The 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday that concealed carry permits are not protected by the second amendment.
The three judges cited a Supreme Court decision that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons."
The case was originally brought by Washington state resident Gray Peterson against the city of Denver and Colorado's Dept of Public Safety, who had denied him a concealed weapons permit because he wasn't a state resident. He claimed the denial violated his right to bear arms.
Colorado wouldn't honor Peterson's concealed carry permit from Washington, because CO only honors permits from states that recognize CO permits, and WA isn't among them. Friday's ruling upholds the state's right to ignore Washington permits.
@AnnieO I think it means that the people have a right to arms for the purpose of a well regulated militia. Why else the phrase is the phrase Well Regulated Militia in there? If they meant every yahoo in the country could go around with as many guns as they want for any reason they want the amendment would read much simpler "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It doesn't.
Constitutional rights are not conditional. Either the people have right to have arms or they don't. The 2nd Amendment simply denies the federal government the authority or jurisdiction to interfere with that right. The 2nd Amendment does not give the people any right at all--it simply denies power and authority to the federal government. I wish congressmen, senators and judges were better readers. When the Constitution says "shall not" it means the government does not have the forbidden authority.
@dances-weebles I know. If somebody doesn't want to own a fire arm, or does not want one in their home is fine. That is their right. But do not in force you rights on people who want.it own and carry a fire arm legally. It is that persons right to own and carry a gite arm.
@wonka45ACP "the material world is Enticed by the dollar bill. it's what makes the world go around."
That statement is absolutely correct! That is exactly why the NRA is against universal background checks, closing the gun show loophole, and why they use scare tactics to get ppl to purchase more guns and ammo, thereby enriching the gun and ammo manufacturers who then donate more money to the NRA. If less bad guys had guns, demand for gums and ammo would be down across the board, decreasing profits for the manufacturing which will decrease donations to the NRA.
That is why the gun lobby WANTS bad guys to have guns, its good for busine$$.
@marine1 Good deal. I talked to a couple of buddies of mine that own dealerships. I wanted to look into getting an M4. Even the low end ones are running around 2.5-3K now. I guess I will wait until all this blows over and the market evens out.
@wild_turkey6 Buy from local dealers, cabelas, gander mountain, bass pro, midwayusa, brownells etc. They haven't raised prices much. Refuse to ever buy from anyone who has raised prices extremely during this scare. I keep a list. Get on gunbroker and you can still find low-end ARs for alright prices. The Bushmaster ORC is a pretty nice stock option going for $1k. It was $800 prior to the scare, so it's not entirely unreasonable.
Maybe the reason that concealed carry firearms were not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment was because none had yet been invented.
"The name "derringer" derives its name from Henry Deringer, a Philadelphia manufacturer, who became famous for his pocket pistol designs. The original pistol he made in 1825 was a single-shot muzzleloading weapon with a flintlock firing mechanism, which was the predominantly common firing mechanism of that time. The caliber of his pistols was pretty large."
@Zazziness Constantly splitting hairs on the well regulated militia thing. I can split hairs too...militia not only refers to the actual group of a militia, but the people from which a militia is created.
This is especially true because people in this context refers to individuals, not a collective.
The PEOPLE'S right shall not be infringed.
As such, anyone capable of being called to military service, i. e. through a draft, is part of a militia, organized or not.
So by that definition because of my disability you're right. I wouldn't be part of it, but the average citizen most certainly.
Well its about time that someone finally is putting the brakes on this constant drum beat to go back to the wild wild west days, in this country. Its like I've been saying all along...Nobody cares if you want to buy and own a gun...But some of us would rather that we don't have a bunch of "Rambos" running around (along side of the regular gun-toting criminals) and having lead fill the airways from both sides with innocent citizens caught in the middle. Some of you say that ..."well there will be some collateral damage"...Well a life---taken by some thug or a "law -abiding" citizen is still a life taken!
The gun nuts only care about one amendment - the 2nd. They don't care about the damage being done to our country by unnecessary gun violence. Here's the link to the ongoing list of gun deaths in the US since the Newtown gun massacre.
@PNWest And those names are either from criminal acts, or police. Very few "collateral damage" from citizens. The FBI feels that less than a 10% civilian loss from collateral damage is acceptable in a hostage situation. As far as not caring about any other amendment than the 2nd, you are so wrong. Most of us law abiding "gun OWNERS" care about the entire constitution. We realize if the 2nd amendment were to be removed, the others would follow very shortly. I support the first amendment that gives you the right to make insulting remarks and hate my rights.
The places where more citizens legally carry are also proportionately low crime areas. Those places most restrictive to law abiding citizens also are areas of high violent crime. I'll cite Los Angeles and Chicago as two prime examples .
@Keyjo OR.....It could perhaps be that there are some places in this country that are simply just more prone to crime than others. And crime may just be more rampant in those areas than other parts of the US. And because of that "observation" those places have more "restrictive measures" in place. But, I would also argue that is those "high crime" areas, removed those "restrictions" the crime rate would not go down,,,,if anything the kill rate and crime rate would increase...
have any of you actually read the 2nd amendment, or did you only fixate on one small phrase included in it.
