Concealed-carry litigation backfires - Court rules no right as part of 2nd Amendment

[ATCclears]

Court Rules There Is No Right To Carry A Concealed Weapon - Business Insider

Read More

 

[accessbob]

So that must mean that Open Carry is guaranteed. No way both can't be or it would be a complete violation of the 2A (of course the concealed part should be included too but you know what I mean - I hope).

 

[osterr1999]

I think you have it Bob. It is true that there is no prescription in the 2nd amendment for how the gun is carried, so if they say concealed is not guaranteed, then by logic, open carry must be guaranteed. This would mean that California's ban on open carry would be illegal.

 

[duane black]

If anybody is interested in this case, there is a thread on calguns that has all the info you could want to know. Mr Peterson is a member on Calguns and started this thread.

(CO/10th Circuit) Peterson v. Martinez Official Appeal Thread - Calguns.net

 

[beavertonbuck]

I don't think that this is necessary as bad as it sounds. In reading the case it appears the Plaintiff visits Denver often and Denver doesn't allow open or concealed carry with a CHL. This is probably why the court mentioned that the 2nd Admendent doesn't protect concealed carry.

To my point the 4th district has stated that the 2nd Admendent does in fact allow for protection outside the home which conflicts with the ruling. This would be ripe for the Supreme Court to take up next year and clear up whether we have a right to bear arms outside of our home. Better to do it know with current make up of the court than later with Scalia or Thomas retiring from the court.

On separate point if it was taken up, specifically the CO case we might be able to address the issue of local laws and preemption once in for all. If the Court took the case and if they ruled that the right to bear arms outside of your home is a constitutional right then cities such as Denver or Colorado would effectively have to allow loaded open carry from out-of-state visitors. Unless this prompted states to start working to recogize other states' concealed license permit.

 

[duane black]

To my point the 4th district has stated that the 2nd Admendent does in fact allow for protection outside the home which conflicts with the ruling. This would be ripe for the Supreme Court to take up next year and clear up whether we have a right to bear arms outside of our home. Better to do it know with current make up of the court than later with Scalia or Thomas retiring from the court.

Agreed 100 percent. These folks are playing chess, not checkers. Mr Peterson , CGF and others know exactly what it is they are doing.

A post from IVC in the thread I posted ( and how I see things as well )

"The way to look at it is that any district loss is not nearly as significant as a district win. Madigan not being granted en banc, thus forcing her to file for cert is infinitely more important. Not only does it create a circuit split which is precisely what SCOTUS must resolve, but it also provides a binding precedent if SCOTUS doesn't take it.

In a way, a loss at this time is expected, while every win is a gold nugget. All we need is one of the cases to go to SCOTUS and one ruling to extend application of 2A outside the home. The rest will fall like dominoes.

A loss at the SCOTUS would be something that would set us back a decade or more. That's the only place where we have to be concerned. Realistically, we expect to get Kachalsky accepted and a win by mid-2014. Keep your fingers crossed that we get cert granted (the easy part) and then that we get a meaningful ruling in our favor (the holy grail).

After that, it's time to clean up the house by going after AWB, magazine restrictions and other cosmetic and emotional garbage."