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 next last
To: Jim Noble

To bare arms is the opposite of concealing arms, no?


51 posted on 02/25/2013 9:03:04 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
He apparently believes a CC permit means you are REQUIRED to keep it hidden.

In some states it DOES. In those places you can be in big trouble if someone catches a glimpse. Florida use to be that way but they recently amended the law.
52 posted on 02/25/2013 9:04:10 AM PST by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: blam
From the article:

The ruling is yet another setback for the NRA, which filed a brief supporting Peterson. The NRA has pursued a strategy of using litigation to eliminate gun-safety laws one at a time, which increases the sales and profits of the arms industry that funds the NRA... “The NRA is basically helping to make sure the gun industry can increase sales,” Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat and longtime gun control advocate, told The Huffington Post.

Nope, no bias from Laywers.com here.

53 posted on 02/25/2013 9:06:57 AM PST by Old Sarge (We are officially over the precipice, we just havent struck the ground yet...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
To bare bear arms is the opposite of concealing arms, no?

Well, given the right's origin in knights and citizens mustered to defend the land there is no concealment therein.

54 posted on 02/25/2013 9:10:27 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard

“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.”

The 10th Circuit and 7th Circuit seem to be diametrically opposed as indicated by their opinions.

The Supreme Court often waits until there are conflicting rulings at the appellate level before taking up a case. That time will be soon.

Frankly, I’m worried as to how this could end, even with the Court’s current makeup. Of course, we can count on Alito, Thomas and Scalia. We _probably_ can count on Anthony Kennedy.

The problem that I see is Justice Roberts. Obama and his Chicagoland thugs know that Roberts can be rolled. It was their bullying and [what I believe to be covert] threats against him that caused him to literally reverse his vote in that case.

Obama “has the goods” on Mr. Roberts.
The question is, will they consider putting the boot on him again, for an issue as important to them as is gun control?


55 posted on 02/25/2013 9:22:06 AM PST by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

“judges continue their assault on the “little people””

That is exactly what the push to disarm us by the urban elites like Feinstein that own the Democrats is all about. They want to keep their thumb on and control the little people.

An armed society by definition creates a politically strong and egalitarian society. A disarmed society essentially creates a peon underclass, where the political elite and their cronies have absolute and undo power. It isn’t about anarchy. It is about the masses having inferred power that prevents the loss of democracy.


56 posted on 02/25/2013 9:25:32 AM PST by apoliticalone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: blam

this is a great example of why naive acceptance of *any* gov’t violation of the constitution will be turned around and used against us to further limit the right.

this is how the living and breathing constitution is implemented by the leftists. no compromise is ever acceptable. inform your “betters.”


57 posted on 02/25/2013 9:40:14 AM PST by dadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
We now have two completely contrary appellate rulings: 7TH CIRCUIT LETS POSNER RULING STAND; HUGE WIN FOR CCW, SAYS SAF

From the linked article:

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today won a significant victory for concealed carry when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals let stand a December ruling by a three-judge panel of the court that forces Illinois to adopt a concealed carry law, thus affirming that the right to bear arms exists outside the home.

Back to the Supremes we go.

58 posted on 02/25/2013 9:40:31 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be "protected" by government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio

...and you can only practice your 1st Amendment rights INSIDE your home.(or designated ‘free speech’ zones.)


59 posted on 02/25/2013 9:42:37 AM PST by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition




ALL OF YOU!



60 posted on 02/25/2013 9:45:19 AM PST by Lady Jag (If you can't make them see the light, let them feel the heat. - Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

If the gunowner took a safety course he would have been instructed to put both hands on his steering wheel in plain sight of the officer and then inform the cop he was carrying.


61 posted on 02/25/2013 9:49:56 AM PST by Lady Jag (If you can't make them see the light, let them feel the heat. - Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: umgud
If a state forbids both open and concealed carry, then we have no 2A rights to bear arms...

The 2A right is merely a contractual obligation between government and people. What it's based on still stands and will always stand: The inalienable God-given right to life, leading to the right to defend that life, even when, or as, that paper contract gets ripped into shreds.

62 posted on 02/25/2013 9:50:37 AM PST by C210N (When people fear government there is tyranny; when government fears people there is liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Progov
Doesn't matter either way. There was no power given to the government to make such a finding. Especially for a Federal Circuit court.

Carrying concealed is a method of BEARING armaments. As such, it is protected. No matter how many black robed perverts claim otherwise.

63 posted on 02/25/2013 9:53:38 AM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blam
To bullet-proof the ruling against an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit

This probably will go to SCOTUS as the 10th and the 7th are in conflict.
64 posted on 02/25/2013 10:04:17 AM PST by stylin19a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
There is a right to bare arms

T shirts for all!

65 posted on 02/25/2013 11:03:02 AM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: blam

Conflicts with a 7th Circuit opinion, so the Supreme Court will likely decide.


66 posted on 02/25/2013 11:20:56 AM PST by Texas Federalist (DeMint 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Conflicts with a 7th Circuit opinion, so the Supreme Court will likely decide.


67 posted on 02/25/2013 11:21:14 AM PST by Texas Federalist (DeMint 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Conflicts with a 7th Circuit opinion, so the Supreme Court will likely decide.


68 posted on 02/25/2013 11:21:35 AM PST by Texas Federalist (DeMint 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Composition of the Tenth Circus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Tenth_Circuit#Current_composition_of_the_court


69 posted on 02/25/2013 11:22:56 AM PST by ZULU (See: http://gatesofvienna.net/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
This will not stand.

Depends on how many briefcases of cash it would take for Roberts to sway his final judgement.

70 posted on 02/25/2013 11:45:10 AM PST by COBOL2Java (Fighting Obama without Boehner & McConnell is like going deer hunting without your accordion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

My prediction is it will go to the Supremes...you know how that worked with Obozocare.....
It begins, folks.....


71 posted on 02/25/2013 11:54:06 AM PST by matginzac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard

If the Supreme Court gets further stuffed by ( )o( )bama, the final outcome will be along the lines of Hillary’s “What difference does it make?”, 2nd Amendment is gone.
(”What difference does it make?” = “Who gives a f**k” (Navy)).


72 posted on 02/25/2013 12:10:31 PM PST by Huskerfan44 (Huskerfan44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: blam

Does this mean I have to wear it out in the open?


73 posted on 02/25/2013 12:10:41 PM PST by popdonnelly (The right to self-defense is older than the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Every concealed carry permit (including those issued by shall issue or no permit required states) should be recognized as legal in EVERY STATE.

If we have to recognize their faggot weddings per the 14th ammendment then they need to recognize our right to carry.


74 posted on 02/25/2013 12:11:57 PM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Every concealed carry permit (including those issued by shall issue or no permit required states) should be recognized as legal in EVERY STATE.

If we have to recognize their faggot weddings per the 14th ammendment then they need to recognize our right to carry.


75 posted on 02/25/2013 12:11:57 PM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unixfox

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


Aye. Black-robed tyrants take note: We will NOT comply!

76 posted on 02/25/2013 12:12:45 PM PST by EdReform (Oath Keepers - Guardians of the Republic - Honor your oath - Join us: www.oathkeepers.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: blam

Two more states that I will never set my foot in. I guess I will continue to live out my days here in the deep south.


77 posted on 02/25/2013 12:14:05 PM PST by RetiredArmy (1 Cor 15: 50-54 & 1 Thess 4: 13-17. That about covers it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

Washington State is a “shall issue” state for CCW. Not sure what prevents them from issuing it other than a felony conviction - but there may be other reasons.

Open carry is allowed if you can legally own a gun.

However - there are plenty of Liberals on the west side of the state so there are other reasons not to visit! (East of the Cascades is very conservative though).


78 posted on 02/25/2013 12:28:25 PM PST by 21twelve ("We've got the guns, and we got the numbers" adapted and revised from Jim M.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: blam
"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.”

Ah, question, how does someone get his firearm from A to B? Beaming?

79 posted on 02/25/2013 12:46:13 PM PST by Jabba the Nutt (.Are they stupid, malicious or evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: apoliticalone

the left is pushing for serfs to live in cities which their lord over. Population control is too hard for the ruling class when there is an active diligent MSM and a populace to withdraw consent of being ruled.


80 posted on 02/25/2013 12:50:49 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: blam

How the heck do you bullet-proof a precident? Either it’s a precident or it’s not...


81 posted on 02/25/2013 12:54:31 PM PST by Ladysmith (Every time another lib loses its job, an angel gets its wings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Does that mean if CCW is banned, then open-carry will be okay since we have the right to bear arms?

Of course there will be exclusions as with Obamacare: union members, muslims, etc. /s

82 posted on 02/25/2013 12:54:32 PM PST by QT3.14 ( USA: Likely only country in world history to adopt policies and laws that ensure self-destruction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unixfox

Whoever shows up at my house had better be very committed to his job....


83 posted on 02/25/2013 1:15:27 PM PST by clintonh8r (Happy to be represented by Lt. Col. Allen West)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: blam

Court rules wrong.


84 posted on 02/25/2013 1:45:02 PM PST by Old Yeller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
This probably will go to SCOTUS as the 10th and the 7th are in conflict.

I don't think so. In the Illinois case the were dealing with concealed carry permits for state residents. In the 10th Circuit case, Colorado issues permits for residents but refused to issue a permit for a non-resident.

85 posted on 02/25/2013 1:56:44 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
There is a right to bare arms.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the correct word is bear. However, if the libtards get what they want, then the correct word would become BARE, as in, We the People would have bare arms and not be able to defend ourselves.

86 posted on 02/25/2013 2:39:02 PM PST by SoldierDad (Proud dad of an Army Soldier who has survived 24 months of Combat deployment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

whoa..that’s different. thanks for setting me straight.


87 posted on 02/25/2013 4:06:03 PM PST by stylin19a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: blam

Various wordings of the Second Amendment were tried during its development. The end result *purposefully* leaves out any enumeration of reasons why an individual has the right to keep and bear Arms. Any reason *why* an individual may or may not keep and bear Arms, was left to the states and the people thereof, to settle among themselves.

The only enumeration in the Second Amendment focuses on what to do about a group of men under Arms - what is to happen when individuals who bear military grade Arms are in a group, and they *are* capable of exercising martial power. What *then,* was to become of that power?

The answer was, that both the states and the federal government would rely upon *the group* being formally mustered, well-regulated, well trained to Arms, well discplined, and answerable to civilian authority.

Both the states and the federal government sought unity of function and preparedness of the militia of each state. The state militiae should be “well trained to Arms” and be capable of, and mindful of, lawfully exercising martial power and respecting lawful civilian authority.

All the uses of weapons, firearm or not, for non-military purposes, were left to be decided by the states and their people.

Again, there would be no condition within the Second Amendment, by which you do, or do not, have the right to keep and bear Arms; because, the Founding Fathers correctly anticipated that any such enumerated condition might be used as grounds for an individual to either be forced to bear Arms or be stripped of their Arms.

There is a natural right to keep and bear Arms, and the Second Amendment affirms that right.

*Use* of Arms, military, is left to the states and the people of their respective states, to regulate.

*Use* of Arms, civil - for personal defense and hunting - were left to the common law of each state.

We equally, as individuals do have a natural right to keep and bear Arms, for military purposes and for civil purposes.

Yet, the *use* of such Arms, was left to be determined by the states and the respective people of each of such states.


88 posted on 02/25/2013 4:10:35 PM PST by First_Salute (May God save our democratic-republican government, from a government by judiciary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

and they now have a conflict with the 7th Circuit, so SCOTUS is going to have to pick one to decide.


89 posted on 02/25/2013 4:19:12 PM PST by ClayinVA ("Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blam

I am very interested in the Constitutional issue of no permits for non-residents. I am personally seriously impacted by this policy of the State of New York, since I am responsible for an elderly relative and property there.

The states of New Jersey and Maryland, although they have a law ALLOWING non-resident issue in practice never do so, and as a frequent NH-NOVA traveler these policies adversely affect me as well.

Worst of all is the DC non-issue policy for non-residents, since this policy is directly under the control of Congress which can “legislate...in all cases whatsoever” for this District.

I would think that the full faith and credit clause would operate here (unless Congress has passed rules ALLOWING States to disregard other States’ CCW, I don’t believe this is true), but the inability to exercise a fundamental right on the public highway or while traveling does seem to implicate liberties other than RKBA.

Has this specific (non-resident non-issue) matter ever been presented to the Court?


90 posted on 02/25/2013 4:19:12 PM PST by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan; Progov
Our Constitutionally-protected right is to "bear" arms.

The Constitution says nothing about exposing our upper extremities.

Perhaps "bare" looks cute or humorous to you -- but to most folks it just looks ignorant -- and reflects badly on the rest of us who are fighting for our right to "bear" arms -- which is the specific Constitutional point this da*ned activist court just assaulted.

91 posted on 02/25/2013 5:19:54 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias... "Barack": Allah's current ally...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: aragorn

lol


92 posted on 02/25/2013 5:22:29 PM PST by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: blam

“... Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there is no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed firearm in public.”

WTF! The Constitution guarantees individual rights; it doesn’t grant them or deny them! The second amendment embodies specific unalienable individual rights as well as any of the other 1st 10 amendments called the Bill of Rights. These several unalienable rights are absolute but are only a few of the numerous and undefined rights we hold naturally that the General Government can’t infringe upon or take away by any positive law or act of Congress, courts or the President. The only purpose of the Constitution is to authorize a General Government having limited and defined power! Specific rights embodied within the Constitution are there to emphasize... HANDS OFF YOU MORONS! And the 9th and 10th amendments then go on to remind the general government...

9th “...The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th “... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

These idiots on the court are clueless and should be IMPEACHED!

Congress or the courts can’t restrict or put any conditions on any constitutionally protected right... PERIOD! An enumerated protected right within the Constitution is not positive law, it is natural law which is beyond the meddling by Congress or the courts! It is up to each State and its peoples what practical limitations would/could be imposed on those rights that would not violate the free exercise of those rights!

Does the Constitution grant or restrict the right specifically to whether the weapon can be loaded, and its color only pink, purple or blue? Of course not!

The ruling by the court most definitely RESTRICTS or INFRINGES on free exercise of our right to keep and bear arms in the way or manner best suited for our own personal or defensive needs! And Congress also cant define what those needs are!


93 posted on 02/25/2013 5:31:27 PM PST by Bellagio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
Interesting. I've deeply considered your comment and have almost no interest in it whatsoever.

Bear is to carry, bare is to make visible.

The deeper point you missed, was that if you are bearing a weapon, but cannot conceal it, you must be able to then bare it. A serious and humorous point.

Churchill, John Adams, and many others were able to find levity, while simultaneously fighting for their existence. I won't be lectured about my ability to do so.

94 posted on 02/25/2013 5:54:48 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
Interesting. I've deeply considered your comment and have almost no interest in it whatsoever.

Bear is to carry, bare is to make visible.

The deeper point you missed, was that if you are bearing a weapon, but cannot conceal it, you must be able to then bare it. A serious and humorous point.

Churchill, John Adams, and many others were able to find levity, while simultaneously fighting for their existence. I won't be lectured about my ability to do so.

95 posted on 02/25/2013 5:56:29 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

I am very familiar with WA state. I lived in Bremerton for 15 years. My wife is from Seattle. We left there in 2006 and came back to my home in Alabama. Here we shall stay and there we will never go back even to visit.


96 posted on 02/25/2013 6:05:17 PM PST by RetiredArmy (1 Cor 15: 50-54 & 1 Thess 4: 13-17. That about covers it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Freepers, your Contributions make every difference!
Please keep ‘em coming! Thank you all very much!

97 posted on 02/25/2013 6:24:05 PM PST by RedMDer (Support Free Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

Yippee!


98 posted on 02/25/2013 9:15:24 PM PST by no-to-illegals (Oh, What's the Point)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

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

In some states it DOES. In those places you can be in big trouble if someone catches a glimpse. Florida use to be that way but they recently amended the law.

I'm not an expert on this, and I will defer to your apparent knowledge on the intricacies of the law, but quite honestly both the first & second statement make no sense at all. I wonder if this is NOT a correct interpretation of CCW.

Otherwise CCW is really nothing more than thinly disguised gun control law against carrying any concealed handgun. 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". 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.

I am not an expert on the intricacies, but to me this interpretation of CCW would be very hard to enforce or uphold even by liberal courts.

99 posted on 02/25/2013 10:18:46 PM PST by rcrngroup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
He apparently believes a CC permit means you are REQUIRED to keep it hidden.

In some states, that's EXACTLY what it means! It's against the law to have it revealed in any way!

100 posted on 02/26/2013 4:53:37 AM PST by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org | Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


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