MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Supreme Court Won't Review 10-Day Waiting Period for Gun Purchases, Clarence Thomas Dissents

"The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court's constitutional orphan."

U.S. Supreme CourtU.S. Supreme CourtToday the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a Second Amendment case challenging California's 10-day waiting period for firearms purchases. Writing in dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas faulted his colleagues for their "inaction" and for turning the Second Amendment into "a disfavored right in this Court."

The case is Silvester v. Becerra. It arose when several lawful California gun owners, supported by the Calguns Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation, filed a lawsuit claiming that the state's 10-day waiting period for firearms purchases is unconstitutional as applied to "those purchasers who already own a firearm or have a license to carry a concealed weapon, and who clear a background check in fewer than 10 days." Because it typically takes only a day or two for most such background checks to go through, they argued, the government has no legitimate reason to make "previous purchasers" wait the full 10 days.

That argument prevailed before the the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, which ruled against the 10-day waiting period in the context of "previous purchasers." But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed the District Court on appeal, upholding the regulation based on what it called the "common sense understanding" that a 10-day "cooling off" period for gun buyers can help to reduce gun violence.

It was the gun owners' appeal of that 9th Circuit decision that the Supreme Court declined to take up today, prompting Justice Thomas to take the rare step of dissenting from the Court's refusal to hear the case.

According to Thomas, the 9th Circuit ruled in the state's favor "without requiring California to submit relevant evidence, without addressing petitioners' arguments to the contrary, and without acknowledging the District Court's factual findings." What is worse, he wrote, "this deferential analysis was indistinguishable from rational-basis review," yet the Supreme Court explicitly forbade rational-basis review in the Second Amendment context in its 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. "The Ninth Circuit would not have done this for any other constitutional right," Thomas maintained.

The justice reserved his strongest criticism, however, for his colleagues on the High Court. "If this case involved one of the Court's more favored rights, I sincerely doubt we would have denied certiorari," Thomas observed. "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…. The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court's constitutional orphan."

Justice Thomas's dissent from the denial of certiorari in Silvester v. Becerra is available here.

Related: Why Did a Conservative Judge Uphold an Assault Weapons Ban?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Libertymike||

    The rule of law, if it is to mean anything, must embrace the proposition that rights are neither licenses nor subject to reasonable regulations.

  • Tony||

    So define "arms" and be specific. How about just saying where you draw the line on the spectrum from nerf guns to hydrogen bombs.

  • John||

    Arms means firearms. It is a term of art that had meaning to the people who wrote the amendment. It means people must be able to own arms to defend themselves and serve in the militia if ever needed to do so.

  • Longtobefree||

    Arms means weapons. With the preface, it particularly means weapons useful to a potential militia member.
    At the time of its writing, that included edged weapons as well as firearms. It also included all forms of the bow and arrow, clubs, and rocks. The odd pitchfork and scythe would have been covered as well.

  • EscherEnigma||

    And canons. Can't forget the canons. Not sure about naval warships, but there were a couple of private warships at the time too, so quite possibly.

    Honestly, it's not hard to read every weapon into the 2nd Amendment. Stopping at guns is a cultural distinction, not a Constitutional one.

  • Eidde||

    You can't "bear" a cannon. That sounds like a relevant point in answer to all the weird hypotheticals.

  • EscherEnigma||

    So what, guys with big beefy arms have more unalienable rights then guys who lost their arms in a tragic baking accident?

    That said, that interesting take on it just kicks the can down the road to cybernetic replacement limbs that let a guy lift a small truck.

    And that said? It wasn't a hypothetical. Canons were very important to militias in the 18th century, and were often a flashpoint and target for confiscation.

  • GeneralWeygand||

    "So what, guys with big beefy arms have more unalienable rights then guys who lost their arms in a tragic baking accident?"

    You can arrange them in any sequence you like. By inalienable rights or by arms/no arms.

    /#Context, Muthafucka....

  • BillEverman||

    "So what, guys with big beefy arms have more unalienable rights then guys who lost their arms in a tragic baking accident?"

    Both have the same right to bear arms; the right to do something does not confer the ability to do so. You and I have the right to freedom of the press, whether we can afford to buy a newspaper company or not...though I understand they're going at fire sale rates lately.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Only if the "accident" was baking gaywedding cakes ...

  • Agammamon||

    You absolutely can.

    'Bear' does not mean 'man-portable'. I don't know where people are getting this from but it seems to be a big new meme among gun-proponents that anything you can carry should be legal vice anything that can be used for self-defense.

  • DarrenM||

    How about a rocket launcher?

  • DarrenM||

    Shoulder fired to be a little more clear.

  • Myshkin78||

    I can. Ask my ex

  • Kivlor||

    Bear refers to "bringing to bear" or something that you bring forth to battle. Cannons were covered according to the Founders, and we have their own letters regarding the issue to clarify it.

  • ace_m82||

    You can bring a cannon "to bear" (on target). So yes, you can.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Private ownership of naval warships isn't covered by the Second Amendment. It's covered by Article I, which grants Congress the authority to issue letters of marque and reprisal (e.g. to permit privateering).

    Fun fact: the last time Congress used this authority was in 1941, when the Goodyear company was allowed to arm one of their blimps for use as an antisubmarine privateer.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    That explains why the Ron Paul Blimp wasn't armed.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Permit to privateering says we'll look the other way when you do bad things, so long as you do it to folks we don't like.

    So while it may assume that you're already equipped to said "bad things", it doesn't give a permit to have the capacity to do said "bad things".

    Which is to say... sure, Congress can give folks a license to pirate. But if those folks don't already have a right to a canon, they're gonna have some logistical difficulties.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Exactly. Article I assumes that people other than the Navy already own warships that Congress can make use of if needed.

  • EscherEnigma||

    @Citizen X

    Article I assumes that people other than the Navy already own warships that Congress can make use of if needed.


    ... and? The vague line of discussion that you jumped in on was "what counts as arms". I threw out "warships" as a possibility.

    I'm really not sure how privateers are an argument against that possibility.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    We may be talking past each other, EE. Whether or not they're counted as "arms" for 2A purposes, privately-owned warships ARE assumed by the Constitution to exist as a matter of course.

  • GeneralWeygand||

    "But if those folks don't already have a right to a canon,"

    What is the difference between cannon and canon?

    Cannon and canon are occasionally confused by writers, but the two words have independent origins, and do not share a meaning. Cannon is most frequently found used in the sense of "a large gun," and can be traced to the Old Italian word cannone, which means "large tube." Canon, however, comes from the Greek word kanōn, meaning "rule."

    A loose cannon is "a dangerously uncontrollable person or thing." There are no loose canons.

  • EscherEnigma||

    What is the difference between cannon and canon?
    Generally speaking, whether or not the writer can remember which is which in any given context. Fortunately, context usually makes clear which is meant, regardless of which is spelt.

    That said..

    There are no loose canons.
    Someone doesn't read comic books.

  • p3orion||

    There are no loose canons."

    Well, there weren't until J.J. Abrams got his mitts on the Star Trek universe.

  • uunderstand||

    You might want to ask several Popes about that, GeneralWeygand

  • FlameCCT||

    However many private citizens owned canons on land too. Not just for naval engagements but to protect property.

  • FlameCCT||

    cannons not canon.

  • Agammamon||

    Private warships were already in existence at the time of the country's founding. They long predate it (like the LoM do).

    LoM's simply allow you to take the private warship you already own (which is already armed) and then 'legally' attack the military and commercial shipping of a particular nation's enemy's without being considered a 'pirate'.

    Many privateers served multiple governments - oftimes holding LoM's for multiple simultaneous conflicts.

  • John||

    Private warships were only legal when you were at war and got a letter of marque from the Congress.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    No, you're confusing legal to own, and legal to use in a particular way. The letter just got you the right to use your private warship aggressively against certain targets without legally becoming a pirate. Arming private ships for self defense was already legal, and expected.

    Because pirates were a real thing, and you weren't obligated to be defenseless against them.

  • fdog50||

    Unfortunately I think the U. S. government does not use of letters of marque anymore, because of international treaties. I can remember that years ago, William F. Buckley wrote a column suggesting that licensing privateers was possible solution to the importation of illegal drugs.

  • FlameCCT||

    They do use contracts which are similar to LoMs.

  • Rat on a train||

    Cannons are ordnance, not arms, in this context.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Terms like ordnance and man-portable are distinctions of time and that our culture has changed.

    The underlying protections of the 2nd Amendment are that privateers can own ships that are armed and the government cannot infringe on that right and canons are arms that the government cannot infringe on rights to keep and bear those.

    Privately owned canons, ships, rifles, pistols, knives, grenades, swords, canon balls, and much more were used by the continental army so the Founders clearly understood what Americans needed to defeat a tyrannical King's Army.

  • Rat on a train||

    Cannons were ordnance at the time of ratification making it the originalist interpretation, just as a law from 1900 banning gay activities on a Sunday would not be interpreted to ban homosexual activities just because usage changed.

  • GeneralWeygand||

    "Privately owned canons"

    Don't exist.

    WTF??

  • GeneralWeygand||

    "canon balls"

    It just does not stop.

  • Myshkin78||

    As long as people aren't using balls for their "gay activities on Sunday" I think it's legally sound.

  • JesseAz||

    The founders were intelligent enough to know the difference between ordnance and arms. They also knew what an Army Regular was and new the term well regulated meant well equipped and in good working order.

  • Sugarsail||

    some people do own tanks and cannons, it's legal.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    arms
    ärmz/
    noun
    plural noun: arms
    1.
    weapons and ammunition; armaments.

  • GeneralWeygand||

    This from the guy who confused cannon with canon. That is rich.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    If you can carry it, and it is selective enough to target an attacker without harming bystanders, it is covered by the Second Amendment.

  • Tony||

    Says who?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Says him. Thereby answering the question you asked.

  • Tony||

    Some rando with a ridiculous internet handle is constitutional case law?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    No, but your question was, "How about just saying where you draw the line on the spectrum from nerf guns to hydrogen bombs."

    And he answered that.

  • Agammamon||

    So, some rando with a ridiculous internet handle is telling me what constitutional case law is?

    That's you, in case you didn't get it.

  • Agammamon||

    Arms = means for self defense.

    Where do I draw the line? If the military can have it, I can have it.

    I am, however, willing to compromise with you - if the police can have it, I can have it.

  • Kivlor||

    Yeah, as much as I completely agree with the "arms = means of self defense" and that specifically it refers to the people being able to arm themselves like the military, I'm willing to cave on nukes. I don't care if I can own one or not, and telling us all we can't isn't particularly world ending to me. Maybe in the era we live in "if the police can have it, I can have it" is enough.

  • NYC2AZ||

    Speaking if specifics.... Maybe you can let us all know how your fantasyland proposal will play out. Although Tuccille did a pretty good job this morning.

  • StackOfCoins||

    For me personally, the line is nuclear warheads. Everything below that should be available to purchase.

  • John||

    The right to bear arms is an enumerated right in the BOR. That should mean that the government shall not infringe absent a narrowly tailored remedy that meets a compelling state interest. States should no more be able to impose a waiting period for buying a weapon than they should be able to impose one for publishing a newspaper article or displaying a work of art. The liberals and apparently at least one of the conservatives on the court don't recognize the 2nd Amendment and want to read it out of the document.

  • Tony||

    Well it is completely obsolete.

  • John||

    So is the right to sexual privacy according to a lot of people. When the day comes that the society is a majority Muslim and conservative Christian, they can declare sodomy illegal and Griswald and its progeny obsolete. Because hey, rights only exist until society has no more use for them. The sad fact is that you would never understand the connection even as the trap door opened beneath you.

    You only exist Tony to test one's commitment to universal rights. If ever there were a person who was undeserving of having rights, it is you. Only a genuine commitment to principle could cause someone to understand that yes even someone as loathsome and ignorant as you are still has rights.

  • Tony||

    We are a few statehouses away from Christian conservatives abolishing the constitution and replacing it with their own version of Sharia and whatever the fuck oligarchic system they're instructed to set up. When they take away our rights, we don't have those rights anymore, and there's nothing we can do about it if we don't have the political power to push back. Don't feed me "rights are eternal--and by the way I get to decide what they are" crap.

  • John||

    I doubt that is the case. But if it were, you would be getting exactly what you deserve since you would do the exact same thing to them if you had the power.

  • Tony||

    I do endorse a constitutional convention! I think our constitution is hopelessly elderly and inadequate to the task of dealing with the modern world. But I'm more than willing to endorse the status quo rather than hand the keys over to psycho rightwingers.

  • Longtobefree||

    How about psycho leftwingers?
    How about psycho Libertarians?
    How about plain old psychos?

  • Dookert||

    Hopelessly elderly? Which parts? The whole First Amendment thingy? The whole Fourth Amendment thingy? The whole due process thing, they're so awful aren't they? There's one part of the constitution that is "elderly" for you and its whatever parts you don't personally like.

  • BYODB||

    Shorter Tony:

    Classical Liberalism and the Enlightenment was wrong, I tell you!

  • Mickey Rat||

    But, if that was true, why would you complain? You don't accept rights as real legal precepts and have expressed in favor of the triumph of democracy over musty old constitutions.

  • Tony||

    I do accept rights as legal precepts and don't like moron rightwingers deciding which ones I get to have. But you get used to it.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""I do accept rights as legal precepts and don't like moron rightwingers deciding which ones I get to have. ""

    I doubt it. The whole purpose of making something a right is so it will not be subject to a democratic vote and ad hoc will of the courts.

  • Tony||

    The constitution is (rightly, imo) amendable. Any right can be taken away with a big enough majority.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""The constitution is (rightly, imo) amendable.""

    Amending is what you do, and there is a process for that. However, absence of amendments make the right in full force.

    The anti-gun crowd refuses to accept it as a right. That's why you hear arguments about how having to show a driver's license to vote usurps that right and disenfranchises the poor and people of color, but having to show the same thing to exercise another right is ok.

  • p3orion||

    But you're OK with moron Leftwingers deciding, right?

  • John C. Randolph||

    Well, that's bullshit, but if it were true, wouldn't you feel fucking stupid for railing against the second amendment when you need a full-auto weapon with a drum mag to keep the christians from murdering you to save your soul?

    -jcr

  • Ecoli||

    I know this will make no impression on you whatsoever, Tony, but the irony burns so hot that I must point this out... That is what the second amendment is for. Read the declaration of independence, the one written before the US constitution, not the one authored by Gillespie and Welsh.

  • Tony||

    Where does the DoI say anything about the right to own an arsenal?

    Those kids at that school were supposed to have a right to life, and the easy access to machines of mass murder deprived them of that.

  • BYODB||

    So, you didn't read it. Neat.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    Tony thinks the only way to get rid of an authoritarian government is to vote on it. Obviously the Norks don't really want to get rid of Un, they haven't voted him out yet!

  • damikesc||

    Those kids at that school were supposed to have a right to life, and the easy access to machines of mass murder deprived them of that.

    The lack of armed people to combat that was the bigger issue. A "gun-free zone" is just target practice.

  • Agammamon||

    No, being deprived of the easy access to machines of mass murder deprived them of the tools they needed to exercise their right to life.

    Ie, it was a problem caused by government.

  • DH||

    Define easy access. Because I can purchase or obtain a myriad of things that can be used to kill people just as easily. No background checks needed.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Because hey, rights only exist until society has no more use for them.


    Well, yes. Obviously.

    Just like how, regardless of how you read the 2nd Amendment, the 2nd Amendment wasn't read as giving a personal right to gun ownership for over two hundred years. Regardless of what the "right" was, "society" didn't think of it that way, and so it wasn't that way.

    That's why the cultural and societal shift for movements, whether we're talking about "gun rights" or "privacy rights" have more lasting impact then any given SCOTUS case.

    The law comes and goes. But if you win the culture, it'll eventually come back to your side. But if you lose the culture, then it's only going to be so long before it leaves you.

  • John||

    There is a lot of truth tot hat. You are only as free as your culture. A society full of oppressive assholes like Tony will never be free no matter how enlightened its government and supreme court.

    It should also be noted that for most of America's history the 2nd Amendment was a bit of a dead letter because no one tried to take away people's guns. There was virtually no gun control of any kind in this country until the federal firearms act of the 1920s. Before that, the 2nd Amendment was a bit like quartering of soldiers in the 3rd. Everyone knew it was there but never thought about it much because there was no need.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    " the 2nd Amendment wasn't read as giving a personal right to gun ownership for over two hundred years."

    Not really true. Until the 14th amendment, the 2nd amendment applied strictly to the federal government. For a short while it was understood to be incorporated, certainly Congressional debate indicated that was the intent. But the Supreme court rendered the 14th amendment largely moot before any 2nd amendment cases reached the Supreme court from the state level.

    That left the 2nd amendment only applying to the federal government until McDonald. For most of that time the federal government had no interest in violating it, so no court cases. Unfortunately Miller didn't come until after "the switch in time that saved 9", and the Supreme court was temporarily out of the enforcing the Constitution against the federal government business.

    But in Miller the Court clearly ruled that it was a personal right, to weapons suitable for military use. Otherwise they would have ruled against Miller on the basis of his lacking standing, not returned the case for a factual evaluation of whether sawn off shotguns had military utility.

    Then the Court spent 68 years refusing to take any case that so much as mentioned the 2nd amendment, while the lower courts, (As they are doing now!) subjected the right to the death of a thousand cuts, and stood US v Miller on its head.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    So much for the courts. But you have to remember the courts aren't the entire country, and there was no time during that 200 plus years when the 2nd amendment wasn't understood by the public to guarantee an individual right.

    Indeed, until the 1994 "assault weapon" ban, Congress never asserted a direct power to ban guns. They merely subjected them to insanely high taxes, and then refused to accept payment of the tax. And carefully avoided generating any test cases for the constitutionality of that refusal. That '94 ban was the very first time Congress actually "banned" a gun, rather than just taxing one.

    Why did they go so long without banning guns, even while they worked hard to achieve the same end by taxation?

    Because they knew that they had no Constitutional power, in light of the 2nd amendment, to ban guns.

  • EscherEnigma||

    I like that, unlike folks that claim to care about "original intent", you acknowledge that "original intent" didn't include applying the BoR to the states.

    That said, while you gave more detail then I did, the overall story is largely the same: for most of American history, the courts weren't that worried about state laws relating to gun control.

    That said, many western states did have a history of allowing municipalities to control guns. Despite the modern reputation as being a bunch of whiskey-soaked gun-slingers, many towns had laws about such things. So it's not that no one cared. It's that the courts didn't care to stop it.

  • GeneralWeygand||

    "That said, while you gave more detail then I did the overall story is largely the same"

    As long as whomever went first told the story from the start, that is correct.

  • John C. Randolph||

    the 2nd Amendment wasn't read as giving a personal right to gun ownership

    Hold on there... The amendment doesn't even PRESUME to be granting our right to self defense. It acknowledges it as pre-existing (and it had better, since we'd just overthrown the crown with our privately owned arms), it cites one reason why it's important, and it FORBIDS the government from infringing it.

    -jcr

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""the 2nd Amendment wasn't read as giving a personal right to gun ownership"'

    Whoever says that doesn't have a clue.

    The militia, the entity, did not own weapons, therefore the notion that the right belongs to the militia is ignorant. To join the militia you had to provider your own weapon. The ownership of the weapon was necessary to be eligible to join. No personal ownership, no militia.

    One of the reasons for the 2A was to protect the individual's right so they could join a militia.

  • Dookert||

    The right to protect yourself is obsolete? Huh?

  • Agammamon||

    Some rando with a ridiculous internet handle is constitutional case law?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Constitution is not obsolete.

    What lefties don't understand is if you get rid of the Constitution, you get rid of the authority of US laws.

    Without our Constitution all US law becomes void.

  • Libertymike||

    The narrowly tailored remedy that meets a compelling state interest is strict scrutiny which is not in the text.

  • John||

    Sure. But the tradition is that that is the way violations of enumerated rights are handled.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    If you were to go by the text, even "strict scrutiny" is a joke. Because the amendments don't say that the rights can't be infringed without a good reason. They say the rights can't be infringed, period.

    Congress shall make "no" law, not Congress shall make no "unreasonable" law, or Congress shall make no law "without a compelling interest".

    The judiciary invented exceptions to rights that were stated in an absolute form. They do that all the time. For example, the 6th amendment says "all" criminal prosecutions, but the Supreme court says violating the right is OK if the government promises to keep the penalty under one year... per charge.

    So you can go to jail for life without a jury trial, if they hit you with a 100 charges of the same offense, and put you in jail for a bit under a year for each charge, consecutively.

    Levels of scrutiny are a joke. Strict scrutiny is really rational basis, and rational basis is really "not gibbering insanity" basis.

  • DaveSs||

    This ^^^

    The BoR lays out lines that shall not be crossed, not guidelines that can be ignored if you can come up with a clever reason.

  • John||

    In many ways they are. The problem is that the BOR was never intended to apply to the states. So when the document said "make no law" it didn't mean there would never be any laws controlling the press. It means there would never be any federal laws infringing on free speech. The founders understood that the state laws would do so. So they wrote a document that was an absolute prohibition against the feds doing it.

    That was all well and good until the 14th Amendment was read to apply some of the BOR to the states. Then reading the document as written would have meant that no government anywhere could have indecency laws or zoning laws or about a million other things the founders never intended or imagining the BOR prohibiting. So they invented the levels of scrutiny as a way around that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The states do not have unlimited power anymore. Once they agreed to form the United States, they agreed to give some of that power to a federal government.

    Applying the BoR to the states as minimum protection for all Americans is a check and balance. If states want to recognize more rights and protect those, then so be it. The fed is the arbiter of state quarrels in case one state recognizes a right that conflicts with other rights or with rights of other states.

  • John||

    I am not saying it was a bad thing. I am just saying the founders never intended it that way.

  • DarrenM||

    Regarding the article, I'd think that if a state can constitutionally impose a waiting period for an initial purchase of a firearm it would constitutionally be able to impose a waiting period for any subsequent purchases. This does not really get to Thomas' objection, though. The real question would be how long that waiting period was. Obviously, a waiting period can be so long as to be an effective ban or at least to severely infringe on 2nd Amendment rights.

  • Hugh Akston||

    The rule of law never meant anything. It's a fairy tale that authoritarians use to justify oppressing people so long as forms are filed and procedures are followed.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You'd think a direct challenge to an enumerated right would be grandfathered onto the court's docket.

  • John||

    I can't tell who the justices were that voted against granting cert. Which alleged "conservative justice" has now decided that the 2nd Amendment just can't be enforced? My bet is Kennedy but I can't find out for sure. Anyone know?

  • damikesc||

    From what I gather, Thomas ALONE voted for cert. I'm fairly sure even Gorsuch voted no.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    What? But Gorsuch is supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Everything, unfortunately, is relative.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The SCOTUS does not release who voted for or against. 4 out of 9 must vote to review a case.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    No, we don't know that, they don't report certiorari votes. Thomas alone dissented publicly. Might have been a couple other Justices privately voting to hear the case. Not 3 others, of course, because 4 are enough to hear a case.

    I think what's going on is that at least one of the Justices in the McDonald majority is thought to have switched sides, but nobody is confident of it. Probably Kennedy.

    So the anti-gunners don't want the case taken because they don't want the right upheld, and the pro-gunners don't want the case taken because it might not be. They're both agreed on kicking the can down the road until they all know how it will go down before they even hear the case.

    Thomas is definitely a "though the Heavens should fall" sort of guy, and routinely votes for certiorari in cases where he expects to lose, if it's a case the Court should take. He's not into tactical voting.

    I think the court will refuse cert. to all 2nd amendment cases until at least one Justice has been replaced by somebody of the opposing view.

  • John||

    I think that is probably a good guess all around. With any luck Kennedy will finally retire after this term and he can be replaced with someone more reliable about the 2nd Amendment and a lot of other things. There is no excuse for Kennedy not retiring at his age and with a Republican President and Senate to replace him. Same goes for Thomas as much as I like him if he really doesn't want to be on the bench anymore. If Kennedy will retire and the Notorious RBG keels over in the next two years, the court could be greatly improved.

  • EscherEnigma||

    There is no excuse for Kennedy not retiring at his age and with a Republican President and Senate to replace him.


    Sure, it's not like he sharply disagrees with the current GOP on many social issues or anything, and has already seen the kind of Justice that he would be replaced with.

    And that's only if you think that justices should be thinking with partisan tactics in mind.

  • damikesc||

    And that's only if you think that justices should be thinking with partisan tactics in mind.

    Seems odd how one can guess, with near absolute certainty, where the progressive bloc of the SCOTUS will rule on virtually every issue...

  • John||

    The people who appointed him and voted to confirm him expected better of him. He does the courts no favors standing up there telling them to fuck off.

  • EscherEnigma||

    @damikesc
    @John
    The only rubric where your arguments make sense is if you assume that the court should be partisan, and that judges should should substitute "the will of the party" for their own best judgement.

    In short, you started with bad assumptions, and have given a pretty good example of why our SCOTUS justices receive lifetime appointments.

  • John||

    The court is ultimately answerable to the people. They can be impeached by Congress for any reason. It is a system of checks and balances not robed overlords. The Court needs to be reminded of that.

  • John||

    Basically you want a dictatorship. Sorry but I pass.

  • damikesc||

    The only rubric where your arguments make sense is if you assume that the court should be partisan, and that judges should should substitute "the will of the party" for their own best judgement.

    Again, just odd that nobody asks "I wonder how Kagan will rule on this?"

  • BYODB||

    Exactly. Then again, I will note that Kagan has broken with the Progressives a few times which was a surprise since I always assumed she was a naked political hack that was awarded a prestigious post for her work carrying water for the party. I think that's still true, actually, but it is true that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

  • shane_c||

    Why would it be better for libertarians if Trump stocks the court with social conservatives? Kennedy is the most libertarian justice on the court imo except of the Kelp decision. Ginsburg is good on a lot of issues (separation of church and state, police powers, free expression,...) that conservatives aren't.

  • cgr2727||

    I vaguely remember from high school civics lessons that the vote for certiorari is cast by each justice placing either a black or white ball in a cup. The idea is that it's supposed to be anonymous, or as anonymous as anything can reasonably be among nine people who each have a really good idea how the others think.

    Of course that could be total bullshit, like the rest of my high school classes, or I could be mistaking that for the process of deciding actual cases.

