Full opinion text
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ANTHONY W. ISHII, Senior District Judge. This case deals with the constitutionality of various firearms related statutes. Plaintiffs challenge the 10-day waiting period imposed by California Penal Code § 26815(a) and § 27540(a), and approximately 18 categories of exemptions to the waiting period found in Penal Code § 26000 et seq. and § 27000 et seq. Plaintiffs contend that the 18 exemptions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs contend that the 10-day waiting periods violate the Second Amendment. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that the 10-day waiting periods violate the Second Amendment as applied to those who already lawfully possess a firearm as confirmed in the Automated Firearms System (“AFS”), to those who possess a valid Carry Concealed Weapon (“CCW”) license, and to those who possess a valid Certificate of Eligibility (“COE”). See Doc. No. 91 at 29:23-30:8. Plaintiffs do not challenge the 10-day waiting period on a facial basis, do not challenge the waiting period laws as applied to first time firearms purchasers, and do not challenge the requirement that firearm purchasers pass a background check. See Doc. Nos. 91 at 17:13-15; 93 at 3:1-3; 98 at 16:10-15; and 105 at 7:6-8,13:17-20. In March 2014, the Court conducted a bench trial in this matter. The Court has now taken live testimony, deposition testimony, and numerous exhibits. The parties have completed all briefing and made their final arguments. Given the nature of the challenges made, the Court emphasizes that it is expressing no opinion on the constitutionality of the 10-day waiting period in general or as applied to first time California firearms purchasers. After considering the evidence and the arguments, the Court concludes that Penal Code § 26815(a) and § 27540(a)’s 10-day waiting periods impermissibly violate the Second Amendment as applied to those persons who already lawfully possess a firearm as confirmed by the AFS, to those who possess a valid CCW license, and to those who possess both a valid COE and a firearm as confirmed by the AFS system, if the background check on these individuals is completed and approved prior to the expiration of 10 days. Because of the Court’s resolution of the Second Amendment issue, the Court need not reach the Fourteenth Amendment challenges. I. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Parties’ Positions Defendant requested that the Court take judicial notice of various exhibits. Defendant argued that each of the exhibits could be judicially noticed as legislative facts because such facts are relevant to the justification for the statutes at issue, the court’s legal reasoning, and to the decision making process. Plaintiffs objected and argued that it was unclear how Defendant intended to use the information in the exhibits. Plaintiffs recognized the distinction between adjudicative facts and legislative facts, but contended that they could not determine the admissibility of the exhibits without further clarification. However, relevancy, hearsay, and contestability issues in general with Defendant’s exhibits make judicial notice under Rule 201 improper. Further, as part of supplemental briefing, Plaintiffs stated that once specific portions of exhibits were identified by Defendant in her proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, Plaintiffs would then make arguments in their June 30, 2014 responsive briefing as to those specific exhibits. Discussion At the end of the last day of trial testimony, and upon the parties’ agreement, the Court ordered the parties to include and to cite to specific proposed exhibits and portions of proposed exhibits as part of their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Trial Tr. at 526:9533:13. The parties were permitted to file responsive briefing and objections to the proposed findings, including evidentiary objections to any evidence that was included in the proposed findings and the subject of Defendant’s motion for judicial notice. See id. The Court would then make evidentiary rulings based on the briefing and the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. See id. This framework was primarily meant to address the exhibits in Defendant’s request for judicial notice. The framework was designed to provide the Court and the parties with a method of determining how and for what purpose an exhibit was being used. Defendant’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law comply with the Court’s order. In fact, Defendant helpfully submitted binders with the exhibits and the specific excerpts that were cited in her proposed findings. Nevertheless, as part of Defendant’s June 30, 2014 responsive briefing, Defendant defended and addressed exhibits that were part of the request for judicial notice, but were not included in her proposed findings. If Defendant did not cite an exhibit or portion of an exhibit in her proposed findings and conclusions, then Defendant did not sufficiently rely upon such evidence. There was an inadequate demonstration of how such evidence was intended to be used and/or how the evidence is relevant. The Court will not comb through the hundreds of pages of proposed exhibits and make rulings if an exhibit is not actually cited and specifically relied upon by a party. Cf. Hargis v. Access Capital Funding, LLC, 674 F.3d 783, 792-93 (8th Cir.2012) (courts need not take judicial notice of irrelevant evidence); Southern Cal. Gas Co. v. City of Santa Ana, 336 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir.2003) (in summary judgment context court is not required to examine the entire file when specific evidence was not adequately identified); Charles v. Daley, 749 F.2d 452, 463 (7th Cir.1984) (courts need not take judicial notice of irrelevant evidence); Rodriguez v. Bear Stearns Cos., 2009 WL 995865, *12, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31525, *34 (D.Conn. Apr. 14, 2009) (courts need not take judicial notice of cumulative evidence). Accordingly, the Court will limit its discussion and consideration to the exhibits and excerpts that were actually cited by Defendant in her proposed findings. Those exhibits are Defendant’s Exhibits CD through Cl, DG, DH, DM, DQ, DS, DT, DV, DW, DX, EC, EJ, EK, and GN. All other exhibits that were included in Defendant’s March 24, 2014 request for judicial notice (Doc. No. 78), but that were not cited in Defendant’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, will not be considered by the Court. The Defense exhibits at issue fall into one of four general categories — legislative history, history books, professional journal articles, and a newspaper article. The Court will examine each category of exhibits separately. 1. Legislative Histories The Ninth Circuit has approved of taking judicial notice of legislative history. Association des Eleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Quebec v. Harris, 729 F.3d 937, 945 n. 2 (9th Cir.2013); Choker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215, 1223 n. 8 (9th Cir.2005); see also Korematsu v. United States, 584 F.Supp. 1406, 1414 (N.D.Cal.1984). Defendant has limited the portions of legislative history that she wishes the Court to consider. In their June 30 responsive briefing, Plaintiffs did not address these specific portions of legislative history. The Court finds that the identified portions of legislative history are relevant and probative. Therefore, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion with respect to the identified excerpts of legislative history. Therefore, the Court takes judicial notice of the following portions of Exhibit CD: Cover & p. 701. The Court takes judicial notice of the following portions of Exhibit CE: Cover & p. 657. The Court takes judicial notice of the following portions of Exhibit CF: Cover & pp. 2799, 2800. Exhibit CG: Bates Numbers AG000008, AG000026, AG000052 through AG000055, and AG000059 through AG000061. The Court takes judicial notice of the following portions of Exhibit CH: Bates Numbers AG000231 through AG000233, AG000297 through AG000298, AG000343 through AG000344. The Court takes judicial notice of the following portions of Exhibit Cl: Bates Numbers AG000399 through AG000402, and AG000468. 2. Category 2 — History Books In their June 30, 2014 responsive briefing, Plaintiffs did not make any evidentiary arguments regarding the specific excerpts from Defendant’s history books. Regardless, the Court has conducted an independent evaluation of the excerpts submitted. Exhibit EC consists of excerpts from a book by Jack Larkin, The Reshaping of Everyday Life: 1790-181*0 (Harper Perennial 1988). The excerpts from this book deal with the nature of life in America from 1790 to 1840. Defendant seeks to admit these excerpts in order to demonstrate that, given the nature of the way of life between 1790 and 1840, most people would have been unable to readily obtain firearms. Because the geographic and economic conditions did not lend themselves to a person being able to immediately purchase and possess a firearm, Defendant contends that the citizens of 1790 and 1840 would have no quarrel with a government imposed waiting period before obtaining firearms. See Doc. No. 88 at ¶¶ 29-34, G. Although it appears that Exhibit EC is the type of historical work that has been consulted in cases such as McDonald, Heller, and Penda, the information contained in Exhibit EC is not particularly relevant to this case. Exhibit EC appears to be a generalized historical text that touches on many aspects of the American life as it existed between 1790 and 1840. .What Exhibit EC excerpts do not contain is any information regarding firearm waiting period laws that may have existed between 1790 and 1840, or information regarding the understanding of the Second Amendment during this timeframe. It is that type of information, not American life in general or the economic and geographic conditions of the time, that are relevant. “The Constitution structures the National Government, confines its actions, and, in regard to certain individual liberties and other specified matters, confines the actions of the States.” Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614, 619, 111 S.Ct. 2077, 114 L.Ed.2d 660 (1991). “[T]he constitutional right to bear arms restricts the actions of only the federal or state governments or their political subdivisions, not private actors.” Florida Retail Fed’n, Inc. v. Attorney Gen. of Fla., 576 F.Supp.2d 1281 (N.D.Fla.2008). That naturally-occurring non-governmental forces may have limited the ability of some individuals in some parts of the country to readily obtain firearms does not show that it was understood around 1791 (the year the Second Amendment was adopted) or 1868 (the year the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted) that the government could impose a waiting period between the time of purchase and the time of possession of a firearm. The Court does not find the excerpts in Exhibit EC to be relevant, and declines to consider them. See Hargis, 674 F.3d at 792-93; Charles, 749 F.2d at 463; Rodriguez, 2009 WL 995865 at *12, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31525 at *34. Exhibit EK consists of excerpts from a book by Adam Winkler, Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America (W.W. Norton 2013). Exhibit EK discusses some of the laws in existence around the founding era. However, there is nothing in Exhibit EK that discusses waiting period laws between 1791 and 1868. The first mention of a waiting period law was a 1923 model law that imposed a 1-day waiting period on the delivery of handguns. According to Winkler, this law was proposed by a private organization, the U.S. Revolver Association. Winkler states that this law was adopted by nine states, including California. However, like Exhibit EC, Exhibit EK does not discuss waiting period laws during 1791 or 1868. Because there is no discussion of waiting periods during the relevant time periods, the Court does not find the excerpts from Exhibit EK to be relevant, and declines to consider them. See Hargis, 674 F.3d at 792-93; Charles, 749 F.2d at 463; Rodriguez, 2009 WL 995865 at *12, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31525 at *34. 8. Professional Articles In their June 30, 2014 responsive briefing, Plaintiffs did not make any evidentiary arguments regarding the specific excerpts from the professional journal articles cited by Defendant. Depending on their use in a case, see Toth v. Grand Trunk R.R., 306 F.3d 335, 349 (6th Cir.2002), social science studies can be reviewed by courts as “legislative facts.” See Snell v. Suffolk County, 782 F.2d 1094, 1105-06 (2d Cir.1986); Dunagin v. Oxford, 718 F.2d 738, 748 n. 8 (5th Cir.1983); cf. United States v. Carter, 669 F.3d 411, 418 (4th Cir.2012) (government may establish the “reasonable fit” of legislation through a wide range of sources including empirical evidence). Legislative facts can be considered more liberally and are outside the structures of Federal Rule of Evidence 201. See Castillo-Villagra v. INS, 972 F.2d 1017, 1026 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. Gould, 536 F.2d 216, 219 (8th Cir.1976); see also Qualley v. Clo-Tex Int’l, Inc., 212 F.3d 1123, 1128 (8th Cir.2000) (holding that trial court erroneously took judicial notice of legislative facts under Rule 201). The Court finds that the excerpts from Defendant’s Exhibits DG (pp. 27-29), DH (pp. 585, 588, 590), DS (pp. 228-231), DT (pp. 59-61, 69-72), DV (pp. 1583-1585), DW (pp. 225, 226, 229, 232, 234-236), and DX (pp. 40, 51-52) are relevant. Given the absence of additional argument from Plaintiffs on these exhibits, the Court will consider these exhibits as legislative facts. However, the Court will not take judicial notice of these exhibits under Rule 201. See Qualley, 212 F.3d at 1128. With respect to Exhibits DM and DQ, these are portions of articles that relate to suicide studies in Australia. Exhibit DM is a 1994 study of 33 survivors of attempted firearm suicides, who were all treated at Westmead Hospital (a teaching hospital of the University of Sydney). Exhibit DQ is a 1999 study of suicide statistics from Tasmania, Australia. The Court does not find these articles to be probative. There are cultural, societal, and geographic differences between Australia and the United States. These types of differences can manifest themselves not only when comparing suicide statistics between the two countries, but also when comparing the suicide rates of the states and territories of Australia with the states of the United States. The Tasmania study, for example, highlights the fact that Tasmania had one of the highest suicide rates of all of Australia, yet made up only 2.6% of Australia’s total population. In other words, there was something unique that was occurring in Tasmania. Suicide is a complex psychological occurrence. Without further expert guidance, the Court is not inclined to consider two studies that