>The challengers did not seek to invalidate California’s waiting period for everyone, just for people who already owned guns and passed a background check.
I think the challengers have a valid point -- if you already own a gun, and have passed the background check, the waiting period doesn't make much sense -- but those aren't the kinds of challenges the SCOTUS should be reviewing. I fully enjoy our 2nd Amendment, but this is not an excessive enough hindrance to be a Constitutional violation.
10 Day Waiting Period but it isn't in relation to the Background check? What the hell is the purpose of this waiting period again?
Yo environmentalists, I know a lot of you guys don't like guns, but think about it this way; the only thing this accomplishes is forcing individuals who have already passed a background check to make 2 trips to the gun store. If this passed in my state, that would mean two 100 mile round trips (yes, I purchase from a gun store over 50 miles from my house) instead of one. Keep in mind this challenge was only in regard to individuals who already owned guns and had passed a background check.
This is literally a pointless burden on gun owners that only inconveniences people by forcing them to make multiple trips to their gun store, and having previously lived in California, I wouldn't at all be surprised if many people traveled much further than I do to purchase guns. California loves to make it hard to buy guns or open a gun store, so they're often few and far between.
This doesn't stop anyone from getting a gun, it just increases their carbon footprint while doing it.
Coming from the same people who think a 2 day waiting period on abortion is oppressive, but making people wait 7 days longer than a background check takes isnt oppressive.
Just curious on the thought process.