HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Federal court says concea...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:56 PM

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

Source: Associated Press

... The ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was issued Friday in a case involving Washington state resident Gray Peterson.

A federal judge in 2011 tossed out Peterson's lawsuit filed against Denver and the state's Department of Public Safety. Peterson claims that being denied a concealed weapons permit because he was not a Colorado resident violated his Second Amendment rights to bear firearms.

According to gun rights groups, Colorado is one of about two dozen states that do not honor concealed weapons permits from Washington state.

Colorado recognizes weapons permits issued by other states, but only for states that recognize Colorado permits. Washington state does not recognize Colorado permits ...

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/23/appeals-court-upholds-concealed-weapons-ruling/

39 replies, 4478 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 39 replies Author Time Post
Reply Federal court says concealed gun permits not protected by 2nd Amendment (Original post)
struggle4progress Feb 2013 OP
Drale Feb 2013 #1
AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #8
Drale Feb 2013 #11
AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #13
reACTIONary Feb 2013 #16
JimDandy Feb 2013 #23
reACTIONary Feb 2013 #37
JimDandy Feb 2013 #38
bossy22 Feb 2013 #27
graham4anything Feb 2013 #2
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #18
Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2013 #21
graham4anything Feb 2013 #22
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #28
graham4anything Feb 2013 #29
LAGC Feb 2013 #30
graham4anything Feb 2013 #31
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #33
primavera Feb 2013 #34
graham4anything Feb 2013 #35
LanternWaste Feb 2013 #39
indepat Feb 2013 #3
Hard Assets Feb 2013 #5
hack89 Feb 2013 #4
SecularMotion Feb 2013 #6
hack89 Feb 2013 #9
bossy22 Feb 2013 #26
hack89 Feb 2013 #32
bubbayugga Feb 2013 #19
Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #7
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #10
Cha Feb 2013 #12
OldRedneck Feb 2013 #14
DallasNE Feb 2013 #15
primavera Feb 2013 #36
onehandle Feb 2013 #17
former9thward Feb 2013 #20
struggle4progress Feb 2013 #24
former9thward Feb 2013 #25

Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:00 PM

1. Does this throw out the judges ruling that

Illinois has 180 days to craft a concealed weapons permit or its every man for himself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drale (Reply #1)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:19 PM

8. Obviously not. Why would you think that?

 

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction over the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #8)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:41 PM

11. Because the court ruled Illinois ban on concealed carry unconstitutional

but it now this ruling says otherwise how can it be both constitutional and unconstitutional, when they are both working off the same Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drale (Reply #11)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 06:12 PM

13. The Court for the 10th Cir did not rule that the "Illinois ban on concealed carry" is constitutional

 

Let us know when they do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drale (Reply #11)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 06:43 PM

16. The constitution is not an unabigiuos document...

...and the supream court recently expanded 2nd amendment rights without giving any clear guidence as to limits. Before that ruling, both courts probably would have agreed with the power of the state to limit and regulate concelled carry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reACTIONary (Reply #16)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 07:52 PM

23. Spel chek iz yur frend.

But interesting point!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimDandy (Reply #23)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 10:26 PM

37. i nedz awl teh freindz i kan git (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reACTIONary (Reply #37)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:27 PM

38. LOL n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drale (Reply #11)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 10:37 PM

27. different circuit

any decision by the 10th circuit is not binding on any court in the 7th. This is what we call the classic "circuit split" that often leads to supreme court taking the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:01 PM

2. Great start! Proves with a great court, the NRA can forever be defeated permanently

 

Gotta hammer the gun issue with defeat of Pro-NRA candidates and through the courts
The more anti-nra candidates elected, the more picks for the court will be friendly against guns
Their days are numbered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #2)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 07:14 PM

18. Th opposite conclusion has been reached by other circuits

This is going to SCOTUS. Always has been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #18)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 07:44 PM

21. yep. headed that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #18)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 07:45 PM

22. And one day there will be shortly a good SCOTUS

 

the gunslinger's days are numbered.
10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3...

like the Knight who said Ni, the NRA is already dead, and they can't stop the bleeding.

all it takes is a new interpretation of the law and the Great Equalizer, Mayor Mike.

(and you can bet the NRA is sweating bullets profusely...why do you think that nutjob LaPierre is ranting and raving so much? Because no one else is left to do their calling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #22)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 11:21 PM

28. More 1%er adoration...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #28)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 03:39 AM

29. The 1% is the NRA. 4million out of 350 million is 1.45 rounded down to 1

 

And they say the NRA only figures how many total members it ever had
(never minus the dead people).
Therefore, the NRA probably is under 2 million total.

Once LaPierre has not forum, NO ONE will speak out for guns.
Lapierre is the last one as every other mouthpiece has disappeared

`0-9-8-7-6-5-4-3...
but I understand why Bloomberg has haters.

NEVER in the history of the NRA, did anyone finance those against the NRA.
The NRA had a clear highway.
Now the highway is filled with anti-NRA funds

And soon, the streets are going to be safe.

I myself would rather stand in the street in the naiton, than be in a bar
where someone with too much alchohol in them is debating who is better Bob Gibson
or Sandy Koufax and doesn't like my answer.

Guns kill.
They never saved anyone.
And they never made a gun and a bullet for anything but to kill something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #29)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 03:56 AM

30. Your same "hero" Mike Bloomberg who just vetoed an anti-discrimination bill...

...regarding long-term unemployed people being unfairly blacklisted from being able to get jobs?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/22/bloomberg-vetoes-jobless-discrimination-bill_n_2741983.html

Fuck that Republican piece of shit!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #30)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 04:39 AM

31. The Great Equalizer got another pro-NRA candidate to quit this week

 

you can call him a zillion names, and all the other areas have NOTHING to do with guns.

and the Great Equalizer is NOT running for any future office, so he can devote 100% of his time the rest of his life (and his mother lived to 102, so he might have 30 years to spend his time obliterating the NRA.

again, call him any name you want, but he is WINNING and the nra candidates are losing.

(Just this week, Mike got another notch in his holster when a Pro-NRA Chicago candidate for Jesse Jackson Jr.'s seat bowed out knowing she could not survive the Great Equalizer.

(don't let the door hit you on the way out pro-gun candidates.)

District by district, the Great Equalizer will pick off all the candidates the NRA used to have in their back pocket.

And, even better yet, the great thing is-
EVERYONE considers Mike theirs.
Which means he is NOT partisan on the gun issue.
He is America.
Packing alot of punch in his short frame meek body.

Mayor Mike is Rocky Balboa.
The NRA is Drago, the outdated, outmoded from another era
Mayor Mike is the little guy, the David
against the NRA Goliath.

The days of the NRA blackmailing all candidates is long gone.

Mayor Mike has more money than they do.
And Mayor Mike will spend it.

none of the other issues matter
When it comes to guns, Mayor Mike is Jack, and he has slayed the evil dragon.

Mayor Mike/Joe Bidden/Gabbie Giffords, perhaps the single greatest cover of Time Magazine
along with the two President Obama winning covers, in the history of the magazine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #31)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 11:13 AM

33. So anything else he does, no matter how 1% is OK because he is against guns

Strange bedfellows you keep

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #33)


Response to primavera (Reply #34)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 11:24 AM

35. Yup. And Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy will all retire in the near future

 

once Hillary takes office.

A brand new day awaits a brand new court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #33)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 01:49 PM

39. o more and no less than those on DU who support the right-wing PAC known as the NRA...

No more and no less than those on DU who admittedly support the right-wing PAC known as the NRA because they are "for" guns.

Strange bedfellows, indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:04 PM

3. What part does the 10th Circuit not get about the right to conceal and bear arms?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to indepat (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:07 PM

5. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is in Denver.

 

Ahem. Two events. Columbine and the theatre shooting in Aurora.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:07 PM

4. That is not a completely correct title.

what the case says is that a resident of one state does not have a constitutional right to get a concealed carry permit in another.

