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

[WalkingWolf]

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)

Apparently it is also the opinion of the 10th circuit court. Concealed carry is not a 2A protected right, it is a privilege evidenced by the very fact that a person must get permission to exercise that privilege. It is ironic that the concealed carry privilege fanatics have brought this decision upon themselves.

 

[marshaul]

Apparently it is also the opinion of the 10th circuit court. Concealed carry is not a 2A protected right, it is a privilege evidenced by the very fact that a person must get permission to exercise that privilege. It is ironic that the concealed carry privilege fanatics have brought this decision upon themselves.

Yup.

Expect the SCOTUS to decide that only open carry is the right in states which require a permit for concealed carry.

I'm not sure where you went with the "One step at a time" arguments (since I clearly have no idea what you mean!)...

Sorry about that. The "one step at a time" argument is the one Gray and his buddies like to make. They'll tell you until you're dead from listening that they're pro-OC, they do it everyday (or, alternatively, would if they could), and they'll fight to ensure the right for all, but first they have to sue to get their precious permit recognized (they'd probably prefer it worshipped) all over the land. One step at a time.

I still remember when Gene Hoffman (California's equivalent of guys like Gray) told me he planned to, one day, "OC" a "FA" "MP5" in the "SF Opera" (quotes verbatim). Meanwhile, I moved out of California two years ago and the friends I left behind still can't even get the much-ballyhooed permission slips to carry in SF, much less loaded OC with no papers. But it's OK, because Calguns & crew pressured a couple sheriffs in counties where practically nobody lives into relaxing their issuance policy.

It may sound otherwise, but I hold no personal antipathy towards these individuals. I merely reject their methods, and hold that they do not advance the RKBA, but rather their own personal (and, as it happens, imaginary) status, as evidenced by their own actions, time and time and time again.

Acta non verba, gentlemen. I say: keep our eyes on the ball, not what our supposed betters would have us think we might eke out.

 

[tannerwaterbury]

Apparently it is also the opinion of the 10th circuit court.

*facepalm* I KNOWWW it's the opinion, I just am curious as to their thinking. Are they trying to set the nation up to "allow" Constitutional carry nationwide or what? Are any of you READING what I am asking and saying? I'm sorry if I am sounding confrontational, but it seems like we are speaking in circles. It's building my frustration up cause it seems like CCers are of a different caste, and it doesn't matter what happens to them so long as OC is left alone.

 

[arentol]

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.

This is entirely incorrect. UT and AZ do have reciprocity, but not for non-resident licenses. Following the above advice could land you in some hot water:

CRS 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.



The statute you would be violating:

CRS 18-12-105. Unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon - unlawful possession of weapons

(1) A person commits a class 2 misdemeanor if such person knowingly and unlawfully:

(a) Carries a knife concealed on or about his or her person; or

(b) Carries a firearm concealed on or about his or her person; or

(c) Without legal authority, carries, brings, or has in such person's possession a firearm or any explosive, incendiary, or other dangerous device on the property of or within any building in which the chambers, galleries, or offices of the general assembly, or either house thereof, are located, or in which a legislative hearing or meeting is being or is to be conducted, or in which the official office of any member, officer, or employee of the general assembly is located.

(d) (Deleted by amendment, L. 93, p. 964, § 1, effective July 1, 1993.)

(2) It shall not be an offense if the defendant was:

(a) A person in his or her own dwelling or place of business or on property owned or under his or her control at the time of the act of carrying; or

(b) A person in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance who carries a weapon for lawful protection of such person's or another's person or property while traveling; or

(c) A person who, at the time of carrying a concealed weapon, held a valid written permit to carry a concealed weapon issued pursuant to section 18-12-105.1, as it existed prior to its repeal, or, if the weapon involved was a handgun, held a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun or a temporary emergency permit issued pursuant to part 2 of this article; except that it shall be an offense under this section if the person was carrying a concealed handgun in violation of the provisions of section 18-12-214; or

(d) A peace officer, as described in section 16-2.5-101, C.R.S., when carrying a weapon in conformance with the policy of the employing agency as provided in section 16-2.5-101 (2), C.R.S.; or

(e) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2003, p. 1624, § 46, effective August 6, 2003.)

(f) A United States probation officer or a United States pretrial services officer while on duty and serving in the state of Colorado under the authority of rules and regulations promulgated by the judicial conference of the United States.



And the punishment for a class 2 misdemeanor in Colorado:

CRS 18-1.3-501. Misdemeanors classified - penalties

(1) (a) Misdemeanors are divided into three classes which are distinguished from one another by the following penalties which are authorized upon conviction except as provided in subsection (1.5) of this section:

(snip)
Class 2
Minimum Sentence: Three months imprisonment, or two hundred fifty dollars fine, or both
Maximum Sentence: Twelve months imprisonment,or one thousand dollars fine, or both
(snip)

 

[Lammo]

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.

Um, not for Utah. Colorado will only recognize Utah permits for Utah residents. See: http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/utah.pdf

IDK for sure about Arizona but it's not looking good: http://www.handgunlaw.us/

Colorado is bright yellow right in the middle indicating it will only honor resident permits from the states it does honor.

 

[xxx.jakk.xxx]

So would it be safe to assume that because concealed carrying is not constitutionally protected that, as the only other form of carry, open carry is actually constitutionally protected? It seems as though if they were to have to give a ruling, they'd have no choice but to admit 1 form of carry, both forms of carry or no form of carry are protected. Maybe it's an angle to go with to get open carry i in states that it isn't allowed like California.

 

[END_THE_FED]

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.

This was a 10th circuit ruling and does not effect states outside of that circuit.

 

[Schlepnier]

Sorry i don’t see a problem.

The right to keep (own/posess) and bear (OPENLY CARRY) arms is what is protected. criminals started to conceal because they were up to no good. which, like many other useless laws, is why they started regulating it. the intent of the case was good, the manner it was approached was bad,. he should have sued over the ban on open carry as it is clearly unconstitutional.

As for its standing as law-

An appeal will almost certainly come out of the case, given that it directly contradicts another decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Apparently it is also the opinion of the 10th circuit court. Concealed carry is not a 2A protected right, it is a privilege evidenced by the very fact that a person must get permission to exercise that privilege. It is ironic that the concealed carry privilege fanatics have brought this decision upon themselves.

Yup, but then whine we don't present a united front along with them.

Yup.

Expect the SCOTUS to decide that only open carry is the right in states which require a permit for concealed carry.



Sorry about that. The "one step at a time" argument is the one Gray and his buddies like to make. They'll tell you until you're dead from listening that they're pro-OC, they do it everyday (or, alternatively, would if they could), and they'll fight to ensure the right for all, but first they have to sue to get their precious permit recognized (they'd probably prefer it worshipped) all over the land. One step at a time.

I still remember when Gene Hoffman (California's equivalent of guys like Gray) told me he planned to, one day, "OC" a "FA" "MP5" in the "SF Opera" (quotes verbatim). Meanwhile, I moved out of California two years ago and the friends I left behind still can't even get the much-ballyhooed permission slips to carry in SF, much less loaded OC with no papers. But it's OK, because Calguns & crew pressured a couple sheriffs in counties where practically nobody lives into relaxing their issuance policy.

It may sound otherwise, but I hold no personal antipathy towards these individuals. I merely reject their methods, and hold that they do not advance the RKBA, but rather their own personal (and, as it happens, imaginary) status, as evidenced by their own actions, time and time and time again.

Acta non verba, gentlemen. I say: keep our eyes on the ball, not what our supposed betters would have us think we might eke out.

Well said, California is a perfect example.....sadly. These are the same guys that blame OC'ers for getting OC outlawed.....wanted OC'ers to wait on them to exercise their rights.


I appreciate some of the actions these larger groups do, but like I stated on the state libertarian party page I am against all "compromises" and when they tell us bullscat like we can't tell you everything we are doing because we don't want to give away our game plan.....reminds me of we have to pass bills to find out what is in them.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

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.

My thoughts as well, I was very afraid of getting ending up with this result. It would have been much better to get the court to affirm the right to carry and then work on CC. This was totally backwards IMHO.

I also believe the court is correct in their ruling now that I have thought about it more.

 

[BigDave]

Apparently it is also the opinion of the 10th circuit court. Concealed carry is not a 2A protected right, it is a privilege evidenced by the very fact that a person must get permission to exercise that privilege. It is ironic that the concealed carry privilege fanatics have brought this decision upon themselves.

Clearly Grey has been an open carry advocate for those who do not recognizes his current name, it was Lonnie Wilson and went about the Northwest and challenged many jurisdictions and was successful.
To suggest he is now an concealed carry advocate and acting on their behalf, I do not believe this is the case but acting upon his own accord.

If they asked the court if concealed carry was protected by the 2nd Amendment then it was the wrong question, if the question was about the right to bear arms (not this stupid argument about open or concealed) then the answer would have likely been different.
As to it being a Open Carry or Concealed Carry issue is bull, it is a carry issue and this recent court hearing was brought about by him.

Some still want to build that wall between Open versus Concealed Carry keep doing so and wonder why they do not receive support from them.

This whole concept about the constitution being written for open carry is just ridiculous and self serving, it is to keep and bear arms.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Clearly Grey has been an open carry advocate for those who do not recognizes his current name, it was Lonnie Wilson and went about the Northwest and challenged many jurisdictions and was successful.
To suggest he is now an open carry advocate and acting on their behalf, I do not believe this is the case but acting upon his own accord.

If they asked the court if concealed carry was protected by the 2nd Amendment then it was the wrong question, if the question was about the right to bear arms (not this stupid argument about open or concealed) then the answer would have likely been different.
As to it being a Open Carry or Concealed Carry issue is bull, it is a carry issue and this recent court hearing was brought about by him.

Some still want to build that wall between Open versus Concealed Carry keep doing so and wonder why they do not receive support from them.

This whole concept about the constitution being written for open carry is just ridiculous and self serving, it is to keep and bear arms.

Sorry but the decision is what it is and it affirms what is obvious. Open Carry is not the same as concealed carry, both are types of carry but they are clearly not the same. It is a privilege in most states, by the very issuing of a privilege card, which the CC crowd are so proud of, and demean open carriers. Whether Grey is a OC proponent or not the case was argued in the wrong light, many of us knew that to begin with.

Sorry it bothers the elite card holders, but I don't fight for something that is contrary to MY rights. And I already have the right to conceal WITHOUT a permit in all 50 states, and all territories. I don't because IMO I would be acting elite to do so, and I am quite happy to OC. I dropped my CHP after the passage of LEOSA, but not for that reason. I don't conceal, I always had the right to open carry.

How is it even possible to "bring to light" or any of the other definitions of "bear" with the firearm concealed. The word bear is about being open, "presenting evidence", "bearing truth". Talk about ignorance and not understanding the English language.

 

[marshaul]

Clearly Grey has been an open carry advocate for those who do not recognizes his current name, it was Lonnie Wilson and went about the Northwest and challenged many jurisdictions and was successful.
To suggest he is now an open carry advocate and acting on their behalf, I do not believe this is the case but acting upon his own accord.

If they asked the court if concealed carry was protected by the 2nd Amendment then it was the wrong question, if the question was about the right to bear arms (not this stupid argument about open or concealed) then the answer would have likely been different.
As to it being a Open Carry or Concealed Carry issue is bull, it is a carry issue and this recent court hearing was brought about by him.

Some still want to build that wall between Open versus Concealed Carry keep doing so and wonder why they do not receive support from them.

This whole concept about the constitution being written for open carry is just ridiculous and self serving, it is to keep and bear arms.

lol. This coming from the side that would lecture anyone at the drop of a hat about what the courts "will do". A couple years back everyone who supported this sort of endeavor wouldn't hesitate to inform people that it was necessary to secure universal shall-issue first, because that's the way the courts wanted it. Now, the courts slapped you down, so you fall back on fundamental right?

I can't tell you how many times I said "open carry is necessary to fundamental right", and was told, "that may be so, but due to practicalities we need to take it one step at a time".

HAH! And now you want to turn it around? Forget it!

Now I'm going to be the one to lecture you (and all the pro-CC-permit-lawsuit supporters by extension) about "practicalities". The practical reality is, the courts have and will continue to establish a "wall" between the basic act of carrying, and carrying concealed in states which require a license to do so.

You know what's self-serving? Folks like Gray trying to get their little permission slips in the door before the basic right has even been secured, when any fool could tell you the courts won't have it.

In principle, I agree concealed and open carry are equal sides of the right. In practice, it's been clear since Heller this will never be the outcome, at least not from the SCOTUS.

 

[randian]

You know what's self-serving? Folks like Gray trying to get their little permission slips in the door before the basic right has even been secured, when any fool could tell you the courts won't have it.

You've mistaken the holding for the suit. Gray wasn't trying to secure the right to have a permit. That attack isn't yet ripe. He was trying to gut Colorado's "residents only" rule for issuing its permits. The court followed the general pattern in gun rights legislation of pro-gun holdings being narrow, and anti-gun holdings being broad. Thus the court said not only are they upholding that rule, but that concealed carry permits are in toto not protected by the 2A, a far broader result than that actually asked for by Gray.

 

[WalkingWolf]

You've mistaken the holding for the suit. Gray wasn't trying to secure the right to have a permit. That attack isn't yet ripe. He was trying to gut Colorado's "residents only" rule for issuing its permits. The court followed the general pattern in gun rights legislation of pro-gun holdings being narrow, and anti-gun holdings being broad. Thus the court said not only are they upholding that rule, but that concealed carry permits are in toto not protected by the 2A, a far broader result than that actually asked for by Gray.

How could a permit be protected as a right? The whole premise of the suit was flawed, there are no rights of privileges. There are either privileges or there are rights. It does not take a judge or a rocket surgeon to see the ruling was correct.

 

[randian]

How could a permit be protected as a right?

Equal protection. Can Colorado have one law of murder for residents, one for non-residents? I think not. It should be the same for Colorado's concealed carry permit law, which is what Gray was asking for: the ability to obtain a permit on the same terms as a resident.

A direct challenge to the permit statute itself would have gone nowhere, as others have noted. Gray's suit was not such a challenge, yet the court sua sponte made a grossly overbroad ruling in striking down Gray's suit.

 

[eye95]

You've mistaken the holding for the suit. Gray wasn't trying to secure the right to have a permit. That attack isn't yet ripe. He was trying to gut Colorado's "residents only" rule for issuing its permits. The court followed the general pattern in gun rights legislation of pro-gun holdings being narrow, and anti-gun holdings being broad. Thus the court said not only are they upholding that rule, but that concealed carry permits are in toto not protected by the 2A, a far broader result than that actually asked for by Gray.

IMO, his argument should have been that the combination of OC being outlawed and the State's unwillingness to issue a license (or respect those from other States) effectively made it impossible for him to exercise the Right. Let the court then decide which one (or whether both) infringed and was unconstitutional.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[WalkingWolf]

Equal protection. Can Colorado have one law of murder for residents, one for non-residents? I think not. It should be the same for Colorado's concealed carry permit law, which is what Gray was asking for: the ability to obtain a permit on the same terms as a resident.

A direct challenge to the permit statute itself would have gone nowhere, as others have noted. Gray's suit was not such a challenge, yet the court sua sponte made a grossly overbroad ruling in striking down Gray's suit.

So you are admitting the challenge had nothing to do with the US constitution 2A? If it did there would be no permit. The state, county, or municipality are perfectly within there rights to regulate a privilege to residents and non residents unless the state constitution or laws says otherwise. The case was wrongly argued.

 

[marshaul]

You've mistaken the holding for the suit. Gray wasn't trying to secure the right to have a permit. That attack isn't yet ripe. He was trying to gut Colorado's "residents only" rule for issuing its permits. The court followed the general pattern in gun rights legislation of pro-gun holdings being narrow, and anti-gun holdings being broad. Thus the court said not only are they upholding that rule, but that concealed carry permits are in toto not protected by the 2A, a far broader result than that actually asked for by Gray.

No, I haven't. I understand precisely what's going on here – this is all very old hat to me by now.

If you'd bothered to read, rather than assume, you'll see a post of mine a few back where I accuse Gray of wanting his permit recognized, if not worshipped, "all over the land". Clearly, then, you're not telling me anything I didn't already know and account for.

Equal protection. Can Colorado have one law of murder for residents, one for non-residents? I think not. It should be the same for Colorado's concealed carry permit law, which is what Gray was asking for: the ability to obtain a permit on the same terms as a resident.

But guess what: to make a equal protection claim, you must reference a right (the term "privilege", as in "privileges and immunities", is used archaically in a constitutional context, meaning "right"): hence the need to argue that concealed carry permits are an extension of the 2nd amendment RKBA.

Of course, it's no secret that this is all part of a "strategy": if this claim were to succeed, the next up would be along the lines of "well, since concealed carry permits are an extension of the RKBA, a position de facto taken by the court back in this previous case, permits must be shall-issue or else it's a violation of that right".

Like I said: one step at a time. Except for the completely predictable (and predicted) part where the courts shut it down.

None of this is some kind of secret, or anything new.

Everything I said still stands: this strategy is selfish, elitist, rightly doomed to fail, etc.

A direct challenge to the permit statute itself would have gone nowhere, as others have noted. Gray's suit was not such a challenge, yet the court sua sponte made a grossly overbroad ruling in striking down Gray's suit.

It's ironic (because they and Gray adopt the same agenda, tactics, and rhetoric) that the Calguns bunch told Bigtoe that his lawsuit was going to "make it harder to win the next time around." Ironic, I say, because now that same strategy has turned around and done exactly that.

It's time to drop the concealed carry permit issue, and focus on getting a national right to carry in some manner.

Once that's accomplished, open carry always was, and always will be, the best way to make carrying visible enough to eventually lead to constitutional carry being passed by more and more states – which should be the only agenda you concealed carry types have. Your permits are so much toilet paper.

 

[tannerwaterbury]

I'm gonna go off topic here for a moment: Why are there so many out of staters here? I know I have no room to talk and all,but if this does not concern WA Jurisdiction, shouldn't this be taken in a general OC/CC thread?