The court:
No Second Amendment Right To Carry Concealed Firearms
We first ask whether the Second Amendment provides the right to carry a concealed firearm.
We conclude that it does not.

In light of our nation’s extensive practice of restricting citizens’ freedom to carry firearms
in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the
'Second Amendment’s protections.

The court continued by quoting the Supreme Court “like most rights, the right secured
by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

We conclude that carrying a concealed weapon is not a privilege or immunity protected under
Article IV [of the constitution].

Given that the concealed carrying of firearms has not been recognized as a right … we cannot
declare this activity sufficiently basic to the livelihood of the Nation.
Business Insider
http://www.businessinsider.com/court-rules-there-is-no-right-to-carry-a-concealed-weapon-2013-2

Quoted from Box A Rox

The court:
No Second Amendment Right To Carry Concealed Firearms
We first ask whether the Second Amendment provides the right to carry a concealed firearm.
We conclude that it does not.

In light of our nation’s extensive practice of restricting citizens’ freedom to carry firearms
in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the
'Second Amendment’s protections.

The court continued by quoting the Supreme Court “like most rights, the right secured
by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

We conclude that carrying a concealed weapon is not a privilege or immunity protected under
Article IV [of the constitution].

Given that the concealed carrying of firearms has not been recognized as a right … we cannot
declare this activity sufficiently basic to the livelihood of the Nation.
Business Insider
http://www.businessinsider.com/court-rules-there-is-no-right-to-carry-a-concealed-weapon-2013-2

Appeals court overturns Illinois concealed carry law in gun rights victory
By Dave McKinney on December 11, 2012 11:21 AM | 217 Comments | No TrackBacks
     
     
SPRINGFIELD - In a huge win for gun-rights groups, a divided federal appeals court in Chicago Tuesday
tossed the state's ban on carrying concealed weapons and gave Illinois' Legislature 180 days to craft a l
aw legalizing concealed carry.

"The debate is over. We won. And there will be a statewide carry law in 2013," said Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association.

In a split opinion (see below), the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling in two cases downstate that upheld the state's longstanding prohibition against carrying concealed weapons.

Illinois is the only state with an outright prohibition on concealed carry.


"We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home," Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court's majority opinion.

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense," he continued.

"Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden," Posner wrote.

"The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions," he continued.

"Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public," Posner said.

In a minority opinion, Judge Ann Williams wrote that Illinois is within its rights to ban weapons in "sensitive places" like government buildings, churches and universities in the name of safety.

"The Illinois legislature reasonably concluded that if people are allowed to carry guns in public, the number of guns carried in public will increase, and the risk of firearms-related injury or death in public will increase as well," Williams said. "And it is also common sense that the danger is a great one; firearms are lethal."

Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who was defending the state's prohibition of concealed carry, remained silent on whether her office would appeal Tuesday's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The court gave 180 days before its decision will be returned to the lower court to be implemented. That time period allows our office to review what legal steps can be taken and enables the Legislature to consider whether it wants to take action," Madigan spokeswoman Maura Possley said.

In May 2011, gun-rights advocates lost a bid in the Illinois House to legalize concealed carry by a 65-32 vote. Seventy-one votes were necessary for passage of the legislation, House Bill 148, which was lobbied against by Gov. Pat Quinn and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

The measure, sponsored by state Rep. Brandon Phelps (D-Harrisburg), would have enabled Illinoisans to carry concealed weapons if they had a firearm owner's identification card and underwent a firearms education course.

Under the failed bill, permit holders could not have been a patient in a mental institution in the previous five years nor have any felony, violent misdemeanor or drug convictions in the previous 10 years.

Concealed weapons also wouldn't have been allowed under the plan at government buildings, courthouses, schools, sports arenas and stadiums, amusement parks, libraries or college campuses.

At the time of the vote, the Illinois State Police estimated that 325,000 people would taken advantage of a concealed-carry program, which was projected to raise $32 million annually for the state through license fees.

