No right to conceal

Status
Not open for further replies.
From the article

In its ruling, the three-judge panel cited a Supreme Court ruling that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.”
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me. :rolleyes:
 
Ohio's state supreme court and one of the western states (Utah? Idaho? Al Norris knows) have both rendered decisions, based on the language of their respective state constitutions, that a right is a right. If a legislature has the power to "regulate" the mode of carry, it does not have the power to "prohibit" carry in the face os a constitutional guarantee of a right TO bear arms. Thus, if a legislature chooses to regulate the mode of carry by disallowing concealed carry, they may do so BUT open carry then must be allowed in order to honor the constitutional right.
 
It's been a while since I listened to the orals from this case, but I seem to recall clear signals from the court that it was being backed into a corner with regard to the outcome here. They almost begged the plaintiff to challenge the open carry statute.

Now, that approach may be part of a larger litigation strategy, but I doubt it. The plaintiff appears to have attempted to force the hand of the court to go where it would not go. If true, this was a gross miscalculation. It may be best at this point to wait for controlling case with a better strategy to prevail over the same issue.

At the same time, I understand the strategy of keeping this case going, if for no other reason, then to allow a better strategy to prevail elsewhere.
 
BTW, any state that makes you get a concealed carry permit is saying that you have no right to conceal. It's a privilege controlled by the state.
 
tomrkba said:
BTW, any state that makes you get a concealed carry permit is saying that you have no right to conceal. It's a privilege controlled by the state.
Click to expand...

No. Not really, tomrkba. If the State has no law pertaining to openly carrying and only statutes for concealed carry, that falls right in line with the cases that Scalia used to refer to valid constitutional restrictions.

Regardless of all that... Glenn? We are discussing this here: Peterson v LaCabe .. 10th Circuit LOSS !

Oops, didn't see it in the rush this morning. It was a new story on something or other. Duh - on my part. Glenn
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top