The Latest:

Justice Thomas slams high court’s REFUSAL to hear Second Amendment case from California

(National SentinelConstitutional Crisis: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued highly critical dissent and rebuke of his fellow justices after the high court refused to hear a case from California challenging the state’s 10-day waiting period for new firearms purchases.

The Supreme Court’s refusal lets stand a ruling from the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the state’s law as a “reasonable safety precaution” without requiring California to provide evidence the law has improved public safety.

As reported by The Blaze:

The case began with a lawsuit by California gun owner Jeff Silvester and the CalGuns Foundation, who said the waiting period is too long for gun owners who are purchasing a second or subsequent weapon and for citizens who already have a California concealed carry permit.

The 9th Circuit Court upheld the law based on California’s stance that the waiting period could deter purchasers from getting another gun “better suited for a heinous use.”

Thomas was the only justice who wrote in dissent of the high court’s decision not to hear the case.

In his dissent, Thomas criticized what he characterized as the court’s cavalier treatment of the Second Amendment while accusing other justices of taking an unfavorable stance toward an explicit constitutional right.

“Because the right to keep and bear arms is enumerated in the Constitution, courts cannot subject laws that burden it to mere rational-basis review,” he wrote. “But the decision below did just that. Purporting to apply intermediate scrutiny, the Court of Appeals upheld California’s 10-day waiting period for firearms based solely on its own ‘common sense.’

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

He also said he did not “believe we should be in the business of choosing which constitutional rights are ‘really worth insisting upon.’”

Never miss a story! Sign up here for our daily email!

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2018 The National Sentinel

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: