Federal Court Finds No Constitutional Right to Carry a Concealed Weapon — We Explain The Decision
While gun rights supporters might like to think the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is an absolute guarantee against government interference, according to at least one (relatively conservative) appeals court, they are severely mistaken. In fact, according to that same court, when it comes to carrying concealed weapons, the Second Amendment is basically irrelevant.
Last Friday, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down its decision in the case of Peterson v. Martinez, a case involving the question of whether a state has an obligation to provide a concealed carry license to anyone who has been granted such a license in another state. Their answer was, to put it mildly, “no.”
In fact, the court adopted a fairly novel approach in explaining why the right to keep and bear arms didn’t apply in this case: Rather than rely solely on precedent that restricted gun rights, they built most of their analysis on language from cases that expanded gun rights, but still made clear that there were limits, of which concealed carry was certainly one. As Lawyers.com’s Larry Bodine put it, “To bullet-proof the ruling against an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the 10th Circuit recounted numerous court rulings and state laws dating back to 1813, and based its ruling on prior U.S. Supreme Court cases.”
Still, given which judges ended up deciding the case, this approach may be less surprising than it first appears. While the decision was written by Judge Carlos Lucero, a Clinton appointee, all three judges voted unanimously against the right to concealed carry, which may surprise some, given that one (Judge Bobby Ray Baldock) was a Reagan appointee, and the other (Judge Harriz Hartz) was a nominee by the second President Bush, neither of whom were presidents known for nominating liberal judges.
So why did they decide the way they did? To understand that, one needs to first understand a little about the case, and about court precedent regarding the Second Amendment.
The Case
The person bringing the case was one Gray Peterson, a resident of Washington state, who possessed concealed carry permits both in Washington and in Florida. Peterson frequently visited the Denver, Colorado area, and in so doing, wished to carry a firearm with him at all times. However, the city of Denver currently bans open carry of firearms, which means Peterson would need to get a concealed carry license from the state in order to carry his weapon in most situations.
Fortunately, Colorado did have a program for recognizing the concealed carry licenses of other states. The problem for Peterson was that Colorado only recognized concealed carry licenses from states that also recognized concealed carry licenses from Colorado. In other words, if a state wouldn’t recognize Colorado’s concealed carry licenses, Colorado wouldn’t recognize theirs. Neither Florida nor Washington state recognized Colorado’s concealed carry licenses, so Peterson was out of luck.
Worse, he couldn’t apply for a license on his own merits, because Colorado would only grant new licenses to Colorado residents, not people from out of state. In other words, there was literally no way for Peterson to get a concealed carry license in Colorado unless he moved. So, claiming he needed to carry a firearm with him, Peterson sued to get the law banning out of state residents from getting Colorado-issued concealed carry licenses struck down, claiming it violated his Second Amendment rights.
The court disagreed. Why? Because when it comes to the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms is far less absolute than many people might like to think.
The Limits of the Second Amendment
As we previously covered at TheBlaze, the right to keep and bear arms is more extensive than many liberals would like to think, and more limited than many conservatives would like to think. At the time, we wrote this about the legal realities regarding the Second Amendment (emphasis added):
For now, at least, the legal reality regarding the Second Amendment is that it does guarantee a right to keep and bear arms of some kind to individual citizens. Barring a massive shift in power on the court, this is unlikely to change, as five of the sitting justices voted to hold that the right exists and protects citizens against both state and federal law in the two cases cited above.
Moreover, even cases that the majority of justice disagree with are not always changed after the fact, given the varying attitudes of various jurists towards the importance of upholding precedent. For the foreseeable future, therefore, the right to keep and bear arms is a fixed reality of the American legal and constitutional landscape.
However, in practice, this tells us very little about how far that right extends, which is where the current (and future) legal debate is likely to focus. A right to own a handgun is one thing, after all, but what about the right to own rocket launchers? Miniguns? Anti-tank ordinance? An actual, physical tank? Are all of these things protected by the right to keep and bear arms? They are, after all, arms.
Fortunately for those worrying about their neighbors acquiring weapons grade helicopters, even the most stringent supporters of gun rights admit that the law allows for limits on what sort of weapons are protected, or on how those weapons might be obtained. For his part, Scalia would limit the amendment solely to weapons that can be carried by an individual human being, knocking such armaments as tanks and missiles out of contention, and admitted in the majority decision in Heller that regulations such as background checks and concealed carry permits almost certainly pass constitutional muster.
This, as it turns out, is precisely the reasoning that the Court ended up using in this case. From Judge Lucero’s decision [emphasis added]:
With respect to Peterson’s claims against the Denver sheriff, we conclude that the carrying of concealed firearms is not protected by the Second Amendment or the Privileges and Immunities Clause. In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), the Supreme Court stated in dicta that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.” More recently, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court noted that “the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues,” and explained that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions.” Id. at 626. 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.
Part of the issue at work here is that the Supreme Court’s decision to grant the right to keep and bear arms the same legal status as more longstanding rights like the right to free speech has been exceedingly recent (the two cases that established this precedent, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, were handed down in 2008 and 2010, respectively), and thus there is much less clarity about where that “right” begins and ends. The 10th circuit court explicitly acknowledged this:
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court held “that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” And in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the Court concluded that “the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.” Nevertheless, the Court has provided precious little guidance with respect to the standard by which restrictions on the possession of firearms should be assessed.
In Heller, the Court determined that the challenged statute, which completely barred possession of handguns in the home and required that any lawful firearm be kept in an inoperable condition, failed “[u]nder any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights.” The Court rejected application of rational-basis scrutiny, but declined to select another standard. However, the Court stressed that its opinion should not be read to “cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” which the Court identified as “presumptively lawful regulatory measures.”
However, while the Supreme Court has proposed no method by which to gauge whether a restriction runs afoul of the Second Amendment, the 10th circuit court itself apparently does have a precedent, elucidated in the case United States v. Reese. The 10th Circuit specifically applied what the decision calls a “two-pronged approach” to Second Amendment claims. In other words, when assessing such claims, the court asks two questions:
1. Does the challenged law “impose a burden on conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee?” If not, the law is constitutional.
2. If so, does the law pass muster under a “means-end” test, IE does it pursue a constitutionally acceptable end using means that do not fall afoul of any explicit part of the constitution?
The court in this case completely avoided the second, more complicated question. Rather, they decided right out the gate that since carrying concealed weapons was not a right the Second Amendment was designed to protect, the law was presumptively constitutional:
We agree with the Fifth Circuit that in applying the two-step approach to Second Amendment claims, we consider at the first step “whether the law harmonizes with the historical traditions associated with the Second Amendment guarantee.” As the foregoing demonstrates, concealed carry bans have a lengthy history. Given…the Supreme Court’s admonition in Heller that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions,” we conclude that Peterson’s Second Amendment claim fails at step one of our two-step analysis: the Second Amendment does not confer a right to carry concealed weapons.
Nor was it only Heller and McDonald that the court relied on to make its decision. Rather, they used the treatises of the British legal scholar Blackstone (a contemporary of the Founding Fathers, and one of their inspirations), as well as quotations from several cases both in the early and late 19th century to prove that carrying concealed weapons was never a right that even the Founders meant to protect. In short, they wrote a decision with a liberal outcome using conservative reasoning on the limits of the Second Amendment. However, that is unlikely to be the end of the story.
So What Happens Now?
It is at this point that many gun rights supporters must be feeling nervous. After all, if a state can set up its concealed carry laws and open carry laws such that a citizen literally cannot carry their weapon in particular circumstances, surely that means the right to keep and bear arms is something of a formality.
