Can't have people take couple days to cool off when they go to buy s lethal weapon
this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2025
39 points (100.0% liked)
Legal News
348 readers
58 users here now
International and local legal news.
Basic rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Sensitive topics need NSFW flag
Some cases involve sensitive topics. Use common sense and if you think that the content might trigger someone, post it under NSFW flag.
3. Instance rules apply
All lemmy.zip instance rules listed in the sidebar will be enforced.
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @[email protected].
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
The vast majority of purchases are by people who already own multiple guns. This should be dialed in to a first-time purchase, maybe once each on a pistol and a long gun.
That's the only way a waiting period is going to survive strict scrutiny.
Too many CEO's. Don't want that feeling to go away.
the Legislature has expressed as cause for the Act concern for persons who may purchase a firearm with the immediate purpose of doing harm to themselves or others.
A fundamental problem with this law is that, in most cases, it does not actually achieve its stated objective. A person can walk into a gun store with a Glock holstered on their hip, and be denied the immediate purchase of another Glock, under the theory that they need to "cool off" before purchasing an additional firearm. The law does not achieve its stated "cooling off" intention: The individual is armed for the duration of the "cooling off" period.
The law could be narrowly tailored to achieve its stated purpose without unduly impeding existing gun owners. It could apply only to first-time buyers, allowing stores to skip the waiting period if they have previously sold a gun to that buyer, or if the buyer has held a concealed carry permit or hunting license for >72 hours, or if the buyer is already armed at the time of purchase.
Because it was not narrowly tailored to its stated intention, we must assume that the actual intention is the impediment on existing gun owners. I've seen no arguments in support of waiting periods that would justify such an impediment.
So... throw it out cause it's not perfect? What the heck do you need a gun for that can't wait 72 hours for? Idk man you seem biased.
I am, indeed, biased. Heavily biased. But, my argument is consistent, even if we're talking about a hypothetical 72-hour waiting period before buying a hammer, or exercising our 5th amendment rights. What the heck do you need a hammer for that can't wait 72 hours? Why do you need to be arraigned within 48 hours? Why can't you just remain locked up for two weeks?
I (mostly) suppressed my bias in my argument. I accepted the premise of a cooling-off period that I do not actually believe to be necessary or appropriate.
My arguments reflect the concept of strict scrutiny. I demonstrate that even if we accept the (unfounded) premise of a "cooling off" period, this law is not the "least restrictive means" of achieving that purpose.
If you want to keep this law, you're going to have to consider someone walking into a gun store with a Remington 870 over their shoulder, an AR15 on their chest, and a Glock 17 on their hip. You're going to have to explain how society benefits by requiring this well-armed individual to wait 72 hours before picking up a bolt-action .22 plinker.
If you can make a reasonable argument for this, you have a solid case to keep the law.
First, thank you. I appreciate the intellectual and precise response that isn't condescending or bashing that many discussions delve into. To help better understand your position, could you quote the whole 5th amendment for everyone who isn't from the USA so we are all on the same page and then point out specifically how "waiting 72 hours before purchase" violates it?
I can more clearly address it, sure.
First off, my focus here is "strict scrutiny". I provided a link above. To summarize:
In U.S. constitutional law, when a law infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, the court may apply the strict scrutiny standard. Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest". The government must also demonstrate that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieve that compelling purpose, and that it uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve that purpose. Failure to meet this standard will result in striking the law as unconstitutional.
Basically, if you want to write a law that affects a constitutional right, it must pass the "strict scrutiny" test.
The cooling off period does not violate the 5th amendment. I mentioned the 5th amendment as a general, non-controversial example of constitutional rights, in order to demonstrate how "strict scrutiny" would apply.
The 5th amendment guarantees a right to "due process". If you are arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal act, the police can't just hold you indefinitely. As soon as feasible, the police have to release you with a summons. If they want to hold you in custody, they have to deliver you to court quickly, generally not more than 48 hours after arrest. That initial hearing is called "Arraignment".
A law that allows police to hold you for any amount of time without charge (8 hours, 48 hours, 2 weeks, whatever) would affect your 5th amendment right to due process. That doesn't necessarily mean it violates the right; it simply affects it. If the state wants to keep such a law, they will have to show that it meets the "strict scrutiny" standard. If they can meet the "strict scrutiny" standard, that law can be enacted. Here, the courts would likely determine that the 2-week delay is not the "least restrictive means" of achieving whatever "compelling interest" the state has in delaying
The 2nd amendment guarantees constitutional rights that are impacted by a "cooling off" period: the right to keep and bear arms. As such, the "strict scrutiny" standard applies. That doesn't mean that cooling off periods violate the constitutional right; it just means that the necessity of such a law will be judged by "strict scrutiny".
