There's a court decision in Cali that I just found out about. It's waiting period related.
Over the jump we go....
Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a DKos group of second amendment supporters who have progressive and liberal values. We don't think that being a liberal means one has to be anti-gun. Some of us are extreme in our second amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms) and some of us are more moderate (licensing, restrictions on small arms.) Moderate or extreme or somewhere in between, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections. We don't want a repeat of 1994. We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you, as long as you engage in a civil discussion.
link
ROSEVILLE, Calif., Dec. 9, 2013 -- PRNewswire -- In a rejection of California Attorney General Kamala Harris' stance on the rights of law-abiding gun owners, Senior Federal District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii denied Harris' motion for summary judgement today in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by The Calguns Foundation, indicating that California's 10-day "waiting period" gun laws are likely unconstitutional.
...
"This is certainly an exciting development in Second Amendment case law," noted Brandon Combs, an individual plaintiff in the case and the Executive Director of The Calguns Foundation. "If our Constitution means what it says, then California's gun waiting period laws have to be overturned and law-abiding people must be allowed to exercise their rights without irrational infringements."
Regardless of the final decision at the district court, the case is virtually certain to end up at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and possibly even the United States Supreme Court.
"Cases like this one will define the limits of government regulations on firearms and Second Amendment rights," said Combs. "We look forward to making sure laws like California's waiting period are properly scrutinized by the courts."
Here is the PDF link to the Silvester v Harris case documentation. And here's a pertinent blockquote from the documentation:
As for the “cooling down” rationale, Harris has not presented sufficient evidence that the 10-day waiting period is a “reasonable fit.” For example, there is no evidence concerning how the 10-day period was determined for purposes of “cooling off,” any evidence concerning “cooling off” and gun violence in general for those wishing to purchase a firearm, or that the 10-days is not substantially broader than necessary.
Additionally, as applied to individuals who already own a gun, the Court has great difficulty envisioning how the “cooling off” rationale could pass the appropriate level of scrutiny. If an individual already possess a firearm, then nothing about this rationale would prevent that individual from acting on a sudden impulse to commit gun violence
with the gun already in his or her possession. The Court will not grant summary judgment on this issue based on the bare arguments presented. Chester, 628 F.3d at 883.
If waiting periods are declared unconstitutional at the federal level (I'm jumping ahead a bit and hypothesizing a bit) what do you think the impact will be?
Michigan does not have a waiting period. I've not seen evidence that waiting periods actually have an impact when it comes to firearm related crime. If you have said evidence, please link below.