Peter B. Thomas v. The Members of the City Council of Portland
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision. The 20 that cite it most often are listed here.
- District of Columbia v. Heller (Supreme Court of the United States 2008)
- United States v. Arzberger (District Court, S.D. New York 2008)
- United States v. Lewis (District Court, Virgin Islands 2008)
- Bloomquist v. Albee (District Court, D. Maine 2006)
- Bach v. Pataki (2d Cir. 2005)
- Bach v. Pataki (2d Cir. 2005)
- Parker v. District of Columbia (District Court, District of Columbia 2004)
- Seegars v. Ashcroft (District Court, District of Columbia 2004)
- S. Wilt v. Texas Department of Public Safety (Tex. App. 2004)
- Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right (United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel 2004)
- Silveira v. Lockyer (9th Cir. 2003)
- Stephen Clay Johnston v. State (Tex. App. 2003)
- United States v. Milheron (District Court, D. Maine 2002)
- Silveira v. Lockyer (9th Cir. 2002)
- Peoples Rights Organization, Inc. v. Montgomery (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
- Nollet v. Justices of the Trial Court of Massachusetts (District Court, D. Massachusetts 2000)
- Gillespie v. City Of Indianapolis (7th Cir. 1999)
- Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis (7th Cir. 1999)
- United States v. Caron (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1996)
- Hickman v. Block (9th Cir. 1996)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.