Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Federal Court Declares: Concealed Carry Not Protected By The Second Amendment

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213

    Federal Court Declares: Concealed Carry Not Protected By The Second Amendment

    I thought this was a good read. I get the logic behind this decision. It will be interesting to see if there are any challenges to it. They conclude that it is a privileged. I get that. The problem is that the person filing the suit can't carry in Colorado so his right to keep and bear arms according to the US constitution is being denied. Other than moving to the state, what else can Peterson do? Appeal to SCOTUS?

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...-the-decision/

  2. #2
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    ...what else can Peterson do? Appeal to SCOTUS?
    Since you refuse to post a fair use quote? Who knows or cares?

    Quote Originally Posted by NoTolerance View Post
    The "fair use quote" means it's polite and customary to include a quote (or summary) of some of the more relevant parts of the article you're linking to so those reading your post can get an idea at a glance of what you're talking about or referring to. It also helps people to decide if the link is something they might want to click on for more information or if they get the gist of it from your fair use quote (FUQ).
    Looks like it might be time to break out the old "Ignore" list again.
    Last edited by HandyHamlet; 02-26-2013 at 01:45 PM.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by HandyHamlet View Post
    Since you refuse to post a fair use quote? Who knows or cares?



    Looks like it might be time to break out the old "Ignore" list again.
    I have used the FUQ as outlined by NOTOLERANCE. It is in the title. The title declares what the article is all about. The article is on a lawsuit brought by Mr Peterson who cannot OC/CC in Denver CO bec he lives in FL because the city of Denver won't allow OC. These federal decisions in other states can effect us here in WI. Why don't you write the FUQ for this post then to your satisfaction.

  4. #4
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    This only tangentially relates to WI. Should be in one of the general site-wide threads, since it applies broadly across the USA.

    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider
    The problem is that the person filing the suit can't carry in Colorado so his right to keep and bear arms according to the US Constitution is being denied.
    Unless he carries openly, which apparently Denver thinks it can prohibit.
    Colorado only honors licenses from residents of the issuing state.
    There are the next legal challenges.

    an appeal will almost certainly come out of the case, given that it directly contradicts another decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals...
    the court in this case did not rule that bans on open carry are constitutional (and, in fact, noted with some bewilderment that Peterson had not challenged the open carry statute in the decision)
    Last Friday, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down its decision in the case of Peterson v. Martinez, a case involving the question of whether a state has an obligation to provide a concealed carry license to anyone who has been granted such a license in another state. Their answer was, to put it mildly, “no.”
    we conclude that the carrying of concealed firearms is not protected by the Second Amendment or the Privileges and Immunities Clause
    Notice they only say concealed. So he should be able to OC, since that's the pure form of RKBA.

    This annoyed me:
    the Supreme Court’s decision to grant the right to keep and bear arms the same legal status as more longstanding rights like the right to free speech has been exceedingly recent
    First, SCOTUS does not grant rights.
    Second, the first 10 Amendments became law at the same time.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Federal Court Declares: Concealed Carry Not Protected By The Second Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    I have used the FUQ as outlined by NOTOLERANCE. It is in the title. The title declares what the article is all about. The article is on a lawsuit brought by Mr Peterson who cannot OC/CC in Denver CO bec he lives in FL because the city of Denver won't allow OC. These federal decisions in other states can effect us here in WI. Why don't you write the FUQ for this post then to your satisfaction.
    I am usually the first to demand a FUQ (Hell, I coined the acronym!) or a summary. IMO, you provided ample summary to assure me that the link would be of interest and not dangerous. I read the article almost as soon as you posted the link and can assure folks that it is informative on the ruling. It will help you create perspective on what the ruling really says, how they arrived at it, and what it means to you.

    Thank you for the post and for the summary. As far as I am concerned, you done real good.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  6. #6
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    The 2nd Amendment does not address the issue of "concealed arms" since the focus of that provision is the function of the " militia " - NOT civil intercourse in the public square.

    The drafters of the Colorado Constitution - for better or worse - chose to exclude the casual practice of carrying concealed weapons in the civil arena from the reserved right of every person to bear arms in defense of their home, person, property , or the state.

    The SCOTUS in Heller/McDonald deferred to the prerogatives of the several states to deal with the issue of concealed carry - and Colorado having already done so in 1876 only "permits" concealed carry. Washington State's "BAD" for not recognizing Colorado's CHP.

    Denver's open carry ban is the issue - not entirely a settled issue.
    Last edited by rushcreek2; 02-26-2013 at 05:05 PM.

Posting Permissions

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