focus on two small portions of a separate country. The Court declines to consider Exhibits DM and DQ. See Hargis, 674 F.3d at 792-93; Charles, 749 F.2d at 463; Rodriguez, 2009 WL 995865 at *12, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31525 at *34. With respect to Exhibit EJ, this exhibit is several pages from a book entitled “Reducing Gun Violence in America.” Only one page of the excerpts has potential relevance (the other excerpts are the cover and publishing pages). The one page discusses a study that found a reduction in the firearm suicide rate for people over the age of 55, and the reduction may have been due to the Brady Act waiting period. See Defendant’s Ex. EJ. The book page appears to have been written by the study’s authors, Messrs. Cook and Ludwig. The Court will consider portions of the underlying study. See Defendant’s Ex. DH. Because the Court will consider portions of the underlying study, additional information from the study’s authors is relevant. The Court will consider Exhibit EJ, but will not take judicial notice of Exhibit EJ under Rule 201. See Qualley, 212 F.3d at 1128. J. Newspaper Article Exhibit GN is a 2014 newspaper article from the Washington Post, whose headline reads, “Study: Repealing Missouri’s background check law associated with a murder spike.” Plaintiffs did not address this exhibit as part their June 30 responsive briefing. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs are not challenging California’s background check. Plaintiffs do not argue that they should be exempt from a background check nor do they argue that the background check is unconstitutional, rather they argue that they should not be subject to the full 10-day waiting period between the time of purchase and the time of possession. See Doc. No. 105 at 7:6-8, 13:17-20. The Washington Post article purports to describe the results of a study on an issue that is not before the Court. Thus, the article is not relevant, and the Court will not consider Exhibit GN. See Hargis, 674 F.3d at 792-93; Charles, 749 F.2d at 463; Rodriguez, 2009 WL 995865 at *12, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31525 at *34. II. STANDING Defendant contends that the two entity plaintiffs, California Guns Federation (“CGF”) and the Second Amendment Foundation (“SAF”) do not have standing to maintain this lawsuit. Defendant argues that there is insufficient evidence that the entities have been personally injured by the Penal Code provisions at issue, and that there is insufficient evidence that any of the entities’ members have been injured. CGF and SAF contend that the evidence is sufficient to show both direct personal injuries to themselves, as well as injuries to their members. Legal Standard It is the plaintiffs burden to establish standing to bring a lawsuit in federal court. See Washington Envtl. Council v. Bellon, 732 F.3d 1131, 1139 (9th Cir.2013). An organization may have representational standing, where it acts as a representative of its members, or direct standing, where it seeks to redress an injury it has suffered in its own right. See Smith v. Pacific Props. & Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir.2004). “An organization has direct standing to sue when it shows a drain on its resources from both a diversion of its resources and frustration of its mission.” Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 732 F.3d 1006, 1018 (9th Cir.2013); Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.com, LLC, 666 F.3d 1216, 1219 (9th Cir.2012). The organization’s “standing must be established independent of the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff.” Fair Hous., 666 F.3d at 1219. “An organization cannot manufacture the injury by incurring litigation costs or simply choosing to spend money fixing a problem that otherwise would not affect the organization at all.” Valle del Sol, 732 F.3d at 1018. An organization may assert standing on behalf of its member if the “members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right, the interests at stake are germane to the organization’s purpose, and neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 181, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000); Washington Envtl. Council v. Bellon, 732 F.3d 1131, 1139 (9th Cir.2013). Findings of Fact SAF has between 30,000 and 40,000 members, supporters, and donors in California. Gottlieb Dep. 18:11 — 13. One-third to one-half of the total 30,000 to 40,000 California members, supporters, and donors are dues-paying members. See id. at 18:16-19:4. SAF conducts research on state and federal firearms laws, including California’s firearms laws. See id. at 22:3-11. Approximately 20% of SAF’s research deals with California’s firearms laws. See id. at 22:12-19. SAF also expends funds in the defense of the civil rights of its members, including the prosecution of this lawsuit. See id. at 35:10-23. SAF seeks input from its members about which litigation to pursue, and SAF members contacted SAF about challenging the California 10-day waiting period. See id. at 28:1-3, 29:2-11. Over the years, a number of SAF members have contacted SAF to complain about the 10-day waiting period. See id. at 30:1-15. SAF has California members who are subjected to the 10-day whiting period, and has California members who wish to purchase a firearm and also have a CCW, a COE, and/or another firearm. See id. at Depo. Ex. 13, Responses to Interrogatories 5, 8-15. SAF has publicly commented on the 10-day waiting period, and done research into the California 10-day waiting period laws for a number of years (possibly for more than a decade). See id. at 23:25-24:23. SAF receives between 50 and 100 calls per year from California members regarding the 10-day waiting period. See id. at 43:4-9. Aside from this lawsuit, SAF has expended resources researching the 10-day waiting period, and expended staff time and money and resources in connection with other people’s calls, letters, e-mails, and discussions about the 10-day waiting period. See 35:17-36:1. SAF has never attempted to purchase a firearm in California, nor has it incurred any expenses in acquiring firearms in California. See id. at 33:17-20, 62:19-23. CGF is a public interest group that was created by gun owners. See id. at 117:7-8. CGF’s purposes are to defend people whom CGF believes to be unjustly charged with violating California firearms laws, and to challenge laws that CGF believes are unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. See id. at 117:8-12. CGF will file amicus briefs in various cases, including before the United States Supreme Court, but such briefs tend to be on issues that CGF believes would be useful in California. See id. at 120:2-5. CGF routinely publishes white papers, FAQ’s, and WikiQ’s that explain California’s gun laws, including explaining legislative history. See id. at 120:23-121:4. CGF defends people who have been improperly charged for violation of various California firearms, and also engages in litigation to ensure that California’s firearms laws are constitutional. See id. at 117:21-118:3. CGF has approximately 30,000 members, most of whom are in California. , See Trial Tr. 121:11-14. Almost all of CGF’s members are subject to the 10-day waiting period. See id. at 121:18-19. “Quite a few” of CGF’s members have written about the 10-day waiting period on CGF’s blog. See id. at 143:11-19. CGF brought this lawsuit so that its members who already have firearms in the AFS system, possess a CCW, or possess a