Phelps would not rule out possibly trying to move concealed carry legislation during the upcoming lame-duck legislative session, which runs from Jan. 2 through mid-day on Jan. 9. But he stopped short of saying how closely a new bill would mimic HB148.

"In that bill, there were a lot of limitations, a lot of safety guidelines, background checks. But pretty much, this court today didn't really specify where you can carry, where you can't. It just sent a mandate that Illinois has to have a concealed carry law in 180 days," he told the Chicago Sun-Times. "I think we can come to an agreement. I think we can pass sensible legislation."

Whatever form the legislation takes, Phelps said he thinks it will have a noticeable impact on Chicago's crime epidemic.

"There are a lot of people in the city of Chicago who are scared to say if they are for concealed carry. I had numerous people email and call me from Chicago and Cook County who said they wanted this day to happen -- people who couldn't say something, but maybe worked for the city or county," Phelps said.

"I think you'll see a reduction in violence because right now, the criminals know there's no one legally who can defend themselves. If I'm a gang member and I now know there's concealed carry, if I try to steal that person's bag, I'll be careful what I do because that person might have a gun."

The governor's office, meanwhile, played its cards close to the vest after Tuesday's ruling but noted Quinn's opposition to the earlier Phelps legislation.

"His opposition then stands for itself," Quinn spokeswoman Brooke Anderson said, referring to her boss. "But we're reviewing the opinion now to determine our next step."

A spokesman for House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) said he had not conferred with the top House Democrat on a possible course of action following the ruling, but an aide to Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) hinted at a lengthy legislative response time that could well go beyond the first two weeks of January.

"We're going to take the time the court has given us to carefully review the ruling and to consult with the attorney general's office before we determine what legislative action we take on concealed carry," Cullerton spokeswoman Rikeesha Phelon said.

The head of the state's primary gun-control group disagreed with the appeals court ruling and urged Illinois lawmakers to write "the most restrictive requirements" possible akin to tight concealed-carry laws in New York and California, which control who can and can't get a permit to carry a weapon.

"Today's decision is disappointing, but not surprising, said Colleen Daley, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, in a prepared statement. "The strategy of the NRA and the gun-rights organizations has been to litigate where they can't legislate."

But Vandermyde, the NRA lobbyist, cautioned that gun-rights advocates won't allow the legislative process to drag on indefinitely, and certainly not past the 180-day window established by the appeals panel.

"I can tell you right now, we'll look very dimly about people dragging their feet to sit here and say we're going to let the governor play his little game ... to drag it out for another year. If that happens, there's the probability we'll be back in court, seeking an injunction immediately. There's a cliff to this thing," Vandermyde told the Sun-Times. "You know what? We waited 20 years for this. We're tired of waiting."

So one state and DC do not not allow carry concealed, but DC will soon be switching sides.

Colorado will be overturned. One state does not dictate federal law.

Published February 24, 2013, 11:03 PM
House Bill would allow school boards to designate who can carry concealed weapons
Advocates for sunshine in government want to shoot down an effort by lawmakers to allow school boards to decide behind closed doors the issue of whether guns should be allowed in their district’s schools.

By: Helmut Scmidt, Forum News Service

BISMARCK – Advocates for sunshine in government want to shoot down an effort by lawmakers to allow school boards to decide behind closed doors the issue of whether guns should be allowed in their district’s schools.

House Bill 1215 would change the Century Code to allow school boards to go into executive session to designate who can carry concealed weapons.

Local school board leaders, the state teachers group, the state school board association and the state’s newspapers all oppose the measure.

The bill’s primary sponsor is Rep. Dwight Kiefert, R-Valley City.

“I introduced it to keep perpetrators from knowing the type of defense a school has,” Kiefert said. “It gives
them a way to develop a plan if they do know. If a perpetrator thinks someone might be armed, they won’t
show up.”

