Death Toll Revised Down to 24 After Monstrous Oklahoma Tornado…100+ Injured…Children Among the Dead…Stunning Pictures…Woman Finds Dog During Interview!

Watch Live: Second House Hearing on IRS Scandal

Government

Federal Court Finds No Constitutional Right to Carry a Concealed Weapon — We Explain The Decision

Feb. 25, 2013 3:01pm

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.

Comments (460)

1 2 3 4 5 … 10
  • Amherst Patriot
    Posted on February 25, 2013 at 5:06pm

    To quote from the article: “and the other (Judge Harriz Hartz) was a nominee by the second President Bush, neither of whom were presidents known for nominating liberal judges.” Not known for nominating liberal judges? How about the ever PROGRESSIVE John, Obamacare is a Tax, Roberts?

    Report this comment

    Amherst Patriot  
  • bumfuzeled
    Posted on February 25, 2013 at 5:06pm

    Just to let Encinom know, I have stopped stock piling ammo. When I realized how much my neighbors had, I realized, I may not get to use what I have. The revolution will be so short I will barely have time to change magazines.

    Report this comment

    bumfuzeled  
  • kimberwarrior45
    Posted on February 25, 2013 at 5:02pm

    According to the Court’s decision that there is no right to conceal carry quoting Heller’s that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions,” they failed English in that they took only part of the sentence that fit their view. The entire sentence must be read and if done and the part of the sentence applies here is “in sensitive places’. If they had followed the rules of English the Court has ruled that all of Colorado is a sensitive place. Also by taking their logic, in dividing sentences, then if the law said open carry was acceptable you still couldn’t carry because it would be ‘concealed’ and not in plain view from some side or direction. I still do not understand why they refuse to abide by the definition of the word infringed.

    Report this comment

    kimberwarrior45  
  • KEELHAULUM
    Posted on February 25, 2013 at 5:02pm

    @KYWILLIE Sorry, I can’t trust anyone who uses K Y and choke hold in the same post.
    Your post screams listen to this “Man’s” opinion regarding my desire to carry concealed.

    Go ahead tell me more,…what is foods opinion of free men

    Report this comment

    KEELHAULUM  
    • kywillie
      Posted on February 25, 2013 at 5:30pm

      Are you saying you are going to eat me? Maybe take a break from the walking dead for a little bit.

      Report this comment

      kywillie  
  • watashbuddyfriend
    Posted on February 25, 2013 at 5:01pm

    Ok, now, it is time to stop the One-Judge, Mid-Nite Judge rule, and change the SC to remove the life-time appointment, and eleminate the POTUS recommendation to fill vacancies. One must follow the King James Bible, and follow the US Constitution to qualify for the position.

    Report this comment

    watashbuddyfriend  
  • wilbstal
    Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:55pm

    we have concluded………….. hmm well us on the other side say watch your step lefty we ain’t giving nothing up tp please your power whims and authority you think Obama gives you. All this remains to be seen who wins we have foreever to fight you Communists. Not a 24 hr thing with us this is do or die and we will die when the time comes as we take some of you with us. Do tell us when do the games start???????

    Report this comment

    wilbstal  
  • KEELHAULUM
    Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:54pm

    “In fact, according to that same court, when it comes to carrying concealed weapons, the Second Amendment is basically irrelevant.”
    SO IS THE COURTS DECISION.

    Report this comment

    KEELHAULUM  
  • CulperGang
    Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:53pm

    “More limited than conservatives like to think” BS.

    in·fringe
    verb \in-ˈfrinj\
    in·fringedin·fring·ing

    Definition of INFRINGE

    transitive verb
    : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
    obsolete: defeat, frustrate

    Any tampering is UNLAWFULL.
    And if you want to take it one step further,,,,,,,,,,FEDERAL COURTS have NO JURISDICTION over the Constitution. Period.
    In fact DC is a corporation OUTSIDE of the US. The seat of the illegal shadow government.
    THIS EXPLAINS why Barry operates outside of the Constitution. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO DC!!

    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/master_file/federalgovernment.htm

    Comes right down to it Barry HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER YOU! nor his courts.
    Only a GrandJury has “jurisdiction over you.” Educate yourself on common law.

    Report this comment

    CulperGang  
  • Eric-n-OTown
    Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:53pm

    This appears on its surface to have been a poorly assembled case against the state. One, like the court pointed out, the plaintiff made no attempt at challenging the state’s law regarding open carry, in which case the court decided correctly that a citizen doesn’t have a right to conceal their arms (knife, gun, whatever). However, what was apparently failed to have been argued is the right to equal protection under the law. A state that bans open carry, but denies the right to keep and bear arms concealed to all but their residents (or states with reciprocity) is running afoul of the Constitution, again in my opinion. It is this law that I would be attacking, as I still have a right to keep and bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. In other words, the state is required to provide me a means to exercise my right, and provide me a means to prove that I am not a danger to myself or others. That said, any lawyers out there that want to make or break this argument? I’m always looking to learn something new!

    Report this comment

    Eric-n-OTown  
  • chevronb191972
    Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:53pm

    I am staunchly pro Second Amendment. However, I’m sure this was a mature and considered opinion.The Second permits all Americans to bear arms. It does not stipulate concealed or otherwise. If we expect the liberals to respect the Consttution, we should do likewise. Concealed carry is a State decision to permit legiimate gun owners the right to carry arms out of public view. The fact that the Constitution does not stipulate this right, means that a citizen can enjoy his State’s prerogative to carry concealed or not. But another State need not accept that prerogative. I think Robert Bork would have been happy with this decision.

    Report this comment

    chevronb191972  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on February 25, 2013 at 5:02pm

      I must have overlooked the Splitting The Term “Bear” Into Two Parts clause. Was that in a footnote?

      Report this comment

      GhostOfJefferson  
  • sootsme
    Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:52pm

    BS!!! “Shall not be infringed” is clear, plain English. Period. Can anyone out there still read or think? No wonder we’re in such a stinking mess, folks…

    Report this comment

    sootsme  
  • LeadNotFollow
    Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:52pm

    The court is wrong.
    The right to carry a gun to protect yourself is why the second amendment was written.
    The second amendment was not written just so you could have a gun to hunt food.

    Courtrooms always have armed police guards to protect the judges from harm.
    How would judges feel if those guards were not there?
    They would feel afraid, just like the average unarmed “sitting duck” citizen.

    No judge, celebrity, or politician’s life is worth more than the life of an average citizen.
    Why do they have protection, but deny us the right to protect ourselves?

    Report this comment

    LeadNotFollow  
    • Eric-n-OTown
      Posted on February 25, 2013 at 5:01pm

      Your point is understood, however, you are a bit misguided to use a judge as your choice of subject. They’re allowed to carry concealed in their courtroom, and most all do. Sometimes I think the bailiff is there more for your protection than the judge’s…

      Report this comment

      Eric-n-OTown  
  • Jinglebob
    Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:47pm

    This is all just legal mumbo. The 2nd means that you have a right to own a firearm and no one should infringe upon that right period. Carrying concealed or open should not matter. Those that don’t understand the need for concealed carry don’t understand firearm self defense. Why should a baddy know that you are armed or not? That is your sole advantage. If carried open, the baddy will target you first to get rid of his threat. Carrying concealed, no one knows forsure so it makes for a safer society. Be assured the baddy will carry concealed all the time. Open carry frightens grandma, Liberals and firearm know nothings. I thought all this was a given but I guess not.

    Report this comment

    Jinglebob  
    • LeadNotFollow
      Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:54pm

      I agree. A legal concealed weapon is much safer for all involved.

      Report this comment

      LeadNotFollow  
    • Spitfire1938
      Posted on February 25, 2013 at 5:13pm

      Whoa!!!!!! I surly do agree…. But, good luck with that viewpoint in a communist run state where you are, in fact, no more than a stupid SUBJECT with NO rights… of any kind!!
      BTW: Did you notice, During the Academy Awards program, journalists gave up their identity to a NUMBER!

      Report this comment

      Spitfire1938  
    • LakeHartwellSailor
      Posted on February 25, 2013 at 9:51pm

      Yo Jingle!

      You are absolutely correct. Read a book called “The Covert Guide to Concealed Carry: Confessions of a Former CIA Officer” by Jason R. Hanson; and that is EXACTLY what he stated as his case as far as Open Carry versus Concealed Carry. You Open Carry, you will be targeted first. Best bet is to conceal carry and that gives you a few moments to reach for your concealed weapon in the event of an armed robbery….if you open carry, you WILL be targeted first because an armed robber will case the situation first before he/she acts.