Fortunately for these people, there are several factors that make that problem less pressing. Firstly, this case only applies to areas where the 10th Circuit Court has jurisdiction – specifically, Colorado, Kansas, most of Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming, and may not even apply there, given that an appeal will almost certainly come out of the case, given that it directly contradicts another decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Secondly, the court in this case did not rule that bans on open carry are constitutional (and, in fact, noted with some bewilderment that Peterson had not challenged the open carry statute in the decision), simply that there is no “right” to carry a concealed weapon implied by the Second Amendment. Again, other Circuit Courts differ with this assessment, and the Supreme Court will almost certainly be asked to step in.
For now, however, concealed carry licenses are a privilege, not a right.
Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.
Popular Stories
Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep? 453 Comments
Game-Changing Bombshell? There’s a Major Twist in the Story About a High School Student’s Lesbian Relationship With a Minor 400 Comments
Is the Boy Scouts’ Gay Amendment the ‘Beginning of the End’ for the Group? (Plus: Tell Us Where You Stand) 361 Comments
This Could Be the Most Haunting Statistic You’ll Ever See 275 Comments
Group of Thugs Target Seemingly Defenseless Woman — They Had No Idea She Had Been Frequenting the Gun Range 262 Comments
Faith
-
Priest Gunned Down by Italian Mobsters Now Beatified
Read More
-
Game-Changing Bombshell? There’s a Major Twist in the Story About a High School Student’s Lesbian Relationship With a Minor
400 Comments
- Is the Boy Scouts’ Gay Amendment the ‘Beginning of the End’ for the Group? (Plus: Tell Us Where You Stand) 361 Comments
-
MSNBC Hosts Martin Bashir and Chris Hayes Claim London Machete Killers Aren’t Terrorists: ‘These Are Just Murderers’
169 Comments
-
Did You Catch the Possibly Policy-Changing Ft. Hood Reference in Obama’s Terror Speech?
102 Comments
Business
-
Have You Had Scotch at a NJ TGI Friday’s Lately? You Might Have Been Drinking Rubbing Alcohol
Read More
-
Venezuelan President Blames Toilet Paper Shortage on the Rich
105 Comments
-
This Terrible Chart Shows the Change in Food Stamp Participation Over the Last 10 Years
Read More
- Disney Makes Absolutely Mortifying Photoshop Mistake Read More
-
Trey Gowdy at It Again — This Time with a Jack Bauer Reference!
121 Comments
Technology
-
‘My Life Is Full of Blessings’: Flesh-Eating Bacteria Victim Who Lost All Limbs Smiles as She Shows Off New Bionic Hands
Read More
-
LOOK: Woman Claims to Have Photographed UFO in California
134 Comments
-
Lion Named ‘Bonedigger’ and Small Dog Make Most Unlikely Companions
Read More
-
Rocket Bike Sets Land Speed Record — and Uses a Fuel You Wouldn’t Expect
Read More
-
How 3D Printing Technology Created a Special Part for Baby’s Windpipe and Saved His Life
Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (460)
wilbstal
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:44pmwe will see when they try to take some guns ill bet the courts will cringe, when the shooting starts. paper shufflers in courts are not out in the real world wher criminals and cops alike acost free citizens daily. I will never surrender any means of protection I use or plan to use. Laws made by man can be broken by man, keep this in mind as you Leftys go forward
Report this comment
jcldwl
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:59pmThe headline on this story is extremely misleading. Of course the Blaze is good at misleading headlines. If you have to write a headline and then put “We explain the decision” at the end of the headline, you might want to rewrite your misleading headline. This headline makes you think a federal court is putting an end to your ability to carry a concealed weapon period. Please stop doing these types of things blaze. It just puts you in the same light as the MSM.
Report this comment
Cavallo
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:15pmIt’s a tabloid technique, originally designed to get you to purchase a publication (Magazine, newspaper). On a news blog like the Blaze it might have the purpose of generating ad revenue via clicks on certain page links, etc.
Report this comment
Michael61
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:19pmEverybody seems to miss one point of court decision.
Concealed carry is not protected by Second amendment, but OPEN CARRY is definitely protected.
Makes a lot of sense???
Report this comment
duhTruth
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:20pmI agree this headline is very deceptive. I don’t like that from a news organization that needs my trust!
Report this comment
DSTSS2010
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:21pmColorado refuses to issue this guy a CCW, the city of Denver refuses to allow him to carry openly. How is this not a violation of the Second Ammendment? Either law , by itself is not unconstitutional, however, combined they are, because there is no way to carry a firearn when both laws are enforced.
Is this the new method they will use to bypass the Constitution?
Report this comment
2GodBeTheGlory
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:21pmWhen it starts, layers and judges both will hide, to no avail. History teaches that those that embrace and support a corrupt system are one of the first to be cast out.
Report this comment
Joe Public
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:26pmTO JCLDWL:
You are incorrect. The headline is not misleading at all-it is exactly what the Court held in that case. The Court’s holding is all that matters, the rest of the opinion is considered “dicta” and merely shows the Court’s reasoning behind its decision. Dicta is not binding. It is only “persuasive” as far as future Court decisions are concerned when dealing with the same issue.
Applying a two-step analysis the Court held that “Peterson’s Second Amendment claim fails at step one of our two-step analysis: the Second Amendment does not confer a right to carry concealed weapons.” That is exactly what the headline reads.
Report this comment
Cavallo
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:28pmThose that would deny others freedom, deserve it not for themselves. – Abraham Lincoln.
Report this comment
Stone Cold Truth
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:34pmThat’s not what I got out of it. To me it suggests that now since this Federal Court has ruled there is no constituaitonal right to bare concealed arms it opens the door for states and even the federal government to severely restrict or prohibit concealed carry entirely. So, nice work BLAZE. I enjoyed it despite what “the critic” thinks about your headlines.
Report this comment
FrankieBaby
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:43pmThey can take my concealed gun after they kill me. That’s the only way I’m NOT CARRYING! Id rather be dead than disarmed. I WILL NOT BE! Neither will any one I know.
I dont need a “FEDERAL” court to tell me the defintion of INFRINGE! I know what it means. Its very simple.
This look very complicated to you all!?
in·fringe
/inˈfrinj/
Verb
Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): “infringe a copyright”.
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: “infringe on his privacy”.
Synonyms
violate – transgress – break – contravene – trespass
Report this comment
chicago76
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:46pmDeceptive headlines are an everyday occurrence in all major stories. It is just that in the msm they distort the stories to match the headlines, so now you not only have a deceptive headline but a false story too. So all you holier than thou readers can bug off. Headlines are made to get you to read the article, that is all. Sometimes they are right sometimes wrong but always designed to spark interest. It is the truth in the article that is important.
Report this comment
TRUTHandFREEDOM
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 5:05pmWe have the right to keep arms.
We have the right to bear arms.
Would that not be the founders’ & framers’ intent?
They cannot be any clearer. Even if they want to try the militia tactic, let’s hear from the father of the 2nd amendment, George Mason;
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
If the militia is the whole people, then I would have to expect that a militia would be armed with more than a rifle. I cannot find the quote that I read in David Barton’s 2nd amendment book or remember which founder made the point, but it called for arms of use to a militia. Now of course, we’re not at a point in history where an active militia is necessary, but as Jefferson said; “On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
To bear arms is our right in our FEDERAL Constitution. The powers defined in the constitution superced state law. I don’t see how they can make a state only law on this. I view it as unconstitutional. EVen if it wasn’t, would they prefer that open carry is the policy? Liberals would be calling the police on the innocent all day long while criminals would have their arms concealed.
Report this comment
kywillie
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 5:17pmThe games can begin when you pass remedial grammar.