  • Eidde||

    I don't know about the balls, I think the voting is just secret from the public, not from the justices.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    The balls are generally old and shriveled, and vary on color...

  • FlameCCT||

    Damn it!
    Where is the upvote button when you need it!!!

  • Tony||

    Justice Thomas seems to have decided that there's a violation of the 2nd amendment before hearing the case. And he had to shove abortion in there didn't he? Just about time for the rapey wackjob to retire.

  • John||

    Yes Tony, he pointed out what unbelievable hypocrites you and y our ilk are. You claim to care about "rights" but in reality care about nothing but power and only "rights" that you like and nothing else.

  • Tony||

    I do not care about the right to own military-style guns except to the extent that the right should be abolished. You got me. I don't actually think every amendment to the US constitution is equally good or applicable to modern America. Oh no.

  • John||

    Yes, Tony, you don't care about rights you don't like and that might interfere with your sick quest for political power. We already knew that.

  • John||

    Yes, Tony, you don't care about rights you don't like and that might interfere with your sick quest for political power. We already knew that.

  • Tony||

    Yeah same as you, a person who was positively obsessed with denying me the same right to marry you have until it got too embarrassing for you to continue.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    You wanted to marry John? Hate to break it to you, Tony, but if John is not interested, you have no such right. But I am not surprised you think you do.

  • Tony||

    You have to ignore the grammatical structure of my sentence in order to read it incorrectly like that.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    What grammatical structure? That sentence is as muddled as your frontal lobe.

  • DarrenM||

    There is nothing wrong with the grammar. You misread.

  • Libertymike||

    Tony, upon what interpretive canon do you rely in support of your position that CMB incorrectly read your statement?

  • Tony||

    The canon that says I don't put out for older men who haven't bought me a very expensive dinner first.

  • Libertymike||

    You have a sense of humor today, Tony.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    [citation needed]

  • GeneralWeygand||

    Well at least he followed your lead on correct usage of Canon

  • GeneralWeygand||

    "Yeah same as you, a person who was positively obsessed with denying me the same right to marry which you have until it got too embarrassing for you to continue."

    Which usage: Used as a function word to introduce a nonrestrictive relative clause and to modify a noun in that clause and to refer together with that noun to a word or word group in a preceding clause or to an entire preceding clause or sentence or longer unit of discourse

  • damikesc||

    Tony, I don't care about any rights for two men to marry nor to have sex in their home.

    I used to, however, be willing to say that freedom isn't everything I love.

    So, from now on, we should APPLAUD anything that hampers gay rights.

    They don't impact ME after all, right?

  • Tony||

    Guns don't affect me either (until I get caught in a shootout at a public place). I'm talking about good social policy, and if you have to hide behind the 2nd amendment without offering anything else of substance then you don't have a very strong argument.

  • John C. Randolph||

    until I get caught in a shootout at a public place

    Like that gay club in Florida that some Jihadi closet-case shot up, where nobody in the place had any means to defend themselves?

    You're always an idiot, but never more so than when you pretend that helplessness is a viable survival strategy.

    -jcr

  • Tony||

    Drunk people. Dark, crowded room. Revisit your prescription and revise for sanity.

  • Rhywun||

    I'm assuming the security guards aren't drunk, at the very least.

  • EscherEnigma||

    I like to think that most folks, including gun-owning folks with concealed carry permits, know that when they're drinking and doing drugs, they should lock the gun in their car. At least that way if an argument gets out of hand they have to go out to the car before they can do anything too stupid.

    Alcohol and guns are a bad mix.

    Which is why many nightclubs, including the Pulse, have/had armed guards.

  • silver.||

    Sign on the wall of a hunt club: "Loaded guns and loaded hunters don't mix."

    My state's 2A groups fought a "bars exemption" to concealed carry rights for a number of years, mostly because it included any restaurant that served alcohol. I think the bars ban has been lifted, but you can't drink if you're carrying. Which is fine.

  • damikesc||

    It is baffling that the same guys who loathe guns also seem to want more Muslims in the country --- a group not known for their fondness for homosexuals.

  • ||

    Why stop at sex and in their own home?

    If Tony wants to give up his guns and his right to own them, he must not care about any of his other rights very much either. Or, at least, he's demonstrated that he's wholly willing to let them be violated by any schlub who picks up a gun or even just a longer, pointier stick.

  • Rhywun||

    Britain shows where this nonsense leads. They literally believe that no one has a right to defend oneself. By any means.

    Tony wants us to be Britain.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""I do not care about the right to own military-style guns except to the extent that the right should be abolished. "'

    Fine and dandy, but unless you amend the Constitution, no one has to give a shit about what you care about.

    That's how rights work.

  • FlameCCT||

    Hey Tony.
    Fact check: AR-15 is a civilian style firearm. It was years later that the gov't requested Armalite to create an automatic version, M-16.

  • sarcasmic||

    You claim to care about "rights" but in reality care about nothing but power and only "rights" that you like and nothing else.

    Because of this, because Tony and his ilk can only see the world through the lenses of power and "like", they cannot comprehend matters of principle. It simply makes no sense. How can someone support something that doesn't require power to enforce, like liberty? How can someone on principle support people doing things that they don't "like"?

    The Tonys of the world simply cannot comprehend such things.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    That's not very sarcastic.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    All that means is that he's not an idiot. Of course there's a 2nd amendment violation.

    It's just that some of the Justices like the 2nd amendment being violated.

  • ||

    Another "obstructionist" must go eh?

  • ||

    Another "obstructionist" must go eh?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    "common sense understanding"

    We should impeach anyone who refers to something as "Common sense"

  • ||

    10-day "cooling off" period

    Common sense would dictate that if you really wanted to enforce a 10-day cooling off period, it should come with a 30+ degree drop in temperature and 6-12 inches of snow. The causative decrease in crime, violent and otherwise, is *known*.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's just a bullshit phrase. It's used everywhere, and it's used when people don't want to talk specifics, and they want to act like they have no philosophical beliefs have led to this. That it is just obvious and therefore doesn't warrant further consideration. Any time ANY side uses this it is a great intellectual dishonesty.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    If you really wanted a cooling off period, your have a giant walk in freezer where you fill out the paperwork.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    The last guy was thrown in jail and nearly beheaded, so there is solid precedent.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Cert only requires four of the nine.

    So barring a recusal, that means at most three voted for cert, and at least six voted against. Even if we assume all the "liberal" justices voted against, that's only four (Sotomayer, Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer). So of the remaining (Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Gorsuch) at least two voted against as well.

    I don' think this denial is as partisan as Thomas wants it to be.

  • John||

    That is a good point. So it was two conservatives. My best guess is Roberts and Kennedy. Alto would be my third guess and Gorsuch the least likely.

  • damikesc||

    It clearly is. Why are so few abortion cases denied cert? Why are certain "rights" the SCOTUS prefers given cert at the slightest provocation?

    SCOTUS has worked hard to ignore multiple attempts to minimize Heller.

    So, feel free Progs. Try and take people's guns. I bet that will work out well...

  • Tony||

    Keep threatening violence to people who disagree with you on social policy and see how far that gets you.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It would be interesting to see what people's reaction would be to theft of legally purchased items by the state.

  • Tony||

    The tiny minority of gun fetishists would no doubt have a big freakout. Maybe they'll get a few of each other in the chaos. God knows the rest of us have had to deal with enough loss in order for the federal government to specifically endorse their stupid fetish.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'm not sure it's as small a number as you think, Tony.

  • BYODB||

    It's certainly not as small of a number as Tony thinks unless he also assumes that everyone in the United States that thinks this way owns somewhere to the tune of 1000+ guns each.

  • EscherEnigma||

    What, you mean like civil asset forfeiture?

    Limited outrage, followed by inaction.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    This would be a fairly large scale enactment though. Sadly, asset forfeiture gets swept under the rug due to it only happening against a relatively small group of people. I don't know how well a massive implementation like this would be received.

  • EscherEnigma||

    It depends on whether or not it was sabotaged from the start, or implemented in a way that would actually work.

    Going door-to-door trying to collect everyone's guns? Yeah, there's a reason y'all have that fantasy, because it's one of the few where people "fight back" and we get a bloody revolt.

    But there's lots of far more sensible ways to go about it. You don't even have to do a full gun-ban. Ban the sale. Folks can still gift guns to each-other, but no one can buy or sell one. Then institute buy-back programs, that make a point of going to folks whose gun-owning daddy just died and say "we'll buy those off of you".

    End result? The only folks you confiscated from are criminals (read: unsympathetic), "responsible gun owners" are left mostly unmolested (their kids will have a talk with the Feds on their death though), and supply will dwindle over decades.

    But while that kind of plan might work, it's not very flashy, and wouldn't score political points.

  • BYODB||

    Of course those guns would be 'bought back' using tax dollars and it's known that there are more guns in the United States than people so...realistically it would be an Australia type situation where in the end there are just as many guns but more innocent people go to jail.

