Federal court says concealed gun permits not protected by 2nd Amendment

[Wendell]

In its ruling, the three-judge panel cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons."
"In light of our nation's extensive practice of restricting citizen's 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," the judges ruled.

<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/23/appeals-court-upholds-concealed-weapons-ruling/>

[jetfire]

In its ruling, the three-judge panel cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons."
"In light of our nation's extensive practice of restricting citizen's 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," the judges ruled.

<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/23/appeals-court-upholds-concealed-weapons-ruling/>


I remember hearing about this case; the person I was chatting with referred to it as "a turd" and was concerned that because it wasn't a good case that we'd end up with a ruling exactly like this.

[cclaxton]

In its ruling, the three-judge panel cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons."
"In light of our nation's extensive practice of restricting citizen's 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," the judges ruled.

<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/23/appeals-court-upholds-concealed-weapons-ruling/>


What about the question of open carry?
CC

[NETim]

Of course, it's not a right. The "shall issue" model reduced it to a "privilege."

[ford.304]

I'm not particularly happy to see this ruling, but I'm not surprised by it. Nor am I entirely in disagreement with their conclusion in terms of Constitutional Analysis, depending on what Colorado's open carry law is. There's plenty of early evidence that concealed carry specifically was not considered a right, and it's a reasonable argument that it should only become one when a state bans open carry. It's still shitty policy, but it's clear from a constitutional analysis standpoint that we win here unless you are giving gun rights the full level of support that the first amendment gets - a level that no other amendment in the constitutional receives.

There are plenty of other rights that are allowed to be affected by residency requirements as well. You can't vote in another state's elections if you are just passing through, for example.

[G60]

Peterson v. Denver County Sheriff of the week was not designed to decide if carry outside the home is protected. It was designed to win after something like Kachalsky wins.