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.
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.
"Keep" is constitutional, but "bear" isn't?
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”.
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.
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.
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?
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!
Makes one wonder how they feel about concealed opinions! Maybe we need colored stars to unconceal our religions, too.
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.
“...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.