Headlines

Federal appeals court: There’s no Second Amendment right to concealed carry

In its ruling, the three-judge panel cited a Supreme Court ruling that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.”

“In light of our nation’s extensive practice of restricting citizen’s 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 judges ruled.

According to court records, Mr. Peterson had permits from Florida and Washington. Mr. Peterson said he was a frequent visitor to Denver and needed to carry a firearm during his visits.

Read the Article

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

*bear?

ted c on February 24, 2013 at 9:17 AM

I’m sure they’ll find all sorts of things that they feel are not infringements upon the right to bear arms.
They already have.
It’s a slow process, but one day, maybe not in my lifetime, but surely my grandchild’s, guns & their owners will be propagandized so effectively that it will be evil to own them & Americans will eventually disarm themselves.

Badger40 on February 24, 2013 at 9:23 AM

Maybe not the Second Amendment, but see Justice Thomas’s concurrence in McDonald v Chicago, analyzing the Fourteenth Amendment.

JohnJ on February 24, 2013 at 9:23 AM

If no conceal carry how about open carry? That would seem to be the only alternative and still keep the 2nd Amendment in force.

Engrpat on February 24, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Given the fact that 49 of the 50 states allow CCW, I would take issue with the premise that it’s an “extensive practice.” Even ignoring that, what part of “shall not be infringed” do they not understand?

Mohonri on February 24, 2013 at 9:24 AM

“shall not be infringed” originally referred only to the federal government. In order to apply that against a state, you’d have to either “incorporate” the Second Amendment or find a separate limitation through the 14th Amendment.

JohnJ on February 24, 2013 at 9:31 AM

If no conceal carry how about open carry? That would seem to be the only alternative and still keep the 2nd Amendment in force.

Engrpat on February 24, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Far as I am to understand, here in ND, while you need a permit to carry concealed, you need nothing to strap it to your hip & walk in public.

Badger40 on February 24, 2013 at 9:36 AM

If no conceal carry how about open carry? That would seem to be the only alternative and still keep the 2nd Amendment in force.

Engrpat on February 24, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Far as I am to understand, here in ND, while you need a permit to carry concealed, you need nothing to strap it to your hip & walk in public.

Badger40 on February 24, 2013 at 9:36 AM

If a law doesn’t make it illegal, it’s legal. Viva America!

gryphon202 on February 24, 2013 at 9:41 AM

John Adams signed the Aliens & Sedition Acts. A clear violation of the First Amendment. So even the Founding Fathers weren’t totally aware of what a powerful statement they were making. Almost as if they were guided by a Higher Power.

rbj on February 24, 2013 at 9:43 AM

HotAir.com just automatically forwarded me to this website?

http://search.buzzuparticles.com/search.php

Kaptain Amerika on February 24, 2013 at 9:43 AM

This is why our rights are based on something higher than the governments we form. Today the courts say we’re free. Tomorrow they say we are not. Today congress says we can live as men. Tomorrow congress says we must live as slaves.

We must go back to foundations. Liberty comes from God. Not man.

JellyToast on February 24, 2013 at 9:51 AM

In light of our nation’s extensive practice of restricting citizen’s freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that…

What the heck kind of a reason is that? Is it within the meaning of the Constitution or isn’t it? “Extensive practice” is not the test.

petefrt on February 24, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Hmm…IMO the court got this one right. The 2nd really does not address concealed carry. That is a states issues and should be covered by the 10th.

SunSword on February 24, 2013 at 9:55 AM

“Bear arms” … it doesn’t matter if you conceal or open carry your arms. These judges need to get a clue.

darwin on February 24, 2013 at 9:56 AM

On the face of it, banning concealed carry seems constitutionally permissible as long as open carry is allowed.
The question is, “what’s the point?” What public good does banning concealed carry accomplish? It seems to me that it would reduce public safety by making it easier to grab someone else’s gun.

Count to 10 on February 24, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Proposed: The Twenty Eighth Amendment to the Constitution

Section 1. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The right of individual citizens to keep, carry, and bear arms shall not be infringed by the federal government, nor by any state or local government.

How ’bout this?

JimLennon on February 24, 2013 at 10:10 AM

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

Fezzik on February 24, 2013 at 10:10 AM

According to gun rights groups, Colorado is one of about two dozen states that do not honor concealed weapons permits from Washington State.

Colorado recognizes weapons permits issued by other states, but only for states that recognize Colorado permits. Washington State does not recognize Colorado permits.

That’s …insane, high-order idiocy right there.

BigGator5 on February 24, 2013 at 10:16 AM

“If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”)…Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”

The phrase “carries a firearm” in the firearms chapter of the Federal Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1), is to be “broadly interpreted to encompass not only when a suspect is carrying a firearm on his person but also when the firearm is in either the trunk or locked glove compartment of the vehicle the suspect is driving,” Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998).

“[S]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person,’” Justice Ginsburg in Muscarello.

- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

Resist We Much on February 24, 2013 at 10:21 AM

Given the fact that 49 of the 50 states allow CCW, I would take issue with the premise that it’s an “extensive practice.” Even ignoring that, what part of “shall not be infringed” do they not understand?

