Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court Rules There Is No Right To Carry A Concealed Weapon
TBI ^ | 2-25-2013 | Larry Bodine

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 Colorado’s law to issue CHL permits (“Concealed Handgun License”) only to state residents. But the final ruling held, “In light of our nation’s 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 Amendment’s protections.”

The federal court also rejected arguments that Colorado’s 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

(snip)

(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2a; 2ndamendment; 2ndammendment; banglist; ccw; concealcarry; concealedcarry; govtabuse; guncontrol; guns; judicialtyranny; lawsuit; ruling; secondamendment; shallnotbeinfringed; tyranny; wewillnotcomply; youwillnotdisarmus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 next last

1 posted on 02/25/2013 6:20:01 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: blam

It is only a “precedent” in that idiot circuit and surely it will be appealed, so it is not going to be standing.


2 posted on 02/25/2013 6:23:50 AM PST by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

“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?


3 posted on 02/25/2013 6:25:28 AM PST by DaveA37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Open Carry is fine, too.............


4 posted on 02/25/2013 6:25:33 AM PST by Red Badger (Lincoln freed the slaves. Obama just got them ALL back......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

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.


5 posted on 02/25/2013 6:26:08 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

This will not stand.


6 posted on 02/25/2013 6:26:08 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (NRA Life Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blam
What are they implying?

"Keep" is constitutional, but "bear" isn't?

7 posted on 02/25/2013 6:29:28 AM PST by Flycatcher (God speaks to us, through the supernal lightness of birds, in a special type of poetry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

judges continue their assault on the “little people”


8 posted on 02/25/2013 6:29:50 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: blam

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.


9 posted on 02/25/2013 6:34:41 AM PST by Rappini (Veritas vos Liberabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
creates a far-reaching national precedent against carrying a loaded handgun outside the home

So let's see if I am reading this correctly - the founders put the second amendment into our Constitution for the purpose of "We the People" being able to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government takeover, but only inside out homes?
10 posted on 02/25/2013 6:35:37 AM PST by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

There is a right to bare arms. If there is not right to carry concealed, then there must be a right to carry openly.


11 posted on 02/25/2013 6:35:58 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

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.


12 posted on 02/25/2013 6:40:44 AM PST by C.O. Correspondence (Most bad government has grown out of too much government. . Tommy J)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Reading this makes my head @sspode!

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.


13 posted on 02/25/2013 6:44:24 AM PST by Daffynition (The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. — D.H.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Oh, now I get it, that’s what it meant in the constitution “right to bear arms if the sheriff’s database says so”.


14 posted on 02/25/2013 6:44:36 AM PST by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

It is only a “precedent” in that idiot circuit and surely it will be appealed, so it is not going to be standing.


This article was written by an advocate, presumably a non-lawyer. The suggestion that a ruling citing precedent is “bulletproofed” against a SCOTUS review is absurd, as ever appeals could ruling does this.


15 posted on 02/25/2013 6:45:46 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Universal Background Check -> Registration -> Confiscation -> Oppression -> Extermination)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blam

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.


16 posted on 02/25/2013 6:46:28 AM PST by pabianice (washington, dc ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C.O. Correspondence

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.


17 posted on 02/25/2013 6:47:31 AM PST by drbuzzard (All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: blam

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.


18 posted on 02/25/2013 6:50:32 AM PST by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

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.


19 posted on 02/25/2013 6:51:20 AM PST by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: umgud
Denver forbids open carry unless the person has a CO-issued permit to carry concealed. Plaintiff said he was not challenging Denver's law, only that CO would not issue a CCW permit to a non-resident.

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."

20 posted on 02/25/2013 6:55:35 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson