Skip to comments.Supreme Court Won't Review 10-Day Waiting Period for Gun Purchases, Clarence Thomas Dissents
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 ...
We need another Trump appointee on the Supreme Court.
we sure do need more sane nominees to the SCt, ASAP!
nominees that will at least read, and follow our Constitution for a change!
the current illegality at the Court is ... intolerable for a free society
Justice Thomas is right.
We are waiting to see if President Trump will stand or fold.
He appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch who it should be noted did not back up Justice Thomas in this matter.
A bump stock ban is not a move in the right direction.
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.
Justice Delayed is .... ok by us.
“common sense understandings”
In other words, their personal prejudices.
Ginsberg’s and Sotomayor’s health is failing. Kennedy is getting very old as is Breyer.
As if anyone needed another excuse to not live in California. I say, leave all the libs there, and let Northern California split away from the socialists. At least the crazies will have to put up with their own BS.
And to think, there were never-Trumpers who would rather have had Hillary making those choices.
Yes, it might be better to wait until there is another conservative on the Court.
There is hope, rumor has it Kennedy is floating retirement.
Shame we don’t know how many of the other justices voted with Thomas on this. Couldn’t have been more than two but it would be nice to know.
They’ll probably try for a 10-year waiting period next.
Thomas needs to stay on the Court.
I could support the same approach regarding the 1st... You know, a common sense restriction on people spouting opinions in public until at least 10 days after they know what they’re talking about.
I wonder how the court would feel about that?
I bought my first handgun back in 1967 California. Three day waiting period. Out of state. The next year all that changed.
How many women must be killed while waiting?
Who voted in favor?
“This is why the Supreme Court is so important. “
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.