• 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

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
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.

Well... the ruling applies only to districts in the 10th Circuit, comprising:
District of Colorado
District of Kansas
District of New Mexico
Eastern District of Oklahoma
Northern District of Oklahoma
Western District of Oklahoma
District of Utah
District of Wyoming
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Well... the ruling applies only to districts in the 10th Circuit, comprising:
District of Colorado
District of Kansas
District of New Mexico
Eastern District of Oklahoma
Northern District of Oklahoma
Western District of Oklahoma
District of Utah
District of Wyoming

How many of those have open carry tied to CC laws? And it is a point of argument to be brought up outside the 10th circuit.
 

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,308
Location
Montana
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.
Agree.

Lots of eyes will be on this.

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.

Unless your in MT :)
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I believe the SCOTUS will rule in between. That a individual does have a right to bear arms outside the home, but that concealed carry is not what is meant by the second amendment. I believe the right to openly bear arms will be the result, which I must admit will thrill me if this is the outcome. Once this happens the disdain will come off open carry and the push from the NRA, GRNC, and others will have to shift to the right to OC, where it belongs.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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.

This does not have to be a license to conceal carry, just a "license to do so", which in NC it is not. Unless the laws have changed since last session the restrictions to OC clearly point to federal restrictions also. Sooner or later this will end up in SCOTUS again, the sooner the better, the law is unconstitutional. And probably why there has not been widespread usage of the law. If the court shifts in the least little bit, the law will be enforced vigorously.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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.

I'm not seeing that here... http://www.usacarry.com/colorado_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

Requirements:
1. Colorado resident
2. Age 21 or older
3. Not precluded by state or federal law from owning or possessing a firearm (e.g. felony conviction, mentally incompetent)
4. Does not chronically or habitually abuse alcohol
5. Is not an unlawful user of or addicted to controlled substances
6. Is not the subject of a civil or criminal restraining order
7. Complete background check, including fingerprint verification by FBI/CBI
8. Demonstrates competence with a handgun by one of the following means:
a. evidence of experience with a firearm through participation in organized shooting competitions or current military service
b. certified firearms instructor
c. honorable discharge from the Armed Forces within past three yearss
d. proof of pistol qualification in Armed Forces within past ten years, if discharged
e. retired law enforcement with pistol qualification within past ten years
f. proof of completion of a handgun training class within the past ten years





 

ak56

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
746
Location
Carnation, Washington, USA
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.
Except Colorado doesn't recognize non-resident permits. You have to be a resident of the state that issued the permit for Colorado to recognize it.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Except Colorado doesn't recognize non-resident permits. You have to be a resident of the state that issued the permit for Colorado to recognize it.

It is possible to set up residency in more than one state, unless it has changed Fl allows temporary residency and drivers license for residents who have more than one state of residence. Getting a address in Fl and a Fl only drivers license would have solved his problem, but I believe he was looking for a court case.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I'm glad Gray lost.

I don't give a damn if Denver respects his silly little permission slip. Frankly, I don't respect it a whit.

If he wanted to be in the right, and justify righteous indignation, he should have sued Denver over denying everyone the right to carry without any permission.

I strenuously oppose all these CC-oriented suits. The last thing we need is further entrenchment of this pay-to-play, beg-for-permission BS, or any further conflation of right with privilege.

Go right or go home.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I'm glad Gray lost.

I don't give a damn if Denver respects his silly little permission slip. Frankly, I don't respect it a whit.

If he wanted to be in the right, and justify righteous indignation, he should have sued Denver over denying everyone the right to carry without any permission.

I strenuously oppose all these CC-oriented suits. The last thing we need is further entrenchment of this pay-to-play, beg-for-permission BS, or any further conflation of right with privilege.

Go right or go home.

+1
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
I'm not seeing that here... http://www.usacarry.com/colorado_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

Requirements:
1. Colorado resident
2. Age 21 or older
3. Not precluded by state or federal law from owning or possessing a firearm (e.g. felony conviction, mentally incompetent)
4. Does not chronically or habitually abuse alcohol
5. Is not an unlawful user of or addicted to controlled substances
6. Is not the subject of a civil or criminal restraining order
7. Complete background check, including fingerprint verification by FBI/CBI
8. Demonstrates competence with a handgun by one of the following means:
a. evidence of experience with a firearm through participation in organized shooting competitions or current military service
b. certified firearms instructor
c. honorable discharge from the Armed Forces within past three yearss
d. proof of pistol qualification in Armed Forces within past ten years, if discharged
e. retired law enforcement with pistol qualification within past ten years
f. proof of completion of a handgun training class within the past ten years

Yeah. I agree with you. Getting one in CO is somewhat onerous. Getting one from AZ or UT (which are both honored in CO) is much easier.
 

tannerwaterbury

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
269
Location
Kelso, Washington, USA
Looks like The Blaze is giving a detailed description on why the Court ruled the way they did. I didn't even know that 2 of the 3 Judges WERE Conservative (And I mean Were, because in this case, this is a progressive move in terms of "limiting" our rights again) It was a wrong decision IMO, and I have no clue what the judges were thinking... anyone else feel similar? Does this now mean that states that HAVE Concealed Carry laws and are liberal are going to revoke such laws, since it's not unconstitutional to deny Concealed licenses? The decision makes no sense to me.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...y-a-concealed-weapon-we-explain-the-decision/
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I highly doubt that states with revenue generating, gun carrier registering statutes are going to change them because of this ruling. HOPEfully though the laws tying open carry to privilege cards will be ruled unconstitutional. If there is a ruling that Open Carry is constitutional, and concealed carry is not protected I will try to file on the proposed restaurant carry law here.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Looks like The Blaze is giving a detailed description on why the Court ruled the way they did. I didn't even know that 2 of the 3 Judges WERE Conservative (And I mean Were, because in this case, this is a progressive move in terms of "limiting" our rights again) It was a wrong decision IMO, and I have no clue what the judges were thinking... anyone else feel similar? Does this now mean that states that HAVE Concealed Carry laws and are liberal are going to revoke such laws, since it's not unconstitutional to deny Concealed licenses? The decision makes no sense to me.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...y-a-concealed-weapon-we-explain-the-decision/

Perhaps you'll begin to understand by realizing that privilege has nothing to do with right, and that concealed carry permits are a privilege.

The decision was correct.

If one wishes to claim right, they'd better not be talking about their permit, which is a function of privilege.

This is distinct from my belief that the licensure or prohibition of concealed carry occurs contrary to right. But then so does Denver's licensure of all forms of carry, which Gray selfishly didn't bother to challenge, being too busy seeking praise for and affirmation of his glorious act of groveling.

And, as allowing only people with permits to carry in a place like Denver only enhances the privilege of a group I believe should not exist (permit holders), and does nothing to further right, I oppose it.

A bit of preemption: I lived in California. I've been presented with all the "one step at a time" arguments you can imagine until both sides were blue in the face. The truth is – although it took me some time to figure this out – all of these permission-seekers are pathetic aristocrat-wannabes. They love the sense of being special, of having their elite permit most people don't have. This tendency is anti-American, and I might even go so far as to say they themselves are. I hope they all fail.

For the record: What I say doesn't apply to every person who merely happens to obtain a concealed carry permit. It applies to the unique breed of people in states like California, Washington, and Oregon who have their little slips, who claim they further right, and yet sue only in pursuit of privilege. Only after much experience with these types have I deduced what I say above to be true.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Perhaps you'll begin to understand by realizing that privilege has nothing to do with right, and that concealed carry permits are a privilege.

The decision was correct.

If one wishes to claim right, they'd better not be talking about their permit, which is a function of privilege.

This is distinct from my belief that the licensure or prohibition of concealed carry occurs contrary to right. But then so does Denver's licensure of all forms of carry, which Gray selfishly didn't bother to challenge, being too busy seeking praise for and affirmation of his glorious act of groveling.

And, as allowing only people with permits to carry in a place like Denver only enhances the privilege of a group I believe should not exist (permit holders), and does nothing to further right, I oppose it.

A bit of preemption: I lived in California. I've been presented with all the "one step at a time" arguments you can imagine until both sides were blue in the face. The truth is – although it took me some time to figure this out – all of these permission-seekers are pathetic aristocrat-wannabes. They love the sense of being special, of having their elite permit most people don't have. This tendency is anti-American, and I might even go so far as to say they themselves are. I hope they all fail.

For the record: What I say doesn't apply to every person who merely happens to obtain a concealed carry permit. It applies to the unique breed of people in states like California, Washington, and Oregon who have their little slips, who claim they further right, and yet sue only in pursuit of privilege. Only after much experience with these types have I deduced what I say above to be true.

I agree completely!
 

ak56

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
746
Location
Carnation, Washington, USA
Yeah. I agree with you. Getting one in CO is somewhat onerous. Getting one from AZ or UT (which are both honored in CO) is much easier.

