This only tangentially relates to WI. Should be in one of the general site-wide threads, since it applies broadly across the USA.
Law abider said:
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.