      If you are in say a convienience store, an armed robber will likely watch to see who is in the store, those who open carry, will be targeted first if they feel that the open carry person will still be in the store when they feel they need to strike. If you are a concealed carry, the robber will not consider you a threat since they don’t see a weapon….to them, you are just another “wallet”. As such, it is likely that you will be ignored and assumed you will cower and comply. You are not a threat so they will concentrate on “the money” in the register….and that is your opportunity to reach for your weapon.

      And ladies….if you are not armed, there is a 97 percent likelyhood that you will be raped. If you are armed, its 3 percent. Take your pick.

      Report this comment

      LakeHartwellSailor  
  • just happy
    Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:46pm

    actually it IS protected by the constitution. Gun rights cannot be infringed. and any power or authority not stated as delegated to the federal Government is reserved to the states or the people. So my interpretation is that the “cannot be infringed” part is stated so the STATE cannot deny me that right or infringe on it by requiring me to get a permit.

    Report this comment

    just happy  
    • CulperGang
      Posted on February 25, 2013 at 5:05pm

      FREE people do not need to ask permissions. Licenses/Permits = revenue collection.

      Fishing? God make the lakes, put the fishes in there. So why are you asking another man if you can fish??? Are you his vassal??? YES YOU ARE if you “buy” a permit. The fees are like paying a king fealty. Same with “hunting permits.” America has been turned back into a European vassal state and we did not know it because the “Academia” deliberately kept us dumbed down and never taugh us the difference betwee a FREE state vs Vassal states,

      Report this comment

      CulperGang  
  • kywillie
    Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:43pm

    So is it time for you guys to finally rebel against the Government now or are you still just going to post internet comments. By the way, the government stating you can’t carry a gun on you at all times or saying you can’t have an AR 15 is hardly tyranny you big babies. Besides, you’re being kind of p****ies by saying you need a gun on you at all times, jeez learn a choke hold.

    Report this comment

    kywillie  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:45pm

      Troll fail.

      Your input is no longer desired, required or listened to. You are being neutered, and we will not be complying with any laws your kind thinks it needs to pass.

      No debate, no discussion, no “conversation”, no compliance. Get used to your impotence.

      Report this comment

      GhostOfJefferson  
    • Youngamericangirl
      Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:49pm

      Thanks for adding so much to the conversation. You show your intellect very well by coming on here and making juvenile insults about the comments and commenters.

      Report this comment

      Youngamericangirl  
    • kywillie
      Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:54pm

      I’m serious, I come on here for the news and all the time I see in the comments about people “fighting back” against this horrible government and I was just wondering if this is the last straw or what? I personally was bothered by the overreach of government way back in the Patriot Act days but no one seems to care about that, just your precious pop-pops.

      Report this comment

      kywillie  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on February 25, 2013 at 5:04pm

      And I cared too about the after effects of 911 (Patriot act, Homeland security, etc). That doesn’t mean that I need to devolve into screaming at others and telling them to “learn a choke hold” (really? heh).

      Report this comment

      GhostOfJefferson  
    • kywillie
      Posted on February 25, 2013 at 5:22pm

      Who is screaming? I asked some questions. Everyone in here is so concerned about their guns but how many could defend themselves without it? Do you know the 20 feet rule? If an attacker is withing 20 feet they more often than not will reach you before you can effectively draw your weapon. I’m sure this doesn’t apply to you but it does to highly trained officers.

      Report this comment

      kywillie  
    • LakeHartwellSailor
      Posted on February 25, 2013 at 9:33pm

      KY –

      I’m 52 years old, 5′ 10″ and 210 lbs. Not as fast as the young bucks….which is why I carry. You want to call me a big p&&*&y? That is fine. verbal taunts don’t affect me.

      But when it comes down to defending myself, I won’t use a choke hold, I’ll use a .22, .380, 9mm, .45 ACP, 30-06, 7.62 mm, or a 12 guage. I have at least 200 rounds each, for a total of about 6000 rounds…give or take a few hundred. Take your freaking pick…..PUNK!

      Report this comment

      LakeHartwellSailor  
    • kywillie
      Posted on February 25, 2013 at 11:34pm

      Hey lake, you really didn’t respond to the facts, just listed off guns and ammo. Impressive as it may be, studies show that even people with training don’t react fast enough with a gun when someone is within 20 feet of them. So while your arsenal is impressive, it might useless in a crisis situation with a close, unexpected attacker. Punk.

