Peterson v LaCabe .. 10th Circuit LOSS !

It's very likely the Tenth Circuit realized they weren't dealing with honest traders and didn't want to allow their court to be used for tainted motives
Click to expand...

While I don't discount that, and I'm just a layman, there are some incongruities between what it was reported the 10th did, and what the Supreme Court laid down as guidelines- i.e. Rational Basis...

Really? I'd think most gun owners would, of course, prefer open carry.
Click to expand...

Not me. I'd rather the general public not know what I have, or where I keep it. Not to say I think I should need a permit for it... I don't quite understand why any given person is trusted to own a gun, but not to legally lug the thing around. If you can't trust the guy to walk down the Dollar General with it, how can you trust them to have it period?
 
BTW,

Smoking357 posted this gem in the Kachalsky v. Cacace thread:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5430264&postcount=98

I'll let the rest of you decide if he should be taken seriously or not.

I will echo what Jim March said here (though I'm not sure of I would use the word "fraudulent"):

This is what I posted to reddit on the subject:

Well it's worse than that. A lot worse.

First issue is that Gray has both WA state and UT state permits. He lives in WA state. UT allows out-of-state permits, but since WA state doesn't honor CO permits, CO screws Gray purely based on his WA state residency despite his having a UT permit that CO does otherwise honor.

The reason WA state doesn't honor CO permits is because WA state issues to out-of-WA-state residents, at very reasonable prices. CO doesn't issue any permits to non-CO residents, at any price. Gray is being personally punished for his state's take on the issue (even though he has a UT permit!).

Follow? He is being discriminated against for his state of origin - and that is already hard-banned by the US Supreme Court in two previous cases: Ward v. Maryland (1870) and Saenz v. Roe (1999). Both of those cases ban cross-border discrimination by one state against another state's residents, and damned well should have applied here. (These cases are why you never see a speed limit sign that says "in-state license plates 65mph, out-of-state plates 55mph".)

But the even bigger problem is that Gray did something smart: he not only sued the state of CO, he also sued the county where Denver is. See, Denver has a local, special rule that says "no open carry". Anywhere else in CO, it can be argued that Gray's right to bear arms isn't 100% toast because he still has a right to open carry. And in, say, Boulder, that's true. But not in Denver, the biggest town. There, he has zero carry rights because of the combination of no open carry and (for him as a WA state resident) no concealed either.

This 10th Circuit ruling completely ignores this problem, and claims this issue is about concealed carry only. That's a pure and simple lie.

Fortunately this decision will be overturned very soon. The US Supremes will have to confront the issue of street carry soon. There are several different things they can do but there is a strong hint in the Heller decision of 2008 that states will be allowed to decide between concealed carry or open carry (or both if they want) - they will not be allowed to completely write the phrase "bear arms" from the US Constitution as the 10th Circuit just managed to do (and flat-out lie about not doing so).

It's a bizarre and obviously wrong (downright fraudulent) decision but long term it's just a small road-bump.
Click to expand...

As an additional thing: The reason why WA doesn't recognize Colorado is that mental health background screenings are not expressly part of the background investigation statute for CO carry licenses.

-Gray
 
Last edited:
they're embarrassed by open carry, and they know open carry in Venice Beach or Haight-Ashbury would scare the tar out of the locals.
Click to expand...
I seem to remember open carry in Venice Beach being part of the impetus for banning the very practice. The rules of engagement are different for California than, say, Wyoming.
 
I'm not averse to open carry as a "non-violent" protest to get concealed carry, but given the option, I'd much prefer concealed. I look too much like Dorner- having two legs, two arms, and a head- to prefer an action that could lead to nervous law enforcement when a less contentious? overt? option is available. That's why getting some form of carry recognized as a right is so important. You can use Open Carry to get Concealed Carry once legislators are tired of law enforcement asking them to do something about all of the false calls etc. they're answering.
 
Some basic questions for Gray about this case.

1. Why, if the goal was to carry in some form, was a challenge to the Denver's open carry not part of the case?

2. Was the foreclosing (or waiving) of that avenue for relief intentional?

3. Is there a larger strategy in play that allowed for this outcome (even if it can't be disclosed)

Thanks, Gray. Sorry for the loss.
 
smoking357 said:
Really? I'd think most gun owners would, of course, prefer open carry.
Click to expand...

