The Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling in the case of Peterson v. Martinez, said that there is no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed firearm in public.
Business Insider reports,
The federal court also rejected arguments that Colorado’s CHL law infringed on the the Equal Protection Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
To bullet-proof the ruling against an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit recounted numerous court rulings and state laws dating back to 1813, and based its ruling on prior U.S. Supreme Court cases.
Colorado law allows people to carry a firearms in their homes, places of business and cars. However, to carry in public, a state resident must apply to the local sheriff to obtain a concealed weapons permit (CWP).
Gray Peterson was rejected for a concealed handgun license because he had no residence in the State of Colorado. He claims this leaves him "completely disarmed" in Colorado. In many state one can simply reciprocate their state's CWP. Apparently one cannot in Colorado.
The Tenth Circuit Court threw out his case stating, “We first ask whether the Second Amendment provides the right to carry a concealed firearm. We conclude that it does not.” Perhaps the knuckleheads, in arguably one of the most liberal courts in the country, didn't read that little section about "shall not be infringed," which was also tied to "right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Sadly, this ruling will have major implications for other states, though it should be overturned.
According to Webster's 1828 Dictionary, the term "bear" is defined as:
"To carry; to convey; to support and remove from place to place; to bear as a mark of authority or distinction; as, to bear a sword, a badge, a name; to bear arms in a coat."
This is how the Framers would have used the term. So, if you really want to get down to it, they made no distinction on whether the arms the citizens carried were either concealed or open. They simply declared that the issue was that citizen's ability to keep and carry their weapons was not to be infringed upon.
With that said, the State of Colorado's Constitution, Article II, Section 13 declares:
The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.
So, we have confusion in the legal system. While the US Constitution tells us that the keeping and bearing of arms is an inalienable right that should not be infringed, the Colorado Constitution tells it's citizens that it can not only call into question an alleged right, but then goes on to state nothing should be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.
Not only that, but notice Section 3 in the Colorado Constitution titled Inalienable Rights:
All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
Except when you are out in public, at least according to Section 13 and the Tenth Circuit Court. See? This document must have been written by liberals who were obviously confused.
This is the same state in which liberal Democrat gun grab nuts are pushing massive legislation to control people with guns. Seems to me, if you live in Colorado and you want to carry your weapon, you have two choices: change your government or change your location. Finally, it seems you may want to look at clarifying the State Constitution as well.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.