HOME
BUSINESS DIRECTORY
CLASSIFIEDS
CALENDAR
NEWS
SPORTS
OPINION
OBITUARIES
[et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ next_background_color=”#000000″][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.105″ background_layout=”light”]
Do the courts treat the Second Amendment like a second-class right?
Supreme Court Justice Clarence believes they do and makes a compelling argument.
This past week the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling upholding a California law requiring a 10-day waiting period for the purchase of any firearm. Justice Thomas penned a scathing 14-page dissent.
“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 …” Thomas writes. “Because the right to keep and bear arms is enumerated in the Constitution, courts cannot subject laws that burden it to mere rational-basis review.”
Thomas says the 9th Circuit upheld the 10-day waiting law based solely on its own determination that it was “common sense,” without requiring any supporting evidence and without acknowledging a lower court’s factual findings that caused it to agree with plaintiffs that the law was unconstitutional when it was applied to people who already own guns, because it would not serve as a “cooling off” period for those who might use a firearm to harm themselves or others.
Thomas’ dissent notes that the 9th Circuit ignored the testimony previously given despite the legal requirement to weigh its validity. “California’s expert identified only one anecdotal example of a subsequent purchaser who had committed an act of gun violence, and the expert conceded that a waiting period would not have deterred that individual,” the justice observes, noting the appellate court allowed California to justify its waiting period with mere “rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data …”
The courts are picking and choosing what constitutional rights to favor and which to ignore, Thomas argues, calling it “emblematic of a larger trend.” For example, the 9th Circuit struck an Arizona law that established a “cooling off” period for a woman seeking an abortion. It also invalidated a county ordinance requiring a five-day waiting period to obtain a nude-dancing license because it interfered with the First Amendment right of free expression. In another case, the 9th held that laws embracing traditional marriage failed because they were based on no evidence other than speculation, though such law reflects “thousands of years of human history in every society known to have populated the planet.”
Thomas does not let his own court off without a few verbal wrist slaps. He notes, “We have not heard argument in a Second Amendment case for nearly eight years. … And we have not clarified the standard for assessing Second Amendment claims for almost 10. Meanwhile, in this Term alone, we have granted review in at least five cases involving the First Amendment and four cases involving the Fourth Amendment — even though our jurisprudence is much more developed for those rights. If this case involved one of the Court’s more favored rights, I sincerely doubt we would have denied certiorari.”
The four liberal members of the court are singled out for chiding by Thomas. He says those four would have agreed to hear a case involving a 10-day cooling off period for abortion or a case involving a 10-day cooling off period for publication of racist articles or a case involving even a 10-minute delay at a traffic stop while a dog sniffed the vehicle.
“The Court would take these cases because abortion, speech, and the Fourth Amendment are three of its favored rights,” Thomas writes. “The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court’s constitutional orphan.”
All enumerated rights in the Constitution should be accorded their proper respect and none relegated to a second-class status, subject to different standards. — TM
[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ fullwidth=”off” specialty=”off” prev_background_color=”#000000″ next_background_color=”#000000″][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.92″ background_layout=”light”] [widgets_on_pages id=”Ad Slot 2 – Business Directory”] [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_image _builder_version=”3.0.95″ src=”https://eurekasentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/subscribe-now-eureka-01-cropped.png” show_in_lightbox=”off” url=”https://eurekasentinel.com/subscribe/” url_new_window=”off” use_overlay=”off” always_center_on_mobile=”on” force_fullwidth=”off” show_bottom_space=”on” border_width_all=”1px” border_color_all=”rgba(146,77,36,0.23)” /][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.95″ background_layout=”light” border_width_all=”1px” border_color_all=”rgba(51,51,51,0.15)” custom_padding=”5px|5px|5px|5px”]
SIGN UP FOR EMAIL UPDATES
[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ prev_background_color=”#000000″][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”1_4″][et_pb_image admin_label=”BBM Logo” _builder_version=”3.0.95″ src=”http://www.elynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/logo.png” show_in_lightbox=”off” url=”http://battlebornmedia.com” url_new_window=”on” background_color=”#ffffff” use_overlay=”off” always_center_on_mobile=”on” force_fullwidth=”off” show_bottom_space=”on” /][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”3_4″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Affiliates” _builder_version=”3.0.95″ background_color=”#ffffff” background_layout=”light”]Affiliates
Lincoln County Record | Mesquite Local News | Mineral County Independent News | Sparks Tribune | The Ely Times
[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]
Leave a Reply