Heck no. Those of us who own guns want to choose for ourselves, based on our particular circumstances, which is best.
 
It sure seems like the open carry vs. concealed carry issue legal question is due for an update. The archaic idea that concealing weapons is not born of discretion but necessarily is dishonorable, surreptitious behavior is just false.

The societal norm for those exercising the right is clearly to conceal, with (or without, depending on the state) a license.
 
On open carry versus concealed:

First off, the main body of case law regarding "carry" are a series of 19th Century cases that all say "concealed carry can be banned so long as open carry is legal". Most or possibly all of them are listed in Heller's footnote nine.

This logic got repeated very recently in 2003 by the Ohio Supremes in the Klein case. Gunnies sued for CCW permit access without doing the "special deputy" thing. (Officially there was no legal CCW in Ohio - in practice though...)

We "lost" - but in the decision in which we "lost" (quotes are very relevant here!) the Ohio Supremes said "OK, no right to concealed carry but that's OK under the Ohio state constitutional RKBA bit because everybody knows open carry is legal".

Except guess what? NOT everybody knew that. The gun-grabbers all looked at each other and went "oh $^&%" because the usual practice of filing "disturbing the peace" charges just came to a crashing end.

Which caused gunnies to do open-carry rallies that annoyed their way into a reasonable CCW system about a year later.

And that's why the argument between open and concealed carry isn't really important. We have more case law supporting open carry than we do concealed (the Heller footnote 9 cases plus Klein and some others). We now know that if we get open carry, concealed will rapidly follow.

Now, there might be an interesting twist here, one that is specific to New York or Chicago. IF the US Supremes goes the same way as Klein and supports open carry when concealed carry is restricted or banned, and there are huge open carry rallies in New York and Chicago, I believe it is very possible that one of the twitchier members of the NYPD or Chicago PD will shoot somebody. Sorry, but both departments are chock full of crazies and rank only slightly higher than Puerto Rico's state police for overall professionalism. Hold an open carry rally in Times Square or whatever Chicago's equivalent is and one of the "finest" will go stark raving bonkers, law or no law.

And that will lead to a whole new problem: if obeying the law is going to get you killed by what amounts to a criminal gang, do we THEN have an immediate right to concealed carry?

Now...some will take issue with what I'm saying here but...folks, not only is there epidemic corruption in both departments, but they have been systematically programmed against civilian arms. One look at NYC's "stop and frisk" program will tell you that they've also been told to trample the Constitution, by the numbers. Don't make me post a link to Frank Serpico's blog (yeah, he's still alive and actively writing and one guess as to his favorite subject...).

Predicting the results of a sudden RKBA loosening in those towns is not difficult.
 
JimMarch said:
Now, there might be an interesting twist here, one that is specific to New York or Chicago. IF the US Supremes goes the same way as Klein and supports open carry when concealed carry is restricted or banned, and there are huge open carry rallies in New York and Chicago, I believe it is very possible that one of the twitchier members of the NYPD or Chicago PD will shoot somebody.
Click to expand...

I've been saying this for a while. Not so much for New York, but for Chicago. I fear the Chicago political leaders will think a few police-action shootings of gun owners will scare us into not exercising the right. What I don't get is if 400 bad-aim cops fire on 2,000 typically pretty good citizen gun owners, how is this not another Battle of New Orleans? And how does such an exchange not collapse the U.S. dollar and markets, the very next morning, when the rest of the world no longer fears U.S. hegemony?

The political reality is that the United States cannot afford to have such a conflict airing on CNN. Too many of the right people have too much money invested in the status quo to let the millions of citizens who don't about the fiction of finance, leveraged accounts and fractional-reserve banking tear it all down over an issue about which the truly powerful don't care much.