COE, would not have to wait 10 days to obtain a firearm. See id. at 121:23-25. Although not an individual plaintiff, Gene Hoffman, the CGF’s chairman, currently owns a firearm, plans to obtain a firearm in the future, and has a CCW license. See id. at 113:13-114:1,136:1-7. CGF has never attempted to purchase a firearm on its own behalf for self-defense. See id. at 145:19-146:2. Conclusions of Law 1. Direct Standing To show an injury that is sufficient for direct standing, an organization must show: (1) frustration of purpose, and (2) diversion of funds. See Valle del Sol, 732 F.3d at 1018. a. CGF CGF has met the first requirement. It is within CGF’s purposes to defend and advocate for Second Amendment rights, including bringing lawsuits that challenge laws that may infringe upon the Second Amendment. The 10-day waiting period is a law that CGF believes unconstitutionally infringes upon the rights of those who have at least one gun registered in the AFS system, a CCW license, and/or a COE. CGF brought this lawsuit to remedy this perceived unconstitutional infringement. Therefore, CGF has demonstrated that the 10-day waiting period frustrates its purposes. CGF has not met the second requirement. The testimony of CGF’s chairman establishes that CGF is active in litigation in general, and has expended resources in connection with this lawsuit. However, expenditure of resources in the current lawsuit alone does not meet the requirements for direct standing. See Fair Hous., 666 F.3d at 1219. There is no evidence that deals with CGF researching, expending funds, educating or engaging in advocacy activities, or spending time addressing members’ concerns about the 10-day waiting period separate and apart from this lawsuit. Cf. Valle del Sol, 732 F.3d at 1018; Fair Hous., 666 F.3d at 1219. Because there is no evidence that the 10-day waiting period laws have caused a diversion of CGF’s resources, separate and apart from this lawsuit, CGF has not met its burden of establishing direct standing. See id. b. SAF SAF has met the first requirement. SAF is engaged in educational, research, and litigation efforts regarding the Second Amendment. SAF believes that the 10-day waiting period unconstitutionally infringes upon the Second Amendment rights of its members and of non-members in California, and has brought this lawsuit to remedy that perceived infringement. Therefore, SAF has demonstrated that the 10-day waiting period frustrates its purposes. SAF has met the second requirement. SAF has been researching the 10-day waiting period for likely more than a decade. SAF yearly receives numerous complaints and questions from its members about the 10-day waiting period. SAF has had to divert time, resources, and money as part of its efforts to research the 10-day waiting period and to educate and address the concerns of its California members. Therefore, SAF has demonstrated a diversion of resources from the 10-day waiting period. Cf. Valle del Sol, 732 F.3d at 1018; Fair Hous., 666 F.3d at 1219. Because SAF has met both requirements, it has established its direct standing to challenge the 10-day waiting period laws. See id. 2. Representative Standing An organization has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members if the organization shows: (1) its members would have standing to bring suit; (2) the lawsuit is germane to the organization’s purpose; and (3) neither the claims asserted nor the relief requested require participation of a member. See Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 181, 120 S.Ct. 693; Bellon, 732 F.3d at 1139. CGF and SAF have met the requirements for representative standing by an organization. Both CGF and SAF have members in California who either already possess a firearm, a COE, or a CCW license, and plan on obtaining a firearm in the future. These California members’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear firearms is burdened by the 10-day waiting period, see infra., and those members could have filed suit on their own behalf. The burden imposed by the 10-day waiting period is germane to the purposes of both CGF and SAF. These organizations actively research, publicly address/educate, and litigate on Second Amendment issues. No specific members are necessary to either determine the constitutional validity of the challenged laws or to fashion a remedy. Therefore, CGF and SAF have representative standing to sue on behalf of their members. Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 181, 120 S.Ct. 693; Bellon, 732 F.3d at 1139. III. SECOND AMENDMENT CHALLENGE A. Contentions Plaintiffs’ Contentions Plaintiffs argue that the 10-day waiting period interferes with the right to keep and bear arms, interferes with property rights, and causes additional expenses that may prevent a person from obtaining a firearm. Plaintiffs argue that there were no waiting period laws in existence in either 1791 or 1868, that waiting period laws are not prevalent today, and are not longstanding and presumptively lawful regulations. Plaintiffs argue that it is unnecessary to determine whether intermediate or strict scrutiny applies because the waiting period laws will not pass intermediate scrutiny. Under intermediate scrutiny, the 10-day waiting period laws are justified as being necessary to do a background check and to provide a cooling off period. However, Plaintiffs argue that they do not contend that they should be exempt from a background check, rather their challenge deals with timing. As for background checks, 10-days is an arbitrary figure. For 20% of all .applicants, the background check is approved and completed in about one hour. For those who already own a firearm and are known to be trustworthy due to the licenses that they hold and a history of responsible gun ownership, there is no justification for imposing the full 10-day waiting period. With respect to cooling off periods, Plaintiffs aver that for those individuals who already possess a firearm, the waiting period will not prevent impulsive acts of violence because the individual already has a firearm. As to concerns about whether a person may become prohibited from possessing a firearm after the firearm has been delivered, California has implemented two “safety net” systems, APPS and rap back. These programs undercut the need to impose a full 10-day waiting period. Plaintiffs propose that the Court should order modification of the background check system and waiting period laws as follows: Any person for whom Defendant can determine (a) has a valid and current CCW license, that person should be subject to the same background check as the 18 statutory exceptions to the 10-day waiting period and should not be subject to the 10-day waiting period; (b) has a valid and current COE and for whom the AFS system shows a firearm purchase since 1996, that person is subject to the same background check as the 18 statutory exceptions to the 10-day waiting period and should not be subject to the 10-day waiting period; and (c) has purchased a firearm that is documented in the AFS system since 1996, that person may take delivery of the firearm upon approval of the background check. See Doc. No. 91 at pp. 29-30. Defendant’s Contentions Defendant argues that the 10-day waiting period does not burden the Second Amendment. None of the organizational plaintiffs have attempted to purchase a firearm, and both Plaintiffs Jeff Silvester and Brandon Combs have possessed a firearm at all relevant times. The increased cost or minor inconvenience of having