CALGUNS and SAF ask for Supreme Court Review of Waiting Period Case

Waiting periods for firearms have been found to be ineffectual in reducing crime. Even the leftwing politifact acknowledges that fact. From politifact.com: 

Wanggaard said, "There’s no statistical evidence that" a waiting period for handgun purchases "reduces violence whatsoever."

There is research to indicate that handgun waiting periods are linked with lower suicide rates. But we did not find evidence that waiting periods coincide with less violence being committed by one person against another. If such evidence emerges, we may revisit this item.

As it stands, Wanggaard’s statement is accurate but needs clarification -- our definition of Mostly True.

The evidence for a reduction in suicide rates (only for those 55 and older) is from a dubious study from the year 2000. The overall suicide rate was not reduced, suggesting the reduction of age 55 and older suicides was a statistical anomaly.

The study concluded that the law’s waiting period was associated with reductions in the firearm suicide rate for people age 55 and older, but not associated with reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates.

If a person already has a firearm, it is hard to see how a waiting period would reduce even suicide rates. There is no credible evidence that even firearm bans reduce overall suicide rates. They may reduce the number of suicides committed with firearms. But the overall suicide rate refuses to drop, because of the availability of many substitute methods.

What is the rational for infringing on Second Amendment rights with waiting periods?

There isn't any credible rational.  Calguns and the Second Amendment Foundation are appealing the Ninth Circuit decision upholding the California waiting period scheme. From prnewswire.com:

BELLEVUE, Wash., Sept. 1, 2017 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation and two individual plaintiffs today filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari in the case of Silvester, et.al. v. California Attorney General Zavier Becarra.

The case challenges California's 10-day waiting period law and seeks to overturn a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that essentially forces a gun owner to endure another waiting period to purchase another firearm even though he is licensed to carry and has already passed a background check.

Individual plaintiffs in the case are Jeffrey Silvester, an insurance broker in Hanford, and Brandon Combs, executive director of the Calguns Foundation.

"While this case is about waiting periods, it is also about something more," said Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "It's about challenging a gun regulation that is designed more to discourage exercise of the Second Amendment than it is about preventing crime." 

"Remember what Senior Judge Anthony Ishii of the U.S. District Court said in his original order, that the state has tacit knowledge that a protected Second Amendment right is burdened by the waiting period law," Gottlieb recalled. "His comparison of the waiting period to prior restraint is a point that should grab the attention of every journalist who has ever defended the First Amendment while disdaining the Second. A civil right is a right, and all rights are equal and deserve equal protection."

Silvester, who has passed California's rigorous background check, wondered, "What possible reason does the State have in denying me my Second Amendment right to take possession of a firearm after I pass yet another background check? If the government can constitutionally prevent a law-abiding person from taking possession of a firearm after they pass a background check, then what isn't constitutional?"

"In its decision to ignore the trial court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as well as longstanding principles of appellate review, the Ninth Circuit has made it crystal clear that it has no intention of following the Supreme Court's precedents no matter unconstitutional, burdensome, or irrational the law," said Combs. "This case is beyond ripe for review."

The petition was authored by Washington, D.C. attorney Erik S. Jaffe, who stated that it "is no secret that various lower courts, and the Ninth Circuit especially, are engaged in systematic resistance to" both the Heller and McDonald rulings on the Second Amendment. Jaffe clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and is now in private practice.

SAF and Calguns have it exactly right. The waiting period scheme is just another attempt to chill the exercise of Second Amendment right.

The Supreme Court has been hesitant to hear any Second Amendment cases for a few years now.  It is hard to know if the appointment of Justice Gorsuch will be enough to swing the balance. Appointment of another originalist and textualist by the President Trump may be necessary for the Supreme Court to tackle Second Amendment cases with confidence.

 ©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch