On 14 December, 2016, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court ruling in Silvester v. Harris. In the original decision, the District Court ruled that requiring a gun owner who had already passed a background check, and who either already owned a registered gun or had a concealed carry permit, was an infringement on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The Ninth Circuit held that a 10 day waiting period was a “reasonable safety precaution”. [More]I guess this is an advance, but come on. Prior restraint "background checks," registration and permits are not infringements?
The damn black robes go through more perverted contortions than are alluded to in the Marilyn Manson rib removal urban legend.
3 comments:
"But 9th Circuit Judge Mary Schroeder said the waiting period makes sense, for example, for someone who already owns a hunting rifle but may want to buy a larger-capacity weapon that will do more damage when fired into a crowd."
Another Constitutionally ignorant, black robed firearms expert heard from. I guess it's explained by the fact that she got her Juris Doctorate from the University of Chicago and was appointed by the second worst president in American history, Jimma Carter.
Now I’m confused. If the original court said the waiting period WAS an infringement, and the appeals court said it was reasonable, how is this an advance?
Second sentence: "In the original decision, the District Court ruled that requiring a gun owner who had already passed a background check, and who either already owned a registered gun or had a concealed carry permit, was an infringement on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms." Uhmm, "requiring a gun owner", to do what?
Post a Comment