Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: 10th Circuit COA rules NO RIGHT TO CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPON (but does not rule on OC)

  1. #1
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196

    10th Circuit COA rules NO RIGHT TO CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPON (but does not rule on OC)

    Well the 7th ruled you do have the right, the 2nd and 10th ruled you don't. Could this pave the way for a SCOTUS case involving the right to CC?

    The court only ruled on the right to CC, and some believe that they may have hinted that if you challenged an OC ban it may bot be ruled the same way.

    Snip-

    On Friday, though, a spokesman for the Second Amendment Foundation, which filed a brief in support of Peterson, played down the significance of the ruling.
    "It's an interesting ruling," said Dave Workman of the foundation.
    "They don't really say it's unconstitutional to carry a gun, just that concealed carry is not protected. So I presume open carry is an option. It's a kind of a narrow case we'll just have to wait and see what happens."

    The 10th Circuit's ruling comes on the same day gun rights activists were celebrating a victory, as a federal appeals court in Chicago said it won't reconsider an earlier ruling that Illinois' concealed-carry ban is unconstitutional.
    Last edited by detroit_fan; 02-25-2013 at 04:56 PM.
    If guns cause crime, all mine are defective- Ted Nugent

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Just a quick look, will take a deeper look later, but these rulings do not seem to conflict.

    Where most people have difficulty is the fact that concealment and carry are two separable acts, only the latter of which is the right. As long as the law does not stop you from carry, it can stop you from concealing. Heck, it might even require concealment.

    The ruling in Illinois was that the law was so restrictive as to disallow carry outside the home. This ruling does not say that carry outside the home is not protected. It says concealed carry is not. As Mr. Workman points out, if OC is an option, then laws against concealed carry do not stop carry.

    I want to be able to exercise my right to carry without a permission slip. I couldn't give a rat's patootie about concealment. They can outlaw it, license it, require it; I don't care.

  3. #3
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Just a quick look, will take a deeper look later, but these rulings do not seem to conflict.

    Where most people have difficulty is the fact that concealment and carry are two separable acts, only the latter of which is the right. As long as the law does not stop you from carry, it can stop you from concealing. Heck, it might even require concealment.

    The ruling in Illinois was that the law was so restrictive as to disallow carry outside the home. This ruling does not say that carry outside the home is not protected. It says concealed carry is not. As Mr. Workman points out, if OC is an option, then laws against concealed carry do not stop carry.

    I want to be able to exercise my right to carry without a permission slip. I couldn't give a rat's patootie about concealment. They can outlaw it, license it, require it; I don't care.
    +1

    One has to keep in mind that Illinois does not allow any carry, even OC.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 02-25-2013 at 05:14 PM.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    I saw this yesterday and thought "oh look, it's what eye has been saying on here for ages." I haven't read it yet, but so long as some type of carry (either OC or CC) I can see how they could say that. Though to me I can see the other side saying that by telling someone how to carry that they are encroaching (infringing) upon their ability to carry similar bans on specific weapons. After all, what's the difference between banning certain guns (keep arms) and certain types of carry (bear arms)? And yes I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I would probably agree if they told you that you had to conceal. That would encumber the practice, making use of the arm more difficult. However, considering the history of concealment, that, at one point in history, the only people who concealed were those with evil intent, that concealment lends itself more to doing evil with the tool, regulating concealment seems reasonable. Even the Alabama Supreme Court, arriving at almost precisely my take on the subject, penned the words, "the evil practice of concealing."

    I didn't always have this take. A light bulb came on when I watched a reporter recording a story at an event I attended a few years back. She borrowed on of our firearms and affixed the holster to her beltline, taping her story while OCing. She pointed to the gun and told her audience that it was perfectly legal. Then she pointed out that the problem occurs "when you do this," and she covered up the gun!

    It hit me almost instantly. The act of carry and the act of concealment are two separate acts! Thinking of them that way facilitates clearer thinking on the subject of OC and CC.

  6. #6
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    I saw this yesterday and thought "oh look, it's what eye has been saying on here for ages." I haven't read it yet, but so long as some type of carry (either OC or CC) I can see how they could say that. Though to me I can see the other side saying that by telling someone how to carry that they are encroaching (infringing) upon their ability to carry similar bans on specific weapons. After all, what's the difference between banning certain guns (keep arms) and certain types of carry (bear arms)? And yes I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here.
    What is tricky here is if they wanted to argue CC they should have used the "right to privacy" argument. That personal security is nobodies business but the person bearing. IMO and apparently the 10th the right to bear arms means actually openly bearing those arms to those that would infringe on the constitution. Where privacy falls under other sections of the BOR.

    They should have argued that the 7th set precedent to bearing arms outside the home, AND that Roe V Wade set precedent for privacy argument in being in control and responsible for ones own safety by carrying concealed, not subject to public scrutiny.

    Me I could care less about public scrutiny.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  7. #7
    Regular Member Makarov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    226
    This argument goes back to the 1800s. It was the opinion of the court that a criminal conceals their weapon but a law abiding person open carries it. Thats why they are of the opinion that CC is not of the Second Amendment. I think they need to rethink this opinion.
    Last edited by Makarov; 02-26-2013 at 03:21 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member MyWifeSaidYes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Logan, OH
    Posts
    1,028
    This case was filed by an Open Carrier from Washington state.
    He visits Denver, CO often and there is a BAN on OC'ing in Denver.
    He has 2 CC licenses, but Colorado does not honor either.
    Colorado has no non-resident permit.

    He sued to get a CC license instead of suing to overturn the BAN on OC'ing.

    I'm paraphrasing here, but the court said, "Duh! Why didn't you sue for that?"

    We MIGHT have been open carring in Denver right now.

    Oh, well. Since the SAF was in support of the guy, hopefully this is just part of a larger plan.
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    What does a caring, sensitive person feel when they are forced to use a handgun to stop a threat?

    Recoil.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •