Ammo For Sale

« « Biden: “no ordinary american cares about his constitutional rights” | Home | Gun Porn » »

Keep we got, bear not so much

The NYT: A federal appeals court has ruled that permits allowing people to carry concealed weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment.

19 Responses to “Keep we got, bear not so much”

  1. ZerCool Says:

    Open carry it is!

  2. Seerak Says:

    So what does this mean for that Seventh Circuit decision the SAF just won? Is this a circuit conflict, or is this going to hinge on “2A doesn’t speak to concealment”?

  3. jdrush Says:

    One or both will be going to the Supreme Court, would be my guess.

  4. Kristophr Says:

    Yep. By issuing a conflicting ruling, this court will cause this issue to go to the SCOTUS for resolution.

  5. ravenshrike Says:

    That’s actually correct and in line with rulings from the 1800s. However, it is predicated on OC being legal.

  6. wallphone Says:

    CO is an open-carry state, Denver is not.

  7. Old NFO Says:

    Interesting to see how this one is going to play out…

  8. Bubblehead Les Says:

    I thought that both cases might be combined for SCOTUS’s next term, but with the “Ticking Time Bomb” of Illinois, I think Illinois will hit SCOTUS first. And if Alan Gura wins THAT one (which he should), Colorado will be Overturned on Appeal.

    I Hope.

  9. Robb Allen Says:

    This is the exact problem we have in Florida. The Florida Supreme Court has stated that a permit to carry concealed is a privilege, revokable at the state’s whim.

    We cannot OC (unless fishing, camping, or hunting), thus we have no right to bear arms. You may only bear arms at the benevolence of the state.

    I’m not against CCW permits so long as unlicensed OC is allowed. I prefer Con-Carry of course, but I’ve done enough work behind the scenes to know reality.

  10. Paul Says:

    Strange, I sure don’t remember seeing in the 2nd Amendment were it says the right to bear arms was concealed or unconcealed? It just says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Well I guess soon it will be SCOTUS time. About the same time Obama is declared a lame duck (and hopefully after mid-term elections.)

  11. TigerStripe Says:

    It sounds like a 9th Circuit ruling. The only reasoning I could see for this would be 10th Amendment on who the state allows to carry within their state, but that’s not cited…


  12. AKô Says:

    Start carrying knives and hammers. Someone is trying to kill you? Beat the shit out of them with a hammer. They might get the point when their face is soft,and all over the pavement.

  13. wastme Says:

    Yeah the @ndA doesn’t specify open or concealed, but they said, ďIn light of our nationís extensive practice of restricting citizenís freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner,…”

    So because they have been infringing on this right for many years it is ok to continue. Exactly why we don’t want any more laws. Interesting how precedence mattered in this case.

  14. Skeptical_Realist Says:

    This actually makes sense. Denying a CC permit doesn’t infringe your rights, because the EXISTENCE of cc permits does. That’s why constitutional carry is called by that name. This is how courts work. They won’t strike down the requirement for a ccw license, because that is not what the plaintiff sued for.

  15. comatus Says:

    Wot no 18th-cent fashion jokes? Everybody wore fringe. Mostly for concealment. There was no right to bare arms.

  16. Mike Says:

    Please to be noting that concealed carry (and open carry, to be fair) have advanced in the several states through legislative action. Most of these developments happened pre-Heller.

    The pendulum will now shift against carry, of any kind, through judicial action.

    So, let’s open the pool bet on which way Roberts votes on this one. What, no takers?

    Thank God the Chief Justice of the USSC is not vulnerable to pressure/blackmail/manipulation on a major Constitutional issue — er, wait a second…

  17. SPQR Says:

    There are a lot of state constitutions which say that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed but include the caveat that this does not prohibit bans on carrying of concealed weapons.

    This decision isn’t a surprise and don’t expect the US Supreme Court to overturn it.

  18. Patrick H Says:

    SPQR- which to me means that the phrase “keep and bear arms” includes both OC and CC, because otherwise whats the point of specifying that it prohibiting CC is allowed?

  19. Sam Says:

    This is what people have to do in Colorado. If your life is in danger just carry a gun in your automobile roll down the window fire all shots into the air. If that does not work just blow your whistle.