Peterson v. LaCABE
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23070
D. Colo.2011Background
- Plaintiff is a Washington resident denied a Colorado concealed handgun permit by Denver County Sheriff (LaCabe).
- Colorado law requires a resident status to obtain a concealed handgun permit; non-residents are denied.
- Denver has a municipal ordinance aligning with state law, prohibiting concealed/open carry except in specific exceptions.
- Plaintiff applied June 2, 2009; denial letter issued July 2, 2009 for non-residency.
- Attorney General intervened to defend the residency requirement and presented affidavits on information gathering and monitoring.
- Evidence shows Colorado can monitor permit holders more effectively when the licensee is a state resident; out-of-state checks are harder and slower.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether residency restriction violates Privileges and Immunities Clause | Petition argues travel/right to visit Colorado blocked | State asserts substantial reason and fit; monitors more easily | Residency restriction passes P&I review; substantial reason and fit shown. |
| Whether residency restriction violates Second Amendment | Heller guarantees right to bear arms; strict scrutiny required | Law regulates non-residents; targeted at public safety via monitoring | Intermediate scrutiny applied; restriction upheld. |
| Whether residency restriction violates Equal Protection | Non-residents treated differently from residents | Not similarly situated; rational basis supports difference | Different treatment rationally related to state interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) (right to travel components; privileges and immunities analysis)
- Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948) (substantial reason for discrimination; burden on travel rights)
- Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518 (1978) (grounds for discrimination may be substantial if evils addressed)
- Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2005) (state's interest in monitoring local licensees; fit between means and ends)
- Peruta v. County of San Diego, 758 F.Supp.2d 1106 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (residency restriction for concealed weapon permits; substantial interest)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects individual right to possess firearms in home; limits exist)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (Second Amendment applicability to states)
- United States v. Reese, 627 F.3d 792 (10th Cir. 2010) (two-pronged approach to Second Amendment scrutiny)
- Marzzarella v. United States, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (intermediate scrutiny for certain firearm regulations)
- Skoien v. United States, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (intermediate scrutiny for firearm restrictions)