to make return trips to a gun store are de minimis. Defendant also argues that the 10-day waiting period falls under one of the longstanding regulatory measures identified by the Supreme Court. The 10-day waiting period is a condition or qualification on the commercial sale of a firearm. As a longstanding and presumptively lawful regulation, the 10-day waiting period does not burden the Second Amendment. Defendant also argues that in 1791 and 1868, the nature of production of firearms, where firearms were sold in relation to where people lived, and the relative expense of firearms made obtaining a firearm within 10 days of deciding to purchase one nearly impossible. As a result, the people of 1791 and 1868 would have accepted a 10-day waiting period before obtaining a firearm. Defendant argues that if the Second Amendment is burdened, the 10-day waiting period’s burden is not so severe as to justify strict scrutiny. Under intermediate scrutiny, the 10-day waiting period laws are constitutional. The waiting period laws serve the important interests of public safety and keeping prohibited persons from obtaining firearms. The 10-day waiting period reasonably fits these interests in three ways. First, it provides sufficient time for the Department of Justice to perform a background check. The nature of the databases utilized often require analysts to seek out information and. dispositions from other agencies, entities, and states, which can be extremely time consuming. Further, sometimes prohibiting information is entered into the system after the initial check. Without the 10-day waiting period, there could be an incomplete check and prohibited individuals could obtain firearms. Relying on a CCW license or a COE is not a substitute for the background check because new prohibiting events may have arisen after a person obtains the CCW license or COE. Second, it provides a cooling off period so that individuals will have time to re-think committing impulsive acts of violence. Suicide is often based on transient thoughts. Studies show that waiting periods limit a person’s access to firearms, and allows time for the transient suicidal thoughts to pass. Even if a person has a firearm in the AFS system, there is no guarantee that the person still has the firearm. Further, a firearm may be in an inoperable condition, or a person may not have ammunition for the weapon. For those individuals, a cooling off period could be beneficial. Further, some guns are not suitable for some purposes, and a cooling off period for a newly purchased firearm is beneficial. Finally, the waiting period laws provide Department of Justice agents with additional time in which to investigate straw purchases. It is better to intercept a weapon before it is delivered to a purchaser. If the waiting period laws did not exist, law enforcement would have to perform more retrievals of firearms from straw purchasers. Therefore, the 10-day waiting period is a “reasonable fit” and constitutional. B. Findings of Fact 1. Impact of the 10-day Waiting Peñod Unless a statutory exception applies, every person who wishes to purchase a firearm in California must wait at least 10-days from the date of purchase before taking possession of a firearm. See Cal. Pen.Code §§ 26815(a), 27540(a). The 10-day waiting period affects a person’s ability to defend themselves through the use of a newly purchased firearm. See Trial Tr. at 74:2-75:1. The 10-day waiting period interferes with the exercise of dominion over property with respect to a newly purchased firearm. See Trial Tr. 29:10-13, 74:21-75:1. Generally, the 10-day waiting period requires a firearm purchaser to make at least two trips to a firearms dealer in order to complete a firearms transaction. The multiple trips required to complete a transaction can cause disruptions in work and personal schedules, extra fuel expense, and wear and tear on a car depending upon where a firearm or a firearms dealer is located in relation to the purchaser. See id. at 26:9-14, 33:16-34:12, 35:13-36:8. This can be a financial burden on a purchaser. See id. at 26:15-18, 84:15-85:3. The 10-day waiting period may also necessitate additional fees for the transfer of firearms between dealers, so that a person can purchase a firearm from a more distant dealer, but can retrieve the firearm from a closer dealer. See 28:2-29:1. Schedule conflicts and dealer location may cause a person to miss the window to retrieve a firearm after the 10-day waiting period has expired. See 65:12-66:10. The additional transfer expenses, the impact on a purchaser’s schedule, and/or the location of a firearm may combine with the 10-day waiting period to cause a person to forego purchasing a firearm. See 111:2-6. Plaintiffs 'Brandon Combs (“Combs”) and Jeff Silvester (“Silvester”) each currently possess a firearm and both intend to purchase a firearm in the future. See 20:24-21:9, 49:12-19. Neither Combs nor Silvester is prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm in California. See id. at 21:10-11, 63:4-64:21. Both Combs and Silvester have foregone opportunities to purchase a firearm, or have been unable to complete the purchase of a firearm, due to operation of the 10-day waiting period. See id. at 27:18-28:6, 29:2-9, 35:9-36:8, 74:21-75:1, 79:11-14, 82:6-84:1. 2. Waiting Period Laws Defendant has identified no laws in existence at or near 1791 or 1868 that imposed a waiting period of any duration between the time of purchase and the time of possession of a firearm. Defendant has identified no historical materials at or near 1791 or 1868 that address government imposed waiting periods or the perception of government imposed waiting periods in relation to the Second Amendment. To the Court’s knowledge, ten states and the District of Columbia impose a waiting period between the time of purchase and the time of delivery of a firearm. Three states' and the District of Columbia have waiting period laws for the purchase of all firearms: California (10 days), District of Columbia (10 days), Illinois (3 days for pistols, 1 day for long guns), and Rhode Island (7 days). Four states have waiting periods for hand guns: Florida (3 days), Hawaii (14 days), Washington (up to 5 days from the time of purchase for the sheriff to complete a background check), and Wisconsin (2 days). Connecticut has a waiting period for long guns that is tied to an authorization to purchase from the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. Minnesota and Maryland have a waiting period for the purchase of handguns and assault rifles (7 days). There is no federal waiting period law. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(s) (Brady Act’s 5-day waiting period expired in 1998). In 1923, the California Legislature created a waiting period for handguns, whereby no handgun, pistol, or other eoncealable firearm could be delivered to its purchaser on the day of purchase. See Def. Ex. CD (1923 Cal. Stat. ch. 339 §§ 10,11). In 1953, the 1923 handgun waiting-period law was codified into the California Penal Code with no substantive changes. See Def. Ex. CE (1953 Cal. Stat. ch. 36 §§ 12071, 12072). One California court has cited legislative hearing testimony from 1964 in which witnesses testified that this 1953 law was “originally enacted to cool people off,” but that this law was “not enforced with regard to individual transfers through magazine sales nor at swap meets.” People v. Bickston, 91 Cal. App.3d Supp. 29, 32 & n. 4, 154 Cal.Rptr. 409 (1979). In 1955, the California Legislature extended the handgun waiting period from 1 day to 3 days. See Def. Ex. CF (1955 Cal. Stat. ch. 1521 §§ 12071, 12072). No legislative history has been cited that addresses why the waiting period was extended from 1 to 3 days. In 1965, the California Legislature extended the handgun waiting period from 3 days to 5 days. See Def. Ex. Cl at AG000401-402 (1965 Cal. Stat. ch. 1007 §§ 12071,12072). The legislative history indicates that the Legislature extended the waiting period from 3 days to 5 days in 1965 because the 3-day waiting period did not provide Cal. DOJ sufficient time to conduct proper background checks on prospective coneealable firearms purchasers, before delivery of the firearms to the purchasers. See Bickston, 91 Cal.App.3d Supp. at 32, 154 Cal.Rptr. 409; Def. Ex. CI at AG000468 (June 30, 1965 letter from Cal. Assembly-member Beilenson letter to the Governor); Def. Ex. Cl at AG000470 (June 24, 1965 letter from Assistant Attorney General Barrett to the Governor). Additionally, a report from the 1975-1976 session of the Senate Judiciary Committee indicates that the “purpose of the 5-day provision is to permit the law enforcement authorities to investigate the purchaser’s record, before he actually acquires the firearm, to determine whether he falls within the class of persons prohibited from possessing concealed firearms.” Def. Ex. CH at AG000298 (Cal. S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 1975-76 Regular Sess., Rep. on A.B. 1441, at 1-2 (1975)). No legislative history relating to the 1965 law has been cited that relates to a “cooling off’ period. In 1975, the California Legislature extended the handgun waiting period from 5 days to 15 days. See Def. Exh. CH (1975 Cal. Stat. ch. 997 §§ 12071,12072). The legislative history indicates that the California Legislature extended the waiting period from 5 days to 15 days in order to “[g]ive law enforcement authorities sufficient time to investigate the records of purchasers of handguns prior to delivery of the handguns.” Def. Ex. CH at AG000297 (Cal. S. Comm, on the Judiciary, 1975-76 Regular Sess., Rep. on A.B. 1441, at 1-2 (1975)). A waiting period of 5 days was thought to be “inadequate for the [California] Bureau [of Firearms] to thoroughly cheek all records of the purchasers ...” Id. at AG000344 (September 15, 1975 letter from Cal. Assemblymember Murphy letter to the Governor). No legislative history relating to the 1975 law has been cited that addresses a “cooling off’ period. In 1991, the California Legislature expanded the waiting period to cover all firearms. See Cal. Pen.Code §§ 12071, 12072 (1991 ed.) & Historical & Statutory Notes for 1990 Legislation. In 1996, the California Legislature reduced the waiting period from 15 days to 10 days. See Def. Ex. CG (Cal. S.B. 671, 1995-96 Regular Sess., ch. 128 sections 12071(b)(3)(A), 12072(c)(1)); Trial Tr. 169:2-5. The California Legislature reduced the waiting period from 15 days to 10 days because the California Department of Justice (“Cal. DOJ)’s Bureau of Firearms (BOF”) switched to an electronic database system, which allowed for faster processing of background checks. See Def. Ex. CG at AG000061, AG000212 (Cal. S.B. 671, 1995-96 Regular Sess., S. Third Reading, as amended Jun. 4, 1996); see also Def. Ex. CG at AG000057 (“This bill will assist the Department and gun dealers in expediting the background check process.”). BOF is the agency within Cal. DOJ that conducts background checks on prospective firearm purchasers. See Trial Tr. 167:11-13. A report from the Senate Committee on Criminal Procedure and a report from the Assembly Committee on Public Safety indicate that the waiting period is used to provide time to complete a background check and to provide a “cooling off’ period. See Def. Ex. CG at 20990051 and AG000075. However, no legislative history related to the 1996 law has been cited that deals with specific findings or evidence related to the “cooling off’ period. One California court has opined: “[I]t appears that an original intent to provide at least an overnight cooling-off period from ‘application for the purchase’ was supplemented over the years with additional time to allow the Department of Justice to investigate the prospective purchaser of the weapon.” Bickston, 91 Cal.App.3d Supp. at 32, 154 Cal.Rptr. 409. 3. The California Background Check The California background check begins with the completion and submission of a Dealer Record of Sales (“DROS”). See Trial Tr. 170:21-24. The DROS is an application form that a gun dealer electronically submits to Cal. DOJ, which contains information about the prospective purchaser, the firearm, and the dealership. See id. at 171:3-19. After Cal. DOJ receives a DROS application, BOF begins the background check process on the prospective purchaser. See id. at 171:18-172:3. The DROS application is sent to Cal. DOJ’s Consolidated Firearms Information System (“CFIS”), which is a computerized system. See id. at 292:7-16. CFIS coordinates the electronic portion of the background check process, called the Basic Firearms Eligibility Check (“BFEC”), by sending inquiries to other electronic databases and compiling the responses. See id. at 292:17-294:1. The first database queried as part of the BFEC is California’s Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) database. See id. at 294:2-3. The identification information on the DROS application is verified with DMV for several reasons: to ensure that the background check is run on the correct person, to prevent the occurrence of “straw purchases,” and to prevent people from using fake identification to purchase firearms. See id. at 236:23-237:9. Cal. DOJ sends a DROS applicant’s California driver’s license or California identification number to the DMV database. See id. at 294:4-9. The DMV database then returns the person’s name, date of birth, and license status to Cal. DOJ. See id. The name and date of birth returned by the DMV database are checked against the name and date of birth on the DROS application to see whether the information matches. See id. at 294:10-18. If the information matches and the driver license status is valid, the system continues to the next check within the BFEC process. See id. at 294:19-21. If the information does not match, a “DMV mismatch” is recorded, the background check process stops, and the DROS application is sent to a DMV mismatch queue for Cal. DOJ analysts, who are known as Criminal Identification Specialist IIs (“CIS Analysts”), to review. See id. at 200:12-17, 294:22-295:6. CIS Analysts must verify the information before making a final determination as to whether there is a mismatch. See id. at 238:13-239:2. A DMV mismatch does not necessarily indicate that the person is prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. See id. at 237:10238:12. A DMV mismatch can occur for an innocent reason, such as if a dealer incorrectly enters information on the DROS application, or if the applicant has changed his/her name and is using the new name to purchase the firearm, but has not yet updated that information with the DMV. See id. Unless a DMV mismatch can be corrected by a CIS Analyst, the DROS application must be rejected. See id. at 172:4-11, 238:17-25. Once a DROS application successfully passes the DMV database check, the next step in the BFEC process is for the DROS application to be queried against the Automated Firearms System (“AFS”) database. See id. at 295:9-12. The AFS database checks to see if the subject firearm has been reported as