[-v-]

I hope this isn't a repost, but its certainly not good news either. What I find somewhat troubling is that 2 of the 3 appointees were under Regan and GW Bush appointees. I did not anticipate that outcome.

WSJ Article (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323864304578320661793999462.html?mod=WSJPRO_hps_MIDDLEThirdNews)

In a decision likely to hearten backers of gun-control measures, a federal appeals court in Denver said Friday that carrying concealed firearms isn't protected by the Second Amendment.

In its ruling, the three-judge panel referred to longstanding restrictions on individuals' ability to carry concealed weapons.

"In light of our nation's extensive practice of restricting citizens' 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," wrote Judge Carlos Lucero, a Bill Clinton appointee, for the unanimous panel, which also included Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush appointees.

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

Doesn't look good. Doesn't like 49 states have concealed carry though?




However, if it sets up opposite rulings the major circuits isn't that better to get a good 2nd Amendment case to SCOTUS?
.

[Trent]

Oh no.

Now the Supreme Court is going to have no choice, but to get involved.

We have a split between the 2nd, 7th, and 10th now.

[Trent]

.

Doesn't look good. Doesn't like 49 states have concealed carry though?




However, if it sets up opposite rulings the major circuits isn't that better to get a good 2nd Amendment case to SCOTUS?
.

Not necessarily. It all depends on which one they hear. Each of the cases are slightly different and have different merits.

E.g. if they choose to hear the 7th circuit appeal that Madigan will undoubtedly file at some point, and they rule in favor of the positions of the 2nd and 10th, that could put the nail in the coffin for CCW in Illinois PERIOD.

AND lead to a wide range of sweeping new bans all across the nation, even in constitutional carry states.

This is NOT good news.

[Trent]

Is there a link to their opinions somewhere that isn't pay-walled?

[breakingcontact]

I can't believe how a 3 judge panel can decide anything.

God gave me the right to defend myself, not some court.

[Johnny Dollar]

Is there a link to their opinions somewhere that isn't pay-walled?

I've searched. Can't find anything yet.

[Trent]

I've searched. Can't find anything yet.

Same here.

[DMF]

Go to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals website, and locate the link for published ruling 11-1149.

If I wasn't on my phone I would post a link. Sorry.

[powell&hyde]

Here is a link to the pdf ruling. http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-1149.pdf

[Trent]

Thanks!

[Trent]

What a crock.


With respect to Peterson’s claims against the Denver sheriff, we conclude that the
carrying of concealed firearms is not protected by the Second Amendment or the
Privileges and Immunities Clause. In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), the
Supreme Court stated in dicta that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not
infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.” Id. at 281-82. More
recently, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court noted 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 explained that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on
longstanding prohibitions.” Id. at 626. In light of our nation’s extensive practice of
restricting citizens’ 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

[Trent]

The reason I said "What a crock" is the US v. Heller reads:


nothing in our opinion should be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws impos*
ing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms.


In other words, the 10th picked and chose whatever damn language they felt SUITED them without acknowledging the CONTEXT AND MEANING of the Supreme Court ruling.

[Trent]

The 10th's ruling is so littered with bull.

What they did is a travesty and a slap in the face to the Supreme Court of the US.

[Trent]

This is a very damaging statement:


And because we conclude that the concealed carrying of firearms falls outside
the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee, Peterson’s Second Amendment claim
was properly subject to summary judgment.

[Paincakesx]

I'm not well versed in how these things usually go.

What will likely happen now? What can be done to ensure that carry rights are upheld?

[-v-]

Yeah, I'm not too thrilled with this either. From my take away, what they indicated was that concealed carry of weapons is not a protected right because most all states limit it in some way (permit requirements etc.). I could see how this could be used to pass a national ban on concealed carry, but at the same time, I also see passing such a ban as being an incredibly difficult up-hill battle for any Washington insider wishing to do so, specifically due to entrenched state-to-state differences.

[beatledog7]

This is what we get when we confer too much power on judges. The Founders never intended that judges would be political pawns and be able to "decide" what laws, especially the Constitution, mean. But that's where we've gone.

[Trent]

-v- ; one thing is for certain, this judgment is incredibly damaging for any future of national reciprocity.

[Crashbox]

Hmmm... so if the SCOTUS views a prohibition of concealed carry as being valid, then by that logic, the "separate but equal" ruling should never have been reversed.

Our rights are in most severe danger in my opinion.

[Trent]

BTW, I'm eagerly awaiting Frank's response on their opinion.

To us, we tend to see stuff like this and goes "it sucks".

Frank will tell us if it really sucks, or not, and why.

:)

[k_dawg]

Fundementally no different than the judges who upheld slavery and other human rights violations.

Unfortunately, Nuremburg has been shut down.

[Frank Ettin]

...I'm eagerly awaiting Frank's response on their opinion...I'm probably not going to do any sort of detailed analysis, especially not immediately. The Circuit Courts have generally been punting on these cases, and that's been pretty much expected. Circuit Courts tend not to want to break new ground, especially in matters of real significance. The 7th Circuit in Madigan was a rather refreshing exception.

