By David G. Savage
Tribune Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a Second Amendment challenge to California’s mandatory 10-day waiting period for new gun purchases.
With only Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent, the justices let stand a ruling of the 9th Circuit Court that called the California law a “reasonable safety precaution” and one that does not violate the constitutional right to own a gun.
The high court’s action is the latest in a series of decisions that have upheld gun regulations, including bans on the sale of semi-automatic weapons and strict limits on who may legally carry a concealed weapon.
In 2008 and again in 2010, the Supreme Court struck down ordinances in Washington, D.C., and Chicago that prohibited the private possession of firearms on the grounds these hand-gun bans violated the Second Amendment.
But since, the justices have refused to extend the Second Amendment to prohibit various regulations on buying and carrying weapons in public.
California is one of eight states and the District of Columbia that imposes waiting periods for the purchase of a firearm, and it is longer than all of them except Hawaii. And California’s waiting period applies to new gun purchases even if the owner already possesses another legal weapon.
Jeff Silvester, a gun owner, and the CalGuns Foundation sued, contending the 10-day wait is too long and unnecessary for gun owners who are purchasing a second weapon. They said the state’s claimed need for a “cooling off period” makes no sense if the buyer already has a gun.
But the 9th Circuit upheld the regulation. The judges said they agreed with the state’s argument that “waiting ten days may deter subsequent purchasers from buying new weapons that would be better suited for a heinous use.”
The justices said Tuesday they would not hear the appeal in Silvester vs. Becerra.
In dissent, Thomas said the lower court’s ruling reflects the “general failure to afford the Second Amendment the respect due an enumerated constitutional right.” And “as evidence by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this court.”