lost or stolen. See id. at 173:7-14, 295:19-20. The AFS contains various firearms records, but does not contain records for every gun in circulation in California. See id. at 180:17-19. The bulk of the firearms records in the AFS database are DROS’s that were made on a particular date and time. See id. at 180:21-24. DROS records from January 1, 2014 forward are kept for long guns. See id. At 181:24-182:1. Although they may go back earlier, the bulk of the DROS records for handguns are from 1996 forward. See id. at 340:1-11. Registrations of certain weapons classified as “assault weapons” from 1989 to 2001 are contained in the AFS. See id. at 181:2-7. The AFS also contains records of CCW license holders. See id. at 181:8-9. The AFS also contains law enforcement reports of weapons that have been identified as being lost, stolen, evidence, held for safekeeping, or retained for official use. See id. at 181:9-13. Finally, the AFS contains voluntary reports of people who have obtained a firearm by various methods, such as operation of law, an inter-family transfer, or transfers relating to curios and relic collections. See id. at 181:14-21. The AFS database is not an “absolute database,” but is a type of “leads database” that reflects Cal. DOJ’s belief about whom the last possessor of a firearm was based on the most recent DROS transaction. See id. 253:11-14. Law enforcement personnel can access the AFS in' the field in real time, and law enforcement officers view the AFS database as reliable. See id. at 251:19-22, 252:15-21, 443:3-20. If the AFS search finds that the subject firearm has been reported as lost or stolen, Cal. DOJ notifies the local law enforcement agency that made the report and requests that the agency conduct an investigation to confirm that the firearm involved in the pending DROS transaction is the same firearm that was reported as lost or stolen, and to confirm whether the “lost or stolen” entry in the AFS database is still valid and active. See id. at 174:5-14. The resulting investigations by local law enforcement agencies require them to take an active role to confirm that the firearm on the DROS application is actually the firearm that was reported as lost or stolen. See id. at 175:5-9. How soon an agency begins its investigation depends on the agency’s priorities, and the issue is rarely resolved within one day’s time. See id. at 175:10-15. If a gun passes the AFS database check, and if the subject gun is a handgun, then the CFIS conducts a 30-day purchase-restriction check. See id. at 296:5-8. CFIS checks within its own database to determine whether the DROS applicant purchased another handgun within the previous 30 days. See id. at 296:9-12. If the DROS applicant purchased another handgun within 30 days, then the background check stops and the DROS application is denied. See id. at 296:13-15. If the DROS applicant has not purchased a handgun within the previous 30 days, CFIS continues to check whether the applicant has had a previous application denied. See id. at 296:16-23. If so, summary information regarding the previous denial is electronically appended to the background check results for a CIS Analyst to review at a later time. See id. at 296:24-297:3. The background check then continues forward. See id. at 297:3-4. The next step in the BFEC process for all firearms is for the DROS application to be queried against the Automated Criminal History System (“ACHS”). See id. at 297:14-18. ACHS is a state database that contains criminal history information reported to Cal. DOJ by criminal justice agencies in California. See id. at 176:7-16. The DROS applicant’s name, variations on the DROS applicant’s name (e.g. Robert, Bob, Bobby), date of birth, a range of dates around the date of birth, and any other identifying information from the DROS application, are all run through the ACHS database as part of an initial check. See id. at 297:19-22, 298:22-299:8. As part of the initial check, ACHS also will query three other databases: the Wanted Persons System (“WPS”) database, the California Restraining and Protective Order System (“CARPOS”) database, and the Mental Health Firearms Prohibition System (“MHFPS”) database. See id. at 297:23-298:7. WPS is a California state database that contains records of warrant information. See id. at 184:10-21. A person with a record in WPS could potentially be prohibited from possessing a firearm. See id. at 184:14-18. Under federal law, any warrant prohibits the wanted person from owning or possessing a firearm, and under state law, persons wanted for a felony offense are prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. See id. at 184:22-185:6 CARPOS is a California state database that contains information on restraining and protective orders. See id. at 182:16-21, 184:6-9. CARPOS is queried in order to detect domestic violence restraining orders and certain protective orders that would prohibit the DROS applicant from owning or possessing a firearm. See id. at 182:22-25. MHFPS is a California state database that contains mental health records and records of certain prohibited juveniles. See id. at 185:18-186:2. MHFPS is queried in order to detect prohibitions under California law relating to mental health issues. See 186:3-187:17. The initial check is to see if there is more detailed information about the DROS applicant contained within any of the ACHS, WPS, CARPOS, and MHFPS databases. See id. at 298:17-21. If the name variations and possible birth dates run in the initial check match records in ACHS’s own database, then ACHS returns “criminal identification information” (“CII”) numbers associated with the records. See id. at 300:1-13, 327:19-22. CFIS then conducts a subsequent query of the ACHS database utilizing the unique CII numbers to obtain more detailed criminal history information about the DROS applicant. See id. at 300:1-13. If any of the variant names and birth dates match information contained in the WPS, CAR-POS, or MHFPS, then the CFIS system will do a subsequent check of those databases using the particular name and birth-date that generated a match during the initial search so that more detailed information/reeords can be obtained. See id. at 298:17-21, 300:14-301:23. If matches are found in the ACHS, WPS, CARPOS, or MHFPS databases, the information is appended to the results of the background check. See id. at 301:18-23. After the ACHS, WPS, CARPOS, or MHFPS queries are complete, the next step in the BFEC process is for the DROS application to be queried against the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) database. See id. at 302:1-3. NICS checks are similar to ACHS checks in that NICS does a name variant and birth date range check. See id. at 302:4-11. Also similar to ACHS, NICS will conduct a search of its own database as well as a search of three other federal databases: the Interstate Identification Index (“III”) database, the National Crime Information Center (“NCIC”) database, and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) database. See id. at 191:6-8, 193:13-14, 194:17-25, 195:1-3, 302:12-17. The III database contains criminal history records from California and other states that share their criminal history records with the FBI. See id. at 191:6-16. If a person is convicted of a felony in any state, that person is prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm under California law. See id. at 192:1-4. The NCIC database contains federal warrants, domestic violence restraining orders, and stolen gun