A leading Second Amendment rights group says the state of California has violated the constitutional rights of Californians by imposing a 10-day waiting period on firearms purchases, even after background checks have confirmed they are legally allowed to own guns.
On May 1, the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation filed suit in San Diego federal court. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a group of Californian residents, who say the new state law is unconstitutionally preventing them from taking immediate possession of firearms they say are needed for immediate self-defense, even though the state has no legally compelling reason to do so.
Plaintiffs also include gun shops and firearms training centers, as well as the San Diego Gun Owners Political Action Committee and the California Gun Rights Foundation.
“Plaintiffs … bring this litigation to vindicate their rights on a simple premise: The State may not prevent a law-abiding person from taking possession of an arm after it confirms, using readily available electronic databases, that the person is not prohibited from possessing firearms,” the plaintiffs say in their complaint.
The plaintiffs are represented in the case by attorneys Bradley Benbrook and and Stephen Duvernay, of the Benbrook Law Group, of Sacramento.
In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs assert California’s 10-day waiting period for firearms purchases violates their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, as well as their 14th Amendment rights to equal protection under the law.
The lawsuit notes Californians are already required to complete all firearms purchases in person, at a physical store or other facility operated by a federally and state-licensed firearms dealer.
As part of the transaction, Californians must submit to background checks before they are allowed to purchase any firearm.
While the background checks may take only minutes to complete, California law still requires them to wait 10 days before the firearm can be transferred to their possession.
According to the lawsuit, this delay in allowing law-abiding Californians to acquire firearms in accordance with their constitutional rights amounts to a violation of the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in its most recent Second Amendment-related decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen.
The lawsuit argues that, under Bruen, the state of California must prove that its waiting period law aligns with “the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms” in the U.S.
“No waiting period or any analogous laws existed in the constitutionally relevant period of history,” the plaintiffs note. “Rather, no form of a waiting period law was enacted for any jurisdiction until 1923, well beyond the relevant time period the Supreme Court permits to be considered - after all, the law held unconstitutional in Bruen was enacted in 1911.”
The plaintiffs further assert the law violates California gun owners’ equal protection rights, as the California waiting period law exempts at least “two dozen categories of favored individuals” from the waiting period rule. These categories of exempt individuals include those working in law enforcement and groups of people working in Hollywood, as well as certain people holding certain kinds of firearms permits.
The plaintiffs are seeking court orders barring California from enforcing the law now and in the future, and an order declaring the California law unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.