National Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Challenge to California Gun Law

[CountryGent]

It looks like the Supremes aren't going to hear a couple challenges to California's bullplop gun laws: Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Challenge to California Gun Law

Read More

 

[Lilhigbee]

Social engineering from the bench. Ain't tyranny grand??

 

[DONOTBUGME]

Isnt that their sole purpose, to handle state issues that goes against the federal law?

 

[KKG]

Isnt that their sole purpose, to handle state issues that goes against the federal law?

No, but it's supposed to be.

 

[Dungannon]

Justice Clarence Thomas gets it ...

Thomas scolded his colleagues.
"If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt this court would intervene," Thomas wrote. "But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this court."
Thomas said he suspected the Supreme Court would readily hear cases involving potentially unconstitutional waiting periods if they involved abortion, racist publications or police traffic stops.

 

[Slobray]

Justice Clarence Thomas gets it ...

Thomas scolded his colleagues.
"If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt this court would intervene," Thomas wrote. "But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this court."
Thomas said he suspected the Supreme Court would readily hear cases involving potentially unconstitutional waiting periods if they involved abortion, racist publications or police traffic stops.

Justice Thomas hit the nail on the head.............
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022018zor_fd9g.pdf#page=34

The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court's constitutional orphan. And the lower courts seem to have gotten the message.

Nearly eight years ago, this Court declared that the Second Amendment is not a "second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees." McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). By refusing to review decisions like the one below, we undermine that declaration. Because I still believe that the Second Amendment cannot be "singled out for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment,"

Ray

 

[Oathkeeper1775]

Justice Thomas is a national treasure! I pray he wil turn down any and all invitations to spend time at country resorts on the US & Mexican boarder...

 

[Goosebrown]

Justice Thomas is a national treasure! I pray he wil turn down any and all invitations to spend time at country resorts on the US & Mexican boarder...

I actually hope that he will resign.

Not because I don't like him, but because he's old.

When he dies, there's going to be a demand that they put in another black justice. That concerns me because with a Democratic president they're going to find the farthest left representative for that seat.

I think we would best be served if he resigned before the end of the Trump administration and probably before early 2019 in case the democrats win in November and pull a delay war on us like we did on them.

As for this case, I don't think is a good case for California being unconstitutional in this regard. Heller stated that localities could set regulations and this one does not deny your Second Amendment right.

We need more gun cases at the court, but we need to pick the right ones. Most important would be carry outside the home. Permits would have done that.

The other important thing to do is fill all the seats on the ninth circuit court. With Republicans.