Posted on 02/20/2018 5:12:56 PM PST by marktwain
Today the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a Second Amendment case challenging California's 10-day waiting period for firearms purchases. Writing in dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas faulted his colleagues for their "inaction" and for turning the Second Amendment into "a disfavored right in this Court."
The case is Silvester v. Becerra. It arose when several lawful California gun owners, supported by the Calguns Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation, filed a lawsuit claiming that the state's 10-day waiting period for firearms purchases is unconstitutional as applied to "those purchasers who already own a firearm or have a license to carry a concealed weapon, and who clear a background check in fewer than 10 days." Because it typically takes only a day or two for most such background checks to go through, they argued, the government has no legitimate reason to make "previous purchasers" wait the full 10 days.
That argument prevailed before the the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, which ruled against the 10-day waiting period in the context of "previous purchasers." But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed the District Court on appeal, upholding the regulation based on what it called the "common sense understanding" that a 10-day "cooling off" period for gun buyers can help to reduce gun violence.
It was the gun owners' appeal of that 9th Circuit decision that the Supreme Court declined to take up today, prompting Justice Thomas to take the rare step of dissenting from the Court's refusal to hear the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
>> Thomas needs to stay on the Court.
Isaiah is way pat his sell date.
It’s only important because Congress & the executive have ceded their authority to SCROTUS. It was never ‘designed’ to have such power under the Constitution.
Be a shame if Ruth and that wise Latina croaked or something.
We have a Congress largely made up of scumbag attorneys who believe that the Constitution was actually written for scumbag attorneys to “interpret”. It was written in the plain language of the day for the common man.
We need as much as anything a clear answer from appointees, Do you own guns? If not, they should not be on the court and should recuse themselves from 2nd amendment questions. Tired of this kind of BS where the justices are ruling the 2nd amendment out of existence. Have they already forgotten their Heller decision? Or others.
“We need another Trump appointee on the Supreme Court. “
More importantly, we need Roberts gone!
“9th Circus again. I was under the impression that appellate courts ruled on the law, not on the basis of “common sense understandings” with not a single shred of evidence to back them up. “
You could have shortened your respone to the first sentence!
You prefer denial of certiorari on 10-day waiting periods?
“Be a shame if Ruth and that wise Latina croaked or something.”
Ruth has one foot on a banana peel and the Latrina has serious Type 1 Diabetes that has put her in the hospital recently.
I like this line of thinking. If it is okay to say you must be 18, 21, or other age (not stated in the 2nd amendment), or that you have to way 3 days or 10 or 30 days to exercise it, then how about the same for the 1st amendment. You want to speak out, write it down, wait 3, 10, or 30 days; oh, you’re not 21, sorry, just STFU.
Sorry, I don’t know what that is. I thought we were talking about basketball.
True.
“And to think, there were never-Trumpers who would rather have had Hillary making those choices. “
They’ve been coming back here lately in time for the midterms.
I’m hoping for two this year, when Kennedy retires and Sleepy Ginsburg doesn’t wake up.
Or protests, you know they are protected by the 1st. Those Russian bots with Michael Moore and CNN participating 4 days after the election would have had to wait 6 more days. Just think no more protesting at any event of the moment.
The Nutty Ninth never used “the law” for many of their wacked out decisions. “Common sense understandings” without evidence is like saying that the “world is flat” because some ships never come back and they had to have fallen off of it.
We’ll never know. Votes in Justices’ conferences are never announced. It takes four votes to agree to hear a case. We know from his dissent that Justice Thomas wanted to hear it but there weren’t three other votes.
Needing four votes in order to procede to oral arguments is called “The Rule of Four.” I’m betting that Alito and Gorsuch joined Thomas but Roberts and Kennedy didn’t.
For sure we do need better judges. But why do we have to have such important things going to court where the 9th circuit gets to over rule every thing-seems like a bad play with a stacked deck.
Exactly. The Ninth doesn't respect personal freedoms when it comes to personal protection, only in regard to killing the unborn and rewarding the illegal aliens.
SCOTUS needs some retirements soon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.