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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-113 last
To: rcrngroup
I am not a lawyer but I have had an bunch of concealed carry classes and held permits from three different states. So I have looked into this stuff.Otherwise CCW is really nothing more than thinly disguised gun control law against carrying any concealed handgun.

Prior to CCW laws most states had laws expressly prohibiting concealed carry of fire arms and many had laws against openly carrying them. When the added the CCW laws they allowed concealed carry but some states forgot to lighten the penalty for being spotted openly carrying. The law does not recognize the transition. If your gun is showing then you are open carrying at that moment.

Because the moment you would pull out your concealed handgun, even at a gun range, you would be guilty of breaking the "concealed aspect of the law".


Once you draw your legal footing changes. Now at the gun range that is different. Most of those are private property and they specifically allow the handling and use of firearms. How you got the firearm to the range is not their problem or their business.

And woe be onto the poor sucker who ever drew his concealed weapon in public to defend himself. You're guilty the moment you pulled out your handgun, especially if the perpetrators broke & ran away. Now you're left holding a handgun that 1 or more bystanders have seen.


This is indeed where it gets tricking. A very GOOD CCW class will talk a lot about it. A bad class just wastes their time debating caliber or some some trivia. SO the issue is that the law recognizes specific uses of a gun. You just drew, you have it out. What are you doing? Are you defending yourself? Ok, you have to legally prove that. Is the situation over? Then you had better put it away unless you are ready to prove in court that you still felt threatened. There are basically (as far as I know) three things you could be doing the law recognizes, your either 'brandishing' which is waving it around and that is bad, legally. Or you might be threatening someone, also bad. Or you are doing 'self defense' which is probably ok. Basically you have to be ready and willing to defend your actions in court EVERY time you draw a gun in public. Concealed carry is a responsibility that is not to be taken lightly.
101 posted on 02/26/2013 6:32:09 AM PST by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

+1


102 posted on 02/26/2013 6:32:35 AM PST by stevie_d_64 (It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mc5cents; All

Depends upon their definition of “Tyrannical” “is”...

Putting an honest question to a tyrannical entity, compelling them to define themselves for our own edification is futile...

It’s a pipe dream...

The most we can hope for is to remove them with the means we have at hand...When we lose that ability to effect change at the polls, then it may be time to clear leather and go to work...Until then, they will be as tyrranical as we allow them to be...

Just food for thought...


103 posted on 02/26/2013 6:41:56 AM PST by stevie_d_64 (It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: blam
"keep and bear arms"
104 posted on 02/26/2013 6:50:38 AM PST by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 .....The fairest Deduction to be reduced is the Standard Deduction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

And why pray tell should anyone listen to the court? Our Government has violated the Constitution and the law. They are not being held accountable. Why shouldn’t American Citizens do the same?

This is what dual standards lead to. You asked for it, you got it. No respect for authority. I carry a gun, I couldn’t care less who says I can’t. I’m going to carry to protect myself and my family. Have a problem with that? Get over it.


105 posted on 02/26/2013 7:41:32 AM PST by BCR #226 (02/07 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

That was here in Florida, Citrus county, and the man had any charges dismissed. The cop was “reprimanded.”

Florida State Supreme Court stated several years ago that incidental exposure of a concealed weapon is NOT considered brandishing. That included printing.


106 posted on 02/26/2013 11:21:23 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

great news!! I still hope he sues them


107 posted on 02/26/2013 6:29:02 PM PST by Mr. K (There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and democrat talking points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: blam

“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. “

I’m not impressed. Eaarlier Court decisions - state and federal - have been found to be in conflict with the Constitution by later courts.
Also, an anti-gun court can pick and choose decisions with which it agrees and disregard those with which it does not.

The Second Amendment clearly gives citizens the the right to “keep” arms - meaing posses and ALSO clearly states “and bear” meaning to CARRY arms.

If the Tenth Circuit is implying that CONCEALED weapons can be banned - it MUST, then recognize the right to carry UNCONCEALED Weapons must be offered as an alternative to the citizenry.

As Mark Levin has often stated, the Federal Courts are GREAT at basing bad decisions on questionable earlier decisions and so on backwards, deviating from the original intent of the Constitution which each generation of re-interpretation.


108 posted on 02/27/2013 8:43:25 AM PST by ZULU (See: http://gatesofvienna.net/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

I believe most judges have to go potty like any other person, even a child. From this status I have to weigh all the other fact of life.


109 posted on 02/27/2013 8:54:04 AM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: blam

So long as the right to bear arms (carry) is unrestricted, I see no constitutional problem with a requirement that arms be borne openly (even to the point of forbidding concealed carry).

I didn’t read too deeply, but there’s a problem with this only if open carry is not permitted in the locality. If it isn’t this needs to be overturned on appeal (and given Heller as precedent most likely will be.)


110 posted on 02/28/2013 7:27:45 AM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aragorn

LOL.... Exactly!


111 posted on 02/28/2013 12:22:04 PM PST by XenaLee (The only good commie is a dead commie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: blam
there is no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed firearm in public. ... But to carry a concealed weapon in public, a state resident must apply to a local sheriff to get a permit.

The title leads me to believe that no one can legally carry a concealed firearm but at the end, it clearly states that you can if you have a permit.

That's pretty consistent with almost all the states.......

112 posted on 03/01/2013 4:24:22 AM PST by Hot Tabasco (God bless you Tommy and thank you for your service: http://swiftboats.org/tribute/tribute.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

- Between CJ Roberts, SCOTUS, and assorted courts editing and/or rewriting laws

- The citizens have lost faith and no longer respect or will obey the proclamations and decisions of the Judiciary

Everyone will “fly under the radar” when Skeeter and SCOTUS violate the US Constitution......


113 posted on 03/04/2013 1:21:59 PM PST by devolve ( ------------ ---It is not where Obama was born that is the problem - it is where he*s living now -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


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