      Report this comment

      kywillie  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on February 26, 2013 at 9:56am

      The “20 foot rule” generally applies to knives and throwing them, and assumes an attacker is charging you. A guy standing 20 feet away has no chance to get to me or any normal person with normal reflexes and training from a dead stop.

      We all get that you don’t like firearms. Great. Your opinion is registered. We’re happy for you.

      Report this comment

      GhostOfJefferson  
    • kywillie
      Posted on February 26, 2013 at 11:27am

      Wrong again Ghost. First of all I own a gun. Just a Mossberg 500 but I like it. Second of all your wrong about the study. Its actually the 21 foot rule and its if an attacker is 7 yards away he can usually get to you in 1.5 seconds. Swat were tested and usually even if they drew their gun in time the attacker still got to them. This is also in a perfect staredown scenario, not with a crowd, not with your gun under a jacket or tucked in your belt. So no, not every normal person will pull a gun in time. This is not even to mention adding stress to the environment. Pulling a gun at a range and pulling one out of your belt with a psycho coming after you are two completely different things. All i’m saying is just owning a bunch of guns doesn’t really make you safe. Its just an illusion you give yourself. I just think its helpful if people get other training if your worried about protecting yourself and others. For instance if you take Jiu Jistsu you can learn how to stay calm when you are getting choked or a limb stressed. You fool yourself into thinking your a tough guy when you carry.

      Report this comment

      kywillie  
  • Tom K
    Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:39pm

    Lawyers and Judges can certainly muddy it up, can’t they. ” Shall Not Be Infringed ” – pretty clear to me and our Founders.

    Report this comment

    Tom K  
  • andyN
    Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:38pm

    Add your comments

    Report this comment

    andyN  
  • Alternative_Thought
    Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:35pm

    The constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. What I’m wondering is how we got put in a position to have to conceal them in the first place????

    Definitely should have fought that battle through.

    Report this comment

    Alternative_Thought  
  • setonrulz
    Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:34pm

    Out of curiosity do those who support no restrictions on arms believe in not restricting someone’s right to vote by requiring a govt issued id.

    Report this comment

    setonrulz  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:44pm

      There is no such thing as a right to vote.

      Report this comment

      GhostOfJefferson  
    • Eric-n-OTown
      Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:58pm

      Agreed, you have no right to vote. That said, requiring to prove who you are in order to cast a legal ballot is not an unreasonable expectation in this day-and-age. In order for the democratic process to work, it must be fairly and equitably guaranteed that your vote will count the same as anyone else’s. If there is no checks and balances to ensure against fraudulent voting, then the process fails.

      Report this comment

      Eric-n-OTown  
    • crusaderx9
      Posted on February 25, 2013 at 5:07pm

      2nd Amendment: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

      Voting does have qualifiers, and the latest official voting change in the US Constitution (Amendment XXVI) requires that a voter must be a 1. citizen, 2. eighteen years of age or older. (Amendment V takes care of Due Process)

      Report this comment

      crusaderx9  
  • Frodo RinosBane
    Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:32pm

    Fine, I’m OK with that. I prefer to wear it on my hip in plain sight anyway.

    Report this comment

    Frodo RinosBane  
  • LakeHartwellSailor
    Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:32pm

    This kind of stuff drives me nuts. I have a Georgia CC, and I live 5 miles from the South Carolina border. I cannot carry my weapon in S.C.; so I go unarmed when I go across the border into S.C. However, I work in Missouri, and Missouri recognizes a Georgia CC. So, I can travel 500 miles on an airplane and bring my weapon to Missouri; but I can’t go six miles north of where I live and carry my weapon.

    I’m struggling with the “United” part of the United States.

    Report this comment

    LakeHartwellSailor  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:34pm

      Apply for an Arizona CHL. They issue them to all American citizens, if you’re former military your DD214 is considered proof of competency, and it is recognized by South Carolina and many, many other states.

      Report this comment

      GhostOfJefferson  
    • LakeHartwellSailor
      Posted on February 25, 2013 at 7:12pm

      Thanks for the advice Ghost! I’ll look into an AZ Conceal.