It does not address the bigger issue of whether concealed carry is protected by the 2A. Considering the state of Illinois, the only state to ban concealed carry, has been ordered by a federal appeals court to make concealed carry legal in the state, it would seem to me that at present it would be smart to presume that concealed carry is protected by the 2A.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #4)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:15 PM

6. Did you read the article?

In its ruling, the three-judge panel cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons."

"In light of our nation's extensive practice of restricting citizen's freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment's protections," the judges ruled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #6)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:19 PM

9. OK - but U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled the opposite

in Illinois.

So it will be decided by the SC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #9)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 10:35 PM

26. IIRC the issue in illinois was a bit different

Illinois banned the carrying of a firearm in all manners. I haven't read the decision yet but some commentary i've read said that one of the points raised by the court was that CO allows open carry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #26)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 10:48 AM

32. Illinois was specifically told that a concealed carry ban was unconsitutional

and they were given 180 days to pass a law implementing concealed carry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #6)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 07:31 PM

19. you would prefer openly carried arms?

 

If they must be carried, I think I would prefer them hidden from my view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:17 PM

7. Filed under no shit.

Bearing arms is just the opposite of concealed carry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:39 PM

10. So open carry then.

Easy enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 06:00 PM

12. Thanks Struggle.. Poor Colorado has had their

share of mass homicidal gun violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 06:19 PM

14. This decision echoes Scalia in Heller v. D.C.

In Heller v. D.C., SCOTUS ruled differently from previous case law when they concluded the Second Amendment grants an INDIVIDUAL right to "keep and bear arms." However, Justice Scalia threw a damper on the gunnut celebration when he wrote:

-- quote

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

-- end quote

Looks as though the 10th Circuit is following Scalia's precedent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 06:43 PM

15. What Did Peterson Think "Well Regulated" In The 2nd Amendment Meant

Unregulated?

I doubt the Supreme Court will even bother to hear this case. At least I fail to see where it has any merit. Besides, when the 2nd Amendment was written there was no such thing as a weapon that could be concealed -- and that is why Scalia is so wrong when he declares the Constitution "dead, dead, dead".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #15)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 11:25 AM

36. Scalia explained all that in Heller

See, the framers didn't really mean that whole "well regulated militia" stuff - it was just a joke they tossed in for giggles because they were smoking crack at the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 06:57 PM

17. Chip, chip, chip away.

Fear the future, gun nuts.

As the country blues and populates, your 'culture' will wane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 07:41 PM

20. As usual with legal decisions it is poorly reported.

The decision said that Peterson would have won his case had he challenged Denver's restrictions on open carry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #20)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:29 PM

24. The court nowhere indicates that "Peterson would have won his case had he challenged

Denver's restrictions," as you claim. The only language in the decision, that you could possibly have misread that way, occurs in the following context:

The court noted "Peterson .. repeatedly expressed .. that he is not challenging the Denver ordinance" and concluded "Peterson has clearly waived any such challenge," on the grounds that "Peterson cannot be heard to complain of any alleged error he himself invited"

The court then notes "We see no reason that a plaintiff could not challenge both the statute and the ordinance in the same suit, but Peterson has made a conscious decision not to challenge the constitutionality of the Denver ordinance"

On this basis, the court limits its interpretation of the suit: "Peterson seeks a ruling that Colorado may not restrict CHLs to residents of the state. If he succeeds in this challenge, he would be free to obtain a CHL and carry a concealed weapon throughout the state. By contrast, had Peterson challenged the Denver ordinance, he may have obtained a ruling that allows him to carry a firearm openly while maintaining the state’s restrictions on concealed carry"

Several of these statements are cast in the subjective: the court is merely explaining what issues it will consider in reaching its decision and why it will not consider other issues. The subjective statements properly take no stand whatsoever about what might have happened had Peterson advanced a different complaint: the court clarified what his actual complaint was and ruled on that basis

The court further wrote: "we .. ask whether the Second Amendment provides the right to carry a concealed firearm. We conclude that it does not"

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-1149.pdf


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #24)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 09:14 PM

25. We differ on the interpretation.

And this case like most is fact specific. This was not a CO resident being denied the permit it was an out of state person challenging. No matter, I doubt the decision will stand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread