Top court rejects challenge to California gun waiting period

Yahoo News

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away a constitutional challenge brought by gun rights activists to a California law imposing a 10-day waiting period for the purchase of firearms, intended to guard against impulsive violence and suicides.

Signaling its continued reluctance to step into the growing national debate over gun control, the nine justices left in place a lower court ruling that upheld the waiting period put in place in the Democratic-governed state that has some of the broadest U.S. firearms restrictions.  

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the court’s decision not to hear the case.

Gun rights groups and individual gun owners had argued that the measure violated their right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. The challengers did not seek to invalidate California’s waiting period for everyone, just for people who already own guns and have passed a background check.

Scolding his colleagues for not taking up the case, Thomas wrote in his dissent that the “Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this court.”

The Supreme Court has not taken up a major firearms case since issuing important gun rulings in 2008 and 2010.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/top-court-rejects-challenge-california-gun-waiting-period-145122909.html

2 thoughts on “Top court rejects challenge to California gun waiting period

  1. What the hell is a gun rights activist anyway…?

    If there can exist No Laws that violate our enumerated bill of rights, then ALL such laws, codes, ordinances, acts or other attempted mandates Are by definition, 100% Unlawful and criminal by nature.

    Any attempt to enforce such things is also a crime, any resistance lethal or otherwise is legitimate.

    Wonder how all this tyranny will end…?

  2. “… the Democratic-governed state that has some of the broadest U.S. firearms restrictions.”

    Tell me about it. Never again!

    “Gun rights groups and individual gun owners had argued that the measure violated their right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.”

    It’s the 2nd ARTICLE, and there is no argument. It says what it says… ANY infringement is TREASON!

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*