Last week the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled there is no Constitutional right for the state to provide a concealed carry permit to an individual. The Court serves as the Appeals court for the district courts in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, and most of Oklahoma. This might seem a set back to 2nd Amendment arguments but it is really a non factor and I’ll explain why.
The main argument was presented in the Peterson v. LaCabe lawsuit, it became the Peterson v. Martinez lawsuit, which is a federal lawsuit challenging the non-resident licensing practices of Colorado and the City of Denver. Gray Peterson, the plaintiff, is a resident of Washington state and holds a Washington state concealed carry permit as well as a Florida non-resident permit. Mr. Peterson applied for and was denied a Concealed Handgun License (CHL).
Colorado does not issue CHLs to non-residents, but does extend license reciprocity to residents of states who recognize their CHL laws. Colorado does not honor resident permits issued by Washington or Florida permits issued to non-residents because neither state has reciprocity with them. Additionally, the city of Denver bans open carry, so there was no way for Mr. Peterson to legally carry. By failing to issue Mr. Peterson a permit or to extend reciprocity to either of his other permits, the state has denied equal protection, due process, and other protections granted by the constitution.
Not so said the Court, in their finding the court ruled that “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.”
In other words, the Second Amendment does have some limits. Limits aren’t always a bad thing, like some loon claiming the 2nd would give him access to say a Surface to Air Missile…the courts would likely frown on something that could not be easily carried.
Contrary to the opinions of legions of libtards the Second Amendment’s coverage of the right to keep and bear arms is very extensive and inclusive but at the same time many conservaholes don’t understand that these protections have limits to them, and those limits don’t include concealed carry.
The real question here is why didn’t Peterson challenge the open carry law of Denver, 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. I guess we’ll just have to keep reading the cases and see what comes of them in the future.
Don’t fret lovers of guns, this isn’t an end all be all ruling, for it only applied to the areas under the tenth district, and it may come to a larger forum soon seeing as how their decision is in direct conflict with the decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals who held up two weeks ago the right to concealed carry (they actually overturned the outright ban on concealed weapons permits in the state of Illinois). This will likely end up in front of the SCOTUS either this year or the next.