  • EscherEnigma||

    @BYODB
    Which brings us back to "depends on whether or not it was sabotaged from the start".

    Have some imagination dude. You don't have to like an idea to think of how it could be done anyway.

  • BYODB||

    Was the Australian gun buy-back 'sabotaged from the start' or was it simply a top-down diktat that was respectfully ignored by enough people that it at best had a marginal effect and at worst violated people's rights while wasting tons of money?

    Either way, it's sort of dumb since there are more guns in Australia today than there were at the time of the so-called ban.

    Regardless, no 'ban' can put the genie back in the bottle in terms of how to make a gun or ammo RE: Zip guns. When guns are illegal, it's a fact that only criminals will have guns.

  • damikesc||

    Folks can still gift guns to each-other, but no one can buy or sell one.

    Yup, that'd go unnoticed.

    Then institute buy-back programs, that make a point of going to folks whose gun-owning daddy just died and say "we'll buy those off of you".

    Yes, manipulating grieving families is often a tactic one uses when one is doing the right thing.

  • EscherEnigma||

    @damikesc
    Shit dude, do you know the stuff we already put families through? Before the body is cold they have to get some family member to answer about organ donation. The timeline on that isn't very long at all. And if the family member says yes, they get to go through a pretty intense and intrusive questionnaire about the person to try and figure out what can be done.

    Then they have to start making arrangements for the disposal of the body. If they died in a hospital, the hospital doesn't want to keep it for very long at all. So you've got to get the body to a mortician and start preparing the body for either cremation or embalming. If there's going to be a wake? You gotta know that. Before you even know if there's going to be anyone coming in for the wake, you have to be able to tell the mortician that there's going to be one.

    And of course, when all this is happening you're footing the bill for everything, and you better hope that no bills come due for your dead family member at this time 'cause unpaid bills will fuck everything up.

    So yeah, going to a grieving family and saying "hey, if you don't want that gun collection, we'll compensate you for it" might not be the best thing ever. Ain't worse then what we already do though.

    And who said anything about "unnoticed"? Feature, not a bug.

  • John||

    @Escher

    Yeah no one wants a gun collection. Guns are never family heirlooms. Why don't you just stop talking about this subject? It is clear you are comically about guns and the people who actually own them. Stop embarrassing yourself and go away.

  • EscherEnigma||

    @John
    Why don't you just stop talking about this subject?
    Because it's an interesting topic and, contrary to your assumptions, I'm plenty informed.

    That said, while I could defend individual points of my quick plan, you're kind of missing the point. If you start off assuming that it can't be done, then of course you'll find that it can't be done. At no point are you putting in honest though to "how could we do this right?" So you start off thinking "this can't be done right" and then at every step you add in bad assumptions that guarantee it would be done wrong.

    To put it simply: just because you choose to only think of ways it can be done wrong, don't assume it can't be done right.

  • damikesc||

    Shit dude, do you know the stuff we already put families through? Before the body is cold they have to get some family member to answer about organ donation.

    I don't think "more dickery" is a proper solution to said issue.

  • GeneralWeygand||

    As someone with donor parts in him, I encourage everyone be registered as a donor

  • Headache||

    Like 1917 Russia? 20 million dead and the people possessing guns won.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Wait a minute, who's the one threatening violence here?

    There are 310 million handguns, shotguns, and semi-automatic weapons in American homes, garages, and waistbands.

    Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there's no way around it: They'll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem.
  • Karl Hungus||

    Keep threatening violence to people who disagree with you on social policy and see how far that gets you.

    Asserting that you'll defend yourself from the violent theft of your rightfully owned property ≠ "threatening violence."

  • EscherEnigma||

    You do know that the SCOTUS can be partisan on some issues but not on others, right?

    If you assume the "liberal" justices vote, that still leaves you with two of the "conservative" justices voting against cert, giving a 2-3 vote against cert. That's not a partisan split.

    So sure. The SCOTUS is pretty partisan on some issues. Gun rights, generally speaking, aren't one of them.

  • John||

    Gun rights not partisan on the Scotus? That is the dumbest thing I have read on here in a very long time. They are totally partisan. The liberal justices do not believe there is an individual right to bear arms and want to overturn Heller. If that isn't partisan what is?

    Are you this stupid or just trolling or both?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Of the five justices that were in the majority of the Heller case, only Scalia is gone. If those four remaining (Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Thomas) wanted, they could have given cert on this one. And that's not even counting Gorsuch.

    So yeah. Just like every other gun rights case since Heller, the court isn't hearing it because the conservative justices don't want to hear it.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Right, which is why I assume that at least one of the former McDonald majority, probably Kennedy, isn't trusted by the other conservatives, and they don't want to give him an opportunity to screw this up.

  • DavidS-T||

    Heller was simply not the libertarian decision some people hoped and others feared it was. Scalia in fact went out of his way to provide a list of gun control laws that would still be constitutional under it.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Well, if you've ever read his book, "A Matter of Interpretation", he specifically denied being a principled originalist. He just looked like one compared to the clowns who were already on the Court when he joined.

    I frequently make this point; Neither side in the Heller case were being honest. The minority wanted an explicit civil right removed from the Bill of Rights, and so were going to pretend it meant something totally pointless.

    But the majority weren't on board with upholding what it actually meant, and had been ruled to mean the last time the Court addressed it: A right to "every terrible implement of the soldier". So they upheld a less scary right to those guns that the government wasn't really afraid of people owning.

    Better than what the minority intended to do, but still dishonest.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Reading through his dissent it does not seem to be that he believes this to be a partisan issue. He seems to view this as a general unwillingness on the part of the court to review 2nd Amendment cases.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Second Amendment into "a disfavored right in this Court."

    It's a disfavored right at the New York Times.

  • John||

    It is really a class war more a political one. If you are some upper-class twit like Brett Stephens who is well off enough to live in a great neighborhood and benefit from private security and of course culturally find owning guns distasteful, you hate the 2nd Amendment as a sign of class and virtue signaling regardless of your politics.

  • sarcasmic||

    Pretty much. When the clash between city folk and rural people gets violent, and I did say "When" not "If," the city folk will be wishing they hadn't supported their own disarmament.

  • DajjaI||

    The city folk are already two steps ahead, hate to break it to you.

  • sarcasmic||

    Perhaps. But they depend on others for their protection. Unlike the country where there is a rifle behind every blade of grass.

  • Tony||

    You're ignoring the long-term strategy we've already been implementing to make the hillbillies too fat to march.

  • A Team||

    The Warthogs would eat you alive if you were hiding behind bushes. You either control the military or you lose.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's interesting here to see how hard your violent streak comes out. As you practically seems giddy with people refusing to be back down being murdered by the state.

  • sarcasmic||

    You either control the military or you lose.

    You mean how the US military has lost every conflict since WWII?

  • Zeb||

    You assume that most of the military would be willing to attack their fellow citizens defending themselves against an unconstitutional action.

  • EscherEnigma||

    @Zeb
    And all y'all assume that if this happens, it would happen in the stupidest possible way likely to create violent conflict.

  • Libertymike||

    Like the city folk of Warsaw, circa 1939?

  • DajjaI||

    Good point. They are freaking out about this, and it's actually pretty funny.

  • John||

    As a class judges rarely are gun owners. And since killing a federal judge is about the worst felony you can commit and something that will bring the wrath of the entire federal government onto your head to hunt you down and likely kill you, judges have no reason to own guns for self-defense. Judges do however, all have graduate degrees and consider themselves to be part of the elite. And no way are they going to risk that status defending gun rights for a bunch of negros and rednecks.

  • sarcasmic||

    As a class judges rarely are gun owners.

    Really? I thought judges were one of those privileged classes that gets a conceal permit (if they even need one, being that they are exempt from most laws) and arms themselves more often then not, knowing that in the course of their job they regularly commit grave injustices and rightfully fear for their lives from those they have harmed.

  • John||

    You can count on one hand the number of federal judges who have ever been murdered. They are untouchable and know it.

  • sarcasmic||

    That doesn't keep them from arming themselves. Hell, didn't a certain gun maker call one of their arms "The Judge"?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Yes, but the idea was that it was a western style gun, that hypothetically might have been carried by a judge in the old west. Not that it was being manufactured for Supreme court justices.

    Nice gun, by the way.

  • sarcasmic||

    Nice gun, by the way.

    Nice wrist-breaker you mean.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Yeah, most judges in the movies have a piece begins the bench. Not counting Judge Dredd, where there is no bench.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    You're probably holding it wrong. I've got weak wrists from badly spraining them both in a martial arts accident in college, and I don't have any trouble.

  • DajjaI||

    Actually Americans are learning that you solve problems through the democratic process not through threats. If you don't like a law then vote for the guy who promises to change it and not expect judges to always swoop in and save your ass.

  • John||

    Yes, we should fight for our rights. That responsibility, however, does not make it okay for judges to refuse to do their duty to uphold the Constitution.

  • sarcasmic||

    If you don't like a law then vote for the guy who promises to change it

    And after doing that a few times, and being burned on every attempt, people eventually learn that the "democratic process" is a bunch of shit.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Yeah. Now we just fill out change dot org petitions that are routinely ignored.

  • Tony||

    If you want to win people over to your social policy, maybe ixnay on the threats of mass violence ay.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties like you advocate mass violence every day.

    Buy insurance or the government will murder you.

    Tell us how many guns you have or the government will murder you.

  • Karl Hungus||

    If you want to win people over to your social policy, maybe ixnay on the threats of mass violence ay.

    That's cute, coming from someone whose entire political ethos is predicated on the threat of violence.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    What do you think proposing gun control laws is? It's a threat of mass violence.

    Do as we tell you, or the violence of the state will descend on you!

    You're like the guy who thinks he's a vegetarian because he didn't personally kill the cow he's munching on.

  • DajjaI||

    I'm kvelling. :-)

  • Lowdog||

    Can someone who is advocating a gun ban (or at least an expanded gun ban...many guns are already effectively banned) tell me how the confiscation will work, and then what the next steps will be when that confiscation does not show the desired results? And I'm not just talking about the possibility of violence from having police and/or the military going door-to-door and taking folks' property away.

    How many guns can we realistically expect to be turned in? How many criminals will turn in their weapons? What happens when gun crime doesn't go down or when the next "mass shooting" occurs?

    It's just a silly argument. I own the right to my life and my property, and I should be allowed to defend those things from aggressors, so long as I am not the one initiating the aggression. I don't care about the 2nd amendment, although it is the law of the land. I have that right as a sentient human person. I also have never, and do not plan to ever, use a firearm to aggress against another. Why should I pay for the mistakes of others?

    Again, a gun ban, with buyback and confiscation, will not make a significant dent in the number of guns available to do harm. A better solution is to do those things that enable people to defend themselves and their fellow man against aggressors.

  • John||

    The logic of gun confiscation is insane when you think about it. Because a psychotic in Florida murdered a bunch of people, some law abiding person in Texas who has never threatened or harmed anyone must give up their means of self-defense. That is the logic behind gun control.

  • Lowdog||

    I forgot the other thing I wanted to mention in my little stream of consciousness post:

    How's the War on Drugs working? We can pretty definitively say that it not only doesn't stop drugs from being produced, bought, sold, and consumed - it makes the problem worse in myriad ways. Extrapolate that and add it to an additional War on Guns, and holy shit...things will get much worse, especially for those in poor urban areas (surprise, surprise).

    More proof that, intentional or not, some folks certainly do favor racist and classist policies.

  • John||

    The number of people who actually want to use illegal drugs is very small really. Most people don't have any desire to use heroin or meth. Yet, we can't stop those things despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars and sending millions of people to prison. Something like 90 or a hundred million people own guns in this country. And these ass clowns think that the government is going to stop people from owning them.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""How's the War on Drugs working?"'

    Depends on the color of your skin or which class you belong. I'm sure stricter gun laws will work about the same.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Can someone who is advocating a gun ban (or at least an expanded gun ban...many guns are already effectively banned) tell me how the confiscation will work, and then what the next steps will be

    Americans east of the Hudson get to delight at armed squads of military-types with assault rif... erh, patrol rifles banging on doors in black neighborhoods and tossing the joints looking for guns.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    But more woke. And for their own good.

  • Tony||

    People have a right to decide that the epidemic of mass murder caused by access to weapons of mass murder is more of an immediate social concern than your fantasy daydreams about a shootout on your front porch.

    We regulate everything from cars to Corn Flakes for the sake of public safety. Especially if we're setting aside the 2nd amendment (and certain fanciful interpretations of it), it's completely irrational to say we can't regulate products that are expressly designed to kill humans.

    You want them because they're especially efficient at defending your property. That necessarily means they're especially efficient at murder too.

    There is absolutely no data to suggest that we are on the upward slope of some bell curve where eventually we'll have enough guns in society to actually reduce gun violence. Let's stick with plain, obvious common sense until there's reason not to. The NRA exists to sell guns. That's why it lies about this stuff. And the fact that they've sold so very many guns is hardly a good excuse to not do anything about them. Or should we have ignored priests raping children because there were just so damn many of them?

  • sarcasmic||

    We regulate everything from cars to Corn Flakes for the sake of public safety.

    "We" don't regulate anything. The government does. And the assumption that the makers of cars and Corn Flakes would intentionally kill all their customers if not for government intervention is, well, dumb.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    common sense

    Such a bullshit phrase.

  • sarcasmic||

    The NRA exists to sell guns.

    Really? I'm a member (not by choice, but I have to be as a condition of being a member of the local shooting range) and they've never tried to sell me a gun.

  • Tony||

    Either you know what I mean or you're far too mentally incapacitated to own firearms.

  • sarcasmic||

    Either words mean things or they don't.

  • Tony||

    When describing a marketing outfit you will often encounter the phrase "they are selling X," even if they aren't actually standing at a cash register doing the selling. The NRA is the marketing arm for various gun-related money-making schemes.

  • sarcasmic||

    I happen to get NRA literature in the mail on a regular basis, and I'm sorry to tell you that you are just plain wrong.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    It's more a profession of faith, than an actual empirical observation.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony, I am have lots of guns and am not a member of the NRA partly because they don't sell me guns.

    The NRA also compromises on the 2nd Amendment with gun grabbers. There should be no background checks, gun bans, limits on machines guns and explosives, etc.

    Any gun control violates the 2nd Amendment.

  • Libertymike||

    Tony, in the summer of 1995, I was reading a story in the Boston Globe Sunday Magazine about a man who had been allegedly "groomed" by the infamous Father Porter when the man was a 15 year old altar boy.

    According to the account furnished by the man to the Globe, Father Porter had, on several occasions, inappropriately initiated physical contact consisting of stroking the boy's hair, touching the boy's arms, grabbing his buttocks, and placing his hands on the boy's crotch. All of the touching was conducted whilst the boy and Porter were clothed. There was no sodomy and there was no oral sex.

    This man, some thirty years later, was claiming that Father Porter "had ruined his life." What a whiny snowflake. Who, in their right mind, would allow their lives to ruined because the priest touched their pee-pee with their pants on?

    Why I am writing about this? Your reference to priests who rape triggered me.

  • Lowdog||

    Way to not actually address my question(s). As per usual Tony strategy. But of course, I was hoping that someone else would respond, maybe even in good faith.

    BTW, I am not, and have never been, a member of the NRA. I don't know much about them, actually, and any firearms I may or may not own would have been purchased through a local gun store, a fellow citizen, or been handed down from a family member.

    Again, I'm not saying "jeez, too many guns, better just ignore the problem", but I am certainly saying that I don't want politicians to enact policies that will wind up making things worse, not better.

    But of course, if you could ever bother to argue in good faith, you would know that.

  • Tony||

    The point about the NRA is that "more guns actually make us safer" is their BS line. It seems ridiculous because it is. The US is not, it goes without saying, the safest country in the world, despite having all these guns.

  • sarcasmic||

    The US is not, it goes without saying, the safest country in the world, despite having all these guns.

    Remove gang killings (as a result of the war on unapproved chemicals) and suicides, and the statistics start to tell a different story.

  • Tony||

    Just ignore most of the gun-related violence and we're not so violent!

  • sarcasmic||

    The majority of gun-related violence happens in cities where guns are effectively banned.

    Figure that one out.

  • damikesc||

    Just ignore most of the gun-related violence and we're not so violent!

    How is suicide violent to society at-large? Seems to be as violent as the usage of marijuana is. It impacts an individual who should have the autonomy to make bad decisions.

  • DarrenM||

    No. Ignore the gun-related violence that would not change if there were no guns. People who commit suicide would still commit suicide. Gang killings might go down, but it would be much more productive to address the reason those gangs exist in the first place.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""The point about the NRA is that "more guns actually make us safer" is their BS line."'

    No, that's a line liberals like to say the NRA says.

  • damikesc||

    People have a right to decide that the epidemic of mass murder

    Stats showing this epidemic are...where?

    The NRA exists to sell guns.

    The NRA does not sell guns. They advocate for the Right for you to possess them.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Can someone who is advocating a gun ban (or at least an expanded gun ban...many guns are already effectively banned) tell me how the confiscation will work, and then what the next steps will be when that confiscation does not show the desired results?


    Seeing as a "gun ban" is just a strawman that's largely irrelevant to what folks are actually advocating, I think no. What you're more likely to get is folks who similarly think it won't work telling you why it won't work (see: circle jerk), and some folks (like Tony) saying why we should do something without addressing what or how.

    Because while it's a common fear, it's not anyone's plan.

  • John||

    They want a gun free society because in such a society mob political violence is effective. They hate the 2nd Amendment because it prevents them from using the threat of riots and mob violence to terrorize people into voting as leftists think they should.

  • DarrenM||

    Minorities are easier to intimidate into submission without guns.