Even conceding the "compelling interest" and "least restrictive means" components of the test, waiting period laws are not "narrowly tailored" when they are imposed on current gun owners. Without meeting "strict scrutiny", they should be overturned.
You make some valid points and I applaud you and again thank you for being so thorough. However, quote the full 2nd amendment, and you will see that a waiting period is encouraged by it.
Before we get to the "well regulated" clause you're referring to, we need to understand "militia".
First, I'll direct your attention to Article I, Section 8, parts 12 and 13. These give Congress power to create armies and a navy.
Next we'll go to part 15: Congress is not given power to create the militia. Congress's power is to call forth the militia. The militia exists without having been created by Congress.
The militia consists of everyone that Congress can call forth. Who is that? Who can they call forth?
We know from 10 USC 246 that they have already provided for calling forth able bodied male citizens (and those intending to become citizens) aged 17 to 45, as well as members of the National Guard, regardless of age, sex, physical abilities, or citizenship status. They limited themselves to men, aged 17 to 45; they are free to revise that criteria any time they want. They are free to change the age range to 16 to 60. They are free to change "able bodied" to "sound mind". They are free to include women. They are free to include non-citizens and foreign volunteers. Even children have been allowed to come forth when Congress has called in the past.
Everyone that Congress can call forth is the militia. The militia is the people. The same people to whom the right is guaranteed in the 2nd amendment.
"Well regulated" refers to Part 16, in which Congress is granted the authority to provide "discipline" (training standards), and the state is granted the authority to conduct that training. The second amendment explicitly limits Part 16 powers as they pertain to the right to keep and bear arms. Congress has the power to arm the people; they do not have the power to disarm the people.
It is to protect consumers from over purchasing firearms. Since you already have one firearm it is clear you don't need another one to exercise your made-up constitutional belief. This allows a cooling off period for your wallet so you can come to the logical conclusion that you do not need another firearm.
/s
You sound suspiciously like my wife, and I'm not even married...
Frankly I would have it go further, require a full background check to be recently completed, expand it it to a week, cap ammo volumes, enable red flag provisions, and entirely ban full classes of high capacity and high cyclic rate weapons.
Your comparison to a simple tool or invoking of a self preservation is absurd on its face to the point of not being worth proper answering. I've handled guns virtually all my life, took a state safety course at a around 10 years old that's marked on my licence 30+ years later, and take a fair pride in picking off a dime size target at back yard range lengths.
Introducing a minimal delay on the flow of weapons into the already saturated hands of the public is a pittance of a concession if it stops even a single person from go out after a drunken fight and decide to shoot someone, or an isolated depressed individual to say this is the night to die, or to keep another of the far too frequent school shootings from happening. You provide this picture of a walking arsenal coming in and needing to get yet another gun right this moment as though they where an addict needing a fix as some argument against the law.
Introducing a minimal delay on the flow of weapons into the already saturated hands of the public is a pittance of a concession if it stops even a single person from go out after a drunken fight and decide to shoot someone,
This premise is the proposed "compelling state interest" I discussed in my last comment.
This law isn't going to die from lack of a "compelling state interest". This law is going to die from a lack of "narrowly tailored", because nobody has made that argument.
The complaint you present is that there should be several exceptions to the waiting period. If you believe that phrasing it as cooling off is a problem then the simple solution is to say all purchases of a firearm have a waiting period, no exceptions. Crisis of specificity resolved.
Of course the go to argument then is 'but my 2A' at which point you end up down some rabbit hole where people argue they should be able to own a fully automatic field gun if they want to because reasons...
the simple solution is to say all purchases of a firearm have a waiting period, no exceptions
Yeah, I've addressed this. The "interest" that I accepted as "compelling" only applies to first time gun buyers, who don't have access to other guns during the waiting period.
To meet strict scrutiny, you need to demonstrate both the compelling government interest and the narrow tailoring. If you want me to accept that "no exceptions" is narrowly tailored, you're going to have to show me a compelling government interest that applies to both current gun owners and first time buyers.
Your arguments don't seem to demonstrate comprehension of "strict scrutiny". That is almost certainly going to be applied to this law. If you want to keep this law, your arguments are going to need to meet the strict scrutiny standard.
Conservatives: you want to kill somebody? Maybe commit suicide? Why wait! Get your guns immediately.