Federal court finds no constitutional right to carry A concealed weapon — we explain the decision

While gun rights supporters might like to think the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is an absolute guarantee against government interference, according to at least one (relatively conservative) appeals court, they are severely mistaken. In fact, according to that same court, when it comes to carrying concealed weapons, the Second Amendment is basically irrelevant.

Last Friday, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down its decision in the case of Peterson v. Martinez, a case involving the question of whether a state has an obligation to provide a concealed carry license to anyone who has been granted such a license in another state. Their answer was, to put it mildly, “no.”

In fact, the court adopted a fairly novel approach in explaining why the right to keep and bear arms didn’t apply in this case: Rather than rely solely on precedent that restricted gun rights, they built most of their analysis on language from cases that expanded gun rights, but still made clear that there were limits, of which concealed carry was certainly one. As Lawyers.com’s Larry Bodineput it, “To bullet-proof the ruling against an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the 10th Circuit recounted numerous court rulings and state laws dating back to 1813, and based its ruling on prior U.S. Supreme Court cases.”

Still, given which judges ended up deciding the case, this approach may be less surprising than it first appears. While the decision was written by Judge Carlos Lucero, a Clinton appointee, all three judges voted unanimously against the right to concealed carry, which may surprise some, given that one (Judge Bobby Ray Baldock) was a Reagan appointee, and the other (Judge Harriz Hartz) was a nominee by the second President Bush, neither of whom were presidents known for nominating liberal judges.

Read more at The Blaze

Comments

Comments

  1. Roger Mitchell says:

    Well I feel that any state that would totally outlaw my ability to just strap a gun on my hip to carry openly should have their ideas in court Like N.J and N.Y Ct. Mass. In Va. we have the right to carry openly not a problem if you want to carry concealed then you need a permit.. I myself have a C.C and I prefer to carry openly thats a deterrent.. The second I read says So I have the right to keep and bare arms seems the federal law does not trump state law on this . But

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed , But try to pick and choose what any state would want to use from the 14th amendment and it would be total war.. But again this shows what the feds feel about equal protection under the law.. Only if they feel you deserve it then you shall have it.. this is the main reason for the 2nd in the first place .. They will take them one at a time if they can ever tear up the 2nd amendment then its a matter of time before they tear them all down