Report this comment
wordsofwisdom
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 5:21pmBased on the misguided lefties gun grab so they can control us with impunity. I think things are about to descend into insanity & destruction as this video says “The End Times” http://youtu.be/vgDkznPS4zI
Report this comment
dajones
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 5:46pmThey also didn’t say it was unconstitutional for you to have a gun consealed. so this decision while it has ruffled feathers means nothing.
Report this comment
decendentof56
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 5:48pmJoePublic…
I wasn’t going to read the article…..then I saw DWL’s comment. The headline is not misleading after reading the reasoning behind the decision. You have to READ it! The problem is..that every state has different laws regarding CC.
When you read the 2nd Amendment, it is abundantly clear to me that “the right to keep AND BEAR” is pretty straightforward. To bear means, among other definitions, to carry…to hold, etc.
Anyway, it is clear to thugs intending to harm innocent citizens that they have the right “to bear”.
The two intruder’s recently killed by a 11 year old girl after her dad left their home had a .45 handgun they had obtained by murdering (stabbing) a nearby homeowner. They saw the father leave, and figured they’d break into THAT home, run up to the second floor to the master bedroom, and find more guns to commit additional crimes. They will not be stealing any more guns or committing any additional crimes, will they.
Gun nuts and tea baggers, ENCINOM? Why don’t you take a walk in Wilmington, De, on a nice, warm summer evening singing “it’s a small world.” Have a good time!
Report this comment
beeboop
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 6:06pmThe joke here is, a lot of Judges carry.
Report this comment
muffythetuffy
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 6:28pmTHE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE BECOME DESPICABLE AND A DISGRACE AND THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS IT.
In cases concerning the 14 Amendment, that Amendment took away State Citizenship. Americans are not citizens of the USA not the state were they were born or where they live. This the US Supreme Court has asserted. How then can the rights of US Citizens be revoked by States lacking sovereignty in matters of citizenship? Can states alter Trial by Jury? Can States modify the freedoms affirmed by the 1st Amendment. Can States now allow slavery under certain conditions?
This decision of the Federal Court is asinine. l
Report this comment
muffythetuffy
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 6:30pmWHAT DO YOU NOW THINK OF SECESSION?
The Federal Courts will one day soon rule that it is legal to send families to FEMA death camps. Why, because in Germany, their equivalent court legalized death camps.
Report this comment
WarMunger_Al
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 6:46pmof course the words “shall not be infringed” seems to mean “the government can do what it wants” to the courts and the politicians. No where in the constitution is there language allowing for limits on the 2nd amendment.
Report this comment
michaelmoron
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 7:04pmMuffythetuffy
Why is it so important to claim yourself as a citizen ?
It is a moniker that I have dis-owned.
I will forego my right to vote or travel abroad, to be free.
Is the right to vote and travel, reason enough to be a slave to the power structure ?
Seccession is a horrible idea. Divided we fall.
We just need to get rid of these TRUSTEES, and replace them with public servants that will truly represent us.
Report this comment
Wiley41
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 7:11pmDSTSS,
Exactly, spot on.
Reminds me of the old Wonderland style paradoxes, why not just pass a law that you can carry arms tommorrow and yesterday but never today.
Report this comment
samnjoeysgrama
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 7:49pmI have my concealed carry permit through Colorado. In states that prohibit open carry, concealed carry is the only other option (save to not carry). If you can get a concealed carry in more than one state, that would seem wise. I believe we will see more cases fighting for open carry. Surely the judges will eventually recognize that open carry is going to cause more problems than concealed carry ever did. Wild anti-gunners will scream and faint for one thing. I am a 63 year old grandmother who lives alone on a ranch in Colorado. I travel, alone, to Texas and to Illinois to see my grandchildren. I spend very little time any where that I do NOT want to have a weapon for protection. Concealed carry is just so much smarter than open carry when you are around liberals. The problem is that we have given government the authority to tell us whether or not the gun can be seen. What a silly argument it begins to take to keep the government pleased.
Report this comment
michaelmoron
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 8:19pm*travel abroad (passport)
Report this comment
702TruthSeeker
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 8:28pmhttp://www.zimbio.com/Afghanistan/articles/nXYEtMk9_TH/Afghan+National+Army+Enforces+Weapons+Registration
this is the “freedom” we’re spreading now, coming soon to a town near you. do you have an excessive amount of ammo? are all your firearms registered? you’re all criminals!!!
Afghanistan WAS a free country before the invasion
Report this comment
emberlyawake
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 8:52pmI am starting to think that either Obama is really a crazy dictator or the people who really rule behind the scenes set up to be the one in power when all the mess hits the fan.
The country is divided more than ever. I sense another 9/11 type event in our near future to reunite The People.
Report this comment
Obama_In_PeePee_By_Zee_ArTeest_Glenn
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 9:08pm“Federal Court Finds No Constitutional Right to Carry a Concealed Weapon … While gun rights supporters might like to think the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is an absolute guarantee against government interference, … they are severely mistaken. In fact, … when it comes to carrying concealed weapons, the Second Amendment is basically irrelevant.”
America’s founders didn’t have King George’s “law” on their side when they told King George to take his tyranny and get lost. You think it’s going to be any different now?
Are you going to let your “public servants” tell you?
“You wanna play games? Okay. I play with you. You wanna play rough? Okay. Say hello to my little friend!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVQ8byG2mY8
Yes, that’s the reason … for guns.
Report this comment
Diego Roswell
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 9:13pmMichael61: If open carry is protected then why is it illegal to open carry in California? CC is also illegal and next to impossible to acquire permits for. No lawsuits are pending that I know of since Brown signed the open carry ban. The left will continue to tread on our rights as much as they can get away with it until the republic is no more.
Report this comment
Evolved
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 9:29pmCavallo, thanks for your examples of “publication”.
Report this comment
Evolved
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 9:33pmFrankiebaby, you will be missed.
Report this comment
Wat Tyler
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 9:48pmThis rogue court has it wrong. The 2nd Amendment is absolute. No restrictions. None.
Any other decision is not valid, and hence not recognized.
Report this comment
Toltepeceno
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 10:13pmThe headline is not at all misleading:
“So, claiming he needed to carry a firearm with him, Peterson sued to get the law banning out of state residents from getting Colorado-issued concealed carry licenses struck down, claiming it violated his Second Amendment rights.”
Try reading the article and not skimming. They ruled it did not violate his 2a rights, which means EXACTLY what they said. Unless the public schools have completely changed english.
Report this comment
michaelmoron
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 12:33amI could care less what this court finds.
They mean nothing to me.
The Bill of Rights is what is important to me.
I acknowledge the Bill of Rights.
I don’t consent or comply with “findings”.
I have an I.Q. of 168, and have educated myself over the past 4 years, utilizing the internet.
I have studied law for those 4 years. I understand what “shall” and “Not to be infringed” means.
I laugh at these clowns in robes that conjure up these “findings”.
Regulation = Infringement
“To keep and bear arms” could not be clearer.
Report this comment
michaelmoron
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 12:41amWat Tyler
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 9:48pm
This rogue court has it wrong. The 2nd Amendment is absolute. No restrictions. None.
Any other decision is not valid, and hence not recognized.
~~~~~~~~
Absolutely.
How did someone ever come to the judicial determination that “keep and bear arms”
meant concealed or not concealed ?
It specifies neither.
Therefore, how can it be construed as one or the other?
I am pretty sure that people wore clothes in the 1700′s, so had this been relevent to our right, they would have made a note of that.
It would have read something to the effect of:
“The right of the the people to keep and bear concealed arms, shall not be infringed”.
In law, “may” allows for options (findings). “SHALL” means there is NO OPTION.
Report this comment
michaelmoron
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 1:02amThese robed clowns know that it does not say “may not be infringed”, but they are treating it as such.
