TexasCHLforum.com

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 wrote: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.

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

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.

The Annoyed Man wrote: 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.

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

Jumping Frog wrote: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 wrote: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.”

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.

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

ilovetabasco wrote: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.