77zach
Regular Member
As I predicted, the Fl Supreme Kourt says there is no right to bear arms in the Norman case. Your right is the licensed privilege to carry concealed.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
FL Supreme Kourt: No open carry for you!
- Thread starter 77zach
- Start date
No surprises there. Let's just make sure to vote the bums out next election cycle
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
77zach
Regular Member
Not gonna happen.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
Link to decision?
press1280
Regular Member
While I know you folks down there in FL aren't happy, nationally, this has made it more likely that SCOTUS hears a public carry case. We now have a direct split between a state supreme court and a Federal appeals court, not to mention the 19th and early 20th century state cases like Nunn and Chandler.
KBCraig
Regular Member
Because Florida doesn't ban carry, but only specifies the mode, this isn't surprising. Because it's a shall-issue state with several exceptions to the licensing requirement, I don't see any federal courts ever ruling in Norman's favor.
Anyone funding the appeals might want to hold off for a better case.
Anyone funding the appeals might want to hold off for a better case.
press1280
Regular Member
That case may not exist. No state now has a total carry ban, and the may-issues have all been decided basically the same (not to mention SCOTUS has passed on all). Open carry was logically the next challenge.
Even if SCOTUS took this case and ruled against Norman, an opinion verifying that the right does extend outside the home (and supporting shall issue) would fit the bill.
California Right To Carry
Regular Member
SCOTUS Rule 10 splits
We also have SCOTUS Rule 10 splits with state high courts (pre and post Heller) including the California Supreme Court which has held, as per the Heller decision, that concealed carry is not a right under the Second Amendment (Peruta en banc in accord). The Florida Supreme Court is the only state high court which has read the Heller decision to say that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry.
For that matter, the Norman decision conflicts with every Federal court of appeals (including the 7th circuit) which has had a concealed carry case come before it.
Given the posture of the Peruta case, I don't think that the Norman decision helps it avoid a denial of cert but Norman is positioned well even if it results merely in a Caetano type per curiam saying that the FSC decision conflicts with Heller and therefore reveres and remands.
We also have SCOTUS Rule 10 splits with state high courts (pre and post Heller) including the California Supreme Court which has held, as per the Heller decision, that concealed carry is not a right under the Second Amendment (Peruta en banc in accord). The Florida Supreme Court is the only state high court which has read the Heller decision to say that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry.
For that matter, the Norman decision conflicts with every Federal court of appeals (including the 7th circuit) which has had a concealed carry case come before it.
Given the posture of the Peruta case, I don't think that the Norman decision helps it avoid a denial of cert but Norman is positioned well even if it results merely in a Caetano type per curiam saying that the FSC decision conflicts with Heller and therefore reveres and remands.
California Right To Carry
Regular Member
Every Federal court has upheld prohibitions on concealed carry including the 7th circuit which held that Illinois may require Open Carry, as per the Heller decision. Every Federal court and every state court (pre and post Heller) which has had a concealed carry case come before it has held that concealed carry is not a right under the Second Amendment, as per the Heller decision.
The Norman case is perfectly positioned for Supreme Court review. The Florida Supreme Court decision created Federal circuit splits nationwide and SCOTUS Rule 10 splits with every state high court. Not to mention the added bonus of being a case of national importance.
2OLD2W8
Regular Member
Subservient inferiors we shall remain.
Last edited:
press1280
Regular Member
The FL attorney was a joke and their case was a joke. They didn't provide anything to defend the ban but we're saved by an activist court. Let's hope this comes back to bite them.
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
Until the USSC is stacked in our favor we will never get our rights completely restored, period.
Firearms Iinstuctor
Regular Member
I predicted this out come, when the case first came up just read the FL. constitution it gives the state the right to regulate carry.
Last edited:
California Right To Carry
Regular Member
Eugene Volokh Weighs In
UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who is not a supporter of Open Carry, wrote this article about the decision -> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/03/the-odd-argument-supporting-the-florida-open-carry-ban/
UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who is not a supporter of Open Carry, wrote this article about the decision -> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/03/the-odd-argument-supporting-the-florida-open-carry-ban/
“The core of the constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense,” the court concluded, includes carrying “firearms in public where a need for self-defense exists.”
so did the florida SC just tell the legislature that all those places on the "no carry list" are essentially unconstitutional?
2OLD2W8
Regular Member
Our Kourts are infested with buffoons!
"of Liberty then I would say that, in the whole plenitude of it’s extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will: but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will,
within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will,
and always so when it violates the right of an individual. " From Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 4 April 1819
"of Liberty then I would say that, in the whole plenitude of it’s extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will: but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will,
within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will,
and always so when it violates the right of an individual. " From Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 4 April 1819
FzSBLACKMAGICK
Campaign Veteran
Moving forward does FOC have a plan of action?
Mas49.56
Regular Member
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
Another example why I say the 2A as we read it and know of it, does not exist as a RIGHT but a Government privilege, If the government can restrict in anyway or tax or collect fees and issue papers in the form of a license or permission slip said Right is now a Privilege..
The states argument is lame at best.. They argue that an open carrier would be the first target of a would be bad person... No facts to support that claim... Also of the 44/45 states that allow open carry, I believe those states to have lower crime rates than states that do not allow open carry, I don't have the numbers readily available however the attorney's arguing for open carry should have, and they should have presented those statistics to the court hence horrible lawyering. Also said counsel could and should have argued that open carry is also a 1st amendment right..
Government should also not be allow to dictate how a law abiding citizen should or should not handle or display his/her property.. Again government over reaching and violating property rights.
We have a right to Life, liberty and property.. The weapon is our property, said property is used to defend life and liberty.. Governments are instituted to protect rights, not to turn said rights into restricted privileges. This ruling will be over turned by SCOTUS.
My .02
Regards
CCJ
The states argument is lame at best.. They argue that an open carrier would be the first target of a would be bad person... No facts to support that claim... Also of the 44/45 states that allow open carry, I believe those states to have lower crime rates than states that do not allow open carry, I don't have the numbers readily available however the attorney's arguing for open carry should have, and they should have presented those statistics to the court hence horrible lawyering. Also said counsel could and should have argued that open carry is also a 1st amendment right..
Government should also not be allow to dictate how a law abiding citizen should or should not handle or display his/her property.. Again government over reaching and violating property rights.
We have a right to Life, liberty and property.. The weapon is our property, said property is used to defend life and liberty.. Governments are instituted to protect rights, not to turn said rights into restricted privileges. This ruling will be over turned by SCOTUS.
My .02
Regards
CCJ