Cal Guns Foundation: California Gun Waiting Period Laws Ruled Unconstitutional

August 26, 2014 · 70 comments

opencarry3

The California gun waiting period laws have been ruled unconstitutional, according to the Cal Guns Foundation.

The Foundation reports the Federal court decided the 10-day waiting period laws violate Second Amendment rights.

The following information is from the Cal Guns Foundation:

California’s 10-day waiting period for gun purchases was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge this morning in a significant victory for Second Amendment civil rights. The laws were challenged by California gun owners Jeffrey Silvester and Brandon Combs, as well as two gun rights groups, The Calguns Foundation and Second Amendment Foundation.

In the decision released this morning, Federal Eastern District of California Senior Judge Anthony W. Ishii, appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton, found that “the 10-day waiting periods of Penal Code [sections 26815(a) and 27540(a)] violate the Second Amendment” as applied to members of certain classifications, like Silvester and Combs, and “burdens the Second Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs.”

“This is a great win for Second Amendment civil rights and common sense,” said Jeff Silvester, the named individual plaintiff. “I couldn’t be happier with how this case turned out.”

Under the court order, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) must change its systems to accommodate the unobstructed release of guns to gun buyers who pass a background check and possess a California license to carry a handgun, or who hold a “Certificate of Eligibility” issued by the DOJ and already possess at least one firearm known to the state.

“We are happy that Second Amendment rights are being acknowledged and protected by our courts,” said Donald Kilmer, lead attorney for the plaintiffs. “This case is one more example of how our judicial branch brings balance to government in order to insure our liberty. I am elated that we were able to successfully vindicate the rights of our clients.”

Attorneys Victor Otten of Torrance and Jason Davis of Mission Viejo were co-counsel for the plaintiffs.

“This ruling clearly addressed the issue we put before the court,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “We are naturally delighted with the outcome.”

“California gun owners are not second-class citizens and the Second Amendment doesn’t protect second class rights,” noted plaintiff Brandon Combs, also CGF’s executive director. “This decision is an important step towards restoring fundamental individual liberties in the Golden State.”

“This victory provides a strong foundation from which other irrational and unconstitutional gun control laws will be challenged,” concluded Combs. “We look forward to doing just that.”

The court’s decision can be read or downloaded at http://bit.ly/silvester-v-harris-decision.

1 Steve August 26, 2014 at 4:02 PM

If you need a gun RIGHT NOW and can’t wait 10 days, you probably shouldn’t have a gun at that time.

2 How can it be any clearer? August 26, 2014 at 4:05 PM

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

3 Pro 2nd August 26, 2014 at 4:31 PM

We will not be overcome.

4 J. August 26, 2014 at 4:41 PM

If you already have guns and a permit to carry, waiting 10-days for another gun is no big deal, is it?

5 Many people comment of the August 26, 2014 at 4:43 PM

Bill of Rights.

I wonder how many have even read them? I suspect, not very many. For if more people had read them, they would know the elegance of brevity and succinctness honoring those great words of wisdom.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

6 anonmtz August 26, 2014 at 4:59 PM

James Brady would be so proud.

7 Kevin August 26, 2014 at 4:59 PM

Guess what: if someone cant wait ten days to buy a gun lawfully, theyre going to buy it unlawfully. Makes no difference to criminals. Only people gun restrictions hurt are the lawful ones.

8 Jim Shoes August 26, 2014 at 4:59 PM

That sounds like a fantastic idea.

9 The Mamba August 26, 2014 at 5:02 PM

Interesting, why can California still require you to have a license to own a handgun then? Overturn that as well.

10 Dorothy August 26, 2014 at 5:04 PM

I beginning to believe nearly any law is unconstitutional these days. Anarchy anyone? Might be a good idea to get a bow & arrow to use after the bullets run out.

11 Grob August 26, 2014 at 5:04 PM

What’s the purpose of waiting 10-days? A cooling off period for someone who is emotional and wants to commit harm to himself or others.

BUT

Why would someone who already owns a gun need to wait 10 days? The origin of this judges decision is the time, hassle, and added expense of travelling to a gun store twice.

If you are a responsible gun owner, you should be able to purchase and accept your new firearm right away. 10-day waiting period should not applied to those who already own guns.

Yes, new gun buyers should wait, true. But we’re not talking about them.

Side note: I wonder how many of you anti-gun people will wish you owned a gun after someone breaks into your house to do harm to you or your family. The world is a dangerous place full of druggies and crazies, protect yourself and your family and our community. Be responsible gun owners.

Just like the wild west, responsible gun owners are the answer to illegal gun and other violence.

12 Note to Obama August 26, 2014 at 5:06 PM

I’ll keep my Guns and my Freedoms, you keep the Change.

13 Just me August 26, 2014 at 5:08 PM

So when does it go into effect?

14 ... August 26, 2014 at 5:14 PM

Criminals will prey upon a population they perceive to be widely unarmed.

“Chicago crime rate drops as concealed carry applications surge”
“City sees fewer homicides, robberies, burglaries, car thefts as Illinois residents take arms”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/24/chicago-crime-rate-drops-as-concealed-carry-gun-pe/

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0dhBRvkm-gw/UPK6a8yQlrI/AAAAAAAAIc4/KTf-bKbQDlc/s1600/A9e93RSCIAEiOCU.jpg+large.jpg

http://liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/10151408_722762844439262_5335646859594070265_n-500×459.jpg

15 RDS August 26, 2014 at 5:22 PM

Listen u: The way this article is worded doesn’t make it clear.

THE 10 DAY WAITING PERIOD WAS NOTE RULE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

APPLYING THE 10 DAY RULE TO PEOPLE THAT ALREADY WAITED 10 DAYS FOR THEIR FIRST FIREARM, PASSED A BACKGROUND CHECK, AND ALREADY LEGAL GUN OWNERS WAS RULE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

If you have never legally bought a gun in California, you still have to wait the 10 days.

16 @ The Mamba, #9-----Why have ANY licensing then, including driver license August 26, 2014 at 5:25 PM

“Interesting, why can California still require you to have a license to own a handgun then? Overturn that as well.”
Having a driver license is no assurance of competence, except for the original licensing, which does give some indication of one’s ability to operate a motor vehicle. Subsequent renewals merely act as revenue sources for the state.

17 ratstalker August 26, 2014 at 5:32 PM

I usually refrain from political or polarizing topics, but I cannot keep still on this one. I actually heard someone state that they felt the second amendment was an archaic notion that was fine for generations in the past. But it was not necessary in today’s world. Of course I am paraphrasing, but the thought was exactly that. With rather eyebrow raising recent events, I think is is just as relevant today as generations past.

The Bill of Rights must be taken in its entirety. Not just the convenient pieces of it. It is written simply. So that it would be difficult to debate the meaning.

Freedom is not without its risks. I, for one, do not wish to live in a bubble constructed simply for safety.

18 Mee August 26, 2014 at 5:37 PM

They have instant background checks, as far as if someone is a felon etc, so the waiting period they claimed was a cooling off period? Most gun buyers already have guns I would assume, so cool off from what? Not wanting to use an older gun or other gun you already bought and waited for and have? It is stupid imo.. And ruled unconstitutional?? I never understood having to wait, when you already had guns? I bought a few, and still had to wait. So for me anyway, cooling off? Background checks? They also have instant access to anyone who legally owns a gun. They knew on 911 I had a gun when I called about a home intruder and gave me special instructions to talk tot he police etc… So anyway, no, they know in .000005 seconds if you have a record or were declared unfit to own a gun anyway , so this waiting period made / makes no sense anyway.. I usually use a pitch fork anyway, they would probably live and stand trial, death is too easy a way out… I’d rather have them do time… If they broke in our house.. But you never know, depends on the circumstances……

19 Atticus Thraxx August 26, 2014 at 5:40 PM

There’s a six month stay on the ruling to allow for appeal and/or change state law.

20 Ancient Mariner August 26, 2014 at 5:41 PM

@ Grob No. 11:
Suppose you go to a gun shop you’ve never bought from before.
How will the gun shop owner know that you are already a responsible gun owner? The only way to prove it would be to have a gun registration certificate.

21 Mary August 26, 2014 at 5:47 PM

About time they did away with that 10 day wait nonsense for those who are already own a gun. Now they need to revoke the dumbass restriction of being able to buy only one handgun every 30 days.

22 Tiny Harp August 26, 2014 at 6:08 PM

As happy as I am that my side finally got a favorable judgment on something, I don’t see where a background check and a waiting period is a bad thing.

23 Scooter August 26, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Reading all the pro-gun comments on here makes me so proud. Just to think that all these people with guns have managed to graduate from the third grade without ever taking an English language or basic grammar class also makes me proud. I sleep better at night knowing that there are so many responsible, well educated, well informed gun owners in our city.

24 Dennis August 26, 2014 at 6:41 PM

as mentioned earlier, I sent a custom target pistol (,22) back to S&W because the frame was cracked. S&W replaced the frame, and sent it back to the dealer for me to pick up. Free. Except I had to wait 10 days after it came back to the shop before I could pick it up; the new frame had a new serial number, thus the State claims it is a new gun purchase.

And what did that accomplish? nada.

25 Maybe August 26, 2014 at 6:45 PM

The 10 day waiting period never really bothered me. I’ve never needed a gun in a hurry, but as a current gun owner I always wondered what good it did to make me wait.

Soon enough it will be irrelevant. Every day guns drop off the California DOJ approved roster and gun makers are either not willing or not able to get them back on the list. Add to that the “assault weapons” ban that I’m sure is coming and there won’t be much left to buy anyway. I’m still waiting to hear the final definition of “assault weapon”.

26 When people insult others August 26, 2014 at 6:54 PM

rather than carry on a valid debate indicates a lack of reasonable argument to enhance the discussion.

So typical of the left, failing being able to sustain a valid debate, insults fly. The act of an ignorant and arrogant people.

A nation that disallows the rule of law is no longer a nation but a mob. Don’t like the second amendment? Repeal it, legally.

Go ahead, I dare ya!!!!

27 Killjoy August 26, 2014 at 7:06 PM

@ Ancient Mariner No 20
If you have legally purchased a gun in California, your name will appear on a database. As soon as the gun shop looks up your information, they will see that you are cleared.

However, as I read the information……
“Under the court order, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) must change its systems to accommodate the unobstructed release of guns to gun buyers who pass a background check and possess a California license to carry a handgun, or who hold a “Certificate of Eligibility” issued by the DOJ and already possess at least one firearm known to the state.”

I don’t know of too many firearms owners who are in possession of said “Certificate of Eligibility”. By the way, it needs to be renewed yearly.
So this ruling is pretty much a moot point for the majority of Californians.

28 bill August 26, 2014 at 7:06 PM

@grob I know what you mean…my best friends family was always dead set against the death penalty then the most horrible thing happened their parents were murdered and all of a sudden they asked the DA for it.

29 SpankyFortuna August 26, 2014 at 7:07 PM

NOT ENOUGH INFO.

30 Alex August 26, 2014 at 7:16 PM

Scooter, go away. The 10 day waiting period for someone who already owns a firearm is just an annoyance, since there is no point in a cooling off period if they already have a firearm. I also fail to see any comments with a substantial number of spelling and or grammatical errors.

And to Tiny Harp, that just proves you don’t know anything about the issue. See my explanation to Scooter above.

31 Wellgeez August 26, 2014 at 7:18 PM
32 Mrs August 26, 2014 at 7:21 PM

What a lame rulling. If you can pass a federal NIC check you should be able to get your firearm without any wait. “And possess a license to carry a handgun, or who hold a “Certificate of eligibility” issued by the DOJ and possess at least one handgun known to the state.” This ruling reaffirms the leftest position that the bearing of arms is a privilege granted by the state not the inalienable right our constitution affirms.

33 ..... August 26, 2014 at 7:31 PM

@mamba #9…

CA doesn’t require a license to own a handgun – just some type of certificate indicating training…..hunting license, PC 832 training or other.

34 Rule of Law August 26, 2014 at 7:39 PM

The rule of law is simple.”…shall not be infringed.” Nowhere does the Constitution require a background check, good behavior, a clean record, a semi-clean record, a waiting period, 21 years of age, a specific skin color or ANYTHING ELSE !

My right to self defense is inalienable and the Constitution simply outlines my God given, natural right. THAT RIGHT MAY NOT BE TAKEN FROM ME. IT IS A NATURAL RIGHT. SELF DEFENSE IS NOT A PRIVILEGE AND POLITICIANS DO NOT GRANT THAT RIGHT TO ME !

35 David Powell August 26, 2014 at 7:41 PM

I believe that even the background check is unconstitutional. It is an infringement period. Just because I may have done something stupid when I was younger, I no longer have the right to protect my family or self.

