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?
Last edited by HandyHamlet; 02-26-2013 at 12:45 PM.
"Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
"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."
This only tangentially relates to WI. Should be in one of the general site-wide threads, since it applies broadly across the USA.
Unless he carries openly, which apparently Denver thinks it can prohibit.Originally Posted by Law abider
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.”Notice they only say concealed. So he should be able to OC, since that's the pure form of RKBA.we conclude that the carrying of concealed firearms is not protected by the Second Amendment or the Privileges and Immunities Clause
This annoyed me:
First, SCOTUS does not grant rights.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
Second, the first 10 Amendments became law at the same time.
Originally Posted by MLK, JrOriginally Posted by MSG LaigaieOriginally Posted by Proverbs 27:12Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
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.
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 04:05 PM.