{"id":587,"date":"2017-10-28T18:58:00","date_gmt":"2017-10-28T18:58:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/2017\/10\/28\/late-friday-news-no-1-from-calguns\/"},"modified":"2019-08-16T18:28:13","modified_gmt":"2019-08-16T18:28:13","slug":"late-friday-news-no-1-from-calguns","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/?p=587","title":{"rendered":"Late Friday News No. 1 &#8211; From Calguns Foundation"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class='__iawmlf-post-loop-links' style='display:none;' data-iawmlf-post-links='[{&quot;id&quot;:8074,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com\\\/2017\\\/02\\\/calguns-saf-seek-en-banc-hearing-in.html&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/web-wp.archive.org\\\/web\\\/20251204204316\\\/https:\\\/\\\/onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com\\\/2017\\\/02\\\/calguns-saf-seek-en-banc-hearing-in.html&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[{&quot;date&quot;:&quot;2026-04-18 03:10:06&quot;,&quot;http_code&quot;:200}],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:{&quot;date&quot;:&quot;2026-04-18 03:10:06&quot;,&quot;http_code&quot;:200},&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:8075,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/link.email.dynect.net\\\/link.php?DynEngagement=true&amp;H=s8mq%2BFF8Y8J%2F7%2FXrLp5ygdcwMPrxjsUdQBMch4EEnHhpCCjF3%2FNlfEjCdURjtDJVcgqVQSruuGT9GFzgXCg0H3%2BgKcEnCJCVZy%2BHMDRvJlH%2FZK3xOHdvgg%3D%3D&amp;G=0&amp;R=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.calgunsfoundation.org%2Fgun_rights_lawsuit_heating_up_california_ordered_to_respond_multiple_briefs_filed_in_support_of_10_day_waiting_period_petitioners&amp;I=20171027185910.000001e0952b%40mail6-34-usnbn1&amp;X=MHwxMDQ2NzU4OjU5ZjM4MTU1OGU2NTQ1NTEyY2Y2MGIyMzs%3D&amp;S=Su5w5alPbsranC9YGd7ynDF8sfeOB6PKNZhBDROHzLE&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:8076,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;http:\\\/\\\/link.email.dynect.net\\\/link.php?DynEngagement=true&amp;H=s8mq%2BFF8Y8J%2F7%2FXrLp5ygdcwMPrxjsUdQBMch4EEnHhpCCjF3%2FNlfEjCdURjtDJVcgqVQSruuGT9GFzgXCg0H3%2BgKcEnCJCVZy%2BHMDRvJlH%2FZK3xOHdvgg%3D%3D&amp;G=0&amp;R=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.calgunsfoundation.org%2Fsilvester.&amp;I=20171027185910.000001e0952b%40mail6-34-usnbn1&amp;X=MHwxMDQ2NzU4OjU5ZjM4MTU1OGU2NTQ1NTEyY2Y2MGIyMzs%3D&amp;S=FpVjZdcdsytasYqATrko_Hk9BPCByOmp4a7vv43XSPY&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;}]'><\/div>\n<p>\nThe Calguns Foundation sent out an update on their appeal for certiorari to the US Supreme Court regarding California&#8217;s 10-day waiting period on Friday. Silvester et al v. Becerra challenges the 10-day waiting period for those individual who either holds a California issued carry permit or is an existing gun owner who holds a California certificate of eligibility. This case was a win at the District Court level but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision. <a href=\"http:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com\/2017\/02\/calguns-saf-seek-en-banc-hearing-in.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">They bizarrely held<\/a> that even existing firearms owners need a 10-day cooling off period.<\/p>\n<p>From Calguns:<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"tr_bq\">\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"text-align: center;\">\n<i><a href=\"http:\/\/link.email.dynect.net\/link.php?DynEngagement=true&amp;H=s8mq%2BFF8Y8J%2F7%2FXrLp5ygdcwMPrxjsUdQBMch4EEnHhpCCjF3%2FNlfEjCdURjtDJVcgqVQSruuGT9GFzgXCg0H3%2BgKcEnCJCVZy%2BHMDRvJlH%2FZK3xOHdvgg%3D%3D&amp;G=0&amp;R=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.calgunsfoundation.org%2Fgun_rights_lawsuit_heating_up_california_ordered_to_respond_multiple_briefs_filed_in_support_of_10_day_waiting_period_petitioners&amp;I=20171027185910.000001e0952b%40mail6-34-usnbn1&amp;X=MHwxMDQ2NzU4OjU5ZjM4MTU1OGU2NTQ1NTEyY2Y2MGIyMzs%3D&amp;S=Su5w5alPbsranC9YGd7ynDF8sfeOB6PKNZhBDROHzLE\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"><strong><span style=\"font-family: &quot;calibri&quot; , sans-serif;\">Gun<br \/>\n Rights Lawsuit Heating Up: California Ordered to Respond, Multiple<br \/>\nBriefs Filed in Support of 10-Day Waiting Period