Posted on 02/20/2018 5:12:56 PM PST by marktwain
That plus the timing given the Parkland shooting (had nothing to do with it but its still there)
This could be worse. They made no ruling. I do not want this SC to rule on a 2nd A case. We just barely won the last one 5-4 and Kennedy was very wobbly. In this atmosphere we could lose it. I just pray Trump gets another pick before it comes up.
Rights delayed are rights denied.
I REALLY question the sense of making an existing gun owner wait 10 days to purchase a 2nd (or 50th) firearm...it isn’t like the “cooling off” period would prevent the use of a firearm in a crime of passion.
“oh, you’re not 21, sorry, just STFU.”
...
The Ninth Circuit's deviation from ordinary principles of law is unfortunate, though not surprising. Its dismissive treatment of petitioners' challenge is emblematic of a larger trend. As I have previously explained, the lower courts are resisting this Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald and are failing to protect the Second Amendment to the same extent that they protect other constitutional rights. See Friedman v. Highland Park, 577 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (THOMAS, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 1); Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, 576 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (THOMAS, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 1).
This double standard is apparent from other cases where the Ninth Circuit applies heightened scrutiny. The Ninth Circuit invalidated an Arizona law, for example, partly because it "delayed" women seeking an abortion. Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Humble, 753 F. 3d 905, 917 (2014). The court found it important there, but not here, that the State "presented no evidence whatsoever that the law furthers [its] interest" and "no evidence that [its alleged danger] exists or has ever [occurred]." Id., at 914-915. Similarly, the Ninth Circuit struck down a county's 5-day waiting period for nude-dancing licenses because it "unreasonably prevent[ed] a dancer from exercising first amendment rights while an application [was] pending." Kev, Inc. v. Kitsap County, 793 F. 2d 1053, 1060 (1986). The Ninth Circuit found it dispositive there, but not here, that the county "failed to demonstrate a need for [the] five-day delay period." Ibid. In another case, the Ninth Circuit held that laws embracing traditional marriage failed heightened scrutiny because the States presented "no evidence" other than "speculation and conclusory assertions" to support them. Latta v. Otter, 771 F. 3d 456, 476 (2014). While those laws reflected the wisdom of "thousands of years of human history in every society known to have populated the planet," Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting) (slip op., at 25), they faced a much tougher time in the Ninth Circuit than California's new and unusual waiting period for firearms. In the Ninth Circuit, it seems, rights that have no basis in the Constitution receive greater protection than the Second Amendment, which is enumerated in the text.
Our continued refusal to hear Second Amendment cases only enables this kind of defiance. We have not heard argument in a Second Amendment case for nearly eight years. Peruta v. California, 582 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (THOMAS, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 7). And we have not clarified the standard for assessing Second Amendment claims for almost 10. Meanwhile, in this Term alone, we have granted review in at least five cases involving the First Amendment and four cases involving the Fourth Amendment--even though our jurisprudence is much more developed for those rights.
If this case involved one of the Court's more favored rights, I sincerely doubt we would have denied certiorari. I suspect that four Members of this Court would vote to review a 10-day waiting period for abortions, notwithstanding a State's purported interest in creating a "cooling off" period. Cf. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc. v. Akron, 651 F. 2d 1198, 1208 (CA6 1981) (invalidating a 24-hour waiting period for abortions that was meant to create a "'cooling off period'"), aff 'd in relevant part, 462 U. S. 416, 450 (1983); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 887 (1992) (joint opinion of O’Connor, KENNEDY, and Souter, JJ.) (disavowing Akron but upholding a 24-hour waiting period only "on the record before us, and in the context of this facial challenge"). I also suspect that four Members of this Court would vote to review a 10-day waiting period on the publication of racist speech, notwithstanding a State's purported interest in giving the speaker time to calm down. Cf. Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U. S. 123 (1992) (holding that the First Amendment forbids a county from charging even a small permitting fee to offset the costs of providing security for a white-nationalist rally); Virginia v. Black, 538 U. S. 343 (2003) (holding that the First Amendment protects the burning of a 25-foot cross at a Ku Klux Klan rally); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 446, n. 1 (1969) (per curiam) (holding that the First Amendment protects a film featuring Klan members wielding firearms, burning a cross, and chanting "'Bury the niggers'"). Similarly, four Members of this Court would vote to review even a 10-minute delay of a traffic stop. Cf. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U. S. ___ (2015) (holding that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the police from delaying a traffic stop seven or eight minutes to conduct a dog sniff). The Court would take these cases because abortion, speech, and the Fourth Amendment are three of its favored rights. The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court's constitutional orphan. And the lower courts seem to have gotten the message.
* * *
Nearly eight years ago, this Court declared that the Second Amendment is not a "second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees." McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). By refusing to review decisions like the one below, we undermine that declaration. Because I still believe that the Second Amendment cannot be "singled out for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment," id., at 778–779 (majority opinion), I respectfully dissent from the denial of certiorari.
>>>Ginsberg’s and Sotomayor’s health is failing. Kennedy is getting very old as is Breyer<<<
Yet all three will probably outlive you and me.
Billy Joel said it best, only the good die young.
But get an abortion the next day.
What utter insanity.
>
Thomas nails it, as usual.
We need another Trump appointee on the Supreme Court.
>
What we need is Congress to do its J-O-B and start impeaching judges, or dismantle outright, those using activism\external sources\etc. in making a decree vs. ruling vs. Constitution.
As well as States/AG whom will *fight* said activism.
SCotUS is no better...
There NEEDS to be 10-DAY “COOLING OFF” period for ABORTIONS! That could save MILLIONS of lives!
Gun and ammo companies need to stop selling weapons and ammo to California law enforcement agencies.
Therein lies the rub. Instead of all the Lib’s moving there, they’re moving out, to other states and have initiated the processes of destroying them, ie Colorado, Idaho, Montana. They already destroyed Oregon and Washington and are doing their level best to destroy Texas.
I can feel a major leftist push to take away every inch of the right to bear arms from American citizens. They take away every chance they get and this Florida incident, along with Los Vegas and all the others are just ammo for the left. Every time something happens they cut a little bit more off and they will continue as long as the left can keep the people all fired up. This will continue. It will continue until they can damage the 2d Amendment as much as they can.
Can someone please help me, I am an old forgetful Jarhead and cannot remember the waiting period (cooling off time) on the 1st amendment before liberals shoot off their mouth. I can’t even remember the time for the 4th or how long slaves had to wait for the 13th to kick in.
Next up California will institute a 500-year waiting period for the purchase of a firearm.
Because why not?
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.