Skip to comments.Court Rules There Is No Right To Carry A Concealed Weapon
Posted on 02/25/2013 6:19:50 AM PST by blam
Court Rules There Is No Right To Carry A Concealed Weapon
Larry Bodine, Lawyers.com
February 25, 2013, 6:42 AM
In a sweeping ruling, the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there is no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed firearm in public. The broad wording of the decision in Peterson v. Martinez creates a far-reaching national precedent against carrying a loaded handgun outside the home.
The case began on a narrow point a challenge by a Washington State man against Colorados law to issue CHL permits (Concealed Handgun License) only to state residents. But the final ruling held, In light of our nations extensive practice of restricting citizens freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendments protections.
The federal court also rejected arguments that Colorados CHL law infringed on the the Equal Protection Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
To bullet-proof the ruling against an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit recounted numerous court rulings and state laws dating back to 1813, and based its ruling on prior U.S. Supreme Court cases.
The View from the Ground
Colorado law allows people to have a firearm in their homes, places of business and cars. But to carry a concealed weapon in public, a state resident must apply to a local sheriff to get a permit. Peterson claimed that the law left him completely disarmed.
Sheriffs use locally-maintained databases to check for misdemeanor and municipal court convictions involving drugs, alcohol or violence that will disqualify a citizen. The local databases also include mental health contacts, 911 calls that do not result in an arrest, a history of aggressive driving, juvenile arrest records, plea agreements that result
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
It is only a “precedent” in that idiot circuit and surely it will be appealed, so it is not going to be standing.
“The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed”, says a lot. However, one COULD argue that it does NOT say those “arms” can/cannot be loaded. Hmmmmmmmmm?
Open Carry is fine, too.............
OTOH, they believe that faggot pederasts like Sandusky have an absolute right to be Boy Scout leaders, and sleep in pup tents with 13 year old boys.
This will not stand.
"Keep" is constitutional, but "bear" isn't?
judges continue their assault on the “little people”
I read the BI article first and my BP went up 10 points, then I read FR comments and I’m back to normal close anyway.
There is a right to bare arms. If there is not right to carry concealed, then there must be a right to carry openly.
The Tenth U.S. Circut Court of Appeals is obviously wrong. Sounds like they are confused as to why Lady Justice is blindfolded and it’s not so they can do whatever they want because she can’t see them.
I wouldn't have been surprised if the ruling came from Connecticut.
Time is drawing near. Lines are being drawn in the sand, my FRiends.
Oh, now I get it, that’s what it meant in the constitution “right to bear arms if the sheriff’s database says so”.
It is only a precedent in that idiot circuit and surely it will be appealed, so it is not going to be standing.
Wow. The 10th Circuit includes Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming. The places you’d think were least likely to grab peoples’ guns.
Considering the 7th Circuit just demanded that Illinois institute CCW because it is a constitutional right, I cannot see how this case does not hit the SCOTUS. There is a direct conflict between two circuits and that calls for SCOTUS to make a decision and set the precedent.
Better hope it happens before any of the conservatives leave the court.
This ruling, even though I disagree with it, only applies to CCW, not the general issue of carrying firearms outside the home. If a state forbids both open and concealed carry, then we have no 2A rights to bear arms.
yeah these people think “If I say it enough, may be they’ll believe it.” And “let’s run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes”
This “ruling” ain’t getting saluted.
The courts are rather hostile to the right to keep and bear arms. Scalia radically modified precedent when he issued the Heller ruling, and SCOTUS "allows" the Circuit Courts to issue anti-RKBA rulings. For example, the DC Circuit recently held that a ban on 10 round magazines is constitutional. The case was appealed to SCOTUS, SCOTUS declined to hear it. That case is referred to as "Heller II."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.