Court Rules There is No Right to Carry a Concealed Weapon

[pbwalker]

http://blogs.lawyers.com/2013/02/no-rig ... ed-weapon/

The case began on a narrow point – a challenge by a Washington State man against Colorado’s law to issue CHL permits (“Concealed Handgun License”) only to state residents. But the final ruling held, “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.”

[AEA]

Looks like the Colorado and Illinois Circuit cases will go to the Supreme Court for a ruling on the right to carry a concealed weapon as it relates to the 2a.

Could end up badly for 8 million current license holders and those that are applying as we speak.

[JJVP]

Looks like the Colorado and Illinois Circuit cases will go to the Supreme Court for a ruling on the right to carry a concealed weapon as it relates to the 2a.

Could end up badly for 8 million current license holders and those that are applying as we speak.

The concealed carry permits are issued or not by the states. Even if the SCOTUS were to determine that concealed carry is not protected under the 2A, that does not mean the concealed carry licenses cannot be issued by the states as it is now. I see no impact to current or future CHL'ers unless the individual states change their law concerning CC.

[MeMelYup]

It would be nice if the court would say: The state may regulate how you can carry, it shall not regulate that you cannot.

[AEA]

It would be nicer if they ruled that it "shall not be infringed".

[RoyGBiv]

It would be nice if the court would say: The state may regulate how you can carry, it shall not regulate that you cannot.

In my (completely unqualified ) opinion, this would be consistent with McDonald.

In McDonald the Court held that 2A applied equally to the States under the 14th (Due Process). I would then argue that States certainly can regulate the carrying of a gun by a citizen, but not prohibit it explicitly (like IL currently does) or effectively (via "may issue", or by putting in place some other insurmountable burden). With a bit of luck, and some good lawyering, this case could turn out to mandate "shall issue".

[The Annoyed Man]

http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=423
7TH CIRCUIT LETS POSNER RULING STAND; HUGE WIN FOR CCW, SAYS SAF

For Immediate Release: 2/22/2013

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today won a significant victory for concealed carry when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals let stand a December ruling by a three-judge panel of the court that forces Illinois to adopt a concealed carry law, thus affirming that the right to bear arms exists outside the home.

The ruling came in Moore v. Madigan, a case filed by SAF. The December opinion that now stands was written by Judge Richard Posner, who gave the Illinois legislature 180 days to “craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment…on the carrying of guns in public.” That clock is ticking, noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.

So now we have two circuit court decisions, coming from sort of kind of opposite sides of the RKBA, which will likely end up in SCOTUS.

[Jumping Frog]

Not necessarily, the IL case banned all forms of bearing arms. IL could conceivably meet court requirement by allowing open carry of long arms, for example.

[pbwalker]

So now we have two circuit court decisions, coming from sort of kind of opposite sides of the RKBA, which will likely end up in SCOTUS.

Let's say a prayer for the health of the Conservative leaning justices...

[canvasbck]

It would be nicer if they ruled that it "shall not be infringed".

THIS!

[RoyGBiv]

Not necessarily, the IL case banned all forms of bearing arms. IL could conceivably meet court requirement by allowing open carry of long arms, for example.

Yes...Exactly.
..... and the Colorado Circuit allowing the banning of CC says nothing about what the States must affirmatively allow.
SCOTUS will almost certainly be faced with clearing up the myriad of lower court rulings by giving some sort of affirmative guidance... Something along the lines of "the States may regulate the "Bearing" of arms, but not to the point of prohibiting them".

In this instance, both Circuit courts were correct. CC is not a protected right (Denver) but totally banning "Bearing" arms is a violation of 2A (IL). These rulings are not mutually exclusive.

[ilovetabasco]

After Schrader v. Holder and Peterson v. Martinez (the case which this thread is about), I sometimes wonder if the Alan Gura and the Second Amendment Foundation are really concerned about protecting our rights, or if they simply want to play lawyer on an issue that garners significant media attention.

Heller was seemingly well constructed, but I fail to understand how anyone would even consider Peterson v. Martinez a strategically wise judicial vehicle. Perhaps they wanted to lose to increase the probability that SCOTUS would hear the case? I realize that is absurd, but I truly fail to see SAF's reasoning here.

[sjfcontrol]

http://blogs.lawyers.com/2013/02/no-rig ... ed-weapon/

The case began on a narrow point – a challenge by a Washington State man against Colorado’s law to issue CHL permits (“Concealed Handgun License”) only to state residents. But the final ruling held, “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.”

That was a very negatively-worded article...

The ruling is yet another setback for the NRA, which filed a brief supporting Peterson. The NRA has pursued a strategy of using litigation to eliminate gun-safety laws one at a time, which increases the sales and profits of the arms industry that funds the NRA. The strategy backfired because the lawsuit focused on the narrow issue of permits for non-residents, and blew up into an expansive ruling limiting gun rights. The ruling is a precedent in all federal courts.

The heavily-funded NRA has filed many cases against small municipalities and local sheriffs nationwide, trying to pick off safety laws individually. That strategy failed when it sued to allow gun sales to minors, to overturn a limit allowing one gun purchase per month and to overturn a law allowing doctors to discuss the dangers of gun ownership with patients. Courts in each of these cases ruled against the gun lobby.

[stevie_d_64]

It would be nicer if they ruled that it "shall not be infringed".

ding ding ding ding!!!

[stevie_d_64]

After Schrader v. Holder and Peterson v. Martinez (the case which this thread is about), I sometimes wonder if the Alan Gura and the Second Amendment Foundation are really concerned about protecting our rights, or if they simply want to play lawyer on an issue that garners significant media attention.

Heller was seemingly well constructed, but I fail to understand how anyone would even consider Peterson v. Martinez a strategically wise judicial vehicle. Perhaps they wanted to lose to increase the probability that SCOTUS would hear the case? I realize that is absurd, but I truly fail to see SAF's reasoning here.

Well, like I always say, better to battle things like this in court, than in the streets...

I'm sure the case was not lost on purpose, just to jack it up to the next level in the "system"...That obviously costs money on both sides, but there are deep pockets in play here, and it doesn't seem to bother them that much...

For now, I am a law-abiding citizen...The day I lose my right to keep and bear arms as I see fit...Becoming a not-so-law-abiding citizen is just a step across a narrow creek for me and a few others I know...We'll take it from there...