"But the decision below did just that. Purporting to apply intermediate scrutiny, the Court of Appeals upheld California’s 10-day waiting period for firearms based solely on its own “common sense.” Silvester v. Harris, 843 F. 3d 816, 828 (CA9 2016). It did so without requiring California to submit relevant evidence, without addressing petitioners’ arguments to the contrary, and without ac- knowledging the District Court’s factual findings. This deferential analysis was indistinguishable from rational- basis review. And it is symptomatic of the lower courts’ general failure to afford the Second Amendment the re- spect due an enumerated constitutional right.

If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this Court would intervene. But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court.

***

If this case involved one of the Court’s more favored rights, I sincerely doubt we would have denied certiorari. I suspect that four Members of this Court would vote to review a 10-day waiting period for abortions, notwith- standing a State’s purported interest in creating a “cooling off ” period. Cf. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc. v. Akron, 651 F. 2d 1198, 1208 (CA6 1981) (invalidating a 24-hour waiting period for abortions that was meant to create a “‘cooling off period’”), aff’d in relevant part, 462 U. S. 416, 450 (1983); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 887 (1992) (joint opinion of O’Connor, KENNEDY, and Souter, JJ.) (disavowing Akron but upholding a 24-hour waiting period only “on the record before us, and in the context of this facial challenge”). I also suspect that four Members of this Court would vote to review a 10-day waiting period on the publication of racist speech, notwithstanding a State’s purported interest in giving the speaker time to calm down. Cf. Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U. S. 123 (1992) (holding that the First Amendment forbids a county from charging even a small permitting fee to offset the costs of providing security for a white-nationalist rally); Virginia v. Black, 538 U. S. 343 (2003) (holding that the First Amendment protects the burning of a 25-foot cross at a Ku Klux Klan rally); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 446, n. 1 (1969) (per curiam) (holding that the First Amendment protects a film featuring Klan members wielding firearms, burning a cross, and chanting “ ‘Bury the niggers’ ”). Similarly, four Members of this Court would vote to review even a 10- minute delay of a traffic stop. Cf. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U. S. ___ (2015) (holding that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the police from delaying a traffic stop seven or eight minutes to conduct a dog sniff). The Court would take these cases because abortion, speech, and the Fourth Amendment are three of its favored rights. The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court’s constitutional orphan."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3898683&forum_id=2#35446702)

Our continued refusal to hear Second Amendment cases

only enables this kind of defiance. We have not heard

argument in a Second Amendment case for nearly eight

years. Peruta v. California, 582 U. S. ___, ___ (2017)

(THOMAS, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op.,

at 7). 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

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3898683&forum_id=2#35446766)

If this case involved one of the Court’s more favored

rights, I sincerely doubt we would have denied certiorari.

I suspect that four Members of this Court would vote to

review a 10-day waiting period for abortions, notwithstanding

a State’s purported interest in creating a “cooling

off ” period. Cf. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc.

v. Akron, 651 F. 2d 1198, 1208 (CA6 1981) (invalidating a

24-hour waiting period for abortions that was meant to

create a “‘cooling off period’”), aff ’d in relevant part, 462

U. S. 416, 450 (1983); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern

Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 887 (1992) (joint opinion of

O’Connor, KENNEDY, and Souter, JJ.) (disavowing Akron

but upholding a 24-hour waiting period only “on the record

before us, and in the context of this facial challenge”). I

also suspect that four Members of this Court would vote to

review a 10-day waiting period on the publication of racist

speech, notwithstanding a State’s purported interest in

giving the speaker time to calm down. Cf. Forsyth County

v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U. S. 123 (1992) (holding

that the First Amendment forbids a county from charging

even a small permitting fee to offset the costs of providing

security for a white-nationalist rally); Virginia v. Black,

538 U. S. 343 (2003) (holding that the First Amendment

protects the burning of a 25-foot cross at a Ku Klux Klan

rally); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 446, n. 1 (1969)

(per curiam) (holding that the First Amendment protects a

film featuring Klan members wielding firearms, burning a

cross, and chanting “‘Bury the niggers’”). Similarly, four

Members of this Court would vote to review even a 10-

minute delay of a traffic stop. Cf. Rodriguez v. United

States, 575 U. S. ___ (2015) (holding that the Fourth

Amendment prohibits the police from delaying a traffic

stop seven or eight minutes to conduct a dog sniff). The

Court would take these cases because abortion, speech,

and the Fourth Amendment are three of its favored rights.

The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court’s

constitutional orphan. And the lower courts seem to have

gotten the message.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3898683&forum_id=2#35446772)

I think most of Roberts' opinions are well-reasoned and well-written.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3898683&forum_id=2#35446979)

But there were several reports about the Obamacare decision discussing the way Roberts handled it that show he at least considers public opinion of the Court in reaching his ultimate conclusion, but not his legal reasoning. Maybe those reports weren't true, who knows.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3898683&forum_id=2#35447039)

cot damn

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3898683&forum_id=2#35446997)

He's right.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3898683&forum_id=2#35447012)

odds that some california mom tries to get a gun to protect herself against some crazy ex, but is prevented from doing so because of the waiting period. very high. i hope it occurs very soon, too

i assume the waiting period doesn't have exceptions, right?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3898683&forum_id=2#35450063)

I don't know about that, but he does seem to be fairly honest, principled, and consistent.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3898683&forum_id=2#35456983)