• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Federal court says concealed gun permits not protected by 2nd Amendment

Coyote_VS_ACME

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
37
Location
Bummertown
The ruling is fair IMHO, even as a WA resident now.

Bear with me here, but in the end the overall tone is good for us in a way because the court does see some variance of a states rule or law that does not violate the Constitution as valid.

In other words, if my state decided that any federal law that violated my rights - and were talking about the 2A that is a right, not a privlidge like a Drivers license - is deemed wrong, then on the state level, I have some backing.
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
It's quite true, it doesn't. Providing of course that you can open carry a gun without needing a concealed weapons license.

If you need a license to carry open or otherwise, then denying the license is a violation of the right to keep and bear arms.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
It does infringe.

The courts can't be trusted.

I believe Denver does not allow OC without a Concealed Permit, so how are you going to keep and bear arms? How will you travel in a car in that state?

Now if he had Open Carried and had pushed that issue maybe the courts would have ruled differently. But that would mean a possible arrest and a night in the pokey.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
It does infringe.

The courts can't be trusted.

I believe Denver does not allow OC without a Concealed Permit, so how are you going to keep and bear arms? How will you travel in a car in that state?

Now if he had Open Carried and had pushed that issue maybe the courts would have ruled differently. But that would mean a possible arrest and a night in the pokey.

You are correct. Denver (which is both a City and County) requires a permit to carry concealed OR open. I lived near there for 10 years. Denver thinks that THEY run the State.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
All this does is to affirm what we already know, there is a difference in Constitutional Carry versus Licensed To Carry by the State.

Another example of how one approaches the courts can often do determine the out come, if this suit was about Constitutional Carry (possession) instead of mode of carry (open or concealed), would it have had a better chance to come out in favor of Peterson?
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
It does infringe.

The courts can't be trusted.

I believe Denver does not allow OC without a Concealed Permit, so how are you going to keep and bear arms? How will you travel in a car in that state?

Now if he had Open Carried and had pushed that issue maybe the courts would have ruled differently. But that would mean a possible arrest and a night in the pokey.

You are correct about Denver, Like Philly...only place in the state with no carry without a license.

I would like to see these arguments go to "any carry" without a license, rather than pushing the right to conceal. Personally, my idea is there sould be some form of unlicensed carry...If that is only open carry, that is ok, because you can carry.

Unfortunately, Peterson is a CC advocate. I do not think he sees the advantage of the "any unlicensed" argument.

If Kachalski gets cert, this may take care of the problem anyway. If Madigan (IL Moore V Madigan) asks for cert, she will most likely get it. Exactly what that would do I am not sure...but Moore V Madigan is a definate "any Carry" argument.
 

tannerwaterbury

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
269
Location
Kelso, Washington, USA
Will Gray take this to the SCOTUS then? I don't quite understand why he needed to file a lawsuit in the first place... it sounds like Colorado only wants its citizens and not out of state visitors to have Concealed Permits. I dunno... it sounds like the gun control nuts are celebrating over this. Was this a defeat? It sounds like no one is THAT upset.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
<snip>
Unfortunately, Peterson is a CC advocate. I do not think he sees the advantage of the "any unlicensed" argument.

If Kachalski gets cert, this may take care of the problem anyway. If Madigan (IL Moore V Madigan) asks for cert, she will most likely get it. Exactly what that would do I am not sure...but Moore V Madigan is a definate "any Carry" argument.

No Gray is not a CC advocate, he worked very hard in this state to get all of the OC training bulletins.

Will Gray take this to the SCOTUS then? I don't quite understand why he needed to file a lawsuit in the first place... it sounds like Colorado only wants its citizens and not out of state visitors to have Concealed Permits. I dunno... it sounds like the gun control nuts are celebrating over this. Was this a defeat? It sounds like no one is THAT upset.

As of now he is considering the options. Something like this 2 weeks to consider an em banc panel of the 10th circuit or 90 days for SCOTUS review. If you read the decision the 10th used a lot of legal gymnastics to get to this decision and ignored some very pertinent facts.

Gray can not carry in CO, where he visits frequently, because Denver only alows licensed carry (OC or CC), thus is 2nd A right is denied.
 

LarryM

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
76
Location
Spokane, WA
And let's not forget that one must possess a license issued by the same state a school zone is in in order to legally carry a loaded firearm within 1000' of a school.

And this is another ******** law in which the constitutionality needs to be scrutinized and action taken to repeal in its entirety....
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
No Gray is not a CC advocate, he worked very hard in this state to get all of the OC training bulletins.



As of now he is considering the options. Something like this 2 weeks to consider an em banc panel of the 10th circuit or 90 days for SCOTUS review. If you read the decision the 10th used a lot of legal gymnastics to get to this decision and ignored some very pertinent facts.

Gray can not carry in CO, where he visits frequently, because Denver only alows licensed carry (OC or CC), thus is 2nd A right is denied.

All while not Open Carrying...and then in those same districts the cops harassed many of those who OC'd. Action speaks louder than words.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
And let's not forget that one must possess a license issued by the same state a school zone is in in order to legally carry a loaded firearm within 1000' of a school.

Even though that seems to be a reasonable interpretation--and the most prevalent one--it isn't exactly what the law says. I don't want to be the test case, but "is licensed," as a verb, can be interpreted to mean "has a physical license" OR "is allowed."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
Even though that seems to be a reasonable interpretation--and the most prevalent one--it isn't exactly what the law says. I don't want to be the test case, but "is licensed," as a verb, can be interpreted to mean "has a physical license" OR "is allowed."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

The problem with CO (Denver) and PA (Philly) is the state allows for unlicensed OC..Problem solved. A secondary problem with CO is they do not issue or recognize Non-resident permits, and they do not recognize all state's permits.

So, a WA CPL is not recognized by CO. You cannot obtain a Non-resident CO permit because, first they do not exist, or you are not military stationed in CO which they consider as a special class of "resident" for permit purposes. While CO allows unlicensed Open Carry, Denver does not. That is what this suit is about.
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
CC in CO

It would have been a helluva lot cheaper to just get an AZ or UT CC permit. You can get both as a non-resident of the state, and they both have reciprocity with CO.
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
Sometimes one sues to tackle a bigger or different issue. In this case that is what Gray has done if I remember correctly.

I agree, he was. I wasn't contending that getting an AZ or UT CC permit was the approach he should have taken. I was merely observing that it would have been a helluva lot cheaper. Personally, I admire Gray and the activism he exercises.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
If concealed carry is not 2A then the door is open for mandating open carry in all 50 states. Before CC was a 2A option recognized by the courts, it no longer is, they must allow open carry.

All laws now tying open carry to a privilege cards are NOW unconstitutional. Including our own in NC for restaurant carry. This ruling may be the best thing that could have happened to open carry.
 
Last edited:
Top