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
click here to read article
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."
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?
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?
divide and conquer.
keep serf in prison cells.
control internet prevent communication.
However, one COULD argue that it does NOT say those arms can/cannot be loaded.
Regarding the case in question, though, I think “shall not be infringed” is pretty clear.
Oh, I dunno, I 'spect it'll get saluted, but only with one finger.
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)
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.
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.
They picked that up in 1043, an unloaded firearm will be considered a deadly weapon.
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.
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.
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.
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!
would “bare” arms mean open carry? :)
I support your right to arm bears.
I wonder what part of “shall not be infringed” they didn’t understand?
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.
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
“infringed” is not in the newspeak dictionary.
There is no such right.
Makes one wonder how they feel about concealed opinions! Maybe we need colored stars to unconceal our religions, too.
OTOH, there IS a right to BEAR arms.
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.
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?"
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.
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?
“...freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendments 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.
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?
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.
The "court" can go to hell. Now enforce it.