Gun owners have more power than they realize through exercising direct public assembly.

speedrracer said:
Heck no. Those of us who own guns want to choose for ourselves, based on our particular circumstances, which is best.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, so let's knock off this nonsense of trying to force concealed-carry on us.
 
smoking357 said:
....I fear the Chicago political leaders will think a few police-action shootings of gun owners will scare us into not exercising the right. What I don't get is if 400 bad-aim cops fire on 2,000 typically pretty good citizen gun owners, how is this not another Battle of New Orleans? And how does such an exchange not collapse the U.S. dollar and markets, the very next morning, when the rest of the world no longer fears U.S. hegemony?...
Click to expand...
Do you have a scintilla of evidence to support that? You must live in a wild fantasy world.

smoking357 said:
speedrracer said:
Heck no. Those of us who own guns want to choose for ourselves, based on our particular circumstances, which is best.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, so let's knock off this nonsense of trying to force concealed-carry on us.
Click to expand...
It will be what it will be. So far open carry doesn't seem to be going anywhere in Texas or Florida.

Nonetheless, this is not the thread in which to rekindle the open carry vs. concealed carry debate.
 
I've been saying this for a while. Not so much for New York, but for Chicago. I fear the Chicago political leaders will think a few police-action shootings of gun owners will scare us into not exercising the right. What I don't get is if 400 bad-aim cops fire on 2,000 typically pretty good citizen gun owners, how is this not another Battle of New Orleans? And how does such an exchange not collapse the U.S. dollar and markets, the very next morning, when the rest of the world no longer fears U.S. hegemony?
Click to expand...
You fear the CPD starting a civil war over a new law they don't like?

...I don't feel anyone tugging on my leg, which is odd, considering that post.
 
Chicago Police routinely shoot and kill people, then they say the person had a dark object in their hand, the object turns out to be a cell phone.

It's happened many times but people in Chicago haven't stopped carrying cell phones.
 
Luger_carbine said:
Chicago Police routinely shoot and kill people, then they say the person had a dark object in their hand, the object turns out to be a cell phone....
Click to expand...
If you're going to make claims like that, you need to provide evidence.
 
maestro pistolero said:
I found one instance of this, it seems it is hardly a trend. Stating that this happens routinely strains credulity.

http://articles.chicagobreakingnews..._1_police-officer-chicago-police-morning-shot

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/...ttlement-for-unarmed-man-shot-by-officer.html
Click to expand...
And there's the Diallo case in New York. But there the officers involved were acquitted of manslaughter based on their claim of self defense.

Things like that happen. And that's indeed a long way from (emphasis added) --
Luger_carbine said:
Chicago Police routinely...
Click to expand...
And sometimes a use of force (by a cop or by a private citizen) will work out to be justified when the belief of a threat was reasonable, even if mistaken.
 
While I completely understand that sometimes human perception collides with sets of facts to create tragic mistakes, I can't think of a single instance where a non-LE got that same benefit of the doubt. Just saying.

And sometimes a use of force (by a cop or by a private citizen) will work out to be justified when the belief of a threat was reasonable, even if mistaken.
Click to expand...

ETA: I just realized how far afield this this has gone. My apologies for contributing to the veer.

Also, I want to express my sympathy to Gray, who, for better or worse, has spent enormous energy, and time (and money, I presume) to attempt to further gun rights. Whatever disagreements some may have with the strategy, I do believe it was thoughtful and well-intended. And, for all we know, it may well be vindicated in the end. That is certainly my hope.
 
Last edited:
Excellent brief. I wish Gray success.

I did catch a few typos/grammatical errors:

Like the plaintiffs in Moore, Peterson “is a good deal more
likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood” than in Denver
than in his friends’ homes where he stays while in Denver. Moore, slip op.
at 8.
Click to expand...

Neither Colorado nor Denver made, “a greater showing of justification that the public might benefit on balance from such a curtailment” as to Peterson['s] right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

[Woollard v. Sheridan, No. L-10-2068 (D.Md., Decided March 2, 2012),
appeal pending in the 4th Circuit, ( holding that a requirement for “a good an[d] substantial reason” to obtain a license to carry a firearm concealed where the state bans open carry does not pass rational basis).]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
And not to mention we'd have to have a Clinton/Obama appointee vote for rehearing. Not impossible, but not likely either. I wonder if a cert grant in Kachalsky changes their mind?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top