Federal appeals court rules that CCW not covered by Second Amendment

[UWOA (RIP)]

Looks like somebody needs to appeal this to the Supreme Court:

www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/23/appeals-court-upholds-concealed-weapons-ruling/

[Ape Man]

I don't say this to start an argument (because I don't feel I know enough), but with what little I know I am not sure that concealed carry would be covered under the 2nd (that does not mean it would not be covered by 9th).

If I was a judge and going just by what I know, I would be more sympathetic to the idea that the 2nd covered private citizens owning weapons with full auto capability then I would the idea that 2nd give the government no power to regulate how those weapons are carried in public spaces.

One thing I do know is that laws forbidding concealed carry have a much longer history in American then laws forbidding open carry. Something to do with the idea that only somebody up to no good would want to conceal the fact that he had a weapon. Different time period to be sure.

Anyway, I am sure there lots of people out there who are willing to educate me given the provocation :munchin.

But in the process of educating me please don't get the idea that I think laws banning concealed carry are a good idea. I am just not sure that the 2nd amendment forbids all bad ideas.

Edit: I should add that I think it is clear that the Feds don't have the power to ban concealed carry. I am just not sure that the States can't.

[Badger52]

But in the process of educating me please don't get the idea that I think laws banning concealed carry are a good idea. I am just not sure that the 2nd amendment forbids all bad ideas.

Edit: I should add that I think it is clear that the Feds don't have the power to ban concealed carry. I am just not sure that the States can't.Couple of basics. The 2A only forbids one thing, the infringement of the inherent (not granted) right to keep (one thing) and bear (another thing) arms.
:)

In strict terms the 2A isn't even a part of the issue and makes no mention as to the manner of bearing at all. This is properly left to the states, if they choose to legislate it. There is a real interesting dynamic that starts going on when appeals courts start blathering stupidly like this and, if it weren't such a treasonous infringement on law-abiding persons, it has some serious entertainment value. An example:

Up till recently, in WI, open-carry was completely permitted, although results varied from city to city, based on presence or absence of tyrannical LE approaches. Nonetheless, it's completely legal BECAUSE the laws in WI were silent about it. There WAS a law at the time prohibiting concealed carry. This stems from the basic approach of "that which is not expressly prohibited is permitted." That's the approach taken (or should be) in laws governing man. The OPPOSITE approach, in general, was taken by the founders regarding this leviathan called the Federal government, wherein: That which isn't expressly granted, is prohibited - just the opposite of the first thing.

So... several pieces of case law & appeals later, the State Supreme Court reversed a case and also took pains to tell the legislature "if you don't craft a shall-issue permit process most rikki-tik, we are going to NULLIFY your concealed carry prohibition" and the result would've been true constitutional carry - if you can own it, you can carry it!
:eek:

You can imagine the hysteria that ensued, especially from the Dems who realized that what they really wanted was to "oh, please make those offending, dangerous looking things go away from our sight!" So the way to do that was a permit process and, largely, the offending things have been removed from their sight.

Now, we have IL, the last state with (currently) no provision for concealed carry, a state that is NOW under a US Supreme Court ruling that concealed carry IS a part of the bear part of keep & bear arms and this is all post-Heller. My $.02: the 10th circuit is liable to get their ass handed to them shortly from several directions but, hey, what would a panty-waisted appeals court be if not to provide entertainment.

[Ape Man]

I totally understand that 2nd amendment only prohibits the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. And I can understand how banning concealed carry could be considered an infringement of the right to bear arms.

As far as case law goes, it was my understanding that the Supreme Court said that DC could not ban the ownership of guns. I thought the Illinois case had not been decide by the Supreme Court yet and that it was the Appeals court that had ruled that Illinois had to change to shall issue . (I only did a quick Google search to confirm this, so if I am wrong I deserve my beatings).

If I was a judge, I would demand that a state have shall issue permits if there was no other legal way to carry. That would be a no brainier.

The only issue to me is whether all forms of carry must be allowed at all times. To give an extreme example: Must a state allow people to walk down the streets openly carrying a loaded gun with his finger on the trigger and no safety on? To me, the answer is as obvious as saying that you are not allowed to shout fire in a loaded room.

But then where do you draw the line at the public safety argument? The obvious answer is any law that forbids the carrying of a fire arm at all. But beyond that where do you draw the line?

[Don]

This whole 2A thing is really starting to piss me off. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"...except if it is concealed...or the magazine holds more than 10 rounds...or the gun has a bayonet lug...or , what next? I get the whole concealed thing as a safety issue for cops. But how many Cops are in danger from law abiding citizens?

