Link

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to take up a case challenging a California law requiring a 10-day waiting period for gun purchases.

The decision lets stand a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the waiting period, after gun rights groups argued that it shouldn’t apply to people who already own a firearm or who have a concealed carry license.

In a 14-page dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the high court’s “continued inaction” in the area of gun rights indicates that it does not put the Second Amendment on equal footing with other amendments in the bill of rights.

“If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this Court would intervene,” Justice Thomas wrote. “But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court.”

In 2016, a three-judge 9th Circuit panel had overturned a 2014 ruling by U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii that found blanket application of the waiting period unconstitutional.

After major rulings in 2008 and 2010 affirmed the constitutional right for people to keep guns in their home for self-defense, the Supreme Court has shown little appetite in recent years to wade into the issue again.

Since 2010, it has repeatedly declined to take up challenges to other gun laws, such as bans on semi-automatic, military-style firearms and restrictions on concealed carry.

sad news

Very disappointing.

Though I admit that I also wouldn't mind getting at least one more Trump appointee on the court for the next 2nd amendment case that is heard.

It's not necessarily a bad thing...I think Kennedy is the unknown -- we need to replace him with a reliable constitutionalist; the leftists already have a reliable 4 justices that they can count on.

Justice Thomas dissents from Supreme Court decision not to review California gun law

https://bangordailynews.com/20...-california-gun-law/

Latest News | Poll Questions | Tourney Time 2018 | Richard Gates | Winter Olympics Sharing

Politics
Justice Thomas dissents from Supreme Court decision not to review California gun law
Pablo Martinez Monsivais | AP | BDN
Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas sits as he is introduced during an event at the Library of Congress, Thursday, Feb. 15, 2018, in Washington.
By Robert Barnes, The Washington Post • February 20, 2018 11:48 am

The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a request from gun rights activists to examine California’s 10-day waiting period for firearm sales, prompting Justice Clarence Thomas to say his colleagues are turning the Second Amendment into a “disfavored right.”

Thomas was alone among the justices to note his dissent from the court’s refusal to review a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals upholding California’s law, which is similar to one in the District of Columbia and eight other states.

Thomas said the 9th Circuit’s ruling was “symptomatic of the lower courts’ general failure to afford the Second Amendment the respect due” a constitutional right.

“If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this court would intervene,” Thomas wrote. “But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this court.”

Thomas’s 14-page dissent comes as gun control has again dominated the national conversation following the mass shooting at a Florida high school, in which 17 people were killed.

With limited exceptions, California requires a 10-day waiting period for the purchase of any firearm. The state says it needs the time to complete background checks and for a “cooling off period” for those who might be buying a gun to hurt themselves or others.

It was challenged by two men who already are in California’s database as gun owners and who have valid concealed-carry licenses.

Thomas criticized the appeals court for relying on a “common sense understanding” that cooling-off periods deter violence and self-harm. That is not the kind of rigorous examination required of laws restricting an enumerated constitutional right, Thomas wrote.

“If this case involved one of the court’s more favored rights, I sincerely doubt we would have denied” review, Thomas added. “I suspect that four members of this court would review a 10-day waiting period for abortions, notwithstanding a state’s purported interest in creating a ‘cooling off’ period.”

I'm sick and tired of the court being politicized it flat out pisses me off. So so broken....

quote:

Originally posted by Cliff:

“If this case involved one of the court’s more favored rights, I sincerely doubt we would have denied” review, Thomas added. “I suspect that four members of this court would review a 10-day waiting period for abortions, notwithstanding a state’s purported interest in creating a ‘cooling off’ period.”

I do love my man Clarence.

I'd like them to take a case over whether a particular firearm type regulation is allowable than a waiting period case, if they will strike it down. I would love to see them kill an "assault" weapon ban, for example.

Then do a waiting period, or a no-more-than-ten-guns-a-month rule.

Trying to grok what the Supremes are doing in not taking cases is hard to do, though. Different justices may have different motives. Some may be looking for just the certain case. Others may not want to give the others a chance to win. It can be hard to tell.

And, yes, Clarence Thomas is the man.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:...

And, yes, Clarence Thomas is the man.

And why the left tried to bury him under a Hill.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:...

And, yes, Clarence Thomas is the man.

And why the left tried to bury him under a Hill.

And still are. There is an article in New York magazine resurrecting the Hill issues and adding claims of recent abuse.

Link

These abuse claims need to be reeled in somehow. Anybody can claim anything, and apparently, if you told your girlfriend about it at the time 35 years ago, or since, that verifies it.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Anybody can claim anything, and apparently, if you can get your girlfriend to say you told her you told your girlfriend about it at the time 35 years ago, or since, that verifies it.

fixed it

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Anybody can claim anything, and apparently, if you can get your girlfriend to say you told her you told your girlfriend about it at the time 35 years ago, or since, that verifies it.

fixed it

How so? It is the same thing from a different view.

I often think about when RB Ginsburg retires or dies. She cannot hold out forever. When Trump appoints her replacement, I suspect that the Supreme Court will start hearing the California 2A cases.

quote:

Originally posted by lkdr1989:
It's not necessarily a bad thing...I think Kennedy is the unknown -- we need to replace him with a reliable constitutionalist; the leftists already have a reliable 4 justices that they can count on.

The progressive justices vote as a block more than 90% of the time, the conservatives, just 65%.

quote:

Originally posted by jigray3:

quote:

Originally posted by lkdr1989:
It's not necessarily a bad thing...I think Kennedy is the unknown -- we need to replace him with a reliable constitutionalist; the leftists already have a reliable 4 justices that they can count on.

The progressive justices vote as a block more than 90% of the time, the conservatives, just 65%.

That's because the Conservatives actually think about things and the Progressives just don't.

flashguy

Those wanting another "conservative" Justice had better hope the mid-term elections don't result in a big change in the Senate.

Sure seems Justice Thomas has opted to take over where Justice Scalia left off. Dang thankful for his efforts. Let's hope Justice Gorsach gets into this game before too long.

Californi's 10 day waiting period to pick up your just bought legal gun didn't go over too well during the LA riots. Lot's of pissed off people who wanted self protection....NOW!

Unfortunately, nothing was done to fix the problem.

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:
Those wanting another "conservative" Justice had better hope the mid-term elections don't result in a big change in the Senate.

Kennedy needs to retire, now.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:...

And, yes, Clarence Thomas is the man.

And why the left tried to bury him under a Hill.

Anita Hill