  • Hank Phillips||

    I dunno... a few fair, blonde Aryans got christian Germany to pass laws keeping them Jesus-killer jooos from owning guns. And foreign comandos trying to influence their elections? Those troublemakers were shot on sight and the killings judged justifiable in mock trials... kind of like today for hippies, latinos and blacks in These States.

  • Violent Sociopath||

    Seeing as a "gun ban" is just a strawman that's largely irrelevant to what folks are actually advocating

    Which is of course why Barack Obama suggested Australia's gun ban as something the U.S. should emulate, why a ban on Evil Black Rifles is part of the Democratic Party platform, and why Hillary Clinton argued that a Supreme Court decision overturning a categorical handgun ban was wrongly decided.

    Because a "gun ban" is just a strawman. Nobody wants to take away your guns.

    You're so full of shit it's coming out your ears.

  • SusanM||

    If only the GOP cared as much about the 4th Amendment as much as they care about the 2nd...

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The 4th was repealed some time ago, so...

  • Libertymike||

    Yes, how about 1925? See, Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925).

  • SusanM||

    If only the GOP cared as much about the 4th Amendment as much as they care about the 2nd...

  • John||

    If only they would stop using fake opposition research to get FISA warrants to spy on their political opponents. They really have no respect for anything do they Susan?

  • Zeb||

    Let's not pretend Republicans are in general any better on the 4th.

  • John||

    They haven't done that, at least not yet.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Yeah, the Bill of Rights is regularly abused by both sides. Hell, just this weekend I had my 3rd Amendment rights broken, and the courts won't even listen to me case.

  • Hank Phillips||

    God in Clouds forbid! The Fourth Amendment was interfering with Mabel Willebrandt's enforcement of the Volstead act under the Prohibition Amendment that replaced that old-fashioned, out-of-date Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court approved the use of a San Francisco speakeasy proprietor's illegally seized books and records in Marron v US. The 18th Amendment was repealed, but the wiretaps, snoops, rifling of papers, self incrimination, criminal records branding--everything prompting the Declaration of Independence as a call to... er... exercise of Second Amendment rights--is still there. Great-uncle could not own a flintlock today after being a light beer "felon" in 1929!

  • DJK||

    "Because it typically takes only a day or two for most such background checks to go through, they argued, the government has no legitimate reason to make "previous purchasers" wait the full 10 days."

    What am I missing here? The "I" in NICS stands for "instant". In most states, it takes minutes at most.

  • John||

    That is all it takes. And anyone with a felony conviction or a restraining order will be on there, provided the idiots who entered it were smart enough to put it in the system.

    And gun shops make plenty of money selling guns lawfully. None of them are risking prison and bankruptcy to sell a gun illegally.

  • Tony||

    Do people with a felony conviction lose their 1st amendment rights when they get out of prison? Why are you OK with them losing their 2nd amendment right? Doesn't that one precede all others in fact?

  • DJK||

    He's making a factual statement, not suggesting a policy.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Some of them do. Son of Sam laws are an example of that.

  • damikesc||

    Do people with a felony conviction lose their 1st amendment rights when they get out of prison? Why are you OK with them losing their 2nd amendment right? Doesn't that one precede all others in fact?

    So, using "common sense gun control", like preventing felons from being armed, is being used as a cudgel. Got it.

    Yes, this was "common sense gun control", Tony.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    As I recall, during the Clinton administration, the system typically went down over the weekends for "unscheduled maintenance". But only on weekends big gun shows where being held on... When he left office, the need for unscheduled maintenance magically vanished.

    In California the check may take a couple minutes, but they'll make you wait 10 days anyway, just to mess with you.

  • Sigivald||

    Is there any weekend where "big gun shows" aren't happening somewhere in America?

  • Tony||

    I went to one of those! It's like a Star Trek convention but more socially awkward.

  • Libertymike||

    For you, but not for all of the other attendees.

  • Tony||

    It was like a Star Trek convention but with less fashionable outfits.

  • Tony||

    It was like a Star Trek convention but with even fatter chicks.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Dumbass. There's no chicks at a Star Trek convention.

  • sarcasmic||

    Comicon however....

  • DarrenM||

    That Klingon outfit was probably a little out of place.

  • Brendan||

    Here in Nevada, the state DPS does the checks and just fail to maintain capacity despite charging $25 per check. If there is more than one gun show anywhere in the state, as well as during holiday or peak shopping days, wait times jump to more than 45 minutes.

  • Sigivald||

    based on what it called the "common sense understanding" that a 10-day "cooling off" period for gun buyers can help to reduce gun violence

    Even when they already own a gun they could be violent with, because Common Sense!

    That looks like "rational basis" scrutiny to me, and I had rather thought the Supremes had made done with that for enumerated rights.

    But evidently they don't agree with themselves, when it's "common sense".

    Thanks, Court of Appeals for the 9th District!

  • John||

    None of these idiots ever seem to notice that a gun is neither the only nor really the most efficient means to commit mass murder. You can run down people with trucks or build a bomb just to name two alternative methods. In Europe guns can be harder to get. So, Jihadists rent dump trucks and run people down in Christmas markets. Are the people run over by trucks not "dead dead" or something?

  • sarcasmic||

    You can't whip up an emotional fervor to ban dump trucks like you can with guns.

  • Tony||

    So defend your house and family with a truck.

  • John||

    Yeah Tony self defense is the same thing as mass murder.

  • sarcasmic||

    Leftists like Tony see no difference between self defense and vigilante justice. No difference at all.

    Using deadly force to protect yourself or your family in the moment is exactly the same as hunting someone down and shooting them in the back.

  • Tony||

    So you're saying you don't need a weapon capable of mass murder to defend your house.

  • John||

    No I am saying that guns are necessary for self-defense but are hardly the only means of committing mass murder. So depriving me of self-defense doesn't prevent anyone from committing mass murder.

    I know you are dumb as a post-Tony, but this isn't that hard.

  • sarcasmic||

    I know you are dumb as a post-Tony, but this isn't that hard.

    Tony isn't as dumb as he lets on. He is however as dishonest as the day is long.

  • EscherEnigma||

    [...] I am saying that guns are necessary for self-defense [...]


    What? No.

    They're useful† for self-defense. But not necessary.
    ________
    †Arguably, anyway. There's a lot of evidence that having a gun in the house is more dangerous to the occupants then anyone else.

  • John||

    Depends on who you are and who is attacking you. If you are old or weak or being attacked by someone with a weapon, they are absolutely necessary.

  • EscherEnigma||

    ... you know what? Fine, let's run with this. Guns are necessary for self-defense. Since we all have a self-defense right, we are entitled to the tools that are necessary for that right.

    Forget "a car in every driveway, a chicken in every pot", let's go for "a gun under every pillow".

    'cause that's where it being necessary leads. It means that not having one isn't an option.

  • John||

    Yes, anyone who wants to and is not a criminal who has forfeited their right to own a gun should be able to own a gun. The more guns society has, the safer it generally is.

    What are you not understanding here?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Well, you aren't understanding the words I put emphasis on.

    Namely "entitled".

  • damikesc||

    So you're saying you don't need a weapon capable of mass murder to defend your house

    I have a propane tank for my house's heat.

    Guess how many folks could die if it blew up?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Have you considered moving to civilization? Running water without digging a well, sanitary sewers, electric and natural gas lines, paved roads, cement ponds, rubbish collection, and they don't even have to pump in sunshine!

  • John||

    You just sort of wander in and say random things like a child don't you Arthur?

  • damikesc||

    Have you considered moving to civilization? Running water without digging a well, sanitary sewers, electric and natural gas lines, paved roads, cement ponds, rubbish collection, and they don't even have to pump in sunshine!

    ...but then I might have to know more people like you. And nobody wants that.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    As bright flight continues to deplete the population of our rural and southern communities, removing all of the smart and ambitious young people and leaving behind a dwindling, substandard human residue, you will have less reason to worry about encountering educated, tolerant, accomplished, marketably skilled, reason-based Americans.

    Different strokes, I guess.

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    "you will have less reason to worry about encountering educated, tolerant, accomplished, marketably skilled, reason-based Americans."

    Oh look, another passive-aggressive bitch who wastes hours talking to people on websites, while sitting in judgement of them.

    Sorry, we're full up on Tony's.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You are mistaken. I am not passive. I have lost my taste for political correctness. I now call a bigot a bigot; a half-educated, superstitious, downscale, intolerant, stale-thinking goober an ardent Trump supporter; and a socially inept, authoritarian, right-wing, third-shift desktop support tech prancing around in unconvincing libertarian drag an average reason.com commenter.

    Carry on, clingers. A bit less Asperger's, perhaps, though.

  • LOL he clearly struck a nerve!||

    Cry more.

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    "Asperger's"


    Jesus enough with the gross bigotry.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Quit whimpering.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I am not passive.

    No kidding. That's why you'll be the first one hanging when the Day of the Rope arrives.

  • damikesc||

    Yeah Tony self defense is the same thing as mass murder.