'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
it's all about citizens being able to be a part of a 'WELL REGULATED MILITIA' not about you having a gun to play with or to help you look cool or feel tough.
at the time that it was written it was expected that every able bodied man or boy to show up when demanded by the government bearing his own weapon. now that there is a national military which supplies all necessary weapons it's entirely moot.
That's the thing about this, Dances....If anyone were to read that language for the first time...they would come away with the same understanding of the law, that you have pointed out here. But what happens in this country...The language gets spinned & twisted, and eventually comes to mean something else. But most people in this country don't even bother to read the actual language anyway...They just "adopt" the position of their choice and allow someone to "tell them what it says"...So long as it meets with the outcomes that they are looking for.
@dances-weebles I find it amazing that those same individuals that demand that we take the United States Constitution literally as the 'Founding Fathers' wrote it are the SAME individuals that do not understand 'literally' what they wrote.(and yes I know... the "Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with me on this yada yada yada) The amendment says:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
See, NOTHING about "tyrannical governments" or "overthrowing rulers" stated there at all! And so, going by the language of the day (and somewhat to the present day as well) "militia" referred to 'military' and thus the 'Founding Fathers' declared that the United States... or the individual 'Nation States' combined.. had a right and duty to have a military that was well regulated, or organized via rules and regulations and thus appropriately prepared if or when it was needed for DEFENSE. AND "the people" that make UP THAT "militia" to "keep and bear arms" and that "right" could not, and "shall" not be "infringed" or limited/crushed. The 'Founding Fathers' fully understood the nuance and correctness of 'language' and worked diligently to make sure that the 'language' used in the Constitution of the United States accurately described their ideas and intent. Therefore they used the word "people", NOT persons and NOT INDIVIDUALS, when they wrote it specifically to mean the population as a WHOLE versus the "right" of 'individual persons'. IF the 'Founding Fathers' had intended for the "right" of the 'individual' members of "the people" versus "the people" as a whole entity to "not be infringed" they would have stated so WITH THOSE WORDS. So, EVEN IF you wish to interpret the amendment to mean it gives the 'individual' the "right" to "keep and bear arms" then it ALSO CLEARLY gives the Federal Government the "right" (and many would say DUTY) to pass laws overseeing those rights with and by the beginning part of the statement "A well regulated". But that doesn't fit into the ultra-right-wing-conservative- "Christian"-GOP-Tea Party-NRA AGENDA now does it so they CHOOSE to just ignore and dismiss it!(something by the way they ALSO love to accuse the "liberals" of doing!) How VERY convenient for them.
If the United States Supreme Court upholds this ruling, it will be yet another chip out of America's foundational blocking that our Founding Fathers constructed. America used to be a "Republic", which means it is LAW that holds our country together... not the "majority" in a democracy. It was designed this way because there are MANY times when the "majority" is WRONG.~ That said, when liberals are inserted into our nations Supreme Court, they seek ways to bring INTERNATIONAL LAW into their equations which erodes, and ultimately destroys AMERICAN LAW...~ And in this, has been the end of our nation as we know it.~ Void of hidden political agenda's to dis-arm American citizens, concealed carry is permitted by our Constitution: It is the preferred method among citizens with which to carry their guns.
First of all, a CCW "permit" is contrary to the second amendment which states in part, "the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed". Asking the government for permission to bear arms is an infringement. I'm quite sure the government and libs would much rather have me carrying my 9mm under my shirt/coat everyday (which I do) and not know about it than me walking around with it in my hand, or my belt exposed (which I have no problem with either).
Constitutional carry all the way. No need for a permit to exercise an inherent right of selfprotection. We don't need permits (not yet anyway) to exercise most other rights, so we shouldn't for this one either.
I personally don't care one way or the order but I see a double standard here. Gun right folks speak of the the 2nd Amendment as gospel. Then say state rights trumps federal law. So if a state does not honor another states concealed weapon permit, shouldn't that state have the right to not honor it just like I have the right to honor or not honor someone to come in my home or business with a weapon?
It says the right "Bear Arms" that's it. There's nothing about the right to carry it under your t-shirt, inside your pant leg or in the waist band. So long as we've still got out 2nd Amendment rights, then that's all that matters
If there are other modes of carry available, ie open carry without a permit, then concealed carry is a privilege. If concealed carry by permit is the only available mode of carry, then it is a right, the denial of which must be carefully restrained.
Ruling by the court sounds fair to me. It's a cut and dry issue.
States are not required to honor every piece of legal documents issued by another state, and Gray Peterson is also not a resident of Colorado, therefore the state is not bound to issue any state services to him. Heck, the state isn't even bound to grant him a fishing permit there, because he isn't a resident.
If he wants a conceal permit there, he needs to become a legal resident of Colorado. After he becomes one and they deny his application again...then he might have a case for a lawsuit. Otherwise, enjoy your conceal permit in Washington state.