10 Circuit Court upholds ban on concealed Carry

-v- · Feb 23, 2013

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

WSJ.com said:
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 · Feb 23, 2013

.

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 · Feb 23, 2013

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 · Feb 23, 2013

usmarine0352_2005 said:
.

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 · Feb 23, 2013

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

breakingcontact · Feb 23, 2013

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

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

Trent · Feb 23, 2013

Johnny Dollar said:
I've searched. Can't find anything yet.

Same here.

DMF · Feb 23, 2013

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 · Feb 23, 2013

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

Trent · Feb 23, 2013

Thanks!

Trent · Feb 23, 2013

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 · Feb 23, 2013

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 · Feb 23, 2013

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 · Feb 23, 2013

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 · Feb 23, 2013

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- · Feb 23, 2013

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 · Feb 23, 2013

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 · Feb 23, 2013

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

Crashbox · Feb 23, 2013

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 · Feb 23, 2013

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 · Feb 23, 2013

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

Unfortunately, Nuremburg has been shut down.

Frank Ettin · Feb 23, 2013

Trent said:
...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 · Feb 23, 2013

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 · Feb 23, 2013

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 · Feb 23, 2013

...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?

10 Circuit Court upholds ban on concealed Carry

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Moderator

2A was "political" when it was first adopted.

member

Member

Similar threads