~~~~~~~~~
Let’s not get lost on who is behind this.
It is not the Politicians. It is their Masters, the International Bankster Cartel that wants your guns.
They are the owners of the United Nations which is a Private Company
http://www.manta.com/c/mmb5y6t/united-nations
This cartel also owns the media. They Indoctrinate the Sheeple with that tool.
“The American people don’t believe anything until they see it on television.”
– Richard M.Nixon
As long as the Americans cling to their bibles and guns, the New World Order can not be enforced.
“The real truth of the matter is that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson.”
– President FD Roosevelt
“The Federal Reserve is one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this Nation is run by the international bankers.”
– Congressman Louis T. McFadden, June 20, 1932
“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
Report this comment
RIDEMODELS
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 3:49amSo now we have sky rocketing Gas prices and no Truck Driver can carry a gun across certain states……This President is the greatest help to Truckers and their Union since Hoffa……I would say that most truckers in this country need to stand up to this tyranny or they will soon be out of a job…….This president is working feverishly to destroy the Freedom in America and he will stop at nothing to become Dictator of what was the free world.
Check this out…..Not only are Arab Sheiks buying AL Gores TV network…..They are also buying up properties here in the US, places like night clubs and bars……..This is the reason for the push to do away with corporate America, so that the Arabs will have free reign over the US…..and they are doing it all with our OIL money…No wonder the president did not want to drill for oil here….He is single underhandedly handing over the US to Oil Sheiks…….Suddenly George Bush does not look so bad, but all of the Jewish voters that voted for Obama will now have to pay the piper……Why do you think Las Vegas is doing so badly…..Because the Arabs are not there spending Oil money and chasing women……They are secretly Buying America.
Report this comment
Jessicawislon414
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 5:26amI buy almost everything from here whatsogood,com Most people are not aware of the almost unbelievable deals that they can get from online auction sites I checked with the BBB and was told that it is all legit How they can sell gift cards, laptops, cameras, and all kinds of goodies that we all want for 50-90% off, I don’t know. I do know that I bought my son an iPad there for less than $100 and my husband a $250 Low gift cards for $48. Why would I even think about shopping anyplace else?
RLM, Okay, I can see that. When I lived in Florida I carried a dual residency that was even stamped on my drivers license. That was back in the ’70s, so I have no idea if they still do that.
Report this comment
rcguy
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 8:42amFrom David Barton’s book, The Second Admendment, I quote: As explained by Richard Henrry Lee, a signer of the Declaration and original framer of the Second Admendment: The militia shall always… include, according to the past and general usage of the STATES, all men capable of bearing arms. (emphasis added)
For this reason, “militia”, in the Second Admendment was understood to be every individual citizen rather than just the army or the organized military: A militia….are in fact the people themselves…{and] are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns. Richard Henry Lee, signer of the Delaration, a Framer of the Second Amendment in The First Congress.
The militia….are…..the people at large. Tench Coxe, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Assistant Secretary of The Treasury under Prisident George Washington.
The militia is composed of free citizens. Samual Adams, signer of The Declaration, “Father of The American Revolution”
Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people. George Mason, Delegate to The Constitution Covention, “Father of the Bill of Rights”
I recommend all free citizens obtain a copy of David Barton’s, The Second Admendment.
Here is the link, http://www.amazon.com/The-Second-Amendment-David-Barton/dp/0925279773/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1361886057&sr=1-1-fkm
Report this comment
TomFerrari
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 10:03amSeems to me:
If the court claims our Constitution doesn’t protect a specific METHOD of bearing arms, then it also does not protect any OTHER method. In which case, the same logic could be used to claim it doesn’t protect OPEN carry. Either BEARING arms is protected, or it is not.
Infringement does not mean obliteration or destruction. If your neighbor bulldozes your house, yes, they infringed upon your property. However, if that same neighbor uses a corner of your property to store his pushmower, he is also INFRINGING! Our Constitution does not state that Congress cannot completely remove our right to bear arms… instead, it clearly states they cannot even INFRINGE upon our rights! That is a very important distinction.
Report this comment
Diego Roswell
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:04amUnfortunately for us all, modern America has fallen prey to the many myriad assaults by the Left to weaken and divide, and ultimately destroy what made the United States a strong vibrant country. Through decades of apathy, we the people have allowed the degradation of our public schools, the wholesale destruction of the moral fabric of our society through the media; by supporting their products, voluntarily viewing their media, attending their entertainment, and allowing our children to do the same we are willing participants in the crumbling of America. By not taking action against them we are in fact as guilty as they are for the ramifications of an immoral and Godless society. Communism is the natural end game since so many are now dependent and unable to fend for themselves. They will take our guns. They will silence all who oppose them. We will do nothing.
Report this comment
ChildOfTheKing
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:39amI am so disgusted with these HOLIER-THAN-THOU Judges and politicians that THINK they can tell me what I can and cannot do to protect my life, my home, and my pursuit of happiness. THESE PEOPLE ARE SO PATHETIC. There is NO WAY I will ever give up my guns. I WILL DIE FIRST.
There is going to be a CLEAR DIVISION OF STATES soon enough (just like in the movie, RED DAWN). THEN, I WILL MOVE TO TEXAS.
There is a CIVIL WAR coming and it will be between WE, THE PEOPLE, and THE LAW (including politicians and Judges). My Mother always told me that when you are pushed and shoved for too long, you finally come out fighting because during that whole time of being shoved and pushed, you figure out your REAL RIGHTS, which are given by God and NOT MAN.
I am a Christian and I believe this country was founded for us BY GOD. HE GAVE US THIS COUNTRY and we were to take care of it. Well, the devil is trying to take it over and I am doing my part in seeing that it does not happen. Therefore, when they come to take my guns away, I will die in my home, defending the right GOD GAVE ME in the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
———————–Edmund Burke
NOW, YOU WILL ALL HAVE TO DECIDE IF YOU ARE GOOD OR BAD AND WHICH SIDE YOU ARE ON. THERE IS NO IN BETWEEN.
“Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny”. ———-Edmund Burke
THINK ABOUT THOSE TWO QUOTES FOR AWHILE, PEOPLE.
Report this comment
TomFerrari
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 12:45pmFor that matter, it doesn’t “protect” your right to carry while wearing a hat. Or to carry the ammunition. Or to carry your weapon of choice assembled. Or any specific situation or variation of carrying. The intent is clear, your right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be “INFRINGED.” Let’s remember, individuals owned CANNONS (if they could afford them) – merchant ships were plentiful with cannons and towns boasted if they had them. So, claiming I don’t “need” a rifle is just nonsense. You claim the merchants “needed” cannons for defense? Ask the citizens of Chicago or LA if they “need” weapons. All of this is moot, of course, as the 2nd Amendment serves to protect us from a tyrannical government – it is preventive in design. As Jefferson said, “The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is, it will not be ‘needed’ until they try to take it away.” He states here that it is not about “need” and states its true intent of guarding against tyranny.
Report this comment
auhunter
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 3:11pmI see no problem with this ruling. It would be nice if all the states recognized each others gun permits but they don’t. The way to get around that as in the Colorado case, if your permit is recognized in another state that is recognized by Colorado. get one there and you are covered. Get a permit that is recognized by the majority of the states you travel in or through and you have all your bases covered. Like Arizona, I believe we recognize permits from most states and ours is recognized by at lest 30 states, the exceptions being the Northeast. If you want to carry all the time, check the laws of the states you are going to be traveling through first and save yourself the hassle. Common sense my man.
Report this comment
Techcon
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 10:05pmThere’s no “implied” right to take a dump in the Constitution, either.
Report this comment
lovenfl3
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 10:50pmThe court system has become so political over the past few decades. There is no longer three distinctive and separate branches of government anymore. Then throw in this kind of stuff from the media and….. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgozUvvCqAw
Report this comment
old white guy
Posted on February 27, 2013 at 6:21amit never ceases to amaze me how tortured explanations of legal decisions can be. far to much language is used to obscure the fact that the second amendment should not be violated in any way by any level of government or court. what can be done against such insanity???
Report this comment
notsocommonlogic
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:43pmAdd your comments
Report this comment
FISH_BONE
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:50pmyour comments
Report this comment
NotBigBooteeitsBigButtay
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:55pmYour other comments
Report this comment
civilwarcometh
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:10pmI would but they already taken down 3 of my posts… I think their trying to tell me something..
Report this comment
Anadara
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:28pmNo comment
Report this comment
Dismayed Veteran
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:35pmYour comments
Report this comment
myptofvu
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:54pm@Notbigbooteeitsbigbootay….my comments are–”no matter where you go, there you are. Your obertrosers the schitz and try not to embarrass us”
Report this comment
Wolf
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 6:17pmNot sure I know what a ‘comment’ is- can you explain?
Report this comment
Creativethinker
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 7:27pmt has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to
surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers
more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44
percent)!
In the state of Victoria
alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that
while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not
and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady
decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically
upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed
that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and
assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public
safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was
expended in ‘successfully ridding Australian society of guns….’ You
won’t see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or
members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.
The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the
hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control
laws aff
Report this comment
Youngamericangirl
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:42pmWow, I just love it when I hear Federal judges tell us that while the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to own guns “there are limits to it.”
Really, because last I checked, I could read and the 2nd Amendment said nothing about there being any limits and in fact says that the right “shall not be infringed.” And, you would think that if people as smart as our Founders would have intended for there to be any limits to it, they would have listed them. But I guess I was wrong. After all, I’m not a college educated person like these judges, so I guess I have no idea what I’m talking about.
These people are just so absolutely ignorant, its not even funny. We have plenty of quotes from the Founders telling us exactly what the 2nd Amendment is for and who it is for and what it is for and yet we still keep getting rulings like this.
Report this comment
Go Glenn
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:09pmThis just goes to show that our rights are not guaranteed unless we fight for them still to this day.
However, this also means that laws are made to be broken and it is much easier to fight for your life with a means to protect it. And if you are a dead person who followed the law you are still dead. If you are alive because you broke the law, they will have to prove in a court of law that you broke the law.
In other words, screw the lib’s………I will not surrender my means of self defense.
Report this comment
Derek01
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:10pmHere’s a totally useless government agency to cut. These clowns should go work in a circus.
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:13pmI find it delightfully ironic to have a troll come here to call us ignorant, who himself cannot manage to capitalize America nor can he form a coherent sentence to articulate his poorly reasoned dogma. :)
Report this comment
civilwarcometh
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:14pmENCINOM i can’t believe they let you pot on here and take mine down and your a Communist IDIOT…
Report this comment
theaton
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:14pmRights are absolute as long as you don’t use them to infringe on the rights of others. Our founding fathers were a pretty smart group of guys. They just couldn’t foresee an America in which all the men had no balls!
Report this comment
RJJinGadsden
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:14pmENCINOM, Just keep that in mind. By your reasoning none of your rights are absolute either.
Report this comment
freedoc
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:15pmWRONG.
Their ARE absolute rights. ( of course they can be taken by violence or the threat to violence, but the right doesnt cease to exist, its simply thwarted, or stolen, or dismissed by men, most often EVIL men, who choose to enslave)
They are referred to as natural rights, or rights endowed by our Creator, or, if you believe, rights conferred on man as a consequence of being a certain living entity.
Among them are life…..liberty….property.
People like you, Encinom, who don’t believe in ‘absolute’ rights, like in the bubble of moral relativism.
Report this comment
Lord_Frostwind
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:16pmRights are only as absolute as how willing people are to defend them. The pen is only as mighty as the swords that serve it.
The government likes to pretend it has a lot of control and power over what people do, but how many people have concealed weapons in the states where it is explicitly banned? My only problem with all of this is that it is rapidly depleting the faith of the last enclaves of relatively loyal citizens.
Report this comment
NeverFalterNeverQuit
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:19pmon the contrary, all rights are absolute. Our rights are bestowed by our creator (or, if you are an atheist, they are naturally-occuring).
However, I do not prescribe to the incorporation doctrine. The bill of rights was written to limit the Feds, not to limit the states. If Kolorado wants to limit the rights of it’s citizens, that is between the citizens and their State government. The gentleman in this case should not have had standing to sue.
He could have sought to get a CCW from a state that recognises Colorado’s CCW. Or he could just accept the fact the people of Colorado can govern themselves as they see fit.
Report this comment
DSTSS2010
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:29pmENCINOM
The insane always assume that everyone else is crazy.
Report this comment
rolla020980
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:29pmENCINOM
The Bill of Rights is only as good as it was written. The founding fathers thought that listing specific rights would give the government the precedent to infringe upon other rights, but decided to specifically protect a list of some of the rights most trampled upon by the British. Apparently you do not want rights. There are countries out there you may like… OH and BTW, when you go take your buddy Pierce with you.
Report this comment
termyt
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:30pmThen what does “inalienable” mean? The only restriction on an individual’s rights is to prevent or punish that individual for infringing another’s rights. The government has no authority to limit rights based on any other criteria other than the rights granted to it specifically in the Constitution.
The courts are not the arbiters of right and wrong, they are just 1/3 of a system of checks and balances. Or are we believe the Republicans were wrong to oppose slavery because the Supreme Court affirmed it was OK?
Report this comment
Anadara
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:31pmEncinom… I thought you got a job. BTW are you still wearing that rubber hat with the reservoir tip?
Report this comment
DSTSS2010
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:31pmLiberals choose to be offended. That does not trump my rights. Get over yourselves!
Report this comment
Cavallo
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:31pmFascists don’t believe in rights. They only believe in those privileges that their lord and master, the State, grants to its subjects.
Report this comment
SquidVetOhio
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:34pmThank you ENCINOM. Reading your idiotic leftists posts daily reminds me why I must own guns. Because when the forces come to stomp out freedom, people like you can not be counted on to defend it. There will always be cowards among us that use the very freedom they have to denigrate the better men that provided it to them.
Report this comment
Tom K
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:35pm@ ENCINOM : ALL Rights given by God Almighty are ABSOLUTE.
Report this comment
nesmond
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:45pmWhat a little spoiled brat you are Encinom. You just crave the attention, don’t you child? Grow up you little poopy-pants and get a job.
Report this comment
FrankieBaby
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:53pmExactly. The definition of “Infringe” simply means the act of limiting or undermining something. The legal definition is below. So how in the “HELL” do they get that its OK to limit and undermine the 2nd amendment? Do they think we are all retarded simpletons?
Verb
Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): “infringe a copyright”.
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: “infringe on his privacy”.
Synonyms
violate – transgress – break – contravene – trespass
Report this comment
chevronb191972
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:59pmEncinom, no right is absolute?? OK, let’s go there. How a bout a woman’s “right to her body”? How about homosexuals’ rights to equal treatment? How about a Christians right to practice freely in public? Just remember, you fool, you are talking about rights that your stupid liberal utopian twits have spouted for years. Go away little man. You live in the dreamworld of egalitarinism.
Report this comment
Heffe44
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 5:33pm@chevronb191972
There are limits to all the rights you listed. Abortion is legal but there are limits to when can you can get them. After a certain date, they become illegal. Your right, same sex couples can not get married. They just wants the same rights as everybody else. But if they were granted the right to marry, there would be limits. Like the age of your partner, legal consent and that you can’t be married to more then one person at a time… ect. You see all rights have limits… even your right to keep and bear arms.
