Colorado - Concealed carry not a right.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingn...no-second-amendment-guarantee-concealed-carry

The 7th Circuit says yes, the 10th Circuit says no. I think Illinois should pass HB997 because it is the camel's nose under the tent in Chicago. However, I have repeatedly said that we in Illinois need the un-licensed right of open carry to insure the licensed privilege of concealed carry. This of course has fallen on deaf ears by those that are in charge of lobbying gun laws here.

Without open carry as a right, your concealed privilege is built on a foundation of sand, and can slip away at the whim of politics of the moment.

Colorado does have open carry as a right. ( Except in Denver and Aurora ). But it is there. The privilege of concealed carry can come and go.

There are only four states where concealed carry is a right. ( Actually 5 now because of the 7th Circuit's ruling ) There are 26 states where open carry is an un-licensed right, Eighteen more where open carry is a licensed privilege, and six including Illinois where it is prohibited.

I hope this court case is a wake up call for the NRA, the ISRA, and " the website that shall not be named " to fight for open carry in Illinois rather than against it. In the history of government, a minority asking for an unpopular privilege without the backing of an established right, just has never worked out well.

The 7th and 10th decisions are apples and oranges. Concealed carry prohibitions or restrictions are presumptively lawful if there is another means of carry. Denver appears to be violating this, but your sand analogy does apply to Denver and all license to carry (open & concealed) states such as TN, MN, UT and IN. But at least those other states don't have a Chicago or Cook County to constantly produce the liquefaction.

Minnesota has a Cook County.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

lockman said:

... license to carry (open & concealed) states such as TN, MN, UT and IN...

Click to expand...

No license is required to openly carry in UT. Or did I misunderstand what you were saying?

If unlicensed, you can't have a round in the chamber, so maybe "fully loaded" is what you consider "carrying." I'm just making sure.

kurt555gs said:

Colorado does have open carry as a right. ( Except in Denver and Aurora ). But it is there. The privilege of concealed carry can come and go.

Click to expand...

correction, only denver city and denver county prohibit open carry. aurora is open carry legal

JTHunter said:

Uhh - excuse me for asking a dumb question but shouldn't this be in the Colorado Forum and not the Illinois Forum?

Click to expand...

No. I was pointing out two different and opposing rulings by appellate courts.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

kurt555gs said:

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingn...no-second-amendment-guarantee-concealed-carry

Colorado does have open carry as a right. ( Except in Denver and Aurora ). But it is there. The privilege of concealed carry can come and go.

Click to expand...

Howdy Kurt!
I keep wondering where the notion that Aurora prohibits open carry comes from; because that is incorrect. Only Denver prohibits open carry. And that prohibition seldom keeps me from open carrying when stopping in Denver. But as a resident living in Aurora, I open carry every day, everywhere I go. That includes Denver, because the law is worded in such a way that a resident of another jurisdiction travelling through or into Denver territory can do as usual (open carry) regardless of the number of stops he makes in that jurisdiction. So, I might be pressing my luck, but I still OC there.

18-12-105.6. Limitation on local ordinances regarding firearms in private vehicles.

(2) (b) …no municipality, county, or city and county shall have the authority to enact or enforce any ordinance that would restrict a person's ability to travel with a weapon in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance while traveling into, through, or within, a municipal, county, or city and county jurisdiction, regardless of the number of times the person stops in a jurisdiction.

Aurora is subject to the fairly decent Colorado preemption law that overrides the ability of a specific jurisdiction to restrict firearms because it is a matter of statewide concern.

CRS 29-11.7-103. Regulation - type of firearm - prohibited.
A local government may not enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the sale, purchase, or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, or possess under state or federal law. Any such ordinance, regulation, or other law enacted by a local government prior to March 18, 2003, is void and unenforceable.

Denver is exempted from preemption because of a court decision owing to their prohibition being on the books before such law was created.

Now, the relevance for Illinois is this....
I hope you get some sort of carry in the Land of Lincoln so I can visit the old homestead. And when you do get something on the books, I hope it will recognize permits from other states, such as Colorado. Even better, perhaps adopt some of the excellent preemption standards we enjoy here. Maybe Chicago can do a Denver exemption, but the rest of Illinois ought not be punished through "guilt by asociation".

Meanwhile, I keep hearing that states attorneys in Illinois plan to ignore the federal court ruling.
Seems to me they're more interested in putting notches on their briefcase handles by prosecuting gun owners than honoring the law they are supposed to be upholding, which makes an intersting situation. Because if they refuse to heed the federal court ruling, they ought be removed from office.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin