Court: Concealed gun permits not protected by 2nd Amendment
DENVER (AP) - A federal appeals court has ruled that permits allowing people to carry concealed weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment.
The ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was issued Friday in a case involving Washington state resident Gray Peterson.
A federal judge in 2011 tossed out Peterson's lawsuit filed against Denver and the state of Colorado's Department of Public Safety. Peterson claims that being denied a concealed weapons permit because he was not a Colorado resident violated his Second Amendment rights to bear firearms.
According to gun rights groups, Colorado is one of about two dozen states that do not honor concealed weapons permits from Washington state.
Colorado recognizes weapons permits issued by other states, but only for states that recognize Colorado permits. Washington state does not recognize Colorado permits.
The Colorado attorney general's office was "gratified that the 10th Circuit Court has upheld Colorado state law," spokeswoman Carolyn Tyler said.
The National Rifle Association did not return a phone call seeking comment and Peterson could not be located for comment.
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.
According to court records, Peterson had permits from Florida and Washington. Peterson said he was a frequent visitor to Denver and needed to carry a firearm during his visits.
The ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was issued Friday in a case involving Washington state resident Gray Peterson.
A federal judge in 2011 tossed out Peterson's lawsuit filed against Denver and the state of Colorado's Department of Public Safety. Peterson claims that being denied a concealed weapons permit because he was not a Colorado resident violated his Second Amendment rights to bear firearms.
According to gun rights groups, Colorado is one of about two dozen states that do not honor concealed weapons permits from Washington state.
Colorado recognizes weapons permits issued by other states, but only for states that recognize Colorado permits. Washington state does not recognize Colorado permits.
The Colorado attorney general's office was "gratified that the 10th Circuit Court has upheld Colorado state law," spokeswoman Carolyn Tyler said.
The National Rifle Association did not return a phone call seeking comment and Peterson could not be located for comment.
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.
According to court records, Peterson had permits from Florida and Washington. Peterson said he was a frequent visitor to Denver and needed to carry a firearm during his visits.
@lawsonbulk thx 4 correction; it started as an RT; just checked your bio/tweets; proud to follow another gifted progressive. @coachforpotus
".... Peterson said he was a frequent visitor to Denver and needed to carry a firearm during his visits ...."
Why? I did not think Denver was so dangerous that people needed to be armed 24/7. What is he doing on these visits that he "needed to carry a firearm"?
There's no surprise here.  The Supreme Court already said as much in the Heller decision.  Quote:  " Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."  http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
@Baldr Odinson Except that at the time those cases were decided, open carry was universally allowed. Denver allows neither.
The case they cited from the Supreme Court was decided in 1897! These dishonest, lying, traitorous federal judges should be tried for treason and executed.
And they are perfetly correct... however, laws that forbid open carry of firearms ARE unconstitutional
Interesting that he feels he always needs to carry a gun. The majority of Americans do not. I have certainly been to Denver and returned without a scratch. Â
@Citizen#3457899654 Keep trying.. please. find the worst part of the city, walk around there spewing your typical drivel, then report back to us.
@JeepRex @Citizen#3457899654 Why would Citizen (or anyone else) want to walk around the worst parts of Denver?
Or do YOU purposely go to the worst areas looking for trouble?
Mr. Peterson should definitely take this up with his commanding officer in his branch of the well-regulated militia.
'nuther uneducated troll speaks - sort of.
You do know that the right to bear arms has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, right?
Yep, I'm sure criminals care about this ruling. Â Oh wait, that's right, they ignore laws and carry concealed all the time while the rest of us schmucks have to deal with courts making ridiculous rulings to protect us from law abiding citizens...not the criminals.
@Sheridan It is not a ridiculous ruling, he sued under the wrong Amendment. He should have tried Article IV section 1 of the US Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit clause that states in essence that what is legal in one state is legal in all states.
This will be interesting because the 7th Circuit just ruled carrying is a protected right.
The 7th upheld Judge Posner's ruling that "bear" is equal to carrying in striking down the IL carrying ban.
http://www.ldnews.com/national/ci_22645718/court-wont-reconsider-ill-concealed-carry-ruling
@JCM1776Â Agreed. Open carry cannot be banned, but concealed carry can.
I think you're referring to open carry versus concealed carry. One can open carry legally in this state without a permit.Â
California is the same way. No concealed weapons.
@HehatemeNot true actually. They give the sheriff of each county discretion in issuing permits so it just SEEMS like there is no concealed carry there. Friends of the sheriffs, those that contribute to their elections, and politicians enjoy the right to concealed carry in many CA counties. In this way they skirt the law since technically they do allow people to carry concealed. Just not you common people. Now get back to work, taxes are due soon.
@Root Please @Hehateme Yep I even no a guy that served 17 years for killing a guy in a bar fight. When he got out he applied to have his record expunged and he applied for and received a concealed weapons permit because he owned a ranch and carried quite a lot of cash on his person.
@Blindman @Root Please @Hehateme
@Blindman @Root Please @Hehateme Gotta call BS on Blindman.  Having firearms rights restored after such a conviction is less likely than finding a gold bar lying on the street corner of every intersection in the state.