Petitioners<\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/i><\/div>\n<div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\">\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\">\n<i>WASHINGTON,<br \/>\n D.C. (October 27, 2017) \u2013 A Second Amendment lawsuit out of California<br \/>\nis drawing attention at the Supreme Court and support from multiple<br \/>\ngroups, said gun rights group The Calguns Foundation, which joined<br \/>\nSecond Amendment Foundation and two individuals on a petition in<br \/>\nSeptember seeking the Court\u2019s review of a Ninth Circuit ruling that<br \/>\nupheld the state\u2019s 10-day waiting period laws when they are enforced<br \/>\nagainst law-abiding gun owners after they pass a rigorous background<br \/>\ncheck.<\/i><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\">\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\">\n<i>Last<br \/>\n month, the respondent California Attorney General Xavier Becerra waived<br \/>\n his right to reply to the petition. But on September 29 the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt ordered the State to reply; on October 24, the Court granted the<br \/>\nState of California an extension of time to file that reply, making the<br \/>\nnew deadline December 1. Adding support for the case, multiple briefs<br \/>\nhave been filed in support of the petitioners, encouraging the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt to grant review and overturn the Ninth Circuit\u2019s ruling.<\/i><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\">\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\">\n<i>In<br \/>\n a brief authored by preeminent constitutional scholars Ilya Shapiro and<br \/>\n Trevor Burrus, the Washington, D.C.-based think tank Cato Institute<br \/>\npresented a strong case for the Court to grant certiorari.&nbsp; The brief<br \/>\nargues, among other things, that intermediate scrutiny \u201cmeans something<br \/>\ndifferent in almost every circuit [court of appeal] when applied to the<br \/>\nSecond Amendment\u201d and that the Ninth Circuit \u201cabused petitioners\u2019<br \/>\nfundamental rights by misapplying intermediate scrutiny.\u201d<\/i><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\">\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\">\n<i>And<br \/>\n in another brief, former California Deputy Attorney General Raymond M.<br \/>\nDiGuiseppe argued on behalf of a coalition of Second Amendment advocacy<br \/>\ngroups\u2014including Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation,<br \/>\nGun Owners of California, and Madison Society Foundation\u2014that Supreme<br \/>\nCourt review is necessary in this case \u201cto reestablish the rule of law<br \/>\nand halt the trend of judicial obstructionism\u201d that is \u201cjeopardizing\u201d<br \/>\nthe constitutional protections of the Second Amendment. \u201cThis is not the<br \/>\n first time the Ninth Circuit has played \u2018fast and loose\u2019 with the<br \/>\nCourt\u2019s Second Amendment jurisprudence to fend off constitutional claims<br \/>\n \u2013 nor will it be the last if this Court does not step in,\u201d the brief<br \/>\nsaid.<\/i><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\">\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\">\n<i>Attorneys<br \/>\n Douglas A. Applegate and George M. Lee of the San Francisco-based law<br \/>\nfirm Seiler Epstein Ziegler &amp; Applegate LLP filed a brief for the<br \/>\nCrime Prevention Research Center, a research and education organization<br \/>\nled by the renowned economist Dr. John Lott, arguing that \u201cthe standards<br \/>\n applied by the lower courts vary widely\u201d and that \u201cthe Ninth Circuit<br \/>\nreversed the evidentiary findings of the trial court and supplanted the<br \/>\nevidence that the trial court received and weighed with its own<br \/>\nnon-empirical views of what it thought was reasonable.\u201d<\/i><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\">\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\">\n<i>\u201cWe<br \/>\n are pleased that other groups have recognized the serious flaws in the<br \/>\nNinth Circuit\u2019s approach,\u201d explained Erik S. Jaffe, the petitioners\u2019<br \/>\nSupreme Court counsel. \u201cThe results-driven analysis in the opinion below<br \/>\n not only does violence to the Second Amendment, but does violence to<br \/>\nthe rule of law and respect for the courts. We are hopeful that the<br \/>\nJustices, whatever their views on the scope of the Second Amendment,<br \/>\nwill recognize that the decision below is well out of bounds of any<br \/>\nreasonable reading of Supreme Court precedent or standards for<br \/>\nintermediate scrutiny and will take the necessary steps to ensure the<br \/>\nfair administration of justice in Second Amendment cases.