Orals went pretty much as expected. Judges (Nguyen) announcing that "more handguns means more crime", etc. Judge Thomas: "Putting legal arguments aside...". Yeah, what do you think is, a courtroom? Judge Schroeder was perplexed, asking two, or maybe three times, why someone who already owned a (hunting) rifle ought to be allowed to purchase a handgun with merely a successful instant (or day or two or three or four) check rather than the 10 day waiting period, as if rifles can't do something (bad) a handgun can. So, no images of handguns visible to the public on a business selling firearms because people are effected by advertising and buy "impulsively", and then when they get the firearm (after the 10 day waiting period) they are still impulsive after having seen that image 10 days prior. Huh? Maybe they should be required to enter through the back door of the store to pick up the firearm so they can't see that impulse-creating image of a handgun on the store front? The legislature should get right on that! And of course they have no evidence to support any of this, but as the attorney claimed, case law supports that "anecdotal evidence and experience are okay". So 1. somebody heard a story about some guy who "impulsively" bought a gun after seeing a handgun image from outside a store, and even after the 10 day waiting period he did something bad with it, and 2. someone can make up a speculative possibility that someone who is already in the state system as legally owning a firearm should still have to wait 10 days because his firearm COULD be lost, stolen, malfunctioning or broken, and he will do something bad if he gets another one before 10 days. That counts as evidence!
My wild guess: both anti-firearm-rights cases upheld: Tracy gets no preliminary injunction on the advertising images, and Silvester gets overturned, 10 day wait remains. 3-0, and 3-0).
Our courts, appointed by our politicians, working to preserve our rights.
