Thomas dissents from decision not to review gun law
It also illustrates the court’s reluctance to engage WASHINGTON — T h e in challenges to restrictions Supreme Court on Tuesday on gun ownership and use, said it will not review Califor- many of which have been nia’s 10-day waiting period upheld by lower courts withfor firearm sales, prompting out Supreme Court review. Justice Clarence Thomas to “The right to keep and say his colleagues are turn- bear arms is apparently ing the Second Amendment this court’s constitutional into a “disfavored right.” orphan,” Thomas wrote.
Thomas was alone among Thomas said the 9th Cirthe justices to note his discuit’s ruling was “symptomsent from the court’s refusal atic of the lower courts’ gento review a ruling from the eral failure to afford the Sec- U.S. Court of Appeals uphold- ond Amendment the respect ing California’s law, which due” a constitutional right. is similar to one in the Dis“If a lower court treated trict of Columbia and eight another right so cavalierly, other states. I have little doubt that this
Thomas’ 14-page dissent court would intervene,” comes as gun control has Thomas wrote. “But as eviagain dominated the national denced by our continued conversation following the inaction in this area, the Sec- mass shooting at a Florida ond Amendment is a disfahigh school, in which 17 peovored right in this court.” ple were killed. Separately, the justices also turned aside a National Rifle Association challenge to a California law that imposes a fee on firearm sales and transfers and uses some of the money to track down illegally owned weapons.
“In the wake of mass shoot- ings in Florida and else- where, it should be clear that sensible gun laws should have a place in our country - they certainly do in Cali- fornia,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement.
The state said that since examination required of 2013, it has seized more than laws restricting an enumer18,000 firearms from individated constitutional right, uals who are legally barred Thomas wrote. from owning guns “If this case involved one
With limited exceptions, of the court’s more favored California requires a 10-day rights, I sincerely doubt we waiting period for the pur- would have denied” review, chase of any firearm. The Thomas added. “I suspect state says it needs the time that four members of this to complete background court would review a 10-day checks and for a “cooling waiting period for abortions, off period” for those who notwithstanding a state’s might be buying a gun to purported interest in creathurt themselves or others. ing a ‘cooling off ’ period.”
It was challenged by two After finding in 2008 men who already are in Calithat the Second Amendfornia’s database as gun ownment affords the right to ers and who have valid con- own a handgun for self-decealed-carry licenses. fense inside the home, the
Thomas criticized the Supreme Court has stayed appeals court for rely- out of the battle over state ing on a “common sense laws that restrict gun ownerunderstanding” that cool- ship, such as bans on certain ing-off periods deter vio- types of weapons and strict lence and self-harm. That laws on who may carry guns is not the kind of rigorous outside the home.