Justice Clarence Thomas Speaks! Finds It “Improbable” The Second Amendment Only Protects…

Maybe you have heard of Peruta v. California. It is a case that has become the focal point of opposition to California’s “good cause” requirement for issuance of concealed carry permits.

The Supreme Court of the United States was asked to review it back in January, many hoping it would secure a ruling in support of the right to bear arms.

They specifically wanted the court to rule on “whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.”

The court announced that it would not review the case, however. This will leave the “good cause” requirement for concealed carry in place.

Trending: REPORT: Colin Kaepernick’s Legal Team Plan to Subpoena Trump

But if anything good came out of this, it’s Justice Clarence Thomas’ voice of reason. In his dissent, Thomas said he finds it “improbable” that the Second Amendment only protects the right to carry in one’s own home.

That should be self-explanatory, but some liberals need reminding.

Cornell published the text of Thomas’s dissent, in which he warned that SCOTUS is treating the Second Amendment “as a disfavored right.” He wrote that “the Constitution does not rank certain rights above others;” therefore, SCOTUS ought not adopt a hierarchical ranking for them either.

Moreover, Thomas stressed that SCOTUS missed a perfect opportunity to rule “definitively” to a Ninth Circuit en banc decision that cut against previous SCOTUS rulings and precedent. He wrote:

[SCOTUS] has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion. As we explained in Heller, to “bear arms” means to “ ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” …The most natural reading of this definition encompasses public carry.


The Ninth Circuit ruled that “the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”

Breaking that down, the court means the right to carry is limited to an individual’s home.

Obviously, this is something Justice Thomas full heartedly rejects. He wrote, “I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.”

Please Justice, keep preaching!

Think about it.

Is the First Amendment bound to the confines of your home? Is any other amendment limited in such a way as the court is limiting the Second?

No, of course not! You don’t have to be a member of the highest court in the country to see that.

Thomas called out his colleges (with the exception of Justice Neil Gorsuch, who joined the dissent) for ranking the Amendments. For ranking our rights.

Where can we find more justices like him? Because we need them!


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.