HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Federal Appeals Court: Th...

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:36 AM

Federal Appeals Court: There Is No Second Amendment Right To A Concealed Firearm

Source: Think Progress

Federal Appeals Court: There Is No Second Amendment Right To A Concealed Firearm
By Ian Millhiser on Feb 27, 2013 at 10:30 am

A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which included a Reagan and a George W. Bush appointee, held unanimously on Friday that the Second Amendment does not protect a right to carry a concealed firearm:




The Heller opinion notes that, “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” As an example of the limited nature of the Second Amendment right to keep and carry arms, the Court observed that “the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.” And the Court stressed that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions.”

There can be little doubt that bans on the concealed carrying of firearms are longstanding. In Heller, the Supreme Court cited several early cases in support of the statement that most nineteenth century courts approved of such prohibitions. We note, however, that this view was not unanimous. Nevertheless, most states enacted laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons” in the nineteenth century.




It should be noted that the court left open the question of whether a concealed carry ban is permitted in a jurisdiction that also bans open carry of firearms. Nevertheless, this decision is a reminder that, despite the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller expanding the scope of the Second Amendment, states and the federal government retain broad leeway to enact many gun safety laws.

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/27/1637831/federal-appeals-court-there-is-no-second-amendment-right-to-a-concealed-firearm/

39 replies, 4506 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 Appeals Court: There Is No Second Amendment Right To A Concealed Firearm (Original post)
kpete Feb 2013 OP
samsingh Feb 2013 #1
derby378 Feb 2013 #2
peace13 Feb 2013 #3
patrice Feb 2013 #11
former9thward Feb 2013 #4
frazzled Feb 2013 #5
hack89 Feb 2013 #10
frazzled Feb 2013 #12
hack89 Feb 2013 #18
frazzled Feb 2013 #19
hack89 Feb 2013 #20
frazzled Feb 2013 #21
hack89 Feb 2013 #22
Heywood J Feb 2013 #25
hack89 Feb 2013 #26
Heywood J Feb 2013 #28
hack89 Feb 2013 #29
Heywood J Mar 2013 #31
hack89 Mar 2013 #32
Heywood J Mar 2013 #33
hack89 Mar 2013 #34
sigmasix Feb 2013 #27
onehandle Feb 2013 #6
Remmah2 Feb 2013 #13
PatrynXX Feb 2013 #7
hack89 Feb 2013 #8
patrice Feb 2013 #9
slackmaster Feb 2013 #14
Major Nikon Feb 2013 #15
slackmaster Feb 2013 #16
Major Nikon Feb 2013 #17
Kingofalldems Feb 2013 #23
indepat Feb 2013 #24
apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #30
hack89 Mar 2013 #35
apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #36
hack89 Mar 2013 #37
apocalypsehow Mar 2013 #38
hack89 Mar 2013 #39

Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:46 AM

1. is sense starting to prevail?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:48 AM

2. Big deal

If you want a gun, that's your right. If you want to carry a concealed pistol, get a permit. I am cool with this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:56 AM

3. Be careful what you wish for, in Ohio.....

the state reps voted yes on guns being carried in bars, restaurants and pretty much everywhere except ...you guessed it...the Statehouse. Too funny that they know that there is a danger with theses laws and they certainly don't want a gunman busting into their dinner at the Statehouse. Selfish *astards, is all I can say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:22 PM

11. If our public places belong to all of us, what about my right to choose whether I want to be around

a bunch of people, some good/some bad, carrying weapons I don't know anything about?

Are gun carryers privileged to blind me (by conceal) in regards to a choice that I have a right to make, i.e. my freedom of association, or NOT, with whom I choose? They get to choose their behavior, but I don't get to choose mine, because they, in PUBLIC places, are intentionally hiding a factor that is determinative to MY decisions about safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:07 AM

4. This decision is in conflict with the Seventh circuit which ruled just the opposite.

Also this decision was very fact specific where an out of state resident was trying to assert a right granted to in state residents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:18 AM

5. Illinois residents: Now press Lisa Madigan to appeal to Supreme Court

The decision that ruled Illinois's ban on concealed weapons. We're the country's last chance to reverse this trend. Let's all call her today!

