You’ve often heard me say, “What starts in California will eventually spread throughout the country.” I’m not alone in saying that but unfortunately the warning goes mostly unheeded. Most people believe that what happens in liberal California has no bearing on their lives.
Perhaps a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment will change that misconception once and for all.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court denied a petition to hear the case of plaintiffs Jeff Silvester and Brandon Combs, two lawful California gun owners, whose case challenged the constitutionality of California’s “cooling-off period.”
In California, gun purchasers must wait 10 days before they can legally bring their firearm home from a licensed gun dealer. The waiting period also applies to those who already have a concealed-carry license from the Golden State and those who have registered firearms.
Would the 10-day waiting period qualify as an infringement on California gun purchasers? That’s what the plaintiffs were hoping that the Supreme Court would decide.
The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs who challenged the law. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, reversed the lower court’s ruling.
Since the Supreme Court declined to hear the Second Amendment case, the ruling of the Ninth Circuit stands, concluding that there is no infringement on the plaintiffs’ constitutional right.
What does this mean for you if you live outside of California or outside of the jurisdiction of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals?
It means that any state could follow the ruling of the Ninth Circuit if it chooses to do so and impose a 10- day waiting period for the purchase of firearms.
Following in the immediate aftermath of the recent Florida school shooting in which an alleged shooter killed 17 innocent people, the Left has stepped up its call for stronger gun control laws.
As such, any state could decide to follow the decision in the California case and impose the same or similar waiting period in your state.
That certainly wouldn’t sit well with many people.
In fact, the Supreme Court’s decision to pass on the Second Amendment case isn’t sitting well with everyone on the Supreme Court either.
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas criticized the Supreme Court for not hearing the case and had plenty to say about it in his dissent.
Thomas believes that the Supreme Court is treating the Second Amendment as a “disfavored right” and a “constitutional orphan.”
“If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this Court would intervene. But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court.”
Thomas also faulted the Ninth Circuit.
Thomas noted the appeals court’s “deviation from ordinary principles of law” and said he has observed a trend among the lower courts to resist the Supreme Court’s decision in the two Second Amendment decisions, Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. City of Chicago.
He went on to say that in resisting the high court’s decisions in each of those cases, the lower courts are “failing to protect the Second Amendment to the same extent that they protect other constitutional rights.”
Thomas further indicates that he believes the Ninth Circuit Court ruling is “symptomatic of the lower courts’ general failure to afford the Second Amendment the respect due an enumerated constitutional right.”
Additionally, Thomas wrote, “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 our text.”
In conclusion, Thomas also condemned the Supreme Court for not taking a Second Amendment case in eight years, but taking other cases that involve the First and Fourth Amendments this term.
Thomas wrote that he believes the high court would have considered cases involving a 10-day waiting period for abortions, a 10-day waiting period for the publication of racist speech or a 10-minute delay of a traffic stop.
“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.”
If the Supreme Court won’t protect California’s gun rights, what makes you think it will protect yours?
© 2018, admin. The Logo and Photos (by Susan Knowles) are protected by U.S. Copyright Laws, and are not to be downloaded or reproduced in any way without the written permission of Susan J. Knowles. Copyright 2014 Susan J. Knowles All Rights Reserved.