In his dissenting opinion over the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear a case involving the Second Amendment, Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas penned a few words of wisdom.

“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.

Justice Thomas was referring to a case called Peruta v. California, which questioned whether or not an individual had the right to carry a handgun, open or concealed, outside of their personal residence for self defense purposes.

The issue began when San Diego County started to require interested residents to document and provide evidence of “good cause” in wanting to obtain a conceal carry permit.

The county was not accepting self-defense or personal protection as a reasoning, and determined that the average citizen could not “distinguish [themselves] from the mainstream.”

What this did was made it virtually impossible for Californians, except under specific circumstances, to carry concealed firearms in public, whether the weapon was loaded or not.

The panel at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case, and determined that San Diego County’s almost complete ban on public conceal carry was a direct infringement of the Second Amendment.

The case was reheard en banc, meaning the full 9th Circuit Court heard the case rather than a panel of just a few selected judges, and the panel’s ruling was reversed.

Justice Thomas, in his dissent, pointed out that the en banc ruling actually ruled on an issue that was not brought before the court.

“The court thus declined to ‘answer the question of whether or to what degree the Second Amendment might or might not protect a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms openly in public.’

Peruta v. County of San Diego, 824 F. 3d 919, 942 (2016). It instead held only that ‘the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.’”

If you are unfamiliar with the 9th Circuit, it is one of the courts that ruled against Donald Trump’s executive order travel bans to countries with known terrorist hot-beds, or as the Main Stream Media reported “Muslim-majority countries,” not based on the words or policies contained within the executive orders, but instead on a campaign statement that Donald Trump made as a candidate for president.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has been often criticized for seemingly being less interested in ruling based on the laws, and instead on making rulings to advance the Liberal Agenda.

Justice Thomas commented that if the en banc court had answered the question that was brought before them, they would have probably ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

When the plaintiffs sought relief by going to the Supreme Court of the United States, they found that the court would not hear their case, thus affirming the 9th Circuit Court’s decision. Thomas wrote:

“The Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right.”

Thomas commented that the Supreme Court’s recent history of refusing to hear 2nd Amendment cases is completely at odds with the rate at which it hears cases dealing with other constitutional rights.

For example, in the last seven years, the Supreme Court has heard roughly 35 cases that were dealing with 1st Amendment rights and another 25 that were involving the meaning of the 4th Amendment.

The last time the highest court in the land ruled on a 2nd Amendment issue, according to Thomas’ dissent, was back in 2010.

“For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice:

They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it. I respectfully dissent.”

Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch joined Justice Clarence Thomas on this dissent.