      Here’s something that I have been thinking about since I read a book called “The Covert Guiide to Cencealed Carry: Confessions of a Former CIA Officer” by Jason R. Hanson, and that is the point of Open Carry verses Concealed Carry. The author states that he prefers Concealed Carry as opposed to Open Carry because by carrying a weapon openly, it could make you a “first target” (i.e., if you happen to be in a convenience store when a robbery goes down). The arguement being that an armed robber is likely going to scope out the situation before he makes his move and if he sees an open carry, he’ll likely take you out first to eliminate a threat to the robber. So, I am definately more of a concealed carry person. I’d rather not make myself a target off the bat, but if I am in a store when a robbery goes down, I may have a better chance to reach my concealed weapon to protect myself. So, having that option in more states is definately attractive to me since I travel so much.

      I’ve got my DD-214, so I should be good to go in AZ.

      Thanks!

      Report this comment

      LakeHartwellSailor  
    • LakeHartwellSailor
      Posted on February 25, 2013 at 9:25pm

      Hey Ghost!

      I did a little checking, AZ CC does not apply to South Carolina. North Carolina, yes; but not SC.

      Well, as far as I am concerned, I just don’t care any more…..I’m going to carry where I want…its concealed; so I guess I would rather be tried by 12 then carried by 6. Hopefully, it doesn’t come down to it.

      Man, I hope Encicom doesn’t live in South Carolina…..otherwise, I would be tried by 12. ;)

      Report this comment

      LakeHartwellSailor  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on February 26, 2013 at 9:54am

      @Lake

      Holy crap, they changed it. Well dang it, sorry about that. It appears that Ohio just changed it as well. What the heck is going on with that? Used to be Michigan, NH and Colorado only on that. Meh. Sorry for the bad advice on SC. Most other states you’re covered though.

      Report this comment

      GhostOfJefferson  
  • jamestoms
    Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:31pm

    It’s time Patriots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Report this comment

    jamestoms  
  • crusaderx9
    Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:31pm

    Faulty reasoning: “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.”

    This is absurd CIRCULAR reasoning resonating an out of control court ignoring the expressly stated, “the right to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” It reduces the argument to if you have violated the US Constitution long enough (“extensive practice”) you can ignore the express language of the US Constitution.

    The US Constitution did not give the Judiciary the power to select out and ignore specific language in the US Constitution. “shall not be infringed” is as clear as you could write a Right!

    All these justices should be brought to justice for treason.

    Report this comment

    crusaderx9  
  • spfoam1
    Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:29pm

    Requiring a permit to carry a firearm is an infringement of a right the government doesn’t have the authority to give or take away. States that are restricting open carry are equally guilty of infringing on a right they have no authority to give or take away. This BS needs to end once and for all. If they take away your right to defend yourself, what other rights will they take next, and what would stop them from taking all your rights? Criminals already conceal carry, so why disarm everyone else? We elect con artist control freaks, and then we wonder why they regulate every possible aspect of our lives.

    Report this comment

    spfoam1  
  • Spitfire1938
    Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:26pm

    Uuuuuhhhhhh….. What am I supposed to take from this report… that I’m supporting Glenn Beck, whom, according to this article, it turns out is a two-faced, bald out and out LIAR…. or that he has unwittingly hired covert communist, ex-huffington post employees (Blaze News VP and perhaps the articles reporter/writer) who are attempting to undermine the credibility of the Blaze?

    These are indeed interesting times!

    Report this comment

    Spitfire1938  
    • just happy
      Posted on February 25, 2013 at 4:54pm

      how does reporting the news of the court decision which we may disagree with go under the catagory of Glenn is two faced and a liar? would you rather it not be reported so you won’t know what you are up against?

      Report this comment

      just happy  
    • Spitfire1938
      Posted on February 26, 2013 at 5:41am

      @JUST HAPPY. Glenn is, without question pro 2nd Amendment. What I tried to say, poorly, was that the articles author interpreted meaning to the 2nd Amendment, that in my view, is incorrect and contradicts Glenn’s “On Air”, and well known, personal opinion. I think he went beyond ‘just reporting’. I do not know M. Holt’s background, and I’m concerned about the Blaze maintaining credibility given Holt’s, in my view, ephemeral interpretation. On the other hand he did provoke a spirited debate.
      Thanks for your comment… I deserved it!

      Report this comment

      Spitfire1938  
1 2 3 4 5 … 10

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love