If he establishes residency in one of those states.

C.R.S. 18-12-213. Reciprocity



(1) A permit to carry a concealed handgun or a concealed weapon that is issued by a state that recognizes the validity of permits issued pursuant to this part 2 shall be valid in this state in all respects as a permit issued pursuant to this part 2 if the permit is issued to a person who is:

(a) Twenty-one years of age or older; and

(b) (I) A resident of the state that issued the permit, as demonstrated by the address stated on a valid picture identification that is issued by the state that issued the permit and is carried by the permit holder; or

(II) A resident of Colorado for no more than ninety days, as determined by the date of issuance on a valid picture identification issued by Colorado and carried by the permit holder.

(2) For purposes of this section, a "valid picture identification" means a driver's license or a state identification issued in lieu of a driver's license.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I highly doubt that states with revenue generating, gun carrier registering statutes are going to change them because of this ruling. HOPEfully though the laws tying open carry to privilege cards will be ruled unconstitutional. If there is a ruling that Open Carry is constitutional, and concealed carry is not protected I will try to file on the proposed restaurant carry law here.

The courts have made it quite clear they're not interesting in establishing a right to get a concealed carry permit. Frankly, this was made clear in Heller.

The "brains" behind these lawsuits really need to stop beating around the bush and demand the right to carry – which will probably be granted just so, albeit with allowance for all sorts of restrictions akin to those allowed for speech. This is what the SCOTUS is waiting to grant, IMO: not an ideal, libertarian formulation of right unconcerned with mode or means, but a "modern", SCOTUS-y establishment of mandatory decriminalization of the basic act of carrying outside the home – no permit required – with the caveat that states may restrict the mode of carry, carry in sensitive areas like schools and jails etc. – so long as a normal person may normally cary with no special dispensation.

All that would still be infinitely better – in principle and in practice – than the scraps begged for in the titular lawsuit.
 

tannerwaterbury

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
269
Location
Kelso, Washington, USA
Perhaps you'll begin to understand by realizing that privilege has nothing to do with right, and that concealed carry permits are a privilege.

The decision was correct.

If one wishes to claim right, they'd better not be talking about their permit, which is a function of privilege.

This is distinct from my belief that the licensure or prohibition of concealed carry occurs contrary to right. But then so does Denver's licensure of all forms of carry, which Gray selfishly didn't bother to challenge, being too busy seeking praise for and affirmation of his glorious act of groveling.

And, as allowing only people with permits to carry in a place like Denver only enhances the privilege of a group I believe should not exist (permit holders), and does nothing to further right, I oppose it.

A bit of preemption: I lived in California. I've been presented with all the "one step at a time" arguments you can imagine until both sides were blue in the face. The truth is – although it took me some time to figure this out – all of these permission-seekers are pathetic aristocrat-wannabes. They love the sense of being special, of having their elite permit most people don't have. This tendency is anti-American, and I might even go so far as to say they themselves are. I hope they all fail.

For the record: What I say doesn't apply to every person who merely happens to obtain a concealed carry permit. It applies to the unique breed of people in states like California, Washington, and Oregon who have their little slips, who claim they further right, and yet sue only in pursuit of privilege. Only after much experience with these types have I deduced what I say above to be true.


HOW is it correct? That doesn't explain HOW it's correct, only your opinion. This ruling did not state that UNLICENSED Conceal Carry was constitutional, it said that ALL Concealed Carry was not considered protected under the Constitution. Now, maybe you have a staunch libertarian view that I am still too blind to see through, but I don't see how this ruling is correct. This won't make states that have MAY ISSUE or WON'T ISSUE status' to change the way they think and allow Constitutional Carry in their states. I'm not sure where you went with the "One step at a time" arguments (since I clearly have no idea what you mean!) and having to ask for permission to carry. You don't HAVE to ask to do anything, matter of fact, you can go and wear a concealed handgun without wearing your license, and I doubt people will notice, but if you get caught by the cops, they won't be thinking that you are exercising your rights, they will notice that you have no concealed license and arrest you, not to mention take away said license and rights (depending on the location). We don't live in an Anarcho-Capitalistic Libertarian Society, we are still governed by laws and unfortunately one of the laws states that in order for us to carry concealed, we need a license to do so, otherwise in their thinking, we may go all "wild wild west" and shoot places up (which is a stupid state of mind, but that can be discussed at a latter time)
 
Top