Peterson raised a difficult issue in light of the fact that a number of 19th Century decisions in various States upheld laws prohibiting concealed weapons. A couple of those cases were cited in Heller. Of course, those cases arose in a context in which open carry was permitted.

And strategical I think we'd be better off holding back on Peterson, and similar travel/non-resident cases until be get a more solid foundation of favorable carry-outside-the-home decisions.

[230RN]

Gee, won't it be great when all three "checks and balances" branches of our government finallly completely coalesce into only one branch?

Just think of how efficient that will be!

[NavyLCDR]

It's not like the court said that you don't have the right to carry a firearm. It just said that no right existed to conceal it. Which is true in any state that requires a permit to conceal it anyway. If you have to pay for the government's permission to do something, that something is not a right anyway, it is a privilege that only those that can afford to pay for can engage in. Open carry is legal everywhere in Colorado without a permit except for Denver. So, now maybe this ruling can be used against Denver to overturn their prohibitions. Maybe, also, this ruling could be used to help overturn the Federal 1000' Gun Free School Zone law, which requires a license to be exempt from, if you want to carry a loaded gun.

[BK]

...the concealed carrying of firearms falls outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee...
Do they not know what the phrase "bear arms" means?

[Solo]

Gee, won't it be great when all three "checks and balances" branches of our government finallly completely coalesce into only one branch?

Just think of how efficient that will be!

Oh yes.

http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2012/08/79_58158_0_JudgeDreddVol39I.jpg

[NavyLCDR]

Do they not know what the phrase "bear arms" means?

You do understand there is a difference between "bearing" and "hiding", right?

[BK]

Yes, it is a version of bearing. I never would have guessed that they could or would dictate HOW one can or cannot bear arms. The antis have most always been preoccupied with what we can keep and bear, or whether we can keep and bear, that I haven't noticed any effort to curtail how we keep and bear.

[breakingcontact]

I'm not up on all the legal business like some of you. What's next? Who does this apply to? What's the next higher court? Appeals?

Appreciate you legal eagles here.

[GAF]

He was denied because he was not a resident of the state.
Maybe this makes things a little different.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_22646585/appeals-court-upholds-concealed-weapons-ruling

[bushmaster1313]

This was a bad case to bring
He was unable to argue that he was completely disarmed.
Could only argue against the state concealed carry law.
I believe even Alan Gura has argued that concealed carry could be banned if open carry was allowed.

[Phatty]

This case is not a big deal. The Supreme Court has expressly stated that prohibiting concealed carry is allowed. States can ban concealed or open carry but not both. The plaintiff in this case was completely disarmed because Denver had an ordinance prohibiting open carry without a concealed carry permit. But, instead of challenging the Denver ordinance, this guy told the court he was not challenging the Denver law, just the state concealed carry law. So, the court says "you lose."

[Crashbox]

States can ban concealed or open carry but not both.

I think this is what the SCOTUS intended, although I still think ANY prohibition goes too far.

[Phatty]

I think this is what the SCOTUS intended, although I still think ANY prohibition goes too far.
I have a hard time believing that the Founding Fathers would have intended the 2A to protect the concealing of arms on one's person. At that time, only criminals and other undesirables would have concealed their weapons. The lawful, honorable way to bear arms was in an open manner.

[Johnny Dollar]

I have a hard time believing that the Founding Fathers would have intended the 2A to protect the concealing of arms on one's person. At that time, only criminals and other undesirables would have concealed their weapons. The lawful, honorable way to bear arms was in an open manner.

A provocative, fascinating statement and,IMO, probably true.

[Yo Mama]

I have a hard time believing that the Founding Fathers would have intended the 2A to protect the concealing of arms on one's person. At that time, only criminals and other undesirables would have concealed their weapons. The lawful, honorable way to bear arms was in an open manner.

They also believed times would change, and society would have different norms in the future.

[cauldron]

There is a history of not scaring the populace also. Greeks were not allowed to wear their armor inside the cities, as it might alarm people.

Having a weapon that is powerful AND easily concealed is, relatively speaking, a new thing.

A dagger or a single shot pistol... Not as big of a deal as full armor and a spear or sword.

[beatledog7]

There is nothing in 2A which says a person has the right to carry a gun that people around him/her cannot observe readily. It simply doesn't address observability.

Part of me doesn't like a state being able to prohibit CC, but part of says as long as we can OC there's no Constitutional issue per se.

[Prince Yamato]

In other words, the 10th picked and chose whatever damn language they felt SUITED them without acknowledging the CONTEXT AND MEANING of the Supreme Court ruling.

Exactly. The language was regarding sensitive places. Like a church could ban its members from carrying. I'm pretty sure an outright ban on concealed carry contradicts the notion of "bearing" arms.

How can one bear arms if one is prohibited from bearing them?

[bushmaster1313]

The issue is whether the right to concealed carry is protected in a state that allows open carry.

The right to a handgun in the home was only found to be protected because some people could not handle a long gun for any of many reasons.

Whether concealed carry can be prohibited in a state that allows open carry is a political question. Political questions allowed by the Constitution must be decided by the lawmakers not the courts.

