Justices Won’t Hear Case on Waiting Period for Gun Purchases

By Adam Liptak
New York Times
FEB. 20, 2018


The state of California argued that the waiting period was justified by the need to conduct background checks and the desirability of a “cooling off” period for gun buyers inclined to commit immediate violence. Credit Jae C. Hong/Associated Press

Justice Clarence Thomas filed an impassioned 14-page dissent in the case, Silvester v. Bercerra, No. 17-342. “As evidenced by our continued inaction in this area,” he wrote, “the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this court.”

In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep guns at home for self-defense.

Justice Thomas wrote that many background checks can be completed quickly and that the cooling off period made no sense for people who already owned a gun. “Common sense suggests that subsequent purchasers contemplating violence or self-harm would use the gun they already own, instead of taking all the steps to legally buy a new one in California,” he wrote.