Mohonri on February 24, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Illinois’ ban was just ruled unconstitutional in Moore v Madigan, http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/537394/u-s-appellate-court-gun-law-decision.pdf.

Resist We Much on February 24, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Although I am a concealed carry permit holder, and disagree vehemently with anti-concealed-carry laws, I don’t find this interpretation of the Second Amendment to be outlandish.

You can bet though that the general principle won’t be evenly applied in other matters. The first time that some married gay couple from Washington comes to Colorado, I’m sure they will rule the marriage valid according to the “I’m here and I’m queer” Amendment of the Constitution (it’s right next to the abortion amendment… Trust me, it’s in there somewhere).

Glenn Jericho on February 24, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Actually, historically speaking the court is at least thinking along the “right” track (Note: I am not saying they are correct). Governmental authorities have typically been more afraid of concealed carry than open carry (after all, it’s easier to know who to watch out for if you can see that they have a gun). That said, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t discriminate between open-carry and concealed-carry, so…

Othniel on February 24, 2013 at 10:40 AM

So we should be able to Open Carry!
Cool!

ProfShadow on February 24, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Given the fact that 49 of the 50 states allow CCW, I would take issue with the premise that it’s an “extensive practice.

[Mohonri on February 24, 2013 at 9:24 AM]

It does seem lame, but look at it another way. It is extensive because it is practiced in 49 of 50 states. If only one state had laws restricting CCW and all the rest didn’t have any law requiring permits, then the Court could not be able to say it is extensive.

I was going to say blithely not this might be a turf war, because WA doesn’t recognize CO permits, but I see that WA recognizes many others and does recognize CO because there is no CO mental health background check. CO also recognizes FL even though FL recognizes CO, but only FL permits held by FL residents. Since Peterson is a resident of WA his FL permit isn’t recognized.

CCW is a spiderweb of regulation. I haven’t read the full case, but it’s really weird since CO is a Shall Issue state, so I don’t understand why Peterson was denied a CO permit, unless CO doesn’t issue to out of state residents.

Dusty on February 24, 2013 at 11:12 AM

“… and doesn’t recognize CO because ….”

typo in last comment

Dusty on February 24, 2013 at 11:13 AM

JohnJ on February 24, 2013 at 9:31 AM

I thought that neither the federal government nor the state or local, could rescind a constitutionally established right?
Can a sate pass a law reestablishing slavery?

Mimzey on February 24, 2013 at 11:14 AM

[Glenn Jericho on February 24, 2013 at 10:39 AM]

I don’t know that the open carry would have made a difference in this case, since the Court is ruling on the ubiquity of regulation, and I think that the Court could say the same about open carry if most states had regulations on open carry, as in requiring a permit to do so.

Dusty on February 24, 2013 at 11:21 AM

CCW is a spiderweb of regulation. I haven’t read the full case, but it’s really weird since CO is a Shall Issue state, so I don’t understand why Peterson was denied a CO permit, unless CO doesn’t issue to out of state residents.

Dusty on February 24, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Some states have much more stringent training and proficiency requirements than others for granting a CCW, and those states don’t recognize the ccw permits of others with lower qualification standards. My ccws in Nevada, Florida and Utah are recognized in 39 states total but its still a vexing spiderweb of conflicting jurisdictions. Even the local laws of Las Vegas, and North Las Vegas conflict badly on ccw. It’s a mess.

Technically the court was right but we need legislation requiring all states to recognize permits issued in other states at some point, just like they recognize marriages and other contracts.

Harbingeing on February 24, 2013 at 11:40 AM

I thought that neither the federal government nor the state or local, could rescind a constitutionally established right?
Can a sate pass a law reestablishing slavery?

Mimzey on February 24, 2013 at 11:14 AM

No, the 13th Amendment prohibits slavery via state or federal government.

The Constitution can restrict both the federal and the state governments, but the Bill of Rights originally did not. The Supreme Court has created a doctrine called “Incorporation” by which it tries to hold the Bill of Rights against the states through the 14th Amendment. This is a bad doctrine both because the 14th Amendment was not intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights, but also because incorporation has the unfortunate result of weakening our actual rights by creating exceptions so that states have more flexibility in their law. For example, by allowing states to create “reasonable” exceptions to the right to free speech. The federal government is then allowed to use this exception, when it should be subject to a much stricter standard.

JohnJ on February 24, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Technically the court was right but we need legislation requiring all states to recognize permits issued in other states at some point, just like they recognize marriages and other contracts.

[Harbingeing on February 24, 2013 at 11:40 AM]

I agree with your preferred end point, though I’d prefer not to have federal legislation to having it. I realize it is a pain in the butt right now but it seems to me that we’re heading in the direction with your end point in mind.

Asking the Federal government to solve the problem with legislation is what got us to where we are with the Federal government lording it over us in just about every aspect of life. We have to stop sometime and I’ve always preferred that be yesterday because the unintended consequences always show up today. Let’s let the SCOTUS clean the mess up (slowly, yes, but surely), based on the principles we’ve set down by tradition.

Dusty on February 24, 2013 at 11:57 AM