Peterson v. Martinez, 707 F.3d 1197

Peterson, a Washington resident, applied for a Colorado CHL from the Denver Sheriff; he was denied due to Colorado residency requirements.
Colorado limits CHLs to state residents and recognizes CHLs only from states that reciprocity Colorado grants to; Washington and Florida CHLs are not reciprocated for nonresidents.
Peterson sued the Denver Sheriff and Colorado DPS executive director; claims include violations of the Second Amendment, Privileges and Immunities Clause, and other constitutional provisions.
The district court held the executive director had Eleventh Amendment immunity; sheriffs administer the CHL regime, not the executive director, so Ex parte Young does not apply to the director.
The district court granted Martinez (the Denver Sheriff) summary judgment on Peterson’s Second Amendment and right-to-travel claims, after determining residency requirements are substantially related to public-safety objectives and are presumptively lawful.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit held that Colorado residency for CHLs does not implicate the Second Amendment and Friedman's Privileges and Immunities test; travel rights are coterminous with the Privileges and Immunities Clause and are not violated here.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Davis enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity	Davis is 'primarily responsible for administering' CHL reciprocity and thus enforcement.	Sheriffs administer reciprocity; Davis has no enforcement duty; Ex parte Young does not apply.	Davis entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity
Whether residency requirement violates Second Amendment	Colorado may not restrict CHLs to residents; Peterson should be able to carry concealed in Denver.	Concealed carry is not protected by the Second Amendment; longstanding prohibitions are presumptively lawful.	Second Amendment does not confer a right to carry concealed weapons; residency requirement survives
Whether residency requirement violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause	Nonresidents should have equal privileges; withholding CHL rights burdens travel and movement.	Concealed carry is not a protected privilege; Friedman two-prong test supports the restriction.	Residency requirement not violative; passes Friedman intermediate-scrutiny-like test
Whether district court properly granted summary judgment to Martinez on Peterson's claims	Colorado’s residency rule discriminates nonresidents and denies rights to bear arms.	Record shows residency restriction furthers important public-safety objectives and is substantially related.	Summary judgment for Martinez affirmed

Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (Supreme Court 1908) (limits against federal suits to enjoin state officers when enforcement of a statute is involved)
Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (Supreme Court 1897) (right to keep and bear arms not infringed by laws prohibiting concealed weapons (dicta))
Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Supreme Court 2008) (established individual right to keep and bear arms; noted longstanding prohibitions on concealed carry)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (Supreme Court 2010) (Second Amendment applicability to states)
Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (Supreme Court 1999) (right to travel comprises multiple components; welcome-visitor concept tied to privileges and immunities)
Friedman (Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman), 487 U.S. 59 (Supreme Court 1988) (two-prong Friedman test for Privileges and Immunities challenges)
Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2005) (intermediate scrutiny applied to residency-based handgun licensing; substantial relation to state interest)
Reese, 627 F.3d 792 (10th Cir. 2010) (two-step Second Amendment framework; burdened conduct; applies intermediate or strict scrutiny accordingly)
Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012) (post-Heller decision recognizing longstanding restrictions )
Peruta v. County of San Diego, 758 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (residency/registration issues in concealed carry examined for constitutional viability)