Supreme Court rejects challenge to CA’s gun purchase law

BPR: The US Supreme Court on Tuesday dealt a blow to Second Amendment Advocates in a decision that prompted an extensive 14-page dissenting opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas.

The Court refused to hear challenges against two California laws that plaintiffs said violate their rights to gun ownership under the Second Amendment, CBS News reported.

The first case was a challenge to California’s “cooling off period,” a 10-day waiting period for all gun sales intended to ensure a person does not purchase a firearm in a fit of rage.

According to court documents, California’s “cooling off” period is the second-longest in the country, The Hill reported.

Only eight other states and the District of Columbia have any type of waiting period

California residents Jeff Silvester and Brandon Combs were joined by the nonprofits The Calguns Foundation Inc. and the Second Amendment Foundation Inc. in their suit.

Silvester and Combs, who already owned firearms, claimed the law was unconstitutional when applied to “subsequent purchasers,” or persons who already own a gun, have a concealed carry license, or clear a background check in less than 10 days.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals shot down their case, and the Supreme Court let the lower court’s decision stand.

Justice Thomas dissent on SCOTUS declining to hear petition against CA gun purchase waiting period by Kyle Becker on Scribd

In a scathing dissenting opinion, Justice Thomas quoted the court’s precedent, saying:

“The Second Amendment protects ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,’ and the Fourteenth Amendment requires the States to respect that right, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 749–750 (2010) (plurality opinion); id., at 805 (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurringin judgment).   more here

18 Comments on Supreme Court rejects challenge to CA’s gun purchase law

  1. With everything else that’s going on in the country regarding guns and the citizenry I have only this to say:

    Get your guns NOW and get your ammo NOW.

    Stock up on food, because that’s how they’ll get compliance from us to turn them in; they’ll starve us out directly and they’ll use starving people who know you’re armed to turn you in so they can eat.

    This crap is coming to a head very quickly, and I think they’ve stepped up their time table because Trump is such a huge threat to their globalist agenda.

    Now, we can either heed the warning or return to our normalcy bias.

  2. I was hoping Gorsuch was going to sway the court. We’re still getting the shaft from this bunch of tyrants. Past time for either term limits or age limits on this clown show.

  3. People have been asking why we didn’t have school shootings 60 years ago. They cite all kinds of junk. The reason that there was less violence is that we weeded out nut jobs like the shooter and he was sent to special school or a mental institution. We did not have crazy people going to school with our children. Who changed this??? You guessed it the liberals.

  4. BB; from that article; Brown also signed legislation expanding the list of persons banned from gun ownership in California. Newly prohibited persons include those found guilty of misdemeanor hate crimes.
    That bill is aimed at people “using force or the threat of force to interfere with another person’s free exercise of any constitutional right because of the other person’s race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.”
    I’m speechless.

  5. “Newly prohibited persons include those found guilty of misdemeanor hate crimes”

    Like when I post stuff on IOTW I guess. I need to GTFO.

  6. With all the blatantly illegal crap that government has be revealed to had done, the powers that be keep trekking deeper into the woods. Apparently what we have is a cypress swamp.

    Increasingly, the more that Congress and the Supreme Court talk, the less it means to me.
    It was a nice government our country had while it lasted.


    Although the Constitution is clear, they heap on the exceptions until the law is non-existent.

  8. I’m thinking ‘shall not be infringed’ doesn’t mean the same thing to these members of the ‘enlightenment’ as it does to me

    … particularly the ‘conservative’ ones

  9. Thanks again to politicians I didn’t vote for and court justices I did not approve of, my Constitutional rights continue to be taken away and not protected.

    Screw all of those involved!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.