• 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 Supreme Court will hear challenge to Florida open carry ban

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
Eh, I don't think they are fools. The word salad will be the perfect thing to rip apart and prove that a legislative move is needed. Add to it the abuses from the Cops, who are also judicial branch... It'll be impossible to avoid that there is implicit collusion and malicious intent. Or course, no legal action taken upon it, but at least we'll all see it. This lawsuit is merely to assure that the emperor disposes of his every last article of clothing.

The emperor will have no clothes, but, unfortunately, the emperor is so flagrant and emboldened, that once naked, he'll dance a hairy, bouncing, wrinkly jig just to let us know that he can get away with anything...
You put a lot of work into something and you tend to look at it with rose colored glasses; they felt pretty confident about the 4th DCA decision. The kourt ended up quoting my posts here essentially.

General OC may never happen but they may be able to push a strict scrutiny bill through if this opinion is bad enough to make some pols wince.

Specifically the state needs to be sued for the "prohibited places" list. Not sure how the right can be utterly cancelled in places where there are not screening procedures for weapons plus armed security. Shouldn't pass rational basis for permit holders.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
Just finished watching it. Mr. Friday (the plaintiff's attorney) was not bad, but a number of the justices (Janet? and the black woman) were downright hostile.

I can only hope that the plaintiff's court filings were better than his presentation.

Good luck, Floridians!
I question if they even read the briefs.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,015
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I question if they even read the briefs.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
I didn't read them, so I don't have an opinion on that, but quite a few of their questions were idiotic - and showed little grasp of the subject at hand.
 
Last edited:

2OLD2W8

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
138
Location
Black Waters
I would like to share this movie quote as it seems quite apropos regarding numerous comments, questions and statements posed by SC Justices Barbara J. Pariente, Peggy A. Quince and Jorge Labarga.

You and your feelings. They just run you, don't they?:banghead:
 
Last edited:

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
I would like to share this movie quote as it seems quite apropos regarding numerous comments, questions and statements posed by SC Justices Barbara J. Pariente, Peggy A. Quince and Jorge Labarga.

You and your feelings. They just run you, don't they?:banghead:
Arguments here: http://wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/viewcase.php?eid=2364

Quince and Labarga were clearly antis. Not sure about Pariente, she seemed to be all over the place but annoyed at the state's (non) justification for the OC ban. Canady sounded like he got it, Polston seemed to suggest OC w/permit. I think the 2 others (don't have the names handy) on the court didn't talk at all.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,422
Location
Florida
Arguments here: http://wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/viewcase.php?eid=2364

Quince and Labarga were clearly antis. Not sure about Pariente, she seemed to be all over the place but annoyed at the state's (non) justification for the OC ban. Canady sounded like he got it, Polston seemed to suggest OC w/permit. I think the 2 others (don't have the names handy) on the court didn't talk at all.
yeah i think they are going to lean toward shall-issue for open/concealed carry
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
yeah i think they are going to lean toward shall-issue for open/concealed carry
It's the perfect escape hatch for the court. Norman wins, the state likely won't appeal to SCOTUS, and the license just now would encompass both OC and CC. The OC case by Norman's counsel was much better than the state's case against it. The licensing issue is a bigger hurdle IMO.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
It's the perfect escape hatch for the court. Norman wins, the state likely won't appeal to SCOTUS, and the license just now would encompass both OC and CC. The OC case by Norman's counsel was much better than the state's case against it. The licensing issue is a bigger hurdle IMO.
Doubtful. You have a bunch of so called "progressives" who hate the right to bear arms, as expressed by the chief justice ("cameras don't kill people!"). So, they're looking for an out. That's the hurdle, they have to convince themselves that paying and waiting are ok when it comes to this particular fundamental constitutional right. Then they get to define "manner". Sure, banning open carry is a bit of a stretch but gives them enough cover. The ban stands.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Next step is SCOTUS

Way back when the Florida Supreme Court decided to hear the appeal I remarked to one of my supporters that the FSC could duck the Second Amendment question in its entirety by issuing a decision which holds that the ban is unconstitutional under its state constitution. Having done so, it is not obligated to answer the Federal Second Amendment question.

In light of today's oral arguments in Norman v. State, there is no danger in that happening. The Florida Supreme Court will either hold that there is no right to openly carry a firearm under the Second Amendment or that there is a right under the Second Amendment but Florida's ban survives "Intermediate Scrutiny."

When the transcript is published I am pretty sure that it will show that Justice Pariente was the one driving the oral arguments. There was one point in particular where she tried to explain to the state's attorney that the state's attorney needed to say more than "policy choice" in order to survive intermediate scrutiny.

This is not unusual. Justice Scalia tried to spoon feed Alan Gura his answers but unfortunately failed to persuade Gura to challenge the DC permit requirement.

Needless to say that if the Florida Supreme Court decides to uphold the Open Carry ban under intermediate scrutiny then it will fabricate the "narrow tailoring," compelling government interest and evidence not argued or submitted in the case to date.

But who knows? The FSC could simply do as the lower appellate court did and hold that if states can ban concealed carry pursuant to Heller then states can ban Open Carry (contrary to Heller).

Edit: Here is an article just published which expresses some of my views on what transpired during the oral arguments.
 
Last edited:

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
I don't know about all of that. One thing is for sure, the fact that we're even asking gunvermin for our rights back is an ill omen. In the words of Jurassic Park, " I hate being right all the time"

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,422
Location
Florida
wait- so does the 9th circuit ruling today help us out? they said concealed carry is not a right.

"We hold that the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public. This holding resolves the Second Amendment question presented in this case. It also necessarily resolves, adversely to Plaintiffs, their derivative claims of prior restraint, equal protection, privileges and immunities, and due process. In light of our holding, we need not, and do not, answer the question of whether or to what degree the Second Amendment might or might not protect a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms openly in public."

https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/3/10-56971/009128111226.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline; filename="E.C.F. 9th Cir. 10-56971 dckt 000333_000 filed 2016-06-09.pdf"&X-Amz-Expires=604800&X-Amz-Date=20160609T153038Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJDK6JKKSMS3DQS4Q/20160609/us-east-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=b672fae1df6941d1b870c24958b2da82f02796a80a6df5940aca88f672855b13
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
wait- so does the 9th circuit ruling today help us out? they said concealed carry is not a right.

"We hold that the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public. This holding resolves the Second Amendment question presented in this case. It also necessarily resolves, adversely to Plaintiffs, their derivative claims of prior restraint, equal protection, privileges and immunities, and due process. In light of our holding, we need not, and do not, answer the question of whether or to what degree the Second Amendment might or might not protect a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms openly in public."

https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/3/10-56971/009128111226.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline; filename="E.C.F. 9th Cir. 10-56971 dckt 000333_000 filed 2016-06-09.pdf"&X-Amz-Expires=604800&X-Amz-Date=20160609T153038Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJDK6JKKSMS3DQS4Q/20160609/us-east-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=b672fae1df6941d1b870c24958b2da82f02796a80a6df5940aca88f672855b13
The Fl SC is not bound by what the 9th circuit says but SCOTUS has already said concealed carry is not a right.
 
Top