Report this comment
booger71
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 6:03pmYou see all rights have limits… even your right to keep and bear arms.
=========
Heffe44, none of the other rights you described are in the Bill Of Rights
Report this comment
Heffe44
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 6:15pmWrong… all the rights I talked about are in the constitution. The SCOTUS has ruled on all of those topics… they only rule based on the constitution. Which means every limit to rights I listed are based on constitutional law. The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments of the constitution. (I didn’t know if you knew that, so I threw that in for good measure). But if you must… what about speech. That is the 1st amendment… there are many limits to speech. In the interest of brevity I will not name them all. You can google if you are interested.
Report this comment
YOURSENSEI
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 7:40pmThis is what you must know:
The Constitution in action.
It is so.
Report this comment
llotus
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 9:14pmyoungamericangirl……and i read no requirements for obtaining a permit for concealed or open carry in the second amendment. Or registereing our weapons. At this time only the criminals are allowed this right. Lotus.
Report this comment
Evolved
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 9:38pmReal men use fists.
Report this comment
WarMunger_Al
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 7:01amNeverfall-
Under your assertion, the southern states should still be slave states. No state has the right to violate the bill of rights, they agreed to these limitations on their power when they signed on.
Report this comment
grimmster
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:41pmThough i believe the second amendment is quite clear,it deals more with the federal end of it than the states,and there in lies the rub……..
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:49pmThe 14th amendment applies the entire BOR to all of the states.
Report this comment
NotBigBooteeitsBigButtay
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:50pmI don’t think so.
It is listed as a fundamental right afforded (and protected) by our contract as a union (our Constitution).
As I said earlier, if a state no longer wishes to be a member of the union, then they can leave and decide this right is not fundamental for them.
Report this comment
ChildOfTheKing
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:42am@NotBigBooteeitsBigButtay,
the problem is that the Federal govt WILL NOT ALLOW ANY STATE TO SECEDE FROM IT!
TYRANNY………………..at its finest. Lock, load, and wait. IT IS coming…………
Report this comment
Rowgue
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 12:48pmA state law does not invalidate federal law, and it certainly doesn’t trump the constitution.
Report this comment
NotBigBooteeitsBigButtay
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:39pmParsing a God-given constitutional right to say, “well, the states are just working out the licensing” is the problem in a nutshell.
There isn’t anything to parse.
The one and only constitutional ruling would be that no licensing is needed in any state.
Now, if those states want to leave the union, that’s different. Then they are no longer bound by the constitution.
Report this comment
turkey13
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:54pmThe court is correct! If you want protection from the druggies, thugs and gang bangers hire a body guard. We have a lot of servicemen coming home and they can’t find a job. Look how Mikie Bloomburg is helping out – he has 4 armed body guards. Look at all the politicians that are helping by having them. Even people like Piers Moron and O”reiley and other talking heads have helped out by hiring armed body guards.
Report this comment
WeaponizedGreyMatter
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:46pmWhat part of “indivisible” don’t you understand? Here, let me help you out. According to Webster;
Indivisible, Adjective, Not divisible; unable to be divided or separated
Report this comment
Mil-Dot
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 6:02pmWeapon,
I agree. No goon in a marble building is going to determine my rights. Ink on paper is just that. It must ultimately be enforced. Therein lies the conundrum. Sooner or later they have to send creeps to enforce their edicts. That is when they will be taken aback.
Report this comment
Desertlakesflying
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:36pmgreat more radical extremists telling us that “shall not be infringed” doesn’t mean anything. The courts have no authority here, yet we keep allowing them authority.
Report this comment
booger71
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:46pmThis court like all courts now, use case law instead of merits of holding up the suit side by side with the Constitution. Even the Supreme Court has no Constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution, even though they do it.
Report this comment
encinom
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:03pmNO RIGHT IS ABSOLUTE.
Gun Nuts are proving they are ignorant, confederates looking to for a fight. It time to name the NRA and its supporters the terrorists they are.
Report this comment
bumfuzeled
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 5:04pmYes E but we are the ones with all of the guns.
Report this comment
booger71
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 5:56pmNRA and its supporters the terrorists they are.
==================
Encinomom….The NRA is the oldest civil rights organization in the U.S, and yes the right to bear arms is a civil right.
Report this comment
Fubared
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 6:50pmEncidiot did you ever even own a Red Ryder or was it just a Barbie and Playdough childhood? You need two Red Ryders.
Report this comment
LakeHartwellSailor
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 9:16pmEncicom –
Yeah, maybe you are right….maybe I *AM* a terrorist using your definition. But here’s the real deal. I took an oath to protect the United States, from enemies both foreign AND DOMESTIC. And you, sir, are a Domestic enemy. I do not want to put you into a grave, but you are an ideological threat to what this great country is all about. I have no use for the likes of you. You are a rabid dog. A menace to a free society. I would shoot you and feel no remorse.
I suggest you immigrate to North Korea….I think you will feel more comfortable there. I would even pay for your plane ticket. It would be better to pay you to leave the United States, as opposed to shoot you…which would you prefer my young “friend”.
Report this comment
CloudNine
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 9:50pmEncinom – You are a weak person, a coward hiding behind your computer. You never offer any constructive ideas. Your comments are always demeaning, clueless on subject matter, and totally without comprehensive thought. I am amazed you can type a coherent thought. Why are you here?
Report this comment
00100111
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:35pmEasy way around this. Carry anyway. Who needs permission? I do not ask permission to exercise my rights. If any LE in a “banned” area don’t like it…well, I guess we’ll see who goes home that night. :) Hint, I’m a better shot than they are.
Report this comment
wilbstal
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:50pmgood man
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:57pmExactly. One doesn’t ask permission to exercise a right.
Report this comment
encinom
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:05pmAnother Beckerhead show that he is little more than a would be criminal ready to kill cops. No different than any other would be terrorist.
RJJinGadsden
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:18pmENCINOM, Damn, I see that you peed your pink panties and came here to show us all that fact that you have become the most pathetic hopolophope who dares enter The Blaze.
Report this comment
kywillie
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:29pmSoooo…. You’re going to start shooting cops just doing their job? That doesn’t seem very patriotic.
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:37pm“Just doing their job” stopped being a valid excuse for imposing tyranny in the year 1946. Sorry.
Report this comment
encinom
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:57pmGhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:37pm
“Just doing their job” stopped being a valid excuse for imposing tyranny in the year 1946. Sorry.
________________
Ghosty, just admit you hate your country and are a traitor to it. Its clear from your posts that you are little more than a compound dwelling confederate with spewing hate, bigotry and racism.
Report this comment
kywillie
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 5:26pmI think to make the comparison of “Excuse me sir, you can’t carry that rifle into the Football game, you’ll have to leave it out here” to “Hey you’re Jewish right? Get on the train” is not a valid one.
Report this comment
MrObamablows
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 6:41pmShall not be infringed! Simple even a cop can understand!
Report this comment
mecanic
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 7:57pm@encinom….i don’t believe in abortion, but in your case i would make an exception. you are a disgrace to the human race.
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 9:46am@encinom
Gosh, ad hominem. How original!
Report this comment
Uechi
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:35pmSorry, but the 2nd Amendment says keep and bear arms nowhere does it mention how oe in what manner. Both open carry and concealed carry would be covered if judges would stick with Constitutional Law and stop with the Case Law crappola. In any event I’m done. They can say whatever they want and pass what ever they want I shall not comply!
Report this comment
Evolved
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 9:48pmUm, well regulated miltia mean anything? No? I’m shocked.