Will someone tell me why there can not be a National Concealed Permit for firearms? That would simplify things so much. Create a Federal Concealed Firearms permit and have the requirement that the person pass a rigorous background check before issuing it. Make it valid in all US states and territories and tell the states to get on board with it. I too travel and have a Washington permit. I also am applying for a Utah one as well so I can be covered in most other states as well, but it is a great hassle and a bunch of BS if the feds would only create a national one. Â
@LongBeachBum Don't travel through Nevada with the gun in the passenger compartment . They've got some odd laws there about firearms and their transportation. I too would love to see a federal concealed carry law, though I'd rather just see deregulation in this area. There's really no reason a legal citizen shouldn't have the right to carry a firearm anywhere in this country. All these unconstitutional laws really become a burden on poor people.
@LongBeachBum It may not be the best way to do it, as there are potential constitutional issues. OTOH, depending on the SCOTUS decision on this another the recent 7th Circuit case, we mind wind up with something very similar to driver's licenses - minimal training, simple test, shall-issue, each state issues their own, and it is recognized in all other states. Perhaps it'd even just get a "CPL-certified" logo on a state drivers license or ID, so they are integrated. Perhaps not the perfect solution, but certainly one I could live with.
@LongBeachBum -- interesting idea.  If implemented with care and reason (and not the hysterical idiocy of EITHER side's extremists), it would likely be a good idea.
As long as they define it as having to abide by the gun carry laws within the state. i.e.: compliance with state law for things like in Wash. State, you can't bring a concealed weapon into a bar.
I would appeal that to the US Supreme Court. It is a constitutional right to bear arms, concealed or otherwise and no state shall infringe on that.
@MrWittyOne Uh, can't you read? The US Supreme Court already ruled on it.
@Rentonese @MrWittyOne In 1897, way before Heller and McDonald. Also, states can't deny to other state's citizens what they don't deny to their own anymore.
@Rentonese @MrWittyOne It appears that YOU are the one that cannot read, the ruling was NOT from the US Supreme Court but from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Of course. Isn't that common knowledge? That's why you have to apply for it.
That ruling is just PRICLESS.Â
@SimplyJD And why, exactly, do you say that?
I wonder what line of work Mr. Peterson is in that he "needed" to carry a firearm during his visits to Denver.
@Justaguy Well, perhaps you could go to a movie and there might be a no-weapons sign on the door going in, and someone might just sneak in and start shooting... Or not, that could never happen, right?
everytime it doesn't happen is a time where you didn't need a firearm. So far in my life I've never needed a firearm to go to a movie.
You could be driving down the road and a meteor falls from the sky and kills you, so by your logic there is a need to drive a meteor proof vehicle.
Possibility does not automatically mandate a need, you have to consider probability and the probability of what you are saying happening is such a small percentage that it fails to justify a need. That doesn't mean you don't have the right to carry that is your choice even if the need is not there you still have the right
@Justaguy Because carrying a cop is too heavy.
@JustaguyHe went to the movies.
@Justaguy  Probably because there are guys like Ali Syed on the streets executing Americans in cold blood.
@Justaguy Probably the business of protecting himself.
Sounds like he didn't get hurt, so it looks like he did need a gun to protect himself now did he.
Wanting to really should have been enough, so I find it interesting he chose to say he needed to carry.
Well actually you don't need fire insurance until your house burns down. Until that event happens the need is by the insurance company that needs you to make premium payments to help assure that they remain profitable.
My point was that it shouldn't be a need that justified his argument. His desire should have been enough. So I found it interesting that he chose the wording he did.
@Justaguy That's kind of poor logic. Sort of like saying "he didn't need fire insurance because his house didn't burn down yet."
This is a easy fix. Recognize Colorado permits in WA state and ask Co for reciprocity. I have WA, OR, and Utah and that doesn't get me CO also. Suing seems kind of stupid to me, work on WA lawmakers to fix the system.
@Iarehere Reciprocity doesn't work. I tried. Even though we have reciprocity agreements with some states, their laws are such that its not really legal to travel interstate with a concealed weapon. You can't have a weapon in the passenger area of a car in some of these states so its best just to unload and leave in a locked trunk. Just too many states violating inalienable rights and any charge involving a firearm is an immediate felony. So you have to play the game of whether to keep your civil rights and risk being arrested or give up your civil rights and risk being mugged or murdered.
@Blindman @Iarehere Do you know what you call an unloaded gun? A CLUB
Colorado is an open carry state.
@DeadRabitz Colorado might be but Denver isn't... I would vote for national constitutional carry, that's really the only way for it to be in harmony with the 2nd amendment. What other right does one need a license for? Maybe we should go out and have to get a license to attend a church, or to make free speech.
I actually agree with the ruling, I don't like it. But it's correct... for now. But one should be able to have the right.
I would like to see HR822 pass the senate, it won't under current staffing, but maybe in the future, if the senate grows a brain.
A concealed gun permit is nothing more than a background check.  I guess the Left was for background checks before they were against them.
@Goodwin In this state, yes. That's the result of a WA supreme court case applying Article 24 of the WA constitution. In other states, there are various levels of training requirements as well. Many states with training requirement don't recognize a WA CPL because we don't have any training requirement, and they feel that rights should be subject to proof of skill / knowledge / need. In light of a ruling out of the 7th Circuit today, it's going to the Supreme Court this session or next to get settled
That is interesting I was wondering why there was an issue between the states. This makes for interesting conflict between a state's rights to selfgovern and a person's right keep and bare arms.Â
@Justaguy - I think you meant bear arms - bare arms would mean maybe getting a tan on your arms. ;)
@Justaguy There are some reasonable philosophical and legal argument around the issue. compare to a driver's license: all states recognize every other state's licenses, but ALSO every state has similar testing requirements, and they are "shall-issue" (that is, pass the test, get the license). It has the potential to make for a very interesting SC decision.