[k_dawg]

Strange how a 'right to privacy' exists to openly being pregant while walking into a public abortion clinic and walking out not pregnant; as well as sodomy,

Yet not to the 2nd amendment.

[230RN]

Even if concealed carry weren't a version of "bearing," it would still fall under the "unenumerated rights" rubric.

The BOR was included because some of the states were concerned that some rights, although unenumerated in the main body of the Constitution, should be enumerated ("spelled out"), in black and white. See the Preamble to the Bill Of Rights.

As far as I'm concerned, bear means carry. Under your hat, in your jock, in your sock, whatever. The proscription about concealed carry seems to be related to the unsupportable notion that only bad guys carried concealed and wore masks.

I remember one c'boy movie where all the good guys carried their pieces openly, but the bad guy carried under his jacket. Eeeeek! Another Hollywood meme which influenced our dumb lawmakers.

Terry, 230RN

REF (The Preamble to the Bill Of RIghts, for your convenience in understanding what the BOR is all about):

Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791
Preamble

Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
(Bolding mine.The text of the 10 Articles (Amendments) follows.)

See, those old boys in tights and wigs wanted to be sure that you, personally, stayed FREE.

Get it? FREE!

[Phatty]

Even if concealed carry weren't a version of "bearing," it would still fall under the "unenumerated rights" rubric.
Which were reserved to the States. Colorado's law was challenged, not a federal law, so if the 2A doesn't specifically protect the concealing of firearms, then Colorado is free to pass such a law.

[breakingcontact]

k_dawg pointing out just how backwards our nation is when concerned with "rights".

Right to....LIFE!

I need to study the federal court system more. One court decides something then what?

[Bighouse Doc]

The only reason concealed carry became an issue was that abolitionist, being religious often concealed their weapons. The original concealed carry bans were meant to disarm abolitionists and make them defenseless against pro slaveholder mobs.

Until then, nobody cared how a person carried.

-Doc

[NavyLCDR]

The only reason concealed carry became an issue was that abolitionist, being religious often concealed their weapons. The original concealed carry bans were meant to disarm abolitionists and make them defenseless against pro slaveholder mobs.

Until then, nobody cared how a person carried.

-Doc
And the first pistol permit system came about in 1911 in New York to disarm the immigrant victims of "Big Tim" Sullivan's mobsters because the mobsters were beginning to face armed resistance.

[breakingcontact]

From what I understand the supreme court recognized the right to carry either openly OR concealed. Correct?

[Frank Ettin]

From what I understand the supreme court recognized the right to carry either openly OR concealed. Correct? No, and that particular question was not before the Court.

What the Supreme Court needed to rule, and did rule, in order to reach the decision it did in the case before it was that the right described in the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms was an individual (not collective) right and not connected with service in a militia.

[Alaska444]

-v- ; one thing is for certain, this judgment is incredibly damaging for any future of national reciprocity.
Trent, I oppose National reciprocity anyway. Keep it at the states rights level. We are winning at that level. At the Federal level, all we can hope for is trouble period.

As long as SCOTUS rules it is a states rights issue, we are fine. Hopefully, I will be able to sell my house in CA by this summer and then become a full fledged Idaho resident where I will stay for the duration of this existence here on God's green earth. I feel comfortable with Idaho's climate of gun rights and hopefully that will continue. Yes, keep it at the state level. Even in CA, all the rural areas are essentially Shall Issue.

[Trent]

I can't argue with that sentiment, Alaska.

For awhile I was HOPING for national reciprocity because we have ZERO right to carry in Illinois. It would have been the only way for us. Now, it finally appears that is changing. How that turns out is up for contention still, but at least there's a chance.

Still, we have brothers and sisters in California and New York and other places who would benefit. So.. I'm not totally against it, per se.

[breakingcontact]

Frank Ettin thanks for the response.

I'm familiar with that decision. I thought additionally it commented on carry? Perhaps that was another case or just some bit of info I read on the web that isn't true.

I appreciate those of you hear who are knowlegable and the nuances of the laws/court cases. There are so many layers and cases that I can't keep it all straight.

[Alaska444]

I can't argue with that sentiment, Alaska.

For awhile I was HOPING for national reciprocity because we have ZERO right to carry in Illinois. It would have been the only way for us. Now, it finally appears that is changing. How that turns out is up for contention still, but at least there's a chance.

Still, we have brothers and sisters in California and New York and other places who would benefit. So.. I'm not totally against it, per se.
Sorry to hear you are from IL. After living in CA for nearly 20 years, I won't miss that place much if by God's grace we are able to make a clean break in the next 3 months. If not, it will be some time next year.

Keep up the good fight and hopefully state by state, we will be able to exercise our 2A rights throughout the entire nation. One can only hope.

God bless,

[Bubba613]

AND lead to a wide range of sweeping new bans all across the nation, even in constitutional carry states.
Why would it lead to a ban on carry in states that currently allow it? Just because you have no right to something does not make it prohibited. Voters in those states elected representatives to pass carry laws and they did. That's the democratic process.