• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Florida Judge flips S. Ct. logic, holds concealed carry law allows open carry ban

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
They spend their time fiddling away with death penalty appeals. If they take it they also have to figure out how to say a privilege is a right while still seeming legit. When Norman loses, I will be surprised if there are not 4 opinions written. Some will say there is no right at all, others there is a right but it can be banned, and others there is a right subject to "reasonable" regulations (making it a privilege), and then maybe a little disagreement as to what is reasonable. The FL constitution allows anything to be "reasonable" with enough torture.
If they want this to stay away from causing a split, they'll rule for Norman using only the FL constitution, that way they can punt on the 2A question.
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
If they want this to stay away from causing a split, they'll rule for Norman using only the FL constitution, that way they can punt on the 2A question.
The Florida Supreme Court cannot cause a 'split' (suggesting the US Supreme Court become involved). Their rules apply only to the state of Florida.
 
Last edited:

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
The Florida Supreme Court cannot cause a 'split' (suggesting the US Supreme Court become involved). Their rules apply only to the state of Florida.
If they make a ruling based on the 2A, then yes they can cause a split:

Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Writ of Certiorari








Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court's discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:
•(a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power;
•(b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals;
•(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.
 

StogieC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
744
Location
Florida
Florida Judge flips S. Ct. logic, holds concealed carry law allows open carry...

In Florida, the DCAs are the state courts of last resort. However, the FL Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction to review decisions of the DCAs. Technically, the 4th DCA Norman decision could have been appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court rather than the Florida Supremes. Appeals from the DCA directly to the U.S. Supreme Court are very rare, but they do happen.
 
Last edited:

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
In Florida, the DCAs are the state courts of last resort. However, the FL Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction to review decisions of the DCAs. Technically, the 4th DCA Norman decision could have been appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court rather than the Florida Supremes. Appeals from the DCA directly to the U.S. Supreme Court are very rare, but they do happen.
If you think SCOTUS, will ever hear this case much less rule in your favor.... I admire your determination.
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
In Florida, the DCAs are the state courts of last resort. However, the FL Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction to review decisions of the DCAs. Technically, the 4th DCA Norman decision could have been appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court rather than the Florida Supremes. Appeals from the DCA directly to the U.S. Supreme Court are very rare, but they do happen.
Probably wouldn't be taken by SCOTUS if they attempted to skip the state supremes. As I see it, if the FL Supremes take the case and make a ruling on the 2A, it'll cause some kind of conflict (which we want).
 

StogieC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
744
Location
Florida
Still no action by the FL Supremes. I looked at several other cases sitting on their docket and some have been sitting close to a year. This could take a Looong time........
The FL Supreme Ct. has been on its summer break for the past 6 weeks (except for critical cases). Expect more action coming soon.
 
Last edited:

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
Getting close to 4 months since the appeal was briefed. No action by the FL Supremes...........
You don't want them to take it. 30% chance you get a "right" to a license. 70% you get something really bad. Knuckle dragging apes/fascists are in charge.
 
Last edited:

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
You don't want them to take it. 30% chance you get a "right" to a license. 70% you get something really bad. Knuckle dragging apes/fascists are in charge.
Something's gotta push the overall public carry issue to SCOTUS. After the Jackson dissent, it's pretty clear we need a split. While a right to shall-issue isn't great, it's clearly at odds with several circuit opinions that say you have a "right" to carry in public if the issuing authority thinks you "need" it.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
I might have read the OP's original article from guns site. However somewhere around the lower end of the article it states something about some clown taking a video of Norman walking around with a tight shirt which basically "printed" him.
Because his shirt wasn't baggy enough to "conceal" his weapon he was arrested and possibly the tool anti-gun freak gave the video to the police.
Can one assume you are referring to this Norman?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qKeJ6jd2Ak&app=desktop

The arrest affidavit states he was wearing a skintight shirt that was tucked into his shorts, but in the video it's fairly obvious that it's covering the handgrip of the revolver and hence can't be 'tucked in'. And as the majority of the holstered firearm is visible beneath the hem of his shirt, it' can't be said that it's 'not visible, but is printing'.
 
Last edited:

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Petition Granted by Florida Supreme Court - Norman v. State

This appears to be the thread with the most recent post regarding the Norman v. State Open Carry case and so I chose it for this update.

From my website:

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – October 6, 2015 – The Florida Supreme Court has decided to hear the case.

