TexasCHLforum.com

The ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was issued Friday in a case involving Washington state resident Gray Peterson...Peterson claims that being denied a concealed weapons permit because he was not a Colorado resident violated his Second Amendment rights to bear firearms...Colorado recognizes weapons permits issued by other states, but only for states that recognize Colorado permits. Washington state does not recognize Colorado permits.

Ok so at first, this seems like the court is simply saying, "This is a states rights issue, and we're not going to override it." But then they just have to throw in this idiotic reasoning:

In its ruling, the three-judge panel cited a U.S. 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."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02 ... z2Lm8JFsfv" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah...I'm still trying to figure out if this is good or bad!

Hopefully someone smarter than me will post up the real deal meaning!

FWIW...I don't plan to go to Colorado anytime soon!

I saw a debate about 2A back in the 90s when I was stationed in AZ. at that time, and may still do, allowed OC.

The biggest sticking point and one of the anti judges on the courts (I think a dissenting opinion) was that you could still keep and bear arms on your own property. the courts could take your right away once you left your property.

Sounds like the judges on that court may be wanting to do some REAL infringing...because with the antis, its all about chipping away...and interfering with concealed carry in some form or fashion because its not "infringing" may be an avenue they want to go down. Maybe they feel they've got the wind at their backs since ol' Justice Roberts caved on Obamacare because after the Appeals Court, I believe the SCOTUS is the next (and final) step.

RX8er wrote:I saw a debate about 2A back in the 90s when I was stationed in AZ. at that time, and may still do, allowed OC.

The biggest sticking point and one of the anti judges on the courts (I think a dissenting opinion) was that you could still keep and bear arms on your own property. the courts could take your right away once you left your property.

It troubles me to no end how judges with an agenda try to redefine language. "Keep" obviously means the part I underlined - just having weapons on your property. "Bear" OBVIOUSLY means to take a weapon out into public. Have there been no SCOTUS cases that have defined these words as such? Or are those cases just conveniently ignored?

ClarkLZeuss wrote: It troubles me to no end how judges with an agenda try to redefine language. "Keep" obviously means the part I underlined - just having weapons on your property. "Bear" OBVIOUSLY means to take a weapon out into public. Have there been no SCOTUS cases that have defined these words as such? Or are those cases just conveniently ignored?

Like many pro-2A folks I am frequently disappointed and frustrated by many judicial decisions. However I think that we must be careful to read decisions in of the circumstances and precedents. To answer the above question, IANAL but I do not believe the Supreme Court ever has given any guidance on what "bear" means. This is mostly because until Heller & McDonald the 2A was a dead letter. Many courts had adopted a collective rights view and no federal law had been overturned because it violated the 2A in eighty years or longer.

I think, given the SC's very recent pronouncements that 2A law is in its infancy. It will take several years to determine the scope of the right. This court is also bound by circuit precedent. The decision quotes Heller, McDonald, and other cases. The nineteenth century laws regarding CC are also explored and they are not helpful to a pro "CC as a right" cause. Here is my summary:

In the 1800s, pistols were generally worn openly. Many laws were passed against concealment because it was viewed as unmanly a prelude to banditry or assassination. Courts upheld these restrictions.

While not deciding the issue, McDonald and Heller both said that their rulings do not disturb long-standing and acceptable limitations. While CC wasn't listed as one of the "presumptively valid" restrictions, those early court cases allow for a strong argument to be made that CC, simply as one form of bearing arms, can be regulated.

More importantly, the plaintiff did NOT challenge the city/county of Denver's ban on OC. Given that CO is an open carry state with this exception this, the court implied, was the real reason that he could not bear arms in Denver not the CO license statute.

Worse, he is a resident of WA so he had the burden of proving that the residency requirement was unreasonable. Case law was against him.

IMHO, this was a badly positioned plaintiff who made a blunder by not attacking the Denver ordinance and thus sowed the seeds of his defeat. I think the court may well have ruled that Denver's OC ban is a violation of the 2A.

Finally we can't be blind to how society's preferences have changed over the last 150 years. Then OC was the norm and CC was objectionable. Now it is generally the opposite. That precedent matters.

I am not making an OC is better than CC argument. I'm only saying that, historically speaking, I wouldn't be surprised if the originalist members of the Court might see a distinction & it would not surprise me if many CC regimes, including those with parts I would find distasteful, are upheld while bans or severe restrictions on OC may not be.

I do not think this is a rogue decision and if appealed to the SCOTUS it would be upheld. Let's hope that appeal doesn't happen because this poor case might cause a decision that other courts perceive as very permissive of restrictions on CC.
SA-TX

All it says is that a state may regulate carry, and that it isn't an infringement to have requirements that out of staters may have a hard time complying with. It is a good example of picking and choosing cases to appeal very carefully, because they are not without risk. Go up on the wrong facts, get an adverse ruling is one thing, but giving the anti's a chance to get some law on their side is quite another.

We are plagued with gun ho types that see every case as "Victory or Death!" and bitterly criticize the NRA and other groups for not backing every one of them to the hilt. This is why caution is advisable. Heller and McDonald are examples of carefully selected plaintiffs and facts that knowledgeable counsel hunt for that have the best chance of being helpful. Some people don't mind being like Churchill said about the British, who lose every battle except the last one. I don't think this is the road to take.

In Illinois, carry is forbidden, and the 7th Circuit just invalidated that to force them to come up with something that is Constitutionally OK. California has no reciprocity whatsoever; most residents cannot legally obtain a CHL. That may change but a case by an out of state resident wanting to carry in California is not going to be successful, and as this illustrates may be actually detrimental in its ultimate effect. We need some other rulings to go out way before we can make the final legal assault.

Here is an article from Investors Business Daily about the Illinois case:

Guns: An Illinois court has ruled that the Second Amendment means what it says and has ordered the state legislature to adopt a law by June that lets citizens bear arms in self-defense, not just keep them.

On Feb. 22, a 5-4 majority of the 10-member U.S. Seventh Court of Appeals upheld the Dec. 11 decision, which had been rendered by a three-member panel, to address absurdity and inconsistency of Illinois gun laws that allowed ownership of a firearm, but not the right to carry it outside the home. In other words, the "right to keep but not to bear arms."

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorial ... eapons.htm

JALLEN wrote:Here is an article from Investors Business Daily about the Illinois case:

Guns: An Illinois court has ruled that the Second Amendment means what it says and has ordered the state legislature to adopt a law by June that lets citizens bear arms in self-defense, not just keep them.

On Feb. 22, a 5-4 majority of the 10-member U.S. Seventh Court of Appeals upheld the Dec. 11 decision, which had been rendered by a three-member panel, to address absurdity and inconsistency of Illinois gun laws that allowed ownership of a firearm, but not the right to carry it outside the home. In other words, the "right to keep but not to bear arms."

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorial ... eapons.htm

Same happened in Maryland (discretionary permit system that resulted on practically no one being approved was thrown out because no other carry option exists in MD) but I don't have a moment to find the citation.

The real question that will take years to resolve is what must states allow without a permit just based on the 2A.

The 10th Circuit had no choice but to defer to Colorado law on this one. The Colorado Constitution is explicit in excluding concealed carry from the right to keep & bear arms = it is not a "right" in Colorado.

Therefore DUE TO THE POLICY OF WASHINGTON STATE NOT TO RECOGNIZE THE COLORADO CHP - and the plaintiff being a Washington resident the "buck" on this one stops in Spokane.

wait and see what happens if NObama gets to replace any on the US supreme court... talk about bad news if that happens,

Clearly, prohibiting the people from "bearing arms" is not an infringement of a right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the looney gun nuts on the right may claim.