Peter B. Thomas v. The Members of the City Council of Portland

First Circuit

Peter B. Thomas v. The Members of the City Council of Portland

730 F.2d 41, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24216

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·Decided March 23, 1984·No. 83-1786·Published·Cited by 22 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Peter B. Thomas, argues that the City of Portland, Maine, and various city officials infringed his constitutional rights by denying him a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Established case law makes clear that the federal Constitution grants appellant no right to carry a concealed handgun. See, e.g., United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178, 59 S.Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939) (second amendment applies only to weapons that have a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384, 387 (10th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926, 98 S.Ct. 1493, 55 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (same); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir.1974) (same); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265, 6 S.Ct. 580, 584, 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886) (second amendment confers rights as against activity by the “federal government only”); Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 269-70 (7th Cir.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 194, 78 L.Ed.2d 170 (1983) (same); Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 921 (1st Cir.1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770, 63 S.Ct. 1431, 87 L.Ed. 1718 (1943) (same); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948, 96 S.Ct. 3168, 49 L.Ed.2d 1185 (1976) (second amendment grants right to the state, not the individual); Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144, 149 (6th Cir.1971) (same). See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n. 8, 100 S.Ct. 915, 920 n. 8, 63 L.Ed.2d 198 (1980). Principles of res judicata bar appellant’s remaining claims against the chief of police. Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education, — U.S.—, 104 S.Ct. 892, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984). And, the opinion of the magistrate, adopted by the district court, adequately discusses any other of appellant’s claims. The judgment of the district court, dismissing appellant’s case, is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Peter B. Thomas, argues that the City of Portland, Maine, and various city officials infringed his constitutional rights by denying him a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Established case law makes clear that the federal Constitution grants appellant no right to carry a concealed handgun. See, e.g., United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178, 59 S.Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939) (second amendment applies only to weapons that have a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384, 387 (10th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926, 98 S.Ct. 1493, 55 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (same); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir.1974) (same); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265, 6 S.Ct. 580, 584, 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886) (second amendment confers rights as against activity by the “federal government only”); Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 269-70 (7th Cir.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 194, 78 L.Ed.2d 170 (1983) (same); Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 921 (1st Cir.1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770, 63 S.Ct. 1431, 87 L.Ed. 1718 (1943) (same); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948, 96 S.Ct. 3168, 49 L.Ed.2d 1185 (1976) (second amendment grants right to the state, not the individual); Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144, 149 (6th Cir.1971) (same). See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n. 8, 100 S.Ct. 915, 920 n. 8, 63 L.Ed.2d 198 (1980). Principles of res judicata bar appellant’s remaining claims against the chief of police. Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education, — U.S.—, 104 S.Ct. 892, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984). And, the opinion of the magistrate, adopted by the district court, adequately discusses any other of appellant’s claims. The judgment of the district court, dismissing appellant’s case, is

Affirmed.

Peter B. Thomas v. The Members of the City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24216 (1st Cir. 1984).

Pincite

730 F.2d 41 (Peter B. Thomas v. The Members of the City Council of Portland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2323, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3934 Douglas Ray Hickman v. Sherman Block Claude L. Farris Patrick G. Leonard City of Los Angeles Darryl Gates, Police Chief Robert Talcott Herbert Boekmann Reva B. Tooley Samuel L. Williams Stephen D. Yslas William Cowdin Frank E. Piersol Dominick J. Rivetti City of San Fernando County of Los Angeles

81 F.3d 98 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Hickman v. Block

81 F.3d 98 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Opinion

Related