36 S August 26, 2014 at 7:51 PM

10 days not a big deal. But I’m glad. Tired of feeling our constitutional rights dont matter!

37 Anon August 26, 2014 at 8:04 PM

Next is the 30 round clip, then micro-stamping, next all incumbents out!!

38 Yhe Phantom August 26, 2014 at 8:26 PM

Most Democrats have firearms, pistols, and long guns…and we will not give them up.

We only wanted some mental health exams (bi-polar schizophrenics) and screens for felons.

And short magazines, to give the cops (LE) a chance to wait for a break to rush the alleged suspect of interest.

39 Dennis August 26, 2014 at 8:47 PM

@#38 Florida changed their law to allow felons – immediately upon release from prison – to own guns, vote, and run for public office.
So Florida’s felons will not appear on any background checks currently used.
On the other hand, someone who stole a pig in the 1960s is on the list, and cannot buy a gun.
And I’ve already posted that over 1000 known terrorists have applied for and gotten permits. Three of them got an explosives permit.
With the background check database so screwed up, what is it accomplishing?
Sorta like using a condom with pinholes in it … you think you are protected, but aren’t.

40 Killjoy August 26, 2014 at 9:18 PM

@Anon at 37.
Don’t forget about the Bullet Button.

41 It is a common sense ruling.. August 26, 2014 at 9:24 PM

I read the 56 page opinion of the court and agree with the reasoning. In fact, you can see the Attorney General really had no “reasonable” defense to imposing a waiting period carte blanche.

This ruling does NOT change someone buying a firearm who has not done so before. It applies to persons who show in the system(s) as already having a firearm, a CCW, or a Certificate of Eligibility. That’s it.

I know that even a police officer has to wait 10 days to buy a gun, unless he/she gets a letter from their department explaining a need to waive the 10 day period, and the firearm is for “duty”. So, here is a cop, who carries a gun on duty and OFF duty..having to wait. Why? A retired cop who buys his service gun (it’s allowed), must wait 10 days while the registration is changed. Why? He/she was carrying the damn thing for years already!

And how about a guy who buys a gun from his dealer, and it’s known this customer has 10 or 20 guns at home in his safe. Why does he/she have to wait 10 days? Cooling off? The only thing to cool off from is the skyrocketing price of guns and ammo!

But the big thing, is clear upon examination of the actual data: 99% of persons buying guns in California in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 were APPROVED. This approval takes anywhere from 1 minute to a day. If the DOJ says “you are good to go”…on day 1, why wait 9 more days??

Folks, this doesn’t have to be “guns” which the media hypes constantly. You should be more concerned and thankful that citizens are fighting the government who are unnecessarily imposing limits on you for no just cause!

42 Ancient Mariner August 26, 2014 at 9:37 PM

@ Killjoy No. 27:
Thanks, didn’t know about the database.

43 Shut up Scotter August 26, 2014 at 9:45 PM

Scotter, you’re a complete idiot. It’s morons like you that give responsible gun owners a bad name. Like someone said earlier, you would be pro gun if someone broke into your house, raped your wife (or in your case husband) and got away. You’re an ignorant, uneducated idiot

44 Anonymous August 26, 2014 at 10:07 PM

Left up to DeSaulnier and Bonilla we wouldn’t have any guns.

45 Mrs August 26, 2014 at 11:29 PM

Question? Why doesn’t the firearms owners protection act apply to California? Is it selective application of the supremcy clause? Federal law prohibits the keeping of lists of owners.

46 Aspirin August 27, 2014 at 8:25 AM

In this morning’s news: A nine-year old girl with an Uzi accidentally killed a firing range instructor in Arizona while her parents stood by. Stupid begins early for some people.

47 Aspirin August 27, 2014 at 8:32 AM

The proper storage for a firearm at home is in a locked cabinet and unloaded. How does that offer any protection unless one has all the time in the world to unlock the cabinet, retrieve the weapon, and load it? Factually, far more families are harmed and killed by their own guns than by “home invaders”. The protection offered by keeping guns in the home is a lie fostered by the gun industry and its lemming-like followers. Use your common sense and realize that keeping a gun in the home offers psychological comfort only and it serves no practical purpose.

