Federal Court Rules 2nd Amendment does not protect carry:
A federal appeals court has ruled that permits allowing people to carry concealed weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment….A federal judge in 2011 tossed out Peterson’s lawsuit filed against Denver and the state’s Department of Public Safety. Peterson claims that being denied a concealed weapons permit because he was not a Colorado resident violated his Second Amendment rights to bear firearms.
According to gun rights groups, Colorado is one of about two dozen states that do not honor concealed weapons permits from Washington state.
Colorado recognizes weapons permits issued by other states, but only for states that recognize Colorado permits. Washington state does not recognize Colorado permits….In its ruling, the three-judge panel cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.”
“In light of our nation’s extensive practice of restricting citizen’s 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 judges ruled.
So what does that “And Bear Arms” part mean, exactly? Further I must point out in places like Colorado that has four distinct seasons, carry method should not be limited. Its rather difficult to carry many common defensive arms in a concealed fashion in 100 degree heat, as it is also very difficult to carry a gun openly (and in a safe manner) in the middle of a snow storm.
I’m not a lawyer, but this seems like a very bad ruling.
The ruling isn’t great, but it’s not a big loss either. The case deals with non-resident permits, and is basically saying that some regulations on carrying firearms are OK. Future decisions regarding carry by individuals within their home state can easily distinguish themselves from this ruling.
A future supreme court ruling on carry laws is likely to leave a lot of details up to the states. Looking at the decision in Illinois, we are likely to get a requirement that SOME process be in place. We may even be lucky enough to get shall-issue rules, and mandatory reciprocity (under the full faith and credit clause).
Pushing for recognition of non-resident permits is not the best line of attack. Better to get your carry permit from your home state, and have it honored in the other 49.
That said – the language of the ruling is pretty bad.
Overall I agree with your statements from an instrumentalist point. The best political solution for carry is national reciprocity.
Still, given what the 2nd Amendment says, it SHOULD simply state that unless you have surrendered your rights, you should be able to buy own and carry any damn arm (from a switch blade to an M4) you want in whatever method you want.
Granted that’s more than a little optimistic, as we’re about 100 years away from the time when a lawful citizen would drop a revolver in his pocket with as little concern as putting on his socks.
It’s almost a good ruling, or at least a correct one.
Under just the second amendment Washington and Colorado can have disparate laws concerning carry.
BUT.
The courts routinely ignore article IV of the main body and thanks to the 14th amendment the second amendment is applied down to the state level instead of just being a prohibition on the federal congress.
So, what part of “shall not be infringed” didn’t you understand, again?
Actually, this is a Good Situation for the RKBA. Since the 10th Circuit conveniently forgot that 49 States have some sort of Concealed Carry Laws, and about 3-5% of the Eligible Population have their CHPs, the part about “…In light of our nation’s extensive practice of RESTRICTING CITIZEN’S FREEDOMS…” is Great Ammo for an Appeal. Combine this with the 11th. Circuit’s Illinois Ruling (which has a Ticking Clock where the Judge gets to write the Law if they don’t hurry up and ALLOW CHPs), I can see Concealed Carry hitting SCOTUS in the next Term.
Where Alan Gura will clean the Anti-Gunners Clock!
And…. a case can be made…if concealed carry is illegal for him… but the right to bear is upheld as McDonald seems to state..then universal open carry?
Frankly, I think Peterson screwed up in his challenge… He specifically refused to challenge the fact that Denver also bans open carry and thus a non-resident has no carry options in Denver.
To me, the ruling is correct, a state may regulate how someone can carry… But SOME form of carry must be allowed in every jurisdiction and that is not what was challenged in this case.
I would disagree with that. Again January in Aspen it is damn near impossible to open carry without special garments, and I’d be concerned about the ejection port of a pistol, or cylinder of a revolver freezing up when exposed to the elements in hard winter conditions. And again, Texas’ requirement to conceal the firearm in August really puts a burden on the person packing. Also as easy as it is to accidentally expose a larger handgun in a concealed state, its just as easy to accidentally conceal a small handgun openly carried.
Frankly I see things as either you can carry a gun or you can’t….and frankly if you own a gun legally, why would there be restrictions on carrying it around?
It is also an opportunity to force recognition of other state’s CCWs at the federal level.
This same crap with driver’s licenses was sorted out in just this fashion, with fights on the full faith clause going all the way to the SCOTUS.
Interesting considering this recent ruling regarding Illinois out of the 7th circuit.
Not to mention there’s another issue since CO will not recognize non-resident permits. They recognize AZ, but only for AZ residents so they ignore my AZ permit even though I also pack my own WA state (resident) permit.