View Single Post
Old February 26, 2013, 04:44 AM   #42
Gray Peterson
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Posts: 18

Smoking357 posted this gem in the Kachalsky v. Cacace thread:

I'll let the rest of you decide if he should be taken seriously or not.

I will echo what Jim March said here (though I'm not sure of I would use the word "fraudulent"):

This is what I posted to reddit on the subject:

Well it's worse than that. A lot worse.

First issue is that Gray has both WA state and UT state permits. He lives in WA state. UT allows out-of-state permits, but since WA state doesn't honor CO permits, CO screws Gray purely based on his WA state residency despite his having a UT permit that CO does otherwise honor.

The reason WA state doesn't honor CO permits is because WA state issues to out-of-WA-state residents, at very reasonable prices. CO doesn't issue any permits to non-CO residents, at any price. Gray is being personally punished for his state's take on the issue (even though he has a UT permit!).

Follow? He is being discriminated against for his state of origin - and that is already hard-banned by the US Supreme Court in two previous cases: Ward v. Maryland (1870) and Saenz v. Roe (1999). Both of those cases ban cross-border discrimination by one state against another state's residents, and damned well should have applied here. (These cases are why you never see a speed limit sign that says "in-state license plates 65mph, out-of-state plates 55mph".)

But the even bigger problem is that Gray did something smart: he not only sued the state of CO, he also sued the county where Denver is. See, Denver has a local, special rule that says "no open carry". Anywhere else in CO, it can be argued that Gray's right to bear arms isn't 100% toast because he still has a right to open carry. And in, say, Boulder, that's true. But not in Denver, the biggest town. There, he has zero carry rights because of the combination of no open carry and (for him as a WA state resident) no concealed either.

This 10th Circuit ruling completely ignores this problem, and claims this issue is about concealed carry only. That's a pure and simple lie.

Fortunately this decision will be overturned very soon. The US Supremes will have to confront the issue of street carry soon. There are several different things they can do but there is a strong hint in the Heller decision of 2008 that states will be allowed to decide between concealed carry or open carry (or both if they want) - they will not be allowed to completely write the phrase "bear arms" from the US Constitution as the 10th Circuit just managed to do (and flat-out lie about not doing so).

It's a bizarre and obviously wrong (downright fraudulent) decision but long term it's just a small road-bump.
As an additional thing: The reason why WA doesn't recognize Colorado is that mental health background screenings are not expressly part of the background investigation statute for CO carry licenses.


Last edited by Gray Peterson; February 26, 2013 at 04:50 AM.
Gray Peterson is offline  
Page generated in 0.05735 seconds with 7 queries