Justice Thomas Called Out Justices For Ignoring The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment is getting pretty much attention these days. But, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wasn’t really happy about the last decision regarding the case that challenges California’s handgun law.

Justice Thomas believes that jurists don’t quite understand the meaning of the phrase “self-defense.” He disapproves the Court’s decision to ignore the case of San Diego resident Edward Peruta. His case is supported by the National Riffle Association. Peruta asked for a permission to carry a concealed firearm, but the country refused his request.

“But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it. For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous,” Justice Thomas explained his views.

Justice Neil Gorsuch supports Thomas and his statement. Gorsuch is the newest member of the Supreme Court, and he is already aware of the “climate” inside. According to him, the court’s refusal to hear Peruta’s case is “indefensible.”

At least four judges have to approve the case. Justice Thomas said that the Second Amendment grants the right to carry arms outside the home. According to him, the Court has to make a final decision, and act on the matter. “The Second Amendment’s core purpose further supports the conclusion that the right to bear arms extends to public carry,” Thomas wrote. “Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively,” he said.

This is not the first time justices disagree over a case. But, we can only hope that they bring the right decision for this case. But, the justices seem to have other plans for the case, and it doesn’t involve anything positive for Peruta.

What do you think about this? Why did the judges refuse to hear Peruta’s case?

(h/t The Daily Caller)

<NEXT PAGE>

-Advertisement-