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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 next last
To: blam
Did anyone here see that dumbass cop who pulled over a driver, and asked for his license, and when the guy turned around he saw his CC weapon and told him to put his hands up or he would “shoot him in the back”

Then the dumbass cop ARRESTED HIM for ‘exposing his weapon’

He apparently believes a CC permit means you are REQUIRED to keep it hidden.

I wonder what the resolution was- I hope that stupid cop is fired and the state SUED for hiring cops that stupid.

Does anyone know?

21 posted on 02/25/2013 6:55:35 AM PST by Mr. K (There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and democrat talking points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Is this a narrowly worded opinion against only concealed carry as a states issue but opens the door to fully open carry as the federal purview?


22 posted on 02/25/2013 6:58:34 AM PST by nevergore ("It could be that the purpose of my life is simply to serve as a warning to others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio

divide and conquer.

keep serf in prison cells.

prevent assembly.

control internet prevent communication.


23 posted on 02/25/2013 6:59:12 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Progov

However, one COULD argue that it does NOT say those “arms” can/cannot be loaded.


If they are not loaded, they are not really arms.

Regarding the case in question, though, I think “shall not be infringed” is pretty clear.


24 posted on 02/25/2013 6:59:50 AM PST by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
This “ruling” ain’t getting saluted.

Oh, I dunno, I 'spect it'll get saluted, but only with one finger.

25 posted on 02/25/2013 7:09:20 AM PST by aragorn (We do indeed live in interesting times. FUBO.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

so we need national recognition of all ccw permits ala DL licenses.

simple mandate that any CCW permit UNIFORMLY means carry, open carry, carry knives longer than 3.5 inches, tasers.

This way a person can travel from state to state and the effete elites will just have to get over themselves.

(bloomberg will just have to live with high BP)


26 posted on 02/25/2013 7:09:51 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

The kings torys of 1770 have been replaced by the beltway and black robe torys of 2013.

without aristocrats and gentlemen officers in charge the rabble will run amuck.


27 posted on 02/25/2013 7:14:25 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I wonder what the outcome would have been if plaintiff had not conceded his lack of issue with the Denver ordinance. It ends up being the combination of Denver forbidding ANY carry, unless the person is a CCW holder, and CO refusing to grant CCW to non-residents that creates the issue. The plaintiff gave the court the way out, saying he didn't have an issue with the Denver ordinance. So, the court, not looking at purely the right to carry concealed, has many precedents to draw from.

If plaintiff had argued that the combination creates the problem, and that he objects to Denver's ordinance, then the Court would have had a different issue to argue.

I don't think he would have won, either way. The courts are hostile to the RKBA, to the point of obvious corruption of law.

28 posted on 02/25/2013 7:20:38 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Progov
“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?

They picked that up in 1043, an unloaded firearm will be considered a deadly weapon.

HB13-1043
Modify Definition Of Deadly Weapon

Under current law, for the purposes of criminal law, a deadly weapon is defined as a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; a knife; a bludgeon; or any other weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, whether animate or inanimate, that in the manner it is used or intended to be used is capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.The bill modifies this definition so that a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, qualifies as a deadly weapon regardless of the manner in which it is used or intended to be used.

29 posted on 02/25/2013 7:23:14 AM PST by JMJJR ( Newspeak is the official language of Oceania)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I guess another way to say what your remark [CCW reciprocity] triggered, is that the law should recognize the right to carry, without any requirement to obtain a permit. The precedents say open carry is a privilege of being the citizen of any state.

Not that it will recognize that privilege and right, just that it should. When it doesn't, it is acting outside of the constitution, and outside of historical precedents.

30 posted on 02/25/2013 7:24:29 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Alabama Open Carry

Current Alabama Law Prohibits Open Carry In These Locations:

1. At a public Demonstration see Section 13A-11-59

2. In a vehicle. Upon entering a vehicle you must have a concealed carry permit.

3. Where it is posted that firearms are not allowed. Even if the sign is unlawfull, they have the right to ask you to leave thier property. If you refuse you could be charged with tresspassing.

31 posted on 02/25/2013 7:25:57 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: blam

In this point, they are exactly correct. IMHO.

The only thing they failed to note, is that the Right can only be encumbered against the Rights of another law-abiding Citizen - not a criminal. However, using data gathered from non-judicial sources with no adjudication allows for too much variation across different venues, and should be stricken for that.

Also, that means that no Weapon of any type can be carried "concealed", knives, batons, tazers, self-defense sprays, etc. Law-abiding Citizens have no fear that any of them will be used against them, including concealed guns. Criminals should at all times they violate another Citizen's Rights!

32 posted on 02/25/2013 7:33:47 AM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Progov

would “bare” arms mean open carry? :)

I support your right to arm bears.


33 posted on 02/25/2013 7:36:23 AM PST by NonValueAdded (If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, you've likely misread the situation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

I wonder what part of “shall not be infringed” they didn’t understand?


34 posted on 02/25/2013 7:49:00 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

I have a CC permit in Colorado. It is a violation to allow the weapon to be seen unless you are in the act of using it. There are also restrictions on what constitutes proper use.


35 posted on 02/25/2013 8:17:19 AM PST by SaxxonWoods (....Let It Burn....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio
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?

That's right! That way they can surround your home with "swat" teams and heavily armored vehicles and wait for you to run out of ammo, or Waco Style, burn you out! Get it? /s

36 posted on 02/25/2013 8:23:35 AM PST by mc5cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

“infringed” is not in the newspeak dictionary.


37 posted on 02/25/2013 8:25:24 AM PST by mc5cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Progov
The right to...bare arms

There is no such right.


38 posted on 02/25/2013 8:28:20 AM PST by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blam

Makes one wonder how they feel about concealed opinions! Maybe we need colored stars to unconceal our religions, too.


39 posted on 02/25/2013 8:30:11 AM PST by HomeAtLast ( You're either with the Tea Party, or you're with the EBT Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
There is a right to bare arms

Wrong.

OTOH, there IS a right to BEAR arms.


40 posted on 02/25/2013 8:31:29 AM PST by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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