10 Circuit Court upholds ban on concealed Carry

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.