48 Clasping Forehead August 27, 2014 at 9:27 AM

at #41, conversely, if a person already has multiple weapons in his home, what’s the all-fired big rush?

49 Laura Zah August 27, 2014 at 9:44 AM

Asspirin, are you really that simple minded?

http://www.deansafe.com/guhasa.html

50 Mr. Pink August 27, 2014 at 9:45 AM

What is the Certificate of Eligibility about? I bought a gun over 20-years ago. Don’t recall this certificate.

51 Leland Gaunt August 27, 2014 at 9:49 AM

Ever hear of DROS?

52 iluvfriedchicken August 27, 2014 at 10:34 AM

@Aspirin – You’re a jerk. That little girl is blameless. Please get your head checked Aspirin.

53 BusBoy August 27, 2014 at 11:48 AM

@Aspirin #47

Your post is full of incorrect statements.

Locked and unloaded?? In my safe? Um no. Its in my bedside safe in Condition One.

Factually more families blah blah blah… typical liberal lies. Please cite for me the study where this is proven.

A gun offers only psychological comfort?? Nope, wrong again. Mine gives me a nice warm fuzzy knowing I can defend my family in a moments notice. Your family on the other hand would be nothing but chalk lines, police tape and incident reports if a would be bad guy wanted to do truly wrong things to you and yours.

Do you know how long it would take an evil person to break into your home, rape and kill everyone in it?
Do you know the response time for the police in your area? It could be a handful minutes… if your lucky.

54 Mike August 27, 2014 at 12:43 PM

For those who argue the waiting period wasn’t a big deal….
Several months ago, I purchased an older/classic rifle (a 1982 Winchester Lever Action 30-30). You know, a John Wayne rifle.
I had to drive 2+ hours (each way) out of the Bay Area past Sacto to meet with seller at firearms dealer. I filled out the paperwork, paid the man, but then had to wait 10 days while the FA store held the rifle.
After the 10 days, I had to then drive another 4 hours round trip to pick up the rifle. Even though the FA store clerk told me I cleared DROS (background check) within 30 seconds…
Next, point, how would you feel if there was a mandatory 10 day waiting period relating to the First or Fifth Amendment? Couldn’t post here for 10 days…. Or were held for 10 days before you got your phone call?

55 slagheap August 27, 2014 at 4:14 PM

all you need to do to figure out the gun crazies is take a look at recent headlines – try arizona, just for starters.

56 slagheap August 27, 2014 at 4:16 PM

@mike, #54. gee, buddy, my heart goes out to you, don’t know if i’ll be able to sleep tonight, thinking about how inconvenienced you were.

57 Marianne August 27, 2014 at 4:52 PM

Of course it was unconstitutional, grubbers making money off of refined legislation. How else would the vote be.

58 Atticus Thraxx August 27, 2014 at 5:34 PM

Just in the last 10 posts you called each other…and I quote…simple minded…a jerk…a liberal…crazies…grubbers. You guys just stand on each side of the ideological fence hurling rhetoric and names at each other and the dying continues unabated.

59 Cautiously Informed August 27, 2014 at 7:22 PM

@#47,
Guns offer protection to those that know how to handle and use guns, and are threat to those that don’t. Most people these days don’t know how to handle and use them.

And, those that are against guns the most, are those who know the least about them.

60 lawabidingcitizen August 27, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Ahh yes, a win for us.
Its really funny to see the anti gun comments here.

a 10 day wait for a current gun owner or first time buyer is wrong.

For a first time buyer, if they have a stalker and a restraining order they have to wait 10 days before they can protect themselves with a gun, so in the mean time they have to accept a lower means of protection of a baseball bat *which you have to be with in arms reach* you get the idea?

a current gun owner, not only that it takes two trips, but gas, time etc.

A gun is a tool, it allows a job to be done easier, for us good guys, it allows us to defend ourselves and others at a distance. It can stop a murder from happening without even firing a shot.
It can stop a robbery from happening.

Sadly it can be used in a crime too and the current best way is to use a gun to stop the crime until they invent something that incapacitates the criminal with the gun.

61 Frito Bandido August 27, 2014 at 9:00 PM

Will this get drawn out in appeals indefinitely? I thought the open carry issue was ruled unconstitutional, and our “sherif” will not issue permits until FORCED to. To all the non-gunners, let’s make a 10 day wait for a new car, shoes..etc.

62 caskydiver August 27, 2014 at 9:01 PM

a right delayed is a right denied. There was absolutely no reason for a 10 day waiting period. Glad this nonsensical law was found to be what we all knew anyway…a violation of our rights. Once again, the Kalifornia legislature has overstepped its bounds.

63 Rollo Tomasi August 27, 2014 at 9:44 PM

@ Aspirin #46

Would you please explain to us how the subject at hand, i.e. the California state law mandating a 10 day waiting period to take possession of a purchased firearm, could have had any influence whatsoever in the tragic parenting failure that took place in Arizona?

If you can’t, I guess that confirms your status as a hand-wringing shill for the liberal left, using a tragedy to further your anti-constitutional agenda.

News for you, skippy. My firearms pose less of a threat to my family than the buses that roll in front of your section 8 housing every ten minutes.

64 Fred P. August 27, 2014 at 9:46 PM

@aspirin..

It “offers psychological comfort only”….?

Tell that to the thousands of cops in this country.

And your expertise in claiming that it only offers synchro logical comfort is……….what?

65 Aspirin August 28, 2014 at 10:19 AM

Let’s be sure to allow nine year old kids to fire Uzis.

66 Aspirin August 28, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Re: #63, and#64: I am merely trying to point out the obvious stupidity that infests the gun loving segment of our population. As usual, the responses to my posts miss the point completely. Try to think outside the fog of propaganda issued by the gun lobby and look at the big picture of how a tragic misinterpretation of the Second Amendment by a slim majority SC decision has created country awash in guns with innocent people killed and wounded every single day. Somehow I don’t think this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they crafted the Second Amendment. Statistics don’t lie and they show that gun accidents kill and wound thousands each year. In 2010 over 31,000 Americans were killed in gun homicides and accidents. Guns make us safer? Really?

67 Mike August 28, 2014 at 11:54 AM

@ Asprin, you are incorrect. You included gun suicides in your numbers.
2010: 31,672 gun deaths
2010: 11,078 gun homicides (600+ justified)
2010: 19,392 gun suicides
Some quick math: 31,672- (11,078+19,392)= 1202.
So, that is 1202 accidents, & 11,078 Homicides.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

68 Pegasus August 28, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Stating the obvious; African Americans Think Race Relations Have Gotten Worse Under Obama –

Fewer African Americans say blacks and whites get along well today than felt that way in 2009, according to a new Pew Research Center/USA Today poll. From 2007 to 2009, the number of black respondents who said blacks and whites get along “very well” or “pretty well” increased seven percentage points, to 76 percent. But since 2009, the share of black respondents who had a positive view of race relations has dropped twelve points, to 64 percent. Similarly, white respondents who thought blacks and whites got along well increased three percentage points from 2007 to 2009, but decreased five percentage points from 2009 to 2014.

Thanks to Obama, Holder, Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Sheila Jackson and the rest of the race baiters. Divisive criminals, every one.

69 Pegasus August 28, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Tepid clapping greets the unpopular Obama and his self-serving VA speech at American Legion convention in his first photo-op appearance with group since 2011.
President fell flat as audience of thousands responded to military pledges with anemic ovations. They’re not stupid.
Some applause lines met with awkward silence while others earned only three seconds of feeble courtesy clapping.
Crowd came to life to honor fellow veterans, not the arrogant photo-op specialist, Obama
President announced 19 ‘executive actions’ aimed at restoring faith in failed VA system and providing better health care outcomes to war veterans. Better late than never. Although ‘never’ is still possible.
Obama flopped with messages defending his cautious approach to battling ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

70 Rollo Tomasi August 28, 2014 at 4:14 PM

@ #66;

OK we get it – you’re scared of guns and want them banned. Don’t buy one. Fortunately, the majority disagree with you so you’ll just have to be satisfied with the borderline unconstitutional gun laws that are, likewise, a result of misinterpreting the Second Amendment.

I want smoking of cigarettes of all kinds banned, because second hand smoke poses a direct threat to my health. That however, would infringe on the freedom of others, so I’ll just be satisfied with the laws that impose limitations on where people can smoke.

“The protection offered by keeping guns in the home is a lie fostered by the gun industry and its lemming-like followers. Use your common sense and realize that keeping a gun in the home offers psychological comfort only and it serves no practical purpose.”

Stupid lasts a lifetime for some people.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: