10 circuit Court Rules There Is No Right To Carry A Concealed Weapon

[Malsua 1,422]

Ugh. Since the circuits are divided on this(the 7th comes to mind in Illinois), this will clearly end up at the Supreme court.

 

 

 

------------------------

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 in deferred sentences, restraining orders in civil cases, and reports that a person is a danger to himself or others.

 

None of this local information is stored in national databases. Non-residents cannot get a concealed-carry permit, because local sheriffs cannot get access to this kind of information held by other states, according to the court.

 

Gray Peterson was rejected for a concealed handgun license because he had no residence in Colorado. His lawsuit to overturn that state handgun law was thrown out and affirmed by the 10^th Circuit which said, “We first ask whether the Second Amendment provides the right to carry a concealed firearm. We conclude that it does not.”

 

Quoting the U.S. Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit added, “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

The Big Picture

 

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 strategy backfired because the lawsuit focused on the narrow issue of permits for non-residents, and blew up into an expansive ruling limiting gun rights. The ruling is a precedent in all federal courts.

 

The heavily-funded NRA has filed many cases against small municipalities and local sheriffs nationwide, trying to pick off safety laws individually. That strategy failed when it sued to allow gun sales to minors, to overturn a limit allowing one gun purchase per month and to overturn a law allowing doctors to discuss the dangers of gun ownership with patients. Courts in each of these cases ruled against the gun lobby.

“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.

Another Argument Shot Down

 

In the Colorado case, Peterson also argued that his right to travel was infringed by the ban on concealed carry permits for non-residents. He cited a case where residents in New York paid a lesser toll to cross a bridge than other drivers, claiming it restricted the right to free movement.

 

The 10^th Circuit shot down the argument, saying that the right to travel was economic in nature. “The concealed carrying of a firearm does not impact his ability to pursue common calling or other employment,” the court said, adding that it didn’t limit his joining the National Guard or the military either.

 

“We conclude that carrying a concealed weapon is not a privilege or immunity protected under Article IV [of the constitution],” the court ruled. “Given that the concealed carrying of firearms has not been recognized as a right … we cannot declare this activity sufficiently basic to the livelihood of the Nation"

[Qel Hoth 33]

It's highly doubtful that we ate going to see a court rule that ccw is a right. However, it is very possible that a court will rule there is a right to carry and the states ate free to permit either ccw or OC.

[Soju 153]

Based on USSC and other court rulings, is it illegal for homeless to own firearms?

[Handyman 5,682]

Based on USSC and other court rulings, is it illegal for homeless to own firearms?

 

That might make for an interesting argument. Everybody advocates for homeless to have a right to vote - they have no right to self-defense?

[raz-0 1,259]

That might make for an interesting argument. Everybody advocates for homeless to have a right to vote - they have no right to self-defense?

 

Well in NJ, lacking a castle, they have nothing but an obligation to retreat. Lacking a fixed address, who would they go to for a firearms permit? So regardless of the state constitution, the bill of rights, and SCOTUS, I would argue that effectively they do not have the right to self-defense under most circumstances, nor the right to keep and bear arms. At least in a practical sense.

[Arizona 0]

Interesting, need to get a homeless person to apply for a NJFID and if denied file suit. What if a gun owner becomes homeless, does he need to give up his weapons? In NJ I would say yes. His NJFID would also be invalid.

 

[PeteF 1,044]

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.”

 

What kind of a moron makes this statement. Its been going on a long time so its legal. I guess there are still slaves in the US by this same logic.

[Soju 153]

What kind of a moron makes this statement. Its been going on a long time so its legal. I guess there are still slaves in the US by this same logic.

 

Essentially the same thing was said by the USSC in either Heller or McDonald. I forget which one.

 

But yes. If they do something long enough, then it becomes legal by routine. Which is why government officials break the law so much...

[springfieldxds 0]

For one thing the 7th circuit never explicitly said that concealed carry is protected just that carrying in general is, scotus has already ruled that conceal carry isn't protected under the second amendment and even reference this in their recent decisions, history also shows that conceal carry can be highly regulated, one thing that is protected though is open carry which wasn't highly regulated throughout history

[raz-0 1,259]

For one thing the 7th circuit never explicitly said that concealed carry is protected just that carrying in general is, scotus has already ruled that conceal carry isn't protected under the second amendment and even reference this in their recent decisions, history also shows that conceal carry can be highly regulated, one thing that is protected though is open carry which wasn't highly regulated throughout history

 

 

What part of scotus decisions do you think states there is no right to concealed carry. Best I can recall is that they said their decision does not extend to that because that was not the case in front of them.

[mipafox 438]

What part of scotus decisions do you think states there is no right to concealed carry. Best I can recall is that they said their decision does not extend to that because that was not the case in front of them.

 

Here you go:

 

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

 

Part of that big "win."  And if that's not good enough, the hits just keep coming.

 

Now, that may not be a part of the official ruling of the case at hand, but that instructs the lower courts, and the legislature, that this is the way they should expect it to be ruled if it ever came to them, and they should act accordingly.

 

The federal government had two takeaways from Heller:

 

1. We can't ban 100% of all guns unless we really really want to.

 

2. We can regulate them any damn way we want, including banning them.

 

Like it or not, that is the way they look at it.  Legislature hasn't cared about Constitutionality for a long time.  To quote that which Pelosi, "I don't care if it's Constitutional or not, that's the job of the courts."

 

Well, this crap simply emboldened them.