Report this comment
RIDEMODELS
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 3:59amThere are no American Judges at this time……But there are some that are on their way……It just takes a little time……Liberals will destroy themselves with drugs and alcohol and we will come up from behind with new Judges and a fresh start on Freedom.
Gay men are only gay so they can score chicks up in da club.
Obama thinks he is slick by us paying money to big Oil Arabs, so they can buy more Americana.
So the end game is to take away our Guns…..But there are certain states that just will not let that happen, and the ******** are fleeing from those states to the more drug friendly states of Colorado…..Which will not even be worth visiting on a good cold winters day.
Adios liberal turds….Your days are numbered living with the rest of us.
Report this comment
blackfeather
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:34pmall this is just about total confiscation…slowly, and surely….just like german hitler did.
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:43pmHitler was Austrian, not German.
Report this comment
freedoc
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:12pmEven so, his point is: Hitler( the Chancellor of Germany.) ultimately banned firearms. Whether he was Austrian or German is irrelevant.
Case in point: Obama is Kenyan, but he is the El Supremo of the USA. ( Ok, maybe he isnt Kenyan by natural birth, but the point is, whoever is the leader controls and dictates, regardless of their country of origin).
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:21pmHe made a mistake, and I politely corrected it. When advocating ideas and positions, it behooves us to be as factual as possible so as to not allow ourselves to become defined as ignorant rubes. I’m not calling the OP an ignorant rube, I’m stating the reason I believe we should strive for accuracy when possible.
I’m well aware of what Hitler did, having cracked a history book or three in my day. :)
Report this comment
Rowgue
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:34pmThe whole fight over concealed carry is stupid anyway. Open carry is what people should be fighting for. What’s unconstitutional are the laws that make it outright illegal to even posess a weapon outside of your home. Whether it’s concealed or not is irrelevant. States and cities where you’re technically allowed to own guns but you’re arrested if you’re found carrying it outside of your home or if a gun is found loaded even inside your home. States and cities where a loaded gun is literally illegal, unless you’re at a shooting range.
Report this comment
Sharon Rose
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:32pmThe Constitution and the Bill of Rights have fallen by the wayside…sad.
Report this comment
rzraick
Posted on February 27, 2013 at 2:16amOnly when we fail to demand our rights. Rights refer to things which we have in common as human beings. They are not granted by government and therefore the government has no authority to deny them. many people mistakenly call priviledges rights. But they are not. Privileges are grant to someone by someone else. Usually the entity granting the priviledge is the government and any priviledge can be taken away by the one who granted it.
Rights are universal, and equal to all individuals. Some people also make the mistake of calling social programs rights. Some people call things they think represent fairness (a realtive term) rights as well.
They are incorrect to do so and thiis only leads to confusion. The Bill of Rights is specifically about rights with which the government is forbidden to tamper. It is to limit the power of government, lest that power becomes tyrannical.
There are some comments made by people who have no understanding at all about Constitutional government or the foundations of our once great country. They are what the Communists refer to as useful idiots. So brainwashed from birth that they actually embrace socialism which is a stepping stone to communism. They are simply wrong in their beliefs and talking with them is a waste of time.
While this is understandable, these people have re-elected a Marxist /Leninist for the second time. They are very dangerous.
Report this comment
Xylliab_of_the_Znarghh
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:29pmOkay, now challenge the municipal open carry ban. I’m not sure if anybody has ever tried that, so I think it might be harder for the court to dig up precedents to cover it.
Report this comment
plugemin.com
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:34pmThe Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.
The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion).
These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.
Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, “the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the United States
Report this comment
Poorfessor
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 5:03pmEver hear of Wyatt Earp? Gun grabbers have been around for a while.
Report this comment
WataugaFrost
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 5:14pmThanks Plugemin.com. That was some interesting insight.
Report this comment
FaithfulFriend
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:27pmAs far as I can tell Washington State does not honor Colorado’s license holders. Florida honors both Washington’s and Colorado’s license holders so I assume reciprocity is the same.
So while in Washington why doesn’t the dude just keep his Florida license in his wallet?
I would much rather see the State’s work this out than any federal court, as the federalists are now more like commie bastardos.
But it’s continually tragic how these courts see things in writing that aren’t in the Constitution and offer opinions to stop things which aren’t specifically stated in writing.
Truth be told, it’s as if they’re into the prostitution of the Constitution.
Report this comment
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:26pmHere is the gist of the matter and I understand why the justices decided as they did; the man has two state granted licences for carrying concealed, and in the state he sued already had a program of carry concealed permits being granted to residents whose states accept the carry-concealed licences of Colorado – which Fla and Washington did not.
In this matter there is no violation of the right to possess firearms, as STATE-ESTABLISHED law defined the terms for Colorado licences being issued. Clearly this is a matter between the states and not an issue on the federal level.
Report this comment
Landon410
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:16pmthe “gist” of the matter is that there are laws in place keeping him from being able to carry.
that is the “gist” of the matter, why should there be any law or any “follow these guidelines” ? this man is a citizen, and he has the right to bare arms
not the right to bare arms, except in denver
Report this comment
NotBigBooteeitsBigButtay
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:26pmI shoulda been a judge.
Make stuff up, Get paid. Sleep like a baby.
Sounds nice.
Report this comment
Fubared
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:55pmAnd you have a carry permit or armed security. Cake all around.
Report this comment
65Mustang
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:24pmWhat a sad situation it has become when laws to protect the citizens must be explained to the federal court judges . I guess it depends on which party affiliations they belong too…Supreme Court Justice, John Roberts for example.
Report this comment
Mike76
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:22pmHorse. ****. One cannot “bear” arms if one is prohibited from having the arms on or about his person. So yes, denying concealed or open carry DOES violate the Second Amendment. The courts, even the most Conservative justices, have imparted meaning and restriction into the Second Amendment where none existed. I have the right (don’t need the government’s permission) to keep (own as my own sovereign property) and bear (have on or about my person) arms (any weapons of offense or defense I deem appropriate,) PERIOD. The courts may decide in which manner I may bear those arms, either openly or concealed, but if I am permitted to do neither, then I am illegitimately denied my right to bear.
Report this comment
team1blazer
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 12:00amAMEN Mike. I will NOT comply with BS laws or interpretations of laws that violate my constitutional rights.
Report this comment
texrubarts
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 3:21pmI agree with your comments100% !! And if the courts decide we can NOT carry – big deal – we will still own & carry…. and use if provoked. I think they want to provoke us!! Furthermore I am GLAD to see weapon manufacturers turn people away that are against us owning weapons. God Bless them!!!
Report this comment
Vision Harry
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:21pmI do agree with Justice Scalia about bearing arms meaning those weapons that can only be borne by a person, but as to the manner of carry, there should be no restriction whatsoever.
Report this comment
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:31pmVision this is my view on the matter, and I do agree with Justice Scalia: each state, as determined by the will of its residents, should settle the matter within their own borders as the people wish it to be. In that way the Federal government is booted out of the system as we have done in AZ.
Here the people wanted to have the right to carry concealed w/o a permit, and so we are.
Report this comment
bharris0
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:21pmRequiring a permit in the first place is a violation of the 2A. What part of “not be infringed” do the courts not understand ?
Report this comment
NotBigBooteeitsBigButtay
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:22pmIndeed.
Only a lawyer could find law that doesn’t exist to dispute that.
Report this comment
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:29pmHere is the gist on the matter concerning the Second amendment, carry concealed laws that allow a qualified person to obtain a licence do not infringe on the right to bear arms; so long as it is done by the individual state itself and not by the Federal government.