On a somewhat related note...I just read an installation policy that in order for me to use the Sportsman Club here at my local installation, I have to register all my weapons with the PMO. All I can say is...WOW! I will be shooting off post from here on out.

[Badger52]

I totally understand that 2nd amendment only prohibits the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. And I can understand how banning concealed carry could be considered an infringement of the right to bear arms.

As far as case law goes, it was my understanding that the Supreme Court said that DC could not ban the ownership of guns. I thought the Illinois case had not been decide by the Supreme Court yet and that it was the Appeals court that had ruled that Illinois had to change to shall issue . (I only did a quick Google search to confirm this, so if I am wrong I deserve my beatings).

If I was a judge, I would demand that a state have shall issue permits if there was no other legal way to carry. That would be a no brainier.

The only issue to me is whether all forms of carry must be allowed at all times. To give an extreme example: Must a state allow people to walk down the streets openly carrying a loaded gun with his finger on the trigger and no safety on? To me, the answer is as obvious as saying that you are not allowed to shout fire in a loaded room.

But then where do you draw the line at the public safety argument? The obvious answer is any law that forbids the carrying of a fire arm at all. But beyond that where do you draw the line?You're correct, the IL AG has some time left to decide about an appeal since the appeals court refused to over-rule the lower ruling. Will the AG appeal? Don't know the woman, and Mom sold the Ouija board a long time ago along with my Matchbox cars collection.

I personally (MOO) would go even further and don't like the idea of permission slips to carry, from any government entity. To me, if you can legally own it, you can carry it. Is it smart to apply that to everything one owns? Likely not, but I tend to err on the side of the individual.

That said, there are already plenty of laws on the books that give law-enforcement plenty of room in which to deter someone who is "disturbing the peace" or "carrying to the public terror" or "inciting a panic" or....

Went through that up here during the open-carry days; regardless of the circumstances, if someone calls, LE is gonna respond in some fashion. How about finding oneself on the wrong side of town and every stereotyped home-boy comin' down the street has an angry look on his face and a big aluminum bat on his shoulder? Extremes exist, but often may not be productive to cite them as a core for discussion; otherwise the hysteria becomes the rationale for the taking of rights from others. Newtown ring a bell?
:)

[Joker]

...On a somewhat related note...I just read an installation policy that in order for me to use the Sportsman Club here at my local installation, I have to register all my weapons with the PMO...

Seriously, couldn't this be an IG complaint if I was pulled over and detained on the way to the range as I wouldn't know of this regulation because I'm not from these parts?

As you said WOW.

[The Reaper]

Seriously, couldn't this be an IG complaint if I was pulled over and detained on the way to the range as I wouldn't know of this regulation because I'm not from these parts?

As you said WOW.

To bring any privately owned firearm on a DoD facilty requires that it first be registered with the installation PMO.

You are supposed to register the weapons without bringing them on the installation.

The PMO will give you registration cards to carry when you are bringing the registered weapons on post.

You might get away with the "I didn't know any better" story if 1) the weapons were unloaded and stored in the trunk separate from the ammo, and 2) you were transiting the base en route to somewhere else. I don't think MacDill will work for the second condition.

TR

[longrange1947]

Some of the problems with this is that a lot of state Constitutions are worded very similar to the North Carolina Constitution.

Art. I Sec 30:

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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

Carrying open was a very normal practice in those days and only those with nefarious intent carried concealed.

[Joker]

To bring any privately owned firearm on a DoD facilty requires that it first be registered with the installation PMO.

You are supposed to register the weapons without bringing them on the installation.

The PMO will give you registration cards to carry when you are bringing the registered weapons on post.

You might get away with the "I didn't know any better" story if 1) the weapons were unloaded and stored in the trunk separate from the ammo, and 2) you were transiting the base en route to somewhere else. I don't think MacDill will work for the second condition.

TR

"FT." MacDill doesn't have a Sportsman Club or any shooting facility for non-work related shooting. :mad:

[SF18C]

To bring any privately owned firearm on a DoD facilty requires that it first be registered with the installation PMO.

You are supposed to register the weapons without bringing them on the installation.

The PMO will give you registration cards to carry when you are bringing the registered weapons on post.

You might get away with the "I didn't know any better" story if 1) the weapons were unloaded and stored in the trunk separate from the ammo, and 2) you were transiting the base en route to somewhere else. I don't think MacDill will work for the second condition.