    John, do you have any doubts that Tony think that Trayvon didn't deserve to die for his assault? No, he doesn't view self defense and murder differently at all.

  • Texasmotiv||

    Turns out a gun is way more effective at home defense than a dump trunk.

  • damikesc||

    In Europe guns can be harder to get.

    Hell, the Hebdo killers got automatic weaponry.

  • BYODB||

    "Sorry, guy, we know you already have 100 weapons in your arsenal and more ammo than the Army but you still gotta wait ten days because you might have done something naughty since your last purchase..."


    Which, arguably, is true. However, this individual would still have 100 guns and more ammo than the Army that they could use to do with as they will.


    This fails on purely utilitarian grounds so it's no surprise the S.C. doesn't want to hear about it.

  • Ecoli||

    Disarm the negroes and hillbillies! That was the platform of the Dems after the civil war. Not much has changed.

  • sarcasmic||

    Intentions have changed.

    Back then the Dems wanted to disarm negroes and hillbillies because they viewed them as inferior, and not worthy of defending themselves.

    Now Dems want to disarm negroes and hillbillies because they view them as....

    Never mind.

  • Tony||

    And the fact that negroes now vote for Democrats nearly universally means...? Do tell.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    More and more black people are not voting Democrat anymore.

    Uh oh Tony.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    It means that Democrats found more subtle ways to keep most of them on the plantation. Enslave a person's mind, and you don't need to enslave their body.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    That's Justice Thomas fulfilling the conservative's natural role:

    Muttering bitterly and inconsequentially -- usually something about "first principles," or "traditional values," or "the good old days" -- at the sidelines as society progresses against his preferences and efforts.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I never thought i'd say this, but OBL is the superior parody account.

  • No one cares what you think||

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Society seems to care. America has been progressing in alignment with my preferences for at least 60 years. A continuation of that liberal-libertarian course seems predictable.

  • John||

    Sorry dude but the voices in your head don't get to vote.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The young people watching Republicans be branded with bigotry, backwardness, and corruption will be voting for 50 years. The cranky old, stale-thinking conservatives will be dying off.

    The most recent 50 or 60 years have been great for my preferences. The next 50 seem likely to be even better for the liberal-libertarian alliance.

  • No really, no one cares||

  • John||

    Yeah, they have been saying the same thing for 50 years. The boomers were all supposed to be new left liberals. They got older and ended up being Reagan Democrats. People are always more liberal when they are young and more conservative as they get older, unless they are morons of which there will always be some.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The environment. Abortion. Voter suppression. Treatment of gays. Prayer in schools. The drug war. Contraception. Treatment of women. Creationism in science classrooms. Treatment of blacks. Immigration. The death penalty.

    American society has been shoving progress down conservative throats with respect to these and other issues -- sideways, usually -- throughout my lifetime.

    Does anyone genuinely believe conservative aspirations are going to be realized by dialing back the calendar to criminalize abortion, resume gay-bashing, revive in schools, rekindle the war on doobies, bring back '50s-era treatment of women, authorize old-school race-targeted voter suppression, or the like?

    I understand that the god-gays-guns approach and lather rubes and fuel mail-order contributions, but I find it hard to believe that anyone expects American society to vindicate right-wing preferences.

  • OMFG could you gasbag harder||

  • damikesc||

    ITT, Arthur decries that those dark-skinned folks dare to think differently than he.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    One of the most interesting things I have learned from right-wing legal blogs is that John Wayne was a God-hating, anti-American, commie gun grabber.

    (When he and an amiable sidekick collected the yahoos' guns at the saloon for safekeeping until those goobers were ready to leave town.)

    Poor old Duke.

    At least this part of his legacy got past the tyrants.

    The Duke's appearance is at 2:59 or so.

  • John||

    That would be interesting if anyone gave a shit. Sadly no one does. So it isn't.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The evidence controverts your assertion. Guns, abortion, gay-bashing, and general backwardness seem to be just about all you guys care about.

  • No really, no one cares||

  • John||

    Who is you guys? Try having conversations with the voices in your head in private. No one follows or cares what you are talking about.

  • damikesc||

    We don't care if you own guns, or if your mother wished you were aborted, or that you are gay, or that you're a backwards moron --- our insults of you aren't ACTUALLY bigotry.

    You just happen to be an asshole.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Snipes at my character mean relatively little when they are launched by disaffected, socially inept, stale-thinking right-wingers.

  • Libertymike||

    John Wayne sided with Jimmy Carter and against Ronnie Ray-gun on the Panama Canal.

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    "right-wingers"

    Nigga, WTF does that have to with THIS website?

    Why do we always get dumb motherfuckers like you who think that stupid shit?

  • Rev. Arthur L. KirkIand||

    blah blah I was never taught how to carry on a civil conversation, but I accuse other of being socially inept, blahblah

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Another mini-me!

    Another right-wing goober masquerading as a libertarian.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • LOL he clearly struck a nerve!||

    "Another right-wing"

    Herp derp I don't understand how libertarians work!

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|2.20.18 @ 9:16PM|#

    Another mini-me!

    Another right-wing goober masquerading as a libertarian.

    Carry on, clingers.

    And you call other people socially inept...

  • Tionico||

    What the Stupidpremes failed to consider.... what EVIDENCE now in existence clearly demonstrates that some signficant percentage of violent shooters actually obtained their weapons used criminally less than ten days prior to the crime committed with those same weapons.

    EVERY case I've studied has the violent felon in possession of his crime weapon long before that ten day period had begun. In other words, a survey of actual criinal sctions involving guns will prove that a vanishingly small percentage of those crimes may have been prevented by the ten day waiting period.

    A "common sense" law unsupported by any reality.

  • Lawn Darts||

    The idea of "common" sense relies on having a sense of something "in common" with other people. That is why this "common sense" nonsense is so annoying. Pro 2A people do not share a common sense of any problem with anti 2A people. They do not see any problem "in common". Therefore, cries for a "common" sense will continue to be stupid.

  • Rev. Arthur L. KirkIand||

    blah blah bloviate blah, nonsense nonsense, blah, I'm very insecure about myself so I insult people as a pathetic defense mechanism blah blah

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I guess if you have nothing to do with your time because socially inept, and your Asperger's enables you to focus myopically on technical issues, you can build a mini-me costume and prance around as someone you're not, much like the faux libertarians who flock to reason.com.

  • LOL he clearly struck a nerve!||

    "because socially inept, "

    He projects ungrammtically.

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    "much like the faux libertarians who flock to reason.com.

    You mean like you did from Volokh?

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    And why is it always "aspbergers" with you?

    What the fuck kind of gross bigot are you?

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    *asperger's

  • Mark22||

    blah blah bloviate blah, nonsense nonsense, blah, I'm very insecure about myself so I insult people as a pathetic defense mechanism blah blah

    You indeed do!

  • Hank Phillips||

    So at least one of the old men on La Suprema corte knows how to read the Constitution. It's a start...

  • buybuydandavis||

    Even when I disagree with Thomas, I read his opinion, and he's right. He's always right. He's not the only guy who knows how to read, he's just the only guy who is committed to following what is written.

    Would be interesting to hear the justification from Gorsuch, Alito. Kennedy, and Roberts for this travesty.

    I know the answer from the Lefties already: BFYTW

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Like I said, I suspect it was tactical on the part of several of them. Thomas doesn't do tactical.

  • Sugarsail||

    I don't think the 9th district judges and those unwilling to hear such cases appreciate that they are the only thing left that can enforce the 2nd Amendment before gun owners do it themselves and fascist gun grabbers are suddenly reminded why the 2A is there.

  • Mark22||

    But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed the District Court on appeal, upholding the regulation based on what it called the "common sense understanding" that

    Since the 9th Circuit is apparently staffed with idiots, they should stop relying on what they believe to be "common sense".

  • Rebel Scum||

    Tony|2.20.18 @ 1:35PM|#

    Guns don't affect me either (until I get caught in a shootout at a public place). I'm talking about good social policy, and if you have to hide behind the 2nd amendment without offering anything else of substance then you don't have a very strong argument.

    Ah, you see, there is your problem. The federal constitution is the law of the land. 2A is the law of the land. As long as it is the law of the land it is THE argument.

  • Kroneborge||

    Time to start impeaching judges

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Try your best. It is entertaining to watch disaffected, hapless, goobers on society's right-wing fringe try to accomplish something for once in their shambling, deplorable lives.

  • Charlie P||

    Where the hell was Gorsuch in all of this?

  • Jacky888||

    Download Root Genius app for android root with/without PC bestandroidtoroot

  • Jacky888||

    Free download Poweramp apk Pro apkandroidhub

  • Jacky888||

    root tecno f2 howtoandroitroot

  • Jacky888||

    firmware unic 46 gofirmware

  • Jacky888||

  • Jacky888||

    baudtec rn243r4 2t2r a6 firmware download baudtec firmware

  • Jacky888||

    root itel p51 bestandroidtoroot

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online