Federal Appeals Court: There Is No Second Amendment Right To A Concealed Firearm
Source: Think Progress
Federal Appeals Court: There Is No Second Amendment Right To A Concealed Firearm
By Ian Millhiser on Feb 27, 2013 at 10:30 am
A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which included a Reagan and a George W. Bush appointee, held unanimously on Friday that the Second Amendment does not protect a right to carry a concealed firearm:
The Heller opinion notes that, “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” As an example of the limited nature of the Second Amendment right to keep and carry arms, the Court observed that “the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.” And the Court stressed that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions.”
There can be little doubt that bans on the concealed carrying of firearms are longstanding. In Heller, the Supreme Court cited several early cases in support of the statement that most nineteenth century courts approved of such prohibitions. We note, however, that this view was not unanimous. Nevertheless, most states enacted laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons” in the nineteenth century.
It should be noted that the court left open the question of whether a concealed carry ban is permitted in a jurisdiction that also bans open carry of firearms. Nevertheless, this decision is a reminder that, despite the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller expanding the scope of the Second Amendment, states and the federal government retain broad leeway to enact many gun safety laws.
Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/27/1637831/federal-appeals-court-there-is-no-second-amendment-right-to-a-concealed-firearm/
= new reply since forum marked as read
of mass carnage on the hip, that too many must believe the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness doesn't amount to a proverbial hill of beans in this right-wing soused society. 
dubious one upon which to invoke constitutional law, especially since the 2nd amendment, as written, is a collective right to the states allowing them to organize "well regulated militias," i.e., a state National Guard.
There is no constitutional right for an individual to "keep and bear arms"; the right to own a gun is a privilege subject to any number of provisos and regulations, just like driving a car. This is a good first step to righting the wrong of the Heller and McDonald decisions: we are one liberal justice away from overturning those decisions, just like the court reversed itself and overturned Plessey v. Ferguson and got itself on the right side of history on that issue. 
Boy howdy, your buddies down in the Gungeon are going to be disappointed in you, hack, to say the least.
Here's the actual language of the Democratic Party's 2012 platform on guns, pal - I support all of it save the "individual rights" interpretation of the 2nd, which is a legal/philosophical quibble, and which we're only one Obama-appointed supreme court justice away from overturning anyway. How much do you support? 
( 
):
"Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few."
http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform
Further, now, of course, President Obama and the party that nominated him supports even more sweeping, comprehensive, and sensible gun regulation, not only reinstating the AWB but banning high capacity magazines among other things - all things I'm just sure you support, now doncha?
I mean, a guy wouldn't wander around DU chiding others on their supposed lack of support of a single plank of the "party platform" if he didn't support that same platform wholeheartedly, would he? That would be...let's see what's the word? Hypocritical.
Here's some more language from the Democratic National Committee that was voted on by a solid majority of delegates in past conventions and is still strongly supported by nearly every element of the party:
"Democrats passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban. We increased federal, state, and local gun crime prosecution by 22 percent since 1992. Now gun crime is down by 35 percent. Now we must do even more. We need mandatory child safety locks. We should require a photo license I.D., a background check, and a gun safety test to buy a new handgun."
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Gun_Control.htm
Now that you're such a big embracer of Democratic Party platforms, I'm sure you agree with every word of that, too, don't you? Don't you?
Laughable stuff.
Edit: typo.
or my family.
I just can't bring myself to support meaningless feelgood laws.
The stupidity of the new AWB in two pictures
This gun is specifically called out in the legislation as being illegal under the AWB:
This gun is specifically called out in the legislation as being legal under the AWB:
They are both Ruger Mini-14s
http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/models.html
As someone was just asking me, recently...
( )
