    I am less supportive of laws concerning the purchasing of guns.

    and,
    I am disappointed at the failure of implementing existing laws that would reduce the need for them.

    If you want to get people to stop buying, collecting and hoarding armories full of weapons,
    you will have to address the need to have them first.

    Forcing them the disarm in the face of the daily accounts (morning, noon and night) on the news of violent crime, is just going to stampede them towards more weapons.

    Every state that goes for gun control regulations sees a spike in gun and ammo sales.

    Criminalizing the right to defend yourself is not going to stop the criminals.. just add to them.
  • #95
    !
    Leave it to the dems to assume that because someone wants to possess a firearm they must only want to do so as the result of an impulsive act of violence to others and themselves....a real window into the scary, nanny-state like mind of a liberal.

    Praise the Lord for this Judge!

    Grace & Peace,
    -Mitch
  • #119
    !
    And herald the end of the constitution, with the same praise. Because this issue should be addressed with changes in laws, not by loose interpretation of the constitution, which can be loosely interpreted in all its words, not just in the 2nd amendment, which says nothing whatsoever about the process of buying guns. By abusing the constitution to get what you favor in gun laws, you ask for it to be abused in other ways.
  • #124
    !
    @McDuck Not sure who you're responding to there... I fail to understand how a court striking down an unlawful measure as unconstitutional is itself unconstitutional...that is the Judicial branch duty, to interpret the laws. I never contested or said anything about the 2nd amendment stating anything with respect to the purchasing process for guns.
  • #167
    !
    My point is that the issue should be addressed by laws, not by incorrectly interpreting the constitution. What's at stake is a lot more than gun rights. It's the precedent of federal judges making rulings about the constitution that expand its scope and details, instead of interpreting it strictly. Because once we let ourselves be satisfied that they ruled a particular way, without concern for the logic behind the decision, then we've effectively given our consent for that same logic to be used in loose interpretation and expansion of the constitution in other areas than gun rights. The 2nd amendment prohibits infringement on keeping and bearing arms. It has nothing to do with commerce of any kind. Rules such as a waiting period to buy anything in particular are covered by other parts of the constitution and by various laws, but not by the 2nd amendment. By expanding it to cover those, and accepting that expansion, you're saying you want the constitution to gradually be expanded and loosened in all its details, of which gun rights are only a very small part.
  • R Load more replies

  • #76
    !
    If this means that unregistered first time gun purchasers still have to wait then I am fine with this ruling. I agree that there is little point in making someone wait if they already have other guns.
  • R Load more comments...
Post