\u201d<\/i><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\">\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\">\n<i>In<br \/>\n 2014, Federal District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii\u2014nominated to the<br \/>\nbench by then-President Clinton\u2014held that California\u2019s waiting period<br \/>\nlaws were unconstitutional as applied to three categories of gun<br \/>\npurchasers after undertaking significant discovery, depositions, and a<br \/>\nthree-day bench trial.<\/i><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\">\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\">\n<i>But<br \/>\n in 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit<br \/>\nbizarrely ruled that even a person legally carrying a concealed handgun<br \/>\nas he buys another gun at retail, and who passes a further background<br \/>\ncheck, needs to be \u201ccooled off\u201d for another 10 days before exercising<br \/>\nhis Second Amendment rights and taking possession of a<br \/>\nconstitutionally-protected firearm.<\/i><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\">\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\">\n<i>Brandon<br \/>\n Combs, an individual plaintiff in the case as well as the executive<br \/>\ndirector of institutional plaintiff The Calguns Foundation, said that<br \/>\nthe briefs made excellent arguments and further supported the petition<br \/>\nfor review. \u201cThe Supreme Court has everything that it needs in a case<br \/>\nwith an excellent trial record teed up here to save the Second Amendment<br \/>\n from hostile lower courts.\u201d<\/i><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\">\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\">\n<i>\u201cWe are grateful to these <span style=\"font-family: &quot;calibri&quot; , sans-serif;\">amici<\/span><br \/>\n organizations and their counsel for their support of this case and<br \/>\nstanding up for constitutional principles,\u201d concluded Combs.&nbsp;<\/i><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\">\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\">\n<i>A copy of the <span style=\"font-family: &quot;calibri&quot; , sans-serif;\">Silvester<\/span> petition to the Supreme Court and the amicus briefs can be viewed or downloaded at <a href=\"http:\/\/link.email.dynect.net\/link.php?DynEngagement=true&amp;H=s8mq%2BFF8Y8J%2F7%2FXrLp5ygdcwMPrxjsUdQBMch4EEnHhpCCjF3%2FNlfEjCdURjtDJVcgqVQSruuGT9GFzgXCg0H3%2BgKcEnCJCVZy%2BHMDRvJlH%2FZK3xOHdvgg%3D%3D&amp;G=0&amp;R=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.calgunsfoundation.org%2Fsilvester.&amp;I=20171027185910.000001e0952b%40mail6-34-usnbn1&amp;X=MHwxMDQ2NzU4OjU5ZjM4MTU1OGU2NTQ1NTEyY2Y2MGIyMzs%3D&amp;S=FpVjZdcdsytasYqATrko_Hk9BPCByOmp4a7vv43XSPY\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.calgunsfoundation.org\/silvester.<\/a><\/i><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div style=\"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;\" class=\"sharethis-inline-share-buttons\" ><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Calguns Foundation sent out an update on their appeal for certiorari to the US Supreme Court regarding California&#8217;s&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[484,515,1179,9],"class_list":["post-587","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-9th-circuit","tag-calguns-foundation","tag-silvester-et-al-v-becerra-et-al","tag-supreme-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/587","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=587"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/587\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11217,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/587\/revisions\/11217"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=587"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=587"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=587"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}