BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation and two individual plaintiffs today filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari in the case of Silvester, v. California Attorney General Zavier Becarra.

The case challenges California’s 10-day waiting period law and seeks to overturn a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that essentially forces a gun owner to endure another waiting period to purchase another firearm even though he is licensed to carry and has already passed a background check.

Individual plaintiffs in the case are Jeffrey Silvester, an insurance broker in Hanford, and Brandon Combs, executive director of the Calguns Foundation.

“While this case is about waiting periods, it is also about something more,” said Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It’s about challenging a gun regulation that is designed more to discourage exercise of the Second Amendment than it is about preventing crime.”

“Remember what Senior Judge Anthony Ishii of the U.S. District Court said in his original order, that the state has tacit knowledge that a protected Second Amendment right is burdened by the waiting period law,” Gottlieb recalled. “His comparison of the waiting period to prior restraint is a point that should grab the attention of every journalist who has ever defended the First Amendment while disdaining the Second. A civil right is a right, and all rights are equal and deserve equal protection.”

Silvester, who has passed California’s rigorous background check, wondered “What possible reason does the State have in denying me my Second Amendment right to take possession of a firearm after I pass yet another background check? If the government can constitutionally prevent a law-abiding person from taking possession of a firearm after they pass a background check, then what isn’t constitutional?”

“In its decision to ignore the trial court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as well as longstanding principles of appellate review, the Ninth Circuit has made it crystal clear that it has no intention of following the Supreme Court’s precedents no matter unconstitutional, burdensome, or irrational the law,” said Combs. “This case is beyond ripe for review.

The petition was authored by Washington, D.C. attorney Erik S. Jaffe, who stated that it “is no secret that various lower courts, and the Ninth Circuit especially, are engaged in systematic resistance to” both the Heller and McDonald rulings on the Second Amendment. Jaffe clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and is now in private practice.