10th Circuit Rules CCW Not Covered by 2nd Amendment

[Ben]

It will be interesting to see where this goes. While CO's denial of honoring permits from states not honoring theirs is also done by several other states, one of the things that makes them stand out is that (unless things have changed) they won't issue non-resident permits, nor will they honor non-resident permits from other states from which they honor resident permits.

As examples, OR does not honor the permits of many states, but I was able to easily get a non-resident OR permit. CO honors the UT resident permit, but I am not allowed to carry in CO with my non-resident UT permit. WA will not accept resident or non-resident permits from any state which does not honor theirs, but because they have reciprocity with FL, my non-resident FL permit works in WA.

It would have been nice to see a ruling in favor of the petitioner in this case, as maybe it would have helped address the messy labyrinth of reciprocity.   

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

[dogmush]

Actually, I can see this. Colorodo is an open carry state (except Denver, I guess ) I can see that logic that the 2A doesn't cover bearing in whatever fashion the person wants. Don't really like it, but it's consistant with restrictions on the other ammendments.

One might have a case if they wouldn't let him carry at all.

I'd still like to see CCW's get the same kind of full faith and credit that DL's do.

[Tallpine]

Open carry doesn't seem to go over too well in Colorado anymore 

[Ben]

Well, the open carry could get interesting as well. In CA, we have never been able to loaded open carry (outside of wilderness areas), but were until recently, allowed to unloaded open carry most anywhere (though I would never have recommended it). The legislature, in the last year, forbade unloaded open carry. They did this shortly after a court decision said that the state was not under any obligation to engage in "shall issue" CCW, because unloaded open carry was allowed, and someone, if threatened, could load their gun and defend themselves (yeah, I know...).

The point is that they first said, "You don't need 'A' because you have 'B' ". Then they took 'B' away.

[Matthew Carberry]

Madigan makes a split between 7th and 2nd and 10th and reads like it was deliberately meant to challenge the claims made in the 2nd. I expect the Supremes to act unilaterally soon based on Scalia's recent comments.