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:42pm@Snow
The 14th Amendment says otherwise. The rights of the BOR are extended at the state level via the 14th. In fact, the entire reason the 14th exists is because states were deciding that they didn’t want to give blacks the right to bear arms, claiming falsely that it was a state’s rights issue. With the 14th, that neo-confederate idea kind of went away. So no, states can no more infringe on your 2nd Amendment right than they can force you to practice Islam or tell you that you have to turn in all copies of books in your home for burning.
Report this comment
booger71
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:49pmSnow, the 2nd Amendment like the 1st, is an individual right by natural law, in which local, state or federal governments cannot infringe against. .
Report this comment
Steal Your Face
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:47am@ghost – one could argue that the “gist” of the 14th was not absolute application – but a list of ways in which the state must avoid in restricting rights – lets not forget that the bulk of the 14th concerned citizenship, equal protection and due process – ALL had to be met for a restriction to be implemented – that is to say if concealed carry law was not applied to persons of african descent because they are of african descent only – the state has violated the 14th because that individual is a citizen, and as such is afforded equal protection and due process, african descent alone is not enough to deny a civil right – however if the person in question was of african descent, and his application was denied because of a felony record – the state is in the right because ALL felons are denied and his application was processed and rejected under the due course of law. Furthermore, the 14th and incorporation does not apply to ALL of the BOR only certain amendments and even still, portions of certain amendments. The concept of incorporation of the 14th itself is limited to its own enumeration, the 2nd of course being so. The point of the 14th, in the spirit of the Constitution itself was local control within a framework of what uncle sam could not do to you.
Report this comment
COFemale
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:19pmI have but one statement: Does a criminal carry a firearm without having a concealed or open carry license? Yes. Then why do I have to comply when they don’t. Until criminals give up their guns, neither am I.
Report this comment
bolec slodkie
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:19pmThe court commented:
“A right to own a handgun is one thing, after all, but what about the right to own rocket launchers? Miniguns? Anti-tank ordinance? An actual, physical tank? Are all of these things protected by the right to keep and bear arms? They are, after all, arms.”
The answer is of course! The Founding Fathers stole CANNON from the British, the most powerful weapons of mass destruction of the era!
http://www.nps.gov/mima/planyourvisit/the-hancock.htm
Report this comment
Cavallo
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:34pmThe primary purpose of that amendment is to allow the people to over throw the government when needed. Does the government have access to those weapons? Can the government be trusted not to turn tanks and rockets on the people? Is there something int he design of those weapons that only allows them to be used on foreign enemies? If not then the people should have access as well.
Report this comment
Dismayed Veteran
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:32pmIf I recall correctly, the British marched on Lexington and Concord to confiscate the miltia’s cannon, shot and powder. The cannon was the weapon of mass destruction then.
Report this comment
NotBigBooteeitsBigButtay
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:18pmBased on wrongful rulings in the past, we gladly use them to make another wrongful decision, because all the wrongful decisions in the past are all the evidence we need that it is ok to make wrongful decisions right now.
Report this comment
NotBigBooteeitsBigButtay
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:15pmAs anyone can easily see, a trained chimp could do the job of judge better than these clowns.
They don’t know what constraints or limits there are on the right to keep and bear arms, so they make one up. They have to. It’s certainly not written anywhere in the Constitution.
Using their worthless logic, I can carry a shotgun to the office, as long as its not concealed.
When the civil war begins, will I miss these tyrants who just make up stuff because the Constitution doesn’t say what they want in it?
No a bit.
Report this comment
NotBigBooteeitsBigButtay
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:19pmI’m surprised they didn’t throw poo at each other in the courtroom.
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:11pm“the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.”
Ah, so it’s not an infringement because they won’t call it an infringement. That’s some brilliant legal work there, Lou.
How funny. The 2nd’s language is crystal clear, keep and bear arms does not say “only openly carried”, it leaves the bearing portion open to the individual to decide, and it’s about as cut and dried as you can get. So, they rule that hey, we’ll just pretend it doesn’t say that.
Meanwhile, nowhere in the Constitution is there a right defined to allow the murder of one’s child in a womb, but somehow that was read, apparently referencing a clause found in another dimension on the planet Wazeembo, that nobody can cite.
This is the problem when people forget that it’s not the courts who can decide what is or isn’t our rights.
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:21pmAnd technically, this ruling only stated that Colorado has no legal obligation to issue CHL’s to out of state individuals. If it was “no right to conceal carry”, it would apply to in state residents.
Either way though, it’s an infringement, as there shouldn’t be a permit system to begin with. And again, if it stops you from bearing an arm as you choose (peacefully), then it’s an infringement. Period.
Report this comment
wowjustwow
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 6:02pmProblem I have with your using abortion as analogy is this: what right do you (or the courts) have to what is in my body?
Report this comment
DLV
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 10:20pmwow- for the sake of sanity, I’ll pretend I didn’t read that comment.
Report this comment
phil1765
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 4:09amwowjustwow
I don’t give a damn what you do to your person, I do however think that you having the right to kill a forming person is wrong. But you know what you go ahead and kill them babies, maybe we can abortion ourselves out of liberals AH.
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 9:48am@Wow
What about the body you’d be carrying? He or she doesn’t have rights to his/her own body? Heh, you people are pathetic. Your cult of death knows no bounds. Why don’t you head off now and plan on how you’re going to implement post-birth killing of children who don’t turn out the way you like.
Report this comment
GLJones
Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:02pmWowJustWow…
You did what you wanted with your body which resulted in another person, with rights and protections. Just because this person is inside your body doesn’t cancel their rights. Perhaps if you were more responsible with your body you would not be responsible for an unwanted person.
Report this comment
RJJinGadsden
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:08pmHas permits in both Washington and Florida to carry concealed. Colorado has a reciprocity agreement to acknowledge permits from Florida.
http://www.ccrkba.org/?page_id=1217
How did this case go this far in the first place?
Report this comment
RLM
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:26pmBecause in Colorado, you must be a resident of the state issuing a permit they honor. Some states will issue permits to Non-residents, including Florida.
Report this comment
Fubared
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:38pmGet a Utah permit- like 36 odd states recognize it. Maybe 57 in 0 world.
Report this comment
lzell
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:49pm**Colorado (CO), Michigan (MI), South Carolina (SC), New Hampshire (NH), Florida (FL), Kansas (KS) and West Virginia (WV) only honor permits from residents of the issuing states.
Notice the “**Colorado(CO)” those little stars I believe if you read the rest of notation mean that the state (in this case Colorado) only honors permits from residents of the issuing states. Which I think means that Colorado does not recognize the permits from Florida in its state just as the case mentioned. So maybe he cannot consealed carry and as the court said he maybe should have gone after the open carry law instead.
Report this comment
MCON29
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:16pmCan not wait for Illinois to pass CC. We live under Tyranny over here.
Report this comment
RJJinGadsden
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:24pmRLM, Okay, I can see that. When I lived in Florida I carried a dual residency that was even stamped on my drivers license. That was back in the ’70s, so I have no idea if they still do that.
Report this comment
RJJinGadsden
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:29pmRLM, I feel compelled to point out now, that when I was stationed at Ft Bragg, the unit that I was in required us all to maintain a North Carolina drivers license as well. This was after I had lived in Florida, and was also stamped as a dual resident allowing me to maintain my home state license again. Still, that was a practice from the late ’70s through the early ’80s, so again I must confess that I do not know if that practice is still in effect.
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:30pm@MCon
You may be waiting a while. I strongly suspect that Illinois is going to appeal that ruling, if they haven’t already. Ultimately they will go down, but if they appeal it could be years and not days for you. And if they’re forced eventually to allow carry, I can bet you a dollar to a doughnut that they go “May Issue” instead of “Shall Issue”. Kind of like how Hawaii does it, a state which has not yet to date issued one “civilian” CHL.
Report this comment