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 1-5051-100101-113 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 Progov
[ 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]

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]

To: Rappini
I read the BI article first and my BP went up 10 points...

LOL!
It is important to keep in mind that BI is the Democrat propaganda version of IBD, the Wall Street Journal, and Forbes. BI is not to be taken seriously or as anything other than a Democrat party tool.

FRegards,
LH

41 posted on 02/25/2013 8:35:28 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
judges continue their assault on the “little people”

who pay their salaries. Why should they not keep assaulting the little cowards, when it profits them so reliably and well? And if the little people love liberty, why do they support those who assault them?

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"

Apparently so.

42 posted on 02/25/2013 8:36:08 AM PST by HomeAtLast ( You're either with the Tea Party, or you're with the EBT Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: blam
“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.”

How does "extensive practice" have any bearing on constitutionality? Either the practices are constitutional or they're not. There was an extensive practice of racial segregation in schools when Brown v. Board of Education was decided -- its prevalence didn't somehow make it right.

43 posted on 02/25/2013 8:38:51 AM PST by Sloth (Rather than a lesser Evil, I voted for Goode.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flycatcher

Exactly. What the heck does bear mean? And what does infringe mean? If the state requires classes and applications to Keep and Bear, is that not infringement?


44 posted on 02/25/2013 8:44:32 AM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: blam

“...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.”

I have written several times that we need to spend more effort on determining the scope and meaning of the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, and that if we don’t it will be done for us.

Those against restrictive firearms laws write about “shall not be infringed” a lot, but if something is not within the scope of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, restricting that something is not an infringement.


45 posted on 02/25/2013 8:46:13 AM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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?

Isn't that where most people claim the uncrossable line is drawn? Isn't that the implicit setting whenever they crow, "molon labe?" Or is someone going out to meet the threat they say is inevitably coming to their homes?

IMO, 99 percent won't put up any effective resistance in their homes, if it comes to that. They could do it right now, in their homes, without firing a shot. Peacefully, legally, quit their jobs and their businesses and starve the beast. Instead, they continue to pay their taxes, as demanded, to the penny. Does that sound like people who will make a fuss when it comes to their door? While they're at work, I might add?

Historically, slave rebellions often resulted in dead rebels. Slaves today would just be out of funds for a while. But no. Massa lets you keep some of the fruit of your labor. And some of your guns, too! What's not to like?

46 posted on 02/25/2013 8:51:55 AM PST by HomeAtLast ( You're either with the Tea Party, or you're with the EBT Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

The incident you mentioned happened in Citrus County, Florida.

I don’t know what happened to the out-of-control cop, but if you go to the upper right hand corner of Free Republic’s home page and type Citrus County in the search box, the first two threads listed in the next window deal with recent discussions here on Free Republic about this incident.


47 posted on 02/25/2013 8:52:12 AM PST by july4thfreedomfoundation (November 6, 2012.....A day that will live in infamy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: blam
The wording of the 2nd Amendment is plain and impossible to misconstrue. Therefore, rulings like this one are deliberate attempts to undermine the amendment, and the Constitution as a whole, by those who fervently hate both. I hope and pray they will someday be tried for treason by a REAL court of PATRIOTS following the latter's victory in the imminent rebellion that is surely coming.
48 posted on 02/25/2013 8:52:53 AM PST by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Progov
I wonder what they have to say about open carry, hmmmmmm


49 posted on 02/25/2013 8:55:47 AM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (PRISON AT BENGHAZI?????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blam
Court Rules There Is No Right To Carry A Concealed Weapon

The "court" can go to hell. Now enforce it.

50 posted on 02/25/2013 9:00:22 AM PST by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-113 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