Ninth Circuit Denies En Banc Rehearing For Silvester vs Harris

On Tuesday, April 4th, the Ninth Circuit voted to deny a petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing “en banc” in the case of Silvester v. Harris. The case challenges California’s 10-day waiting period as applied to certain individual gun owners, including those who already own a firearm or have a CCW. In either situation, the purpose of the 10-day waiting period (to provide a so-called “cooling off” period for first-time gun buyers) is wholly arbitrary and does nothing more than act as a burden on Second Amendment rights.

In June of 2015, CRPA, along with the support of Gun Owners of California, filed an important amicus brief in support of the Plaintiffs. The brief highlighted how any law that burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment is not shielded from constitutional review merely because it is a longstanding provision or presumed by the courts to be lawful. What’s more, the brief also argued how California utterly failed to justify its restriction as narrowly drawn to achieve its desired public safety interests, as required under the Constitution.

Despite these arguments, a 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld the 10-day waiting period as applied to second-time gun purchasers and CCW holders. Given that other landmark Second Amendment cases have been ordered to be reheard by a larger panel of the Ninth Circuit, Plaintiffs petitioned the court to do the same. But with the denial of their petition, one thing has become clear—the Ninth Circuit will only seek to rehear a case if it allows an opportunity to overturn a pro-Second Amendment ruling.

Plaintiffs must now decide whether or not to petition the United States Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision. To stay up to date on this case and other important Second Amendment issues, subscribe to CRPA email alerts here.