The Court accepts jurisdiction of this case as to the notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction filed pursuant to Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution (i.e., expressly declares valid a state statute and expressly construes a provision of the state or federal constitution). Petitioner’s initial brief on the merits shall be served on or before October 26, 2015; respondent’s answer brief on the merits shall be served twenty days after service of petitioner’s initial brief on the merits; and petitioner’s reply brief on the merits shall be served twenty days after service of respondent’s answer brief on the merits. The Clerk of the Fourth District Court of Appeal shall file the record which shall be properly indexed and paginated on or before December 7, 2015. The Clerk may provide the record in the format as currently maintained at the district court, either paper or electronic. This case was also submitted to the Court on jurisdictional briefs addressing as an alternative basis for jurisdiction under Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution (i.e., express and direct conflict). The Court has determined that it should decline to accept jurisdiction on that alternative basis, and thus hereby denies the petition for review as to that alternative basis. No motion for rehearing will be entertained by the Court in this regard. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.330(d). As discussed above, the Court accepts jurisdiction and orders briefing only on the basis of Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution (i.e., expressly declares valid a state statute and expressly construes a provision of the state or federal constitution). The Court having accepted jurisdiction, oral argument will be set by separate order. Counsel for the parties will be notified of the oral argument date approximately sixty days prior to oral argument.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
This appears to be the thread with the most recent post regarding the Norman v. State Open Carry case and so I chose it for this update.

From my website:

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – October 6, 2015 – The Florida Supreme Court has decided to hear the case.

The Court accepts jurisdiction of this case as to the notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction filed pursuant to Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution (i.e., expressly declares valid a state statute and expressly construes a provision of the state or federal constitution). Petitioner’s initial brief on the merits shall be served on or before October 26, 2015; respondent’s answer brief on the merits shall be served twenty days after service of petitioner’s initial brief on the merits; and petitioner’s reply brief on the merits shall be served twenty days after service of respondent’s answer brief on the merits. The Clerk of the Fourth District Court of Appeal shall file the record which shall be properly indexed and paginated on or before December 7, 2015. The Clerk may provide the record in the format as currently maintained at the district court, either paper or electronic. This case was also submitted to the Court on jurisdictional briefs addressing as an alternative basis for jurisdiction under Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution (i.e., express and direct conflict). The Court has determined that it should decline to accept jurisdiction on that alternative basis, and thus hereby denies the petition for review as to that alternative basis. No motion for rehearing will be entertained by the Court in this regard. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.330(d). As discussed above, the Court accepts jurisdiction and orders briefing only on the basis of Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution (i.e., expressly declares valid a state statute and expressly construes a provision of the state or federal constitution). The Court having accepted jurisdiction, oral argument will be set by separate order. Counsel for the parties will be notified of the oral argument date approximately sixty days prior to oral argument.

It will be ugly. Hopefully the strict scrutiny bill passes this session.
 
Last edited:

StogieC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
744
Location
Florida
http://www.floridacarry.org/litigation/21-flcourts/70-norman-v-state

We expect Oral Argument some time in the Spring or Summer of 2016

10/06/2015FL Supreme Court Order Accepting Jurisdiction The Court accepts jurisdiction of this case as to the notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction filed pursuant to Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution (i.e., expressly declares valid a state statute and expressly construes a provision of the state or federal constitution). Petitioner's initial brief on the merits shall be served on or before October 26, 2015; respondent's answer brief on the merits shall be served twenty days after service of petitioner's initial brief on the merits; and petitioner's reply brief on the merits shall be served twenty days after service of respondent's answer brief on the merits. The Clerk of the Fourth District Court of Appeal shall file the record which shall be properly indexed and paginated on or before December 7, 2015. The Clerk may provide the record in the format as currently maintained at the district court, either paper or electronic
PendingInitial Brief on Merits10/26/2015PT Dale Lee Norman BY: PT Eric J. Friday 797901
PendingState's Answer Brief on Merits11/16/2015RS State Of Florida BY: RS Consiglia Terenzio 656879
PendingReply Brief on Merits12/07/2015PT Dale Lee Norman BY: PT Eric J. Friday 797901

 

ADulay

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
494
Location
Punta Gorda, Florida, USA
Does this mean we might get another chance to head on over to the 4th DCA and watch what's happening again?

If so, pencil me in and I'll be there for sure.

AD
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
It will be ugly. Hopefully the strict scrutiny bill passes this session.
Why would it be ugly (or uglier than before)? I don't see where the downside is. You either win (get OC) or at a minimum the case helps push shall-issue to SCOTUS with a split. And you still can simply pass the new law through the legislature.
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
Why would it be ugly (or uglier than before)? I don't see where the downside is. You either win (get OC) or at a minimum the case helps push shall-issue to SCOTUS with a split. And you still can simply pass the new law through the legislature.
:banghead:

:uhoh:

:eek:
 
Top