Despite High Court’s Decision To Not Hear Peruta, Justice Thomas Says 2A Protects Carry

posted on June 30, 2017

Even though the U.S. Supreme Court recently chose to not hear the important Peruta v. California case, Judge Clarence Thomas’s written dissent to the decision showed his support for carrying firearms outside the home for self-defense.

In the Peruta decisions, the 9th Circuit Court ruled that “the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.” Thomas obviously disagrees.

“[SCOTUS] has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion,” Thomas wrote in dissent of the decision to not hear the case. “As we explained in Heller, to ‘bear arms’ means to ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’  …The most natural reading of this definition encompasses public carry.”

Thomas added: “I find it extremely improbable that the framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.”

Latest

Frank Miniter
Frank Miniter

From the Editor: Maybe They Just Don't Understand

Hollywood does, in fact, have some social responsibility, but getting there just takes more thought than some of them can manage.

Did Biden Really Expand Background Checks?

Here's what President Biden's recent executive order actually does.

Standing Guard | Biden’s State Of The Union Spin

President Biden has a long, well-documented history of lies suited to his political agenda.

President’s Column | Don’t Let Complacency Overturn The Bruen Decision

Bruen was a battle—a major battle, to be sure, but the war is not over. The victory we achieved in Bruen has enraged the enemies of the Second Amendment, so we must stay vigilant.

Why We’re Challenging ATF’s Rule On Stabilizing Braces

The ATF previously recognized that stabilizing braces serve a legitimate function and did not automatically subject a firearm to NFA provisions. Now they've finalized a new rule reversing their stance.

The Armed Citizen® March 17, 2023

True stories of the right to keep and bear arms.

Interests



Get the best of America's 1st Freedom delivered to your inbox.