information. See id. at 193:15-19. The ICE database helps to identify people who are in the United States unlawfully. See id. at 195:1-7. If there are matches or “hits” in the NICS system, the CFIS system goes into a response process. See id. at 303:3-7. The CIFS system will check if there is an FBI number or a state identification number from another state that was included in the NICS response. See id. at 303:78. If there are FBI or state identification numbers, then the CFIS system will send another transaction out specifically to the III database to see if there is additional information. See id. at 303:9-12. After the NICS check is completed, the BFEC is considered complete. See id. at 303:1316. All results obtained by CFIS through the BFEC’s search of databases are attached to the DROS application, and those DROS applications for which there is a hit/match are placed into the DROS processing queue for a CIS Analyst to review. See id. at 200:6-11, 303:13-304:3. The processing queue is an electronic queue. See id. at 200:9-10. CIS Analysts first review records in the DMV mismatch queue to determine whether there is a real mismatch of the applicant’s identity in the DMV records, or whether the records can be fixed and a match can be made. See id. at 316:20-317:15. If the CIS Analyst is able to correct the mismatch, the CIS Analyst will then send the DROS application through the BFEC process. See id. If a match cannot be made, the DROS application is rejected. See id. at 317:3-5. CIS Analysts then verify that each DROS applicant is the same individual matched by the computer to the criminal and other database records. See id. at 201:16-20. CIS Analysts then look into the record to determine if the information in the record would prohibit the individual from possessing a firearm. See id. at 201:20-22. If there is information in the record that would prohibit possession of the firearm, then the CIS Analyst verifies the prohibiting information. See id. at 201:23-202:6. If the CIS Analyst determines that an individual is prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm, the CIS Analyst instructs the dealer not to deliver the firearm to the DROS applicant. See id. at 202:7-10. The amount of time it takes a CIS Analyst to process a queued DROS application depends upon the size of the records involved and the number of databases for which there have been hits. See id. at 202:11-14. It is “fairly routine” for a CIS Analyst to take longer than a day to process a queued DROS application. See id. at 202:15-20. CIS Analysts may have to confirm or discover a disposition as part of-the process of verifying prohibiting information. For example, if the disposition of a prohibiting arrest was a conviction, the person would not be eligible to own or possess a firearm, but if the conviction was dismissed or reduced, the person may be eligible. See id. at 179:11-25. In cases in which an arrest record contains no dispositional information, the CIS Analyst must obtain a final disposition on that arrest to determine whether the person is actually prohibited. See id. at 201:23-202:6. Without dispositional information, a CIS Analyst cannot determine whether an individual is eligible to own and possess a firearm because there must be a conviction for there to be a prohibition. See 323:12-21. If there is an open disposition, a CIS Analyst has to obtain the disposition, which could mean telephoning a local law enforcement agency, a district attorney, or a court to try to find out the disposition (for example, a conviction or a dismissal). See id. at 180:5-13, 201:23-202:6, 323:12-324:1. Dispositional records could be lost, missing, or purged. See 177:10-11. In addition to obtaining and confirming in-state records, CIS Analysts routinely “chase down” out-of-state dispositions. See id. at 192:14-21. The federal III database, which contains criminal history information from other states, often does not contain complete and accurate records on out-of-state criminal convictions. See id. at 192:5-8. Dispositional information is frequently missing in the III records. See id. at 192:9-13. CIS Analysts then have to call or fax courts of other states or federal courts to obtain the disposition information. See id. at 192:22193:12. Obtaining the necessary dispositional information from either in-state or out-of-state courts can be a very lengthy process. See 180:11-13. For cases in which there is a disposition, CIS Analysts review criminal history or other relevant records to confirm that Cal. DOJ is correctly approving or denying a DROS application. See id. at 178:12-20. Further, mental health facilities get information from the patients, who may not be able to provide accurate personal information, and this may cause the CIS Analysts to contact the mental health facility to ensure that a person is not prohibited. See id. at 455:17-456:5. CIS Analysts must also review and verify the results of the federal NCIC queries because NCIC results are based on a person’s name. See 193:20-194:7. CIS Analysts may also need to contact the relevant agencies to confirm that certain warrants are still active because sometimes the warrants are no longer valid. See id. at 194:4-13. In addition to obtaining missing dispositional information, CIS Analysts must inquire into the background or details of records to make the correct determination on a prohibition. See id. at 319:1-14. For example, an analyst may have to determine whether a felony that was reduced to a misdemeanor actually could have been reduced. See id. at 319:15-18; see also 319:23-320:7. To conduct such an investigation, the CIS Analysts must contact the arresting agency for a copy of the arrest report and review that report and determine the relationship between the offender and the victim. See 320:8-17. Similarly, if a member of the military is arrested out of state for possession of a controlled substance, a CIS Analyst must determine the disposition, determine whether the member was subject to a court-marshal, and find out the type of discharge the individual may have received (i.e., honorable or dishonorable). See id. at 320:23-321:7: To conduct this investigation, the CIS Analyst must obtain specific information from the military. See id. at 321:16-22. CIS Analysts may also have to decipher people’s names because aliases may be used. See id. at 455:4-16. Not all DROS applications go to the processing queue for an analyst to review. See id. at 303:19-21. If a DROS application has been checked by all of the databases, and there are no hits or matches found in any of the databases, then that DROS application is considered “auto-approved” and is not put into any queue for a CIS Analyst to review. See id. at 198:5-12, 303:22304:3. The BCEF currently does not check to see if a DROS applicant has a COE, a CCW license, or a firearm within the AFS system. However, it is possible for the BCEF to include an automated search to determine whether a DROS applicant has a COE, a CCW license, or a firearm in the AFS system. See id. at 279:11-281:24. Such a check would be “simple.” See id. at 279:23. The BFEC may result in one of six dispositions: approved, denied, delayed, undetermined, approved after delay, and denied after delay. See id. at 505:11-17. A DROS application may be delayed for up to 30 days in order for BOF to further investigate whether the applicant is prohibited from possessing a firearm. See id. at 506:11-21. For dispositions that result in a finding of “undetermined,” i.e. BOF cannot determine whether