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan
Chicago Main Office
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 814-3000
TTY: 1-800-964-3013

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:11 PM

10. I think Illinois will be asked to take one for the gun control team.

there are states that tightly regulate concealed carry - it is called "may issue" and gives local law enforcement sweeping powers to deny concealed carry permits. In many places it becomes a defacto ban.

On the other hand, there are states that are "shall issue" - the state is required to give a concealed carry permit to anyone that meets the legal requirements. The state has no discretion.

The "may issue" states are concerned that if Illinois goes to the Supreme Court, the court will rule that "shall issue" is the constitutional standard and they will be force to change to "shall issue".

Be careful what you ask for here - do you really think the Roberts/Scalia court will rule in favor of Illinois?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:39 PM

12. The ruling would be narrow, on the merits of the 7th Circuit decision

To go beyond that to establish that Illinois must draft a "shall issue" law is not going to happen, even with the Roberts/Scalia court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:11 PM

18. As a matter of principle

one would hope that Illinois writes a "shall issue" law. The idea that government officials have carte blanc to deny constitutional rights at their own discretion should be anathema to any progressive. They should set up a strict set of standards for concealed carry and allow anyone that meets those standards to get a permit.

But when it comes to guns many feel perfectly comfortable giving police all the power they can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #18)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:21 PM

19. As a matter of principle, I should hope not

Don't pull the "progressive" crap on this issue. Not buying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #19)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:29 PM

20. Because we know that cops are the greatest protectors of civil rights

Because we know that they will never let their personal biases impact their official conduct.

How many civil rights laws stem from challenging government officials and police that systemically abuse and deny the rights of American? The list is endless - from illegal surveillance and searches, racial profiling, to outright torture, we have seen what the police do with unsupervised power.

But since you don't like guns you have no problem letting them do your dirty work.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:48 PM

21. Trust 'em more than crazy people

with guns in their pockets at the supermarket.

Ideally, if one has to have a concealed carry law, it would be like Rhode Island's, where the state Attorney General approves (or denies) all permits issued by local authorities.

Too much paranoia here for me: you need to carry a concealed weapon because you're paranoid you'll be attacked at any moment. Then you are paranoid of letting the police determine who has a need to carry one. People who are this obsessed need to take up crocheting or badminton or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #21)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:58 PM

22. The crazies and the criminals don't bother with concealed carry permits

they just carry - anywhere they like.

I find it ironic that you fear those that are actually willing to bear the cost and jump through the hoops to follow the law get a license. They are the very definition of law abiding.


Do you support NYPD stop and frisk tactics? They were effective in reducing gun crime

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #18)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 08:16 AM

25. Here's what "shall issue" gets you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heywood J (Reply #25)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 08:29 AM

26. So tell me

would it make a difference to you if I was to post a link to a story about a concealed carry permit holder in a shall issue state using his gun to save lives from a criminal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #26)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 08:29 PM

28. It depends.

Does the scale of the situation on the positive side compare to the scale of recklessness and danger on the negative side?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heywood J (Reply #28)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:07 PM

29. Impossible to say with certainty

most defensive gun uses don't actually involve killing anyone.

But then you are lumping legal gun owners in with criminals, aren't you? You don't distinguish between the two, do you? Because we do know that in those states that liberalized their gun laws and allowed concealed carry, there was not a jump in gun deaths. Considering that America is experiencing historic lows in gun violence, having halved our murder rate in 20 years, I think you are overstating the recklessness. There are some stupid people with guns but they are not the norm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #29)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 08:01 AM

31. No, actually, I don't.

I know that there are people who own guns for legitimate purposes and who don't commit crimes. However, I think that it's unhealthy to pump a seemingly-endless supply of 300 million devices whose intended purpose is to kill/destroy what they are pointed at (many of which are sold on fear) into a country without any controls on who may obtain such a device, or whether it's sold to someone who is mentally ill or bearing an obvious grudge. I think that some controls and definitions on the exact meaning of the words "arms" and "well-regulated" are justified and legal, and that trends like community guns are incredibly worrying.

Maybe it's just my personal geography but, twenty years ago, I don't recall the local street gangs settling their differences by blasting away indiscriminately in crowded theaters and elementary schools. They may have shot each other on street corners over turf, but I don't recall them firing into crowds. In terms of your second-last sentence, I have to wonder how much of that drop in deaths is due to our increased ability to keep victims alive and patch them back up?


ETA: The "No, I don't" was intended to refer to lumping people in together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heywood J (Reply #31)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 08:07 AM

32. Considering how gun violence has been steadily decreasing for 20 years

while at the same time gun ownership has skyrocketed, I would argue that your fears are overblown. Yes, we need to tighten background checks and crack down on illegal gun trafficking to ensure guns stay out of the hands of the wrong people. But the facts seem to indicate that the vast majority of legal gun owners are safe and responsible.

The drop in deaths is not due to medicine. When you shoot someone and they live, the crime is aggravated assault - aggravated assault is down also. All violent crime is down. America is simply a less violent place, Nancy Grace withstanding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #32)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 08:44 AM

33. "Seem to indicate"?

Due to the efforts of the "responsible gun owners" at the NRA, the ATF and CDC are prohibited from compiling statistics about gun violence and whether gun owners and stores are actually responsible and law-abiding. I can't see how an industry marketing firearms to people who think Obama is coming to personally steal their guns and sell them to the Mexicans is healthy for a country. I'm also waiting for a serious national conversation on the definition of what "arms" citizen has a legal right to possess, but I'm not holding my breath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heywood J (Reply #33)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 09:39 AM

34. The FBI and the CDC collect statistics on gun violence


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

There is no shortage of statistics.

The CDC was prevented from conducting research on gun violence but they never stopped collect data.

The conversation on what arms a citizen can own was held in 1934 - it is called the National Firearms Act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #18)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:56 AM

27. another NRA parrot

Thank you for revealing the misguided and dangerous NRA notion that gun fetishists should have firepower parity with law enforcement so that they can kill police officers and private citizens for disagreeing with the political and social sensibilities of the gun nuts. Why are there so many NRA advocates worried about the gun rights of pedophiles, drunk drivers and paranoid conspiracy theory mongers. Someone with a gun fetish is suffering from a violent and dysfunctional sexual disorder. This disorder is treatable- but not with more guns for the fetish- rather, much like other psycho-social sexual disorders, the gun fetish can only be treated through the denial of access to guns, medication and re-direction counseling. I understand the psychological pressure felt by the fetishist to defend his/her access to the tools of death and sexual gratification. The NRA has become the NAMBLA for the sexy guns crowd.
Sick people with a sexual fetish that fixates on huge collections of tools of death should not be given access to guns.
Ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:47 AM

6. WELL REGULATED. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:59 PM

13. Bran Muffins?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:48 AM

7. at least it gave me a starting point to argue from

First amendment speech tends to be more regulated than the second. Even though police are beating people up for free speech that actually is legal by law. Usually it's Free speech with responsibility. Did find out whoever is marketing Bully to DVD/BluRay is being a bunch of idiots. Both disks say PG-13 Version as if there will be an R rated version. I had this explained to me that actually the movie was eventually rated. 3 WORDS. changed. one Motherfucker and 2 in the background fucks. So technically it's a compromise. But the way they are selling it is it's been tweaked for a younger audience. No it hasn't. It's still for the target audience. Now the Common Sense rating folks are off.. This is a Parent child video. Parent and child must watch together. sticking a rating on it is absurd. Harvey put this out as free speech with responsibility and still got clocked for it. Hence the MPAA rating system is null and void.

So yeah I got off track but showing where there are limits. In free speech we have a rating system.. thats now void. But there's another one to take it's place with more explanation. Can never remember if it was factual or not but there was oh mr white in the Untouchables and he's got a concealed weapon in the court... course he's allowed to carry such a gun and promptly shoots a cop. and kevin costner too. well tries. Course then he flies off a root and crashes thru the roof like it's glass. Which I have no idea what the tops of those things were made of..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:05 PM

8. While another federal appeals court told Illinois that a concealed carry ban was unconstitutional

I think the proper reading of the sense of these cases it that while states are free to regulate concealed carry, they cannot ban it.

Illinois is the only state that bans concealed carry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:09 PM

9. THINK about how CC affects small businesses in our cities! & Youth culture everywhere. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:00 PM

14. I'm sure the career violent criminals who carry illegally are disappointed in this ruling

 

They must be very sad today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:37 PM

15. So much for the idea that your "castle" is wherever you happen to be standing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:50 PM

16. The ruling doesn't preclude states from defining the boundaries of a person's castle as broadly...

 

...as they decide. It leaves the door wide open for them to do just that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:57 PM

17. I don't know that they were precluded before

Many have. The ruling states that there is no constitutional right to it, which clears the way for the pendulum to start swinging the other way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:00 PM

23. Kick and Rec for gun fetishists

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:37 PM

24. It's a shame the Congress has considered it a constitutional right to pack an open AR-15-type weapon

of mass carnage on the hip, that too many must believe the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness doesn't amount to a proverbial hill of beans in this right-wing soused society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:17 PM

30. The "right"* to strut through Wal Mart with a pistol perched in their pants has always been a

dubious one upon which to invoke constitutional law, especially since the 2nd amendment, as written, is a collective right to the states allowing them to organize "well regulated militias," i.e., a state National Guard.

There is no constitutional right for an individual to "keep and bear arms"; the right to own a gun is a privilege subject to any number of provisos and regulations, just like driving a car. This is a good first step to righting the wrong of the Heller and McDonald decisions: we are one liberal justice away from overturning those decisions, just like the court reversed itself and overturned Plessey v. Ferguson and got itself on the right side of history on that issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #30)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 09:41 AM

35. Why do you oppose the President and the party platform?

both of which recognize an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #35)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 04:05 PM

36. So "hack89" now supports reinstating the AWB and requiring a gun safety test to buy a gun! Great!

Boy howdy, your buddies down in the Gungeon are going to be disappointed in you, hack, to say the least.

Here's the actual language of the Democratic Party's 2012 platform on guns, pal - I support all of it save the "individual rights" interpretation of the 2nd, which is a legal/philosophical quibble, and which we're only one Obama-appointed supreme court justice away from overturning anyway. How much do you support? ( ):

"Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few."

http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

Further, now, of course, President Obama and the party that nominated him supports even more sweeping, comprehensive, and sensible gun regulation, not only reinstating the AWB but banning high capacity magazines among other things - all things I'm just sure you support, now doncha?

I mean, a guy wouldn't wander around DU chiding others on their supposed lack of support of a single plank of the "party platform" if he didn't support that same platform wholeheartedly, would he? That would be...let's see what's the word? Hypocritical.

Here's some more language from the Democratic National Committee that was voted on by a solid majority of delegates in past conventions and is still strongly supported by nearly every element of the party:

"Democrats passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban. We increased federal, state, and local gun crime prosecution by 22 percent since 1992. Now gun crime is down by 35 percent. Now we must do even more. We need mandatory child safety locks. We should require a photo license I.D., a background check, and a gun safety test to buy a new handgun."

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Gun_Control.htm

Now that you're such a big embracer of Democratic Party platforms, I'm sure you agree with every word of that, too, don't you? Don't you?

Laughable stuff.


Edit: typo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #36)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 04:30 PM

37. I could support an AWB I guess - it would have no impact on me

or my family.

I just can't bring myself to support meaningless feelgood laws.

The stupidity of the new AWB in two pictures

This gun is specifically called out in the legislation as being illegal under the AWB:



This gun is specifically called out in the legislation as being legal under the AWB:



They are both Ruger Mini-14s

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/models.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #37)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 05:43 PM

38. Why do you oppose the President and the party platform?

As someone was just asking me, recently...


( )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #38)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 08:40 PM

39. Because he is misguided. Yourself? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread