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 ...
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
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.
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 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.
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.
To bare arms is the opposite of concealing arms, no?
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.
Well, given the right's origin in knights and citizens mustered to defend the land there is no concealment therein.
“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?
“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.
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.”
From the linked article:
Back to the Supremes we go.
...and you can only practice your 1st Amendment rights INSIDE your home.(or designated ‘free speech’ zones.)
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.