He said he worked with the National Rifle Association while drafting the bill. The nationwide organization has proposed putting an armed security guard in every school in the country.

“For schools that can’t afford a security guard, this is a more efficient way for a school to provide their own,” Kiefert said.

The bill requires law enforcement agencies to be informed who is allowed to carry a concealed weapon in schools.

Jack McDonald, a lobbyist for the North Dakota Newspaper Association, said the argument for secrecy is flawed.

The state doesn’t need more secret meetings, particularly on something as important as determining who can carry deadly weapons in schools, he said.

McDonald said any school board could easily debate the issue publicly, and then designate their superintendent to determine who, if anyone, can carry a weapon in schools.

“It is always inevitable that any time you give a public body the opportunity to hold a secret meeting, it will take advantage of that to discuss a lot of other issues as well as the purpose for the secret meeting,” he said.

McDonald testified against HB 1215, which recently passed the House Judiciary Committee with eight yes votes, five nays and one abstention.

North Dakota Education Association President Dakota Draper also testified against the bill.

“We felt that it is not good precedent to allow a decision to be made in executive session for a school board,” Draper said.

He said the logic used to support the argument is “baffling,” in that it’s unlikely school shooters will research whether a school has someone in it with a concealed weapon.

“I think people that do these tragic, horrible things, like we saw in Newtown, Connecticut, I don’t think they think things through that far,” Draper said.

Making schools safer should “be done at an open hearing” with input from all groups, Draper said.

Grand Forks School District Superintendent Larry Nybladh said executive sessions would be unnecessary and contrary to the traditions of North Dakota in terms of local control and governance.

“I don't feel it would be necessary for a school board to have that level of secrecy or privacy to a discussion,” he said. “It would be of public interest.”

In North Dakota, school boards can go into executive session to meet with their attorneys about civil or criminal litigation, or to discuss strategy for negotiating contracts with employees or for land and building purchases or sales.

Fargo School Board President Jim Johnson said members of his board oppose having anyone other than licensed police or sheriff’s officers carrying weapons in schools.

“That’s our philosophy at this point in time,” he said. “I think we’ll maintain a zero tolerance policy on any firearms that aren’t in the hands of a licensed police officer, for sure.”

Kay Kiefer, president of the West Fargo School board, said her district’s policy mirrors Fargo’s.

“We have very well-trained, well-staffed police departments,” Kiefer said. “We have a presence in our schools with SROs (school resource officers). I think that provides what we need. I would be very hesitant to have us discussing weapons carry by other individuals in executive session.”

McDonald said the problem with the bill is that “it purports that you can discuss this whole policy in closed session. You don’t hear any of the reasons why, any of the pros and cons.

“To me, this is such a major issue,” he said. “Of all the things you’d want the public to be involved with, it is guns in schools. They’re just hung up on this whole idea that the perpetrators will go through the minutes of the school board meeting and find out where the guns are.”

The North Dakota Council of Educational Leaders doesn’t have a position on HB 1215, said Bev Nielson, the group’s legislative liaison.

Jon Martinson, executive director of the North Dakota School Boards Association, said his group is opposed “to the use of concealed weapons in schools, that’s the bottom line.”

Instead, Martinson said his group backs Senate Bill 2267, which provides $10 million for school safety and deferred maintenance. That money can buy security cameras, metal detectors, or help create secure entrances to buildings.

Martinson said he was recently in a small rural school building. All 17 of its doors were open to the public, unlike urban schools where one or two sets of doors may allow access to a building.

“There are lots of things a small school can do to eliminate the possibility of a school shooting short of allowing concealed weapons in schools,” he said.

“I have yet to talk to a teacher that thinks teachers carrying concealed weapons is a good idea. Not one. They don’t want to do that,” Martinson said.

T.J. Jerke, the North Dakota legislative correspondent for Forum News Service, and Matt Cory of The Grand Forks Herald contributed to this report

Readers can reach Forum reporter Helmut Schmidt at (701) 241-5583