View Single Post
Old August 31, 2012, 12:50 PM   #29
Charles Nichols
Junior member
Join Date: April 23, 2012
Posts: 20
Alan Gura creates another bad precedent for concealed carry

Although not a surprise for those of us who know how to read US Supreme Court decisions, specifically Robertson and Heller; the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals joins the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in holding that the dicta in Heller is meaningful. Note that the court observed that Hightower never applied for a Class B Open Carry License.

There is no remand back to the District Court for a "do over." Gura can only appeal to the US Supreme Court as it is my understanding that the 1st Circuit does not provide for en banc appeals.

In the over four years since the Heller decision, the US Supreme Court has never heard a concealed carry appeal.

In Heller, the Court explained that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited" and noted that "the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under Second Amendment or state analogues." 128 S. Ct. at 2816. We have interpreted this portion of Heller as stating that "laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons" are an "example[] of 'longstanding' restrictions that [are] 'presumptively lawful' under the Second Amendment." United States v. Rene E., 583 F.3d 8, 12 (1st Cir. 2009) (quoting Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2816-17 & n.26); see also Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281-82 (1897) (observing that "the first 10 amendments to the [C]onstitution" protect rights that are "subject to certain well-recognized exceptions" and stating, in dicta, that the Second Amendment right "is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons"). Licensing of the carrying of concealed weapons is presumptively lawful, and Hightower makes no serious argument to the contrary.
A link to the decision published today is here.
Charles Nichols is offline  
Page generated in 0.03789 seconds with 7 queries