U.S. Circuit Court Of Appeals Rules: No Second Amendment Right To Carry Concealed Firearms

ProudProgressive 2013/02/26 12:41:09
There IS still some sanity left in this country! Believe it or not, there is at least one court that the National Rifle Association has not yet managed to buy. The good people of Colorado can sleep more securely tonight. But Wayne "Who Cares How Many Innocent Children Die As Long As I Can Keep Selling Guns" LaPierre must have had a rough night. He can't concealed carry in Colorado, so maybe he can try to conceal some of his psychotic encouragement of violence and death.

Article excerpt follows:

U.S. Circuit Court Of Appeals Rules: No Second Amendment Right To Carry Concealed Firearms
By Tiffany Willis

In a ruling that is going to shake up the worlds of gun lovers and the NRA, the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Second Amendment states no right to carry a concealed firearm in public. The broad wording of the ruling sets a far-reaching precedent against carrying a firearm outside the home.

Business Insider reports that in Peterson v. Martinez, a Washington State resident challenged Colorado's concealed carry law, which restricts Concealed Handgun Licenses (CHL) to residents of Colorado. The state's law allows people to have firearms in their homes, places of business, and vehicles, but to carry a concealed firearm in public places, residents of the state must apply with their local sheriff for a permit; the law allows "each sheriff to implement and administer." (Source)

Because of the law, Peterson, a non-resident, was denied a CHL and claims that he is left "completely disarmed." He took his case to court in an attempt to have the law overturned. (Source)

Sadly for Peterson, his plan backfired, and he had a little help from friends…and took them down with him.

The NRA filed a brief supporting Peterson. Their much-used strategy, that of eliminating gun-safety laws one at a time, fell flat because this particular case's narrow focus was on the issuance of permits for non-residents. What has resulted is that a precedent has now been set that will affect future federal court rulings and will have far-reaching ramifications. Peterson's little quest to carry a handgun "blew up into an expansive ruling limiting gun rights." (Source)


The court:

We first ask whether the Second Amendment provides the right to carry a concealed firearm. We conclude that it does not.

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. (Source)

The court continued by quoting the Supreme Court "like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." (Source)

(Yes! Thank you Justice Scalia. We knew this would help us at some point.)

The court rejected arguments that Colorado's concealed carry law infringes on the Equal Protection Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Furthermore, the court safeguarded the ruling against appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court by recounting other court rulings and state laws – some going back as far as 1813 - and based its ruling on prior U.S. Supreme Court cases.

With respect to Peterson's claims against the Denver sheriff, we conclude that the carrying of concealed firearms is not protected by the Second Amendment or the Privileges and Immunities Clause. In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), the Supreme Court stated in dicta that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons." Id. at 281-82. More recently, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court noted that "the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues," and explained that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions." Id. at 626. 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.

We reach the same conclusion with respect to Peterson's claim under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, U.S. Const. art IV, § 2, cl. 1, which is coterminous with his right to travel claim. As the Supreme Court explained in Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman, 487 U.S. 59 (1988), "it is only with respect to those ‘privileges' and ‘immunities' bearing on the vitality of the Nation as a single entity that a State must accord residents and nonresidents equal treatment." Id. at 64-65 (quotations and citations omitted). Because the concealed carrying of firearms has been prohibited for much of our history, we conclude that this activity fails the Friedman test. (Source)

The court filing then proceeded to hit Peterson (and our buddies at the NRA) with case after case that supported their ruling, and ended it with:

We conclude that carrying a concealed weapon is not a privilege or immunity protected under Article IV [of the constitution].

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. (Source)

To qualify for concealed carry licenses, Colorado residents are screened by their local sheriffs for misdemeanors and municipal court convictions via locally maintained databases that involve and include:

alcohol or violence that will disqualify a citizen
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
reports that a person is a danger to himself or others

This information isn't stored in national databases, of course, which is why non-residents can not get a concealed carry license – local law enforcement officials can't access records held by other states. And I doubt that will change, since "other states" and the organization that rules the right-wing – the NRA – will balk at that idea. And at any rate, far too many people who want guns would be disqualified from ownership – as they should be – based on that sweet little list that Colorado has.

The ruling concludes:

Colorado has shown that ensuring CHL holders are qualified is an important governmental objective [emphasis mine], and the residency requirement is substantially related to that objective. The two other courts that have considered right to travel challenges of CHL residency requirements have reached the same conclusion, on largely the same basis. (Source)

Now wouldn't it be nice if we all had our law enforcement officials (or SOMEONE) screening for all of that stuff? I'm going to pass Colorado the Texas "Don't Mess With…." slogan. Nicely done!

Read More: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/02/25/u-s-circui...

Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Daring Blasphemer BN-0 2013/02/26 12:54:54
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    You can carry concealed in AZ and you have no need of a permit.
    I lean toward liberty not authority. I agree with background checks and think weapons are currently too easily obtained and too easily put in the hands of the mentally ill, but there is no good reason why I can not carry and weapon in my car, in my house and on my person if I am not a criminal, am trained in weapon safety and am not mentally ill.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

  • Kronan_1 2013/02/27 17:59:29 (edited)
    "There IS still some sanity left in this country! The good people of Colorado can sleep more securely tonight." you said

    How much of a moron can you be? Do you realize that Colorado along with 44 other states are open carry? I carry mine in my pocket with the handle sticking out. So instead of concealed carry, where noone knows a firearm is around, we'll get holsters and carry them on our hips for all the world to see. That is legal. You can explain why to your children. The other option is concealed and you kid doesn't have to know different. This ruling is not sanity. It's stupid.
  • P. Sturm 2013/02/27 11:23:31
    P. Sturm
    Actually it can be appealed to the Supreme Court, on the grounds the ruling is flatly wrong.
  • olylift 2013/02/27 09:49:35
    I guess statistics mean nothing to you people. Very well. More Americans dead.

    Actual data
  • Studied 2013/02/27 01:49:59
    Interesting, they stuck down conceal carry, but made no mention of open carry.
  • Magus BN-0 2013/02/27 00:20:22
    Magus BN-0
    I would be very surprised if SCOTUS upholds this ruling. My guess is they'll rule that the full faith and credit clause requires Colorado to recognize other states' concealed carry licenses.
  • A Found... Magus BN-0 2013/02/27 08:45:53 (edited)
    A Founding Father
    Colorado has carry permit agreements with most states, about 37 as I recall. The issue here is that Colorado does not have an agreement with the State of Washington. Probably having to do with how permits are issued in Washigton, or some such squabble. So, Mr. Peterson was denied a right to carry in Colorado. Bid deal. He could just telephone if afraid to visit without his mental security blanket.
  • ed 2013/02/27 00:09:46
    That's why you have to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
  • Shane 2013/02/26 23:44:28
    Yes indeed. As Quinn's Law states, liberalism will always generate the opposite of the desired intent (paraphrased).

    Second Amendment is pretty clear, 'the Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'. Doesn't say much about concealed anything.

    Ergo, I guess that means that gun owners will just have to start Open Carrying their guns.

    So, the guy standing in line right behind you, who used to keep his gun tucked away, now will have to have it out in the open. Then the robber who will clearly be able to see a gun will make sure that the owner is shot first before he robs the store (because a criminal will not respect the law and Openly Carry his firearm). So what happens, the store gets robbed and a law-abiding gun owner is gunned down and violent criminals everywhere are empowered to break the law.

    And since everyone who used to keep their guns tucked away will now have them holstered in plain sight, all of you pansies who just cant get past the thought of even seeing a gun (because we all know that guns are what kill people and they're pure evil), will be crippled anytime you go anyplace that doesn't attract wackos like yourselves).

    Yup. Celebrate libs, another problem solved a by creating a bigger problem
  • Keeping It Real 2013/02/26 23:33:14
  • Rev. J. B. 2013/02/26 23:29:29
    Rev. J. B.
    The long term goal of libs in this country is to disarm the country. If they can't do it through outright disarmament they will do it by whittling away at the 2nd amendment until it is useless. What good is the right to bear arms if you can't carry them anywhere legally? What good is the right to bear arms if they make it so expensive to own a firearm that the average citizen can't afford to? Eventually restrictions will be so tight that it just won't be possible to legally own or bear firearms.
  • Wade Cole Rev. J. B. 2013/02/27 01:25:53
    Wade Cole
    I can understand having a few firearms tucked away for WTSHIF but what is with this obsession by Americans to carry them tucked in their belt under there shirt? The 2nd Amendment is not about guns it is about allowing Americans to take off their jackets and roll up their sleeves on a hot day to bare their arms.
  • Mark P. 2013/02/26 22:14:43
    Mark P.
    The US is the only country in history to have a revolution then produce a document that limited the the power of the government. Yet, progressives use whatever opportunity they can to grow power for the government and take away rights of the citizen.
  • Mr. Smith 2013/02/26 22:08:44
    Mr. Smith
    Liberal gun logic - castrating law abiding citizens in order to stop criminals from procreating!
  • CommieHunter - AFCL- PWCM 2013/02/26 22:00:03 (edited)
    CommieHunter - AFCL- PWCM
    The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler,

    Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)
    Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
    All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
    Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
    Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
    The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
    Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.

    Adolph Hitler

    We'll Use Children As Our Excuse For Gun Control
  • Texas Johnny 2013/02/26 21:02:23
    Texas Johnny
    The Federal court system has been wrong so many times in the past, why should this be any different. Remember Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson? A bunch of smart guys in black robes thought they had cornered the market on Constitutional issues only to show that they are for tyranny and not liberty. Liberals are never for true liberty as their monicker would imply. They are for the tyranny of government. Then lets all have open carry like some here have suggested. An Armed Society is a Polite Society.
  • BULLDOGBlacksmith 2013/02/26 20:35:33
    so they are saying we must open carry? SWEET!
  • Wade Cole BULLDOG... 2013/02/27 01:35:48 (edited)
    Wade Cole
    Wonder how far you will get into the bank to make a deposit with your 12 gauge slung over your shoulder before you are facing the SWAT team? I understand the logic but it ain't going to happen. Even in the old west the sheriff made you check your guns in before you went into town. At least that's what Wyatt Earp did in the movie Tombstone. LOL
    As my Avatar would say "Badges? I don't need no stink'in badges"
  • scurvison 2013/02/26 19:47:55
  • Alex Goldsmith 2013/02/26 19:42:19
    Alex Goldsmith
    WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU LIBS!? "right to bear arms" means that the citizens of the U.S. have the right to carry tools invented as weaponry and to carry with them such weaponry as necessary to defend themselves. if you don't like guns, don't buy one, but don't tell me that I have to use pepper spray or a toned-down taser or wait 20 minutes for cops to arrive
  • BULLDOG... Alex Go... 2013/02/26 20:37:03
    Well said, When seconds count the police are just minutes away
  • kiote1963 Alex Go... 2013/02/26 23:10:07
  • Wade Cole kiote1963 2013/02/27 01:45:03
    Wade Cole
    Ya, well the problem is the cops will always be there in time to arrest you for murder or attempted murder or discharging a firearm in city limits or assault with a weapon or intent to injure or carrying and you will go to jail and the perp will go to the hospital or the morg and you will go to prision. The law is not on your side. As for me... I keep my guns at home... at least there I can legally shoot someone.
  • kiote1963 Wade Cole 2013/02/27 03:51:04
    Well if it is a justified shooting "you were in fear for your life" you have nothing to worry about...and I can tell you this, if I pull my gun it's to defend myself, family or another person and it WILL be the morgue they take them to!
  • Jeremiah 2013/02/26 19:41:05
    This was a welcome ruling and the first glimmer of sanity in the gun issue for some time. Let us hope more courts can avoid the ideological histrionics that have become so much a part of the dialogue recently.

    Thanks for sharing this, PP.
  • iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~ 2013/02/26 19:29:54
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    For all the arguments "gun rights" advocates put forward, there has been an extended legal history of government limitation on citizens' ability to carry a concealed weapon.
  • Alex Go... iamthem... 2013/02/26 20:47:17
    Alex Goldsmith
    and plenty of legal history of governments going too far with limiting gun ownership
  • iamthem... Alex Go... 2013/02/26 21:18:41
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    Generally the limitations that you're talking about wouldn't stand up to Fourteenth Amendment scrutiny in the U.S.
  • Alex Go... iamthem... 2013/02/26 22:07:29
    Alex Goldsmith
    excuse me? what's this about the fourteenth amendment? I was talking about hitler, stalin, etc
  • iamthem... Alex Go... 2013/02/26 22:14:28
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    I know. And I'm saying that such history has little realistic application in the U.S. as the laws that were enacted under Hitler, Stalin, etc. wouldn't stand Constitutional scrutiny here.
  • Alex Go... iamthem... 2013/02/26 22:16:47
    Alex Goldsmith
    this thread is about concealed carry, how would that not stand as unconstitutional as stalin's implementations of gun laws would?
  • iamthem... Alex Go... 2013/02/27 00:10:14
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    (1) Hitler's gun control regime disarmed classes of citizens/people, which would be forbidden under the Constitution.

    (2) Stalin DISARMED the population. Claiming that gun control leads to disarmament is a fallacious slippery slope argument - and further, disarmament is clearly contrary to the Second Amendment.

    (3) BOTH regimes took control after imperialist governments during times of significant economic and military strife WITHOUT a history of democratic or Constitutional rule.

    For all these reasons, the comparison is weak...it's more of a fear argument than a reason one.
  • Alex Go... iamthem... 2013/02/27 22:13:16
    Alex Goldsmith
    disallowing concealed carry IS disarming the population
  • iamthem... Alex Go... 2013/02/27 22:29:56
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~

    You can still own and carry arms, no?
  • Alex Go... iamthem... 2013/02/27 22:31:55
    Alex Goldsmith
    own is not the same as carry, and ending concealed carry is ending the use of guns in self defense
  • iamthem... Alex Go... 2013/02/27 22:34:35
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    And concealed carry is different than carry.
  • Alex Go... iamthem... 2013/02/27 22:35:55
    Alex Goldsmith
    concealed carry is required in many places if one is to carry a gun
  • iamthem... Alex Go... 2013/03/01 23:43:30
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    But not places like your home, no?
  • Alex Go... iamthem... 2013/04/05 16:59:36
    Alex Goldsmith
    btw, upon reading this, we have been on the same general side and have simply argued specifics. disallowing people to carry weapons is wrong, concealed carry has its reasons, and to simply carry a gun unconcealed means that you would expect to need it.
  • ProudPr... Alex Go... 2013/04/05 17:02:13
    Without necessarily trying to start an argument, I am curious why concealed carry would be preferred in a given situation. It seems to me that the public would be a lot safer if we knew who was armed and who wasn't.
  • Alex Go... ProudPr... 2013/04/05 17:12:53
    Alex Goldsmith
    seems nice, but it's instinct to avoid the person openly carrying a weapon to ensure safety, so concealed carry helps to bring more guns to normal citizens to keep safe and avoid the appearance of a threat to the masses. If I had a gun in plain sight, some of my friends would be anxious about it and avoid me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2016/02/06 15:47:41

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals