1 Story Shows Why Gun Purchase Waiting Periods Are DANGEROUS


We’ve said it before, and we still stand behind the statement: Waiting periods on gun purchases are dangerous.

Oh, I get the idea that waiting periods are supposed to prevent anyone from buying a gun in the heat of anger or depression and, then, immediately using that gun to kill someone else or themselves before they’ve had the chance to calm down and think about the situation with a level head.

I understand the logic. The problem is that the logic is flawed.


See, someone who really wants a gun to use for illegal purposes (such as murder or suicide) isn’t worried about following the law. If that person can’t get the gun legally, they’ll go to get it illegally. Criminals already do that, now.

So, all that gun purchase waiting periods succeed in doing is preventing people in danger from being able to (relatively) quickly get a way to protect themselves from harm.

An example for you: as you read the following story, consider how the outcome would have been different if this lady had had to wait two more days to get her firearm. Dave Urbanski writes,

A California woman fatally shot an intoxicated man who was fighting her husband outside the couple’s front door and trying to force his way into their home over the weekend, the Stanislaus County sheriff’s office said.

Authorities said it appears 22-year-old Angelo Santana became heavily intoxicated Saturday and tried to force entry into a home in the 500 block of Ashwood Lane in Patterson, which is about a half-hour southwest of Modesto.

The house belongs to 50-year-old woman and her 45-year-old husband, the sheriff’s office said. The husband tried to physically restrain Santana, and the two men got into a “significant fight near the threshold of the front-door,” authorities said, citing a review of external and internal video surveillance footage and statements from witnesses.

So, what did the wife do? She went upstairs and got the revolver that she bought the day before and shot the attacker.

Police are saying that the preliminary investigation appears to show that this was clearly a case of self-defense.

And now that you know those details, ask yourself how the outcome would have been different if she had had to wait one more day or two more days to get her firearm. Innocent people in this situation could be dead, and that would have made this tragic situation even worse.



  1. Beware the camel’s nose under the tent. Unfortunately we now have half the camel in the tent and must fight to evict.

    • There is, however a way to punch out the camel: Go thou and read the Preamble to the Constitution, paying particular attention to the last part, “….do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”. Got those words? Now, start with Google, and then go through as mane dictionaries as you want, and get the definitions of those two words. “ordain” and “establish. You’ll find that as the Founders intended, those word do not carry a meek suggestion, they are ORDERS. “Shall not be infringed”, is direct and clear. You’ll also note that the Constitution, as the highest law of the land, is clearly FEDERAL LAW. And, of course breaking FEDERAL LAW is what they call, a “crime”, which should lead to indictments, trials, and imprisonments.

      • They are some old words that still have the same meanings .
        Ordain means ” order or decree (something) officially.”
        Establish means ” .set up (an organization, system, or set of rules) on a firm or permanent basis ” .
        Infringe means ” actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.). ” or my favorite ” act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on. ” ..
        The wise forefathers came up with the Constitution and Officially set up rules as to how the Government is to be run on a permanent basis and a Bill of Rights that should not be undermined …

  2. Its better to have a weapon and not need to use it than to need one and be empty handed in a dire situation.They are also a tool for securing meat.

  3. Many years ago, when the waiting period was 10 days. There was a young woman that split up with her abusive boyfriend. He had threatened her and broke the restraining order 2 times.
    She went to buy a gun but had to wait the 10 days. Her uncle loaned her a gun. That night he broke into her house screaming killing threats at her and brandishing a knife, she shot him.
    The 10 day waiting period damn near got her killed and today with having to do a legal transfer of the gun to her, she would also be dead.

  4. Who needs a gun ? Someone breaks into your house and points a gun or knife at you. You put your hand up and say “” WAIT, I HAVE TO CALL 911 “” ??? Yeah, like that’s really going to happen ! Unfortunately, the police normally won’t get there in time ? They are more likely to put up tape around your property that says POLICE LINE, DO NOT CROSS , and file a DEATH REPORT ! S. M. H. Too little, TOO LATE !

  5. It’s worse as driver or passenger of a motor vehicle.
    No loaded firearms in it. Does any States allow even people with CCW permits to have a loaded firearm in their vehicles?
    We are just supposed to sit back and let car jackers carry out their plan(s) that may or may not be affected by how we react in that situation.
    Laws like no loaded weapons in a vehicle are too one sided, too much in favor of car jackers, kidnappers who target drivers, whatever.

    • It got so bad in Tn that they changed the law you can have a loaded gun in the car to protect your self from car jackers. You can not exit the car with a loaded gun though. And before that if you had a ccw you can carry in your car or truck.

  6. I’m wondering about this story. First of all, the town/city of Patterson is in California. California has a 10 day waiting period after the purchase of any firearm. If the victim in this article had just purchased the weapon the day before!!! Legally then she should have not had it in her possession.

    More than likely she had purchased the firearm earlier and had waited her 10day waiting period and had just taken possession the day before.

    The actual event may have happened, but the statement that the lady purchased the weapon the day before is not true.

Comments are closed.