Owning a gun is a right protected by the Second Amendment, but it doesn’t include the right to a concealed carry permit, according to a federal court.
The case started with a Washington man, Gray Peterson, who was denied a concealed carry permit in Colorado. The state only issues those permits to certain people, a policy that Peterson claimed violated his Second Amendment rights.
His complaint was initially dismissed by a federal district court judge and Peterson appealed the decision. But with Friday’s decision, it looks like he was unsuccessful.
Peterson has a concealed carry permit in his home state of Washington and in Florida, according to The Associated Press. He wanted one for Colorado since he travels to Denver often.
But the state of Colorado doesn’t honor concealed carry permits from Washington. The reason? Washington won’t honor Colorado permits.
Peterson also can’t get a Colorado concealed carry permit because he isn’t a state citizen.
Many states follow that pattern of only honoring permits from states that return the favor. But Peterson said it was more than a political decision.
He claimed it was a violation of his rights. Unfortunately for him, the three-judge panel didn’t agree.
Owning a gun is a right protected by the Second Amendment, but it doesn’t include the right to a concealed carry permit, according to a federal court.
The case started with a Washington man, Gray Peterson, who was denied a concealed carry permit in Colorado. The state only issues those permits to certain people, a policy that Peterson claimed violated his Second Amendment rights.
His complaint was initially dismissed by a federal district court judge and Peterson appealed the decision. But with Friday’s decision, it looks like he was unsuccessful.
The case started with a Washington man, Gray Peterson, who was denied a concealed carry permit in Colorado. The state only issues those permits to certain people, a policy that Peterson claimed violated his Second Amendment rights.
His complaint was initially dismissed by a federal district court judge and Peterson appealed the decision. But with Friday’s decision, it looks like he was unsuccessful.
Peterson has a concealed
carry permit in his home state of Washington and in Florida, according
to The Associated Press. He wanted one for Colorado since he travels to
Denver often.
But the state of Colorado doesn’t honor concealed carry permits from Washington. The reason? Washington won’t honor Colorado permits.
Peterson also can’t get a Colorado concealed carry permit because he isn’t a state citizen.
Many states follow that pattern of only honoring permits from states that return the favor. But Peterson said it was more than a political decision.
He claimed it was a violation of his rights. Unfortunately for him, the three-judge panel didn’t agree.
But the state of Colorado doesn’t honor concealed carry permits from Washington. The reason? Washington won’t honor Colorado permits.
Peterson also can’t get a Colorado concealed carry permit because he isn’t a state citizen.
Many states follow that pattern of only honoring permits from states that return the favor. But Peterson said it was more than a political decision.
He claimed it was a violation of his rights. Unfortunately for him, the three-judge panel didn’t agree.
Courts get things wrong from time to time.
ReplyDeleteThey do, they do, but I may have to agree with this one. I think it's reasonable to assume that a guaranteed right can and must have limits. Freedom of religion doesn't convey the right of Rastafarians to smoke dope and freedom of speech and the press have limits.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the 2nd amendment is unlimited as much as I'd like to have a howitzer in my front yard aimed at a certain neighbor (as a deterrent only) and perhaps a pair of torpedo tubes on my boat. It certainly doesn't suggest a right to hide anything in one's clothes as far as I can see. That's not a requirement for a militia, at least, regulated or otherwise.
Of course Open Carry is another hotly debated thing in some states and I'd certainly be uncomfortable with that.
The right to carry isn't tied to the militia, so that's irrelevant. And yes, Rastafarians do have the right to smoke marijuana as a religious ritual. Our country infringes on that right.
DeleteJust consider how many limitations to your right of free expression you'd be willing to accept before you make comparisons to other rights.
You really know nothing about the practise of law, or constitutional law--do you, Camp?
DeleteWhat does Marbury say about this?
Marbury is one of the pivotal court cases of this nation, clarifying the role of the judiciary in our system of government. What it says specifically about this case is nothing at all.
DeleteLaci, you seem to think that the courts define our rights. The courts define the legal interpretation of our rights, but at times, they get that wrong. Nevertheless, our rights exist prior to any law or court. One proper job of both is to defend rights that already exist.
Just because I have a different theory of government and law from yours doesn't mean that I know nothing.
According to the archaic piece of ink stained velum that you cling feverishly to justify your anti-State thoughtcrime, the Constitution shall be interpreted to mean precisely whatever five Justices decide that it does.
DeleteThe language codified in the "Bill of Rights" was never intended to apply to individual entities under it's original diction, nor does the Supreme Court have any obligation to apply these Federal guarantees to any State activity that does not appear to be "of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty" as famously stated by Justice Cardozo in Palko v. Connecticut under that disingenuous interpretation of the extent of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment, as such rights where never intended to apply to the common subject, but rater as appeasement the Anti-Federalist States.
E.N., I realize that as a troll, you claim to be someone from a distant tyranny and thus deny English as your first language, but you need to work harder. The clear text of the Constitution refers to individuals many times. Your nonsense is occasionally fun, but here you're just being tedious.
DeleteI've thought that we should be fighting in the legislature rather than the courts, anyways.
ReplyDeleteThis conflicts with the 7th circuit ruling, so it may be heading to the supreme court.
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid some of these things are going to the Supreme Court too quickly. We need to first replace one or two of those old geezers.
DeleteNope, we're striking while the iron is hot.
DeleteGreg, if you only knew what you are talking about.
DeleteHeller and McDonald both said that restrictions on concealed carry were presumptively constitutional.
Of course, Scalia also said that the concept of a living constitution is bullshit given that he wrote the most egregious example of such a decision in Heller.
On the other hand, I know it's beyond your ken, Campy, to make an intelligent or legally valid comment on this topic.
But, that's never stopped you before.
You keep quoting Scalia, but you've yet to show me where he requires restrictions. In fact, you keep ducking the fact that the court basically left a lot undecided in Heller and McDonald. Have you actually read those decisions? If you have, you missed the point. That comes as no surpise, since you clearly miss the point of the Second Amendment.
Delete"Of course, Scalia also said that the concept of a living constitution is bullshit given that he wrote the most egregious example of such a decision in Heller."
DeletePlease, continue your butthurt over heller
Greg, that's petty quibbling asking whether Scalia sid REQUIRES restrictions or simply that they are allowed.
DeleteBut what about when Laci keeps implying that Scalia requires restrictions? Is he quibbling? He brings up the Heller ruling regularly, but never gets the main idea of it.
Delete