Freepers, your Contributions make every difference!
Please keep ‘em coming! Thank you all very much!
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 ...
How the heck do you bullet-proof a precident? Either it’s a precident or it’s not...
Of course there will be exclusions as with Obamacare: union members, muslims, etc. /s
Whoever shows up at my house had better be very committed to his job....
Court rules wrong.
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.
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.
whoa..that’s different. thanks for setting me straight.
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.
and they now have a conflict with the 7th Circuit, so SCOTUS is going to have to pick one to decide.
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?
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.
lol
“... 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!
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.
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.
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.
Yippee!
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.
In some states, that's EXACTLY what it means! It's against the law to have it revealed in any way!
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.