TR


For all those that take POWs on Army installations hold your breath for a massive change. Major changes are coming to AR 190-11

The PMO is NOT ALLOWED to keep your records on your firearms! Federal Law pertaining to retaining records of firearms and the owners. Something about the FEDs ares forbidden, by law, from compiling a database on guns/owners. A few years back Congress learned that ATF was compiling the information in a database from the old 4473's. Congress ordered the files to be deleted and slapped ATF on the wrist.


But the Installation/Post Commander is allowed to have you register POW that you bring on post...so there is the rub!!!! Register it but don't keep the record!

In the new regs...you may have to register your POW every time you plan to bring you gun to post! So how the hell do you do that????

[Don]

For all those that take POWs on Army installations hold your breath for a massive change. Major changes are coming to AR 190-11

The PMO is NOT ALLOWED to keep your records on your firearms! Federal Law pertaining to retaining records of firearms and the owners. Something about the FEDs ares forbidden, by law, from compiling a database on guns/owners. A few years back Congress learned that ATF was compiling the information in a database from the old 4473's. Congress ordered the files to be deleted and slapped ATF on the wrist.


But the Installation/Post Commander is allowed to have you register POW that you bring on post...so there is the rub!!!! Register it but don't keep the record!

In the new regs...you may have to register your POW every time you plan to bring you gun to post! So how the hell do you do that????

My question is this...WTF does "registration" have to do with anything? Especially if big brother is not keeping a list. How does registration of a firearm curtail crime? But, then , curtailing crime is probably not the end state. I wonder why the big brain Bubbas in DC want POW registration. It just doesn't make sense. Anyone have an answer?

[Badger52]

It just doesn't make sense.
It never has, sir. Had the almost exact conversation with an AGR MP who was trying to "help" while several of us were helping a really good CO craft the local POW policy, since he recognized that a total prohibition would stupidly also keep people from going to the new Rec Range after work if they were told to go home first, retrieve weapons and come back and he remains a fine gent from NC.

The aforementioned MP thought that even DA civ employees ought to have their firearms registered with the local PMO. Resisting the inclination to put a size 13 rudder correction up one of his points of contact, I just engaged him thusly:

Me: "to what end?"
(stuttering) "Uh, well, so we'll know where they are if something happens."
Me: "What purpose would be served by you knowing where secured weapons are AFTER an incident?"

At this point his DAC division chief intervened & told him to STFU, and we ended up crafting a policy that allowed unloaded/cased transportation in a POV just as in accordance with existing state law. No one had to go home first, no one had to go unarmed on the way TO or FROM work.

We will see what the changes SF18C speaks of have for an impact. But the short of it is that knowing beforehand of the shooter's ownership wouldn't have helped Ft Hood one iota, and would've made the zero sense you speak of.

Now, some armed Soldiers in that SRC on the other hand....

[Surf n Turf]

My question is this...WTF does "registration" have to do with anything? Especially if big brother is not keeping a list. How does registration of a firearm curtail crime? But, then , curtailing crime is probably not the end state. I wonder why the big brain Bubbas in DC want POW registration. It just doesn't make sense. Anyone have an answer?

Don,
The short answer is ---Big Brother WILL keep a list
I have been trying to get my arms around this for a long time, and the only answer is the ultimate CONFISCATION. It won’t be today or tomorrow, but it will come – it’s being “baked into the cake” through immigration. Remember that the left has worked for >100 years toward universal healthcare, and it is just now happening. They can wait another >50 years till we are dead, and the NEW Americans are in charge, then our grandkids will turn over OUR guns (as will become their patriotic / legal duty), or there will be civil war, and our grandkids will eventually lose, ‘cause we are being out-birthed, and out immigrated.

Think about how those immigrants will tell their great-grandchildren how they fought the Euro’s at the border, to the tune of Tanks and Guns , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJW7nx_6460 , done by a Mariachi Band), or the battle cry of Bannockburn, TN (Ganaron su batalla por un país mejor.) I think thats right :D

The interview is sort of stilted and pedantic, but you will get the scope of Constitutional change headed our way, and why.
SnT

“Immigrants are people and they vote, and the political system has to represent their views,” .

“Why do immigrants leave countries with big government and then try to re-create that here? Because it’s what they’re used to, they’re used to the idea of an activist government,”

The leadership of the Republican Party for decades has gone along with the idea of making more Democratic voters and transforming society in ways makes Democratic arguments heard more sympathetically. In effect we are electing a new people

http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/immigrants-like-democrats-over-economics/#yshihUBDyWvROPJt.99

[ddoering]

The Republican party is dead.

[Badger52]

The Republican party is dead.Seems lately Cuttlefish is perhaps more appropriate for that party. Invertebrate, shifting colors for its background, capable of winning the Silver in up-backing.
:rolleyes: