No right to conceal

**Glenn E. Meyer** · February 24, 2013, 08:42 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/us...ml?ref=us&_r=0

10 th Circuit - says no. Does this run right into Posner's decision - and thus guarantee a SCOTUS look?

Got to go, so can't say more.

Glenn

harrys ghost · February 24, 2013, 08:47 PM

Quote:

In its ruling, the three-judge panel cited a 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.”

Makes sense to me.

Aguila Blanca · February 24, 2013, 09:29 PM

Ohio's state supreme court and one of the western states (Utah? Idaho? Al Norris knows) have both rendered decisions, based on the language of their respective state constitutions, that a right is a right. If a legislature has the power to "regulate" the mode of carry, it does not have the power to "prohibit" carry in the face os a constitutional guarantee of a right TO bear arms. Thus, if a legislature chooses to regulate the mode of carry by disallowing concealed carry, they may do so BUT open carry then must be allowed in order to honor the constitutional right.

maestro pistolero · February 24, 2013, 09:41 PM

It's been a while since I listened to the orals from this case, but I seem to recall clear signals from the court that it was being backed into a corner with regard to the outcome here. They almost begged the plaintiff to challenge the open carry statute.

Now, that approach may be part of a larger litigation strategy, but I doubt it. The plaintiff appears to have attempted to force the hand of the court to go where it would not go. If true, this was a gross miscalculation. It may be best at this point to wait for controlling case with a better strategy to prevail over the same issue.

At the same time, I understand the strategy of keeping this case going, if for no other reason, then to allow a better strategy to prevail elsewhere.

tomrkba · February 24, 2013, 09:49 PM

BTW, any state that makes you get a concealed carry permit is saying that you have no right to conceal. It's a privilege controlled by the state.

**Al Norris** · February 24, 2013, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomrkba

BTW, any state that makes you get a concealed carry permit is saying that you have no right to conceal. It's a privilege controlled by the state.

No. Not really, tomrkba. If the State has no law pertaining to openly carrying and only statutes for concealed carry, that falls right in line with the cases that Scalia used to refer to valid constitutional restrictions.

Regardless of all that... Glenn? We are discussing this here: Peterson v LaCabe .. 10th Circuit LOSS !

Oops, didn't see it in the rush this morning. It was a new story on something or other. Duh - on my part. Glenn

February 24, 2013, 08:42 PM	#1
Glenn E. Meyer Staff Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 13,132	No right to conceal http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/us...ml?ref=us&_r=0 10 th Circuit - says no. Does this run right into Posner's decision - and thus guarantee a SCOTUS look? Got to go, so can't say more. Glenn __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm Being an Academic Shooter http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm Being an Active Shooter

February 24, 2013, 09:29 PM	#3
Aguila Blanca Senior Member Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 4,814	Ohio's state supreme court and one of the western states (Utah? Idaho? Al Norris knows) have both rendered decisions, based on the language of their respective state constitutions, that a right is a right. If a legislature has the power to "regulate" the mode of carry, it does not have the power to "prohibit" carry in the face os a constitutional guarantee of a right TO bear arms. Thus, if a legislature chooses to regulate the mode of carry by disallowing concealed carry, they may do so BUT open carry then must be allowed in order to honor the constitutional right.

February 24, 2013, 09:41 PM	#4
maestro pistolero Senior Member Join Date: August 17, 2007 Posts: 1,889	It's been a while since I listened to the orals from this case, but I seem to recall clear signals from the court that it was being backed into a corner with regard to the outcome here. They almost begged the plaintiff to challenge the open carry statute. Now, that approach may be part of a larger litigation strategy, but I doubt it. The plaintiff appears to have attempted to force the hand of the court to go where it would not go. If true, this was a gross miscalculation. It may be best at this point to wait for controlling case with a better strategy to prevail over the same issue. At the same time, I understand the strategy of keeping this case going, if for no other reason, then to allow a better strategy to prevail elsewhere.

February 24, 2013, 09:49 PM	#5
tomrkba Senior Member Join Date: November 29, 2011 Posts: 314	BTW, any state that makes you get a concealed carry permit is saying that you have no right to conceal. It's a privilege controlled by the state.