California Gun Case Worth Keeping An Eye On

Dave Workman, a regular contributor to our sister magazines, Northwest Sportsman and Western Shooting Journal, and a sometimes correspondent at California Sportsman, had a very interesting report about a California gun ownership trial that seems like a minor story, but with a much bigger potential for bigger news down the line. Here’s some of Workman’s story:

Here, in part, is what Senior Judge Anthony Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, said in his order denying a motion to dismiss the case called Silvester v. Harris, which challenges California’s ten-day waiting period law (WPL) on the delivery of a firearm:

“The WPL as applied against those who have previously purchased firearms or who possess certain state licenses is the equivalent of a prior restraint, and thus should be analyzed under strict scrutiny. However, under either strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny, the WPL fails. In terms of strict scrutiny, Harris has not shown that the law is effective either in reducing gun violence or in keeping firearms out of the hands of unqualified purchasers where the government has already issued that purchaser a License To Carry or a Certificate Of Eligibility.”

The defendant in this case is California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who has been defending the Golden State’s 10-day waiting period on every firearm transaction. She filed a motion to dismiss the case, filed almost two years ago by the CalGuns Foundation, chaired by Gene Hoffman; SAF, headed by Alan Gottlieb, and three individual plaintiffs, including Jeff Silvester, for whom the case is named.

California gun issues are usually hotly contested issues, so stay tuned if this escalates into something even more significant.

Looking for a holiday gift for the angler or hunter you care about? A one-, two- or three-year subscription to California Sportsman is $10 off. Click here for details.