• 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
okay so what then?
See above. IMO, Wait 6 months for them to say a right and a privilege are the same thing and to make a fiction where the ban is just a regulation of the manner of bearing arms, upholding 790.053 as constitutional, without reference to the SCOTUS since that court has always just assumed OC is the right without explicitly ruling on it. P=.95

Alternatively, they could say 790.053 is unconstitutional or just unconstitutional in the case of a license holder like Dale Norman. P=.05.

See you in 6 months or more. Hopefully this won't derail a legislative fix.
okay so what then?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,422
Location
Florida
See above. IMO, Wait 6 months for them to say a right and a privilege are the same thing and to make a fiction where the ban is just a regulation of the manner of bearing arms, upholding 790.053 as constitutional, without reference to the SCOTUS since that court has always just assumed OC is the right without explicitly ruling on it. P=.95

Alternatively, they could say 790.053 is unconstitutional or just unconstitutional in the case of a license holder like Dale Norman. P=.05.

See you in 6 months or more. Hopefully this won't derail a legislative fix.



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


okay so i'm reading the california decision...based on their explanation, i'm inclined to think that they may rule based on nun v state (georgia)....basically, since florida is "shall issue", it's okay to ban open carry. the 9th circuit is using that same logic to heavily restrict concealed carry, even though open carry is not legal. it seems to look like they are paving the way for an open carry challenge in california. This is what they said about that case: "However, because the indictment failed to allege that the defendant had carried his pistol in a concealed manner, the court dismissed it."
 
Last edited:

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,422
Location
Florida
has anyone read the 9th circuit decision yet? great stuff in there.

"In the years after the adoption of the Second Amendment and before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the state courts that considered the question nearly universally concluded that laws forbidding concealed weapons were consistent with both the Second Amendment and their state constitutions."
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Guess who is the last one standing in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Given that Beck screwed up his appeal in Young v. Hawaii (asking the court to compel the writing of a new law, among other things) that leaves my California Open Carry lawsuit as the last one standing in the 9th Circuit.

I read that the NRA is going to file its own Open Carry lawsuit. I suspect that the NRA/CRPA is going to fail to mention that it is impossible for them to get ahead of my appeal. Appeals are heard in the order in which they are filed and my appeal will be fully briefed long before the NRA could get a decision, even if it opened with a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Today's Peruta decision was a boon for the Florida Open Carry case now pending a decision by the FSC. If the FSC holds that Florida can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry then it would create another SCOTUS Rule 10 split, this time with the 9th Circuit.
 

StogieC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
744
Location
Florida
The state concedes that there is a right to carry outside the home and the FL Supreme Court will rule, just as the 4th DCA did, that there is a RIGHT to carry outside the home. No matter what could conceivably happen, we win something substantial.

If the court rules that the Open Carry Ban is constitutional because law abiding people have a RIGHT to the "alternative outlet" of a license, we win. But, the Open Carry Ban stands and Dale Norman still has to pay his fine (I'll pay it for him). In that case, law abiding people have a RIGHT to the concealed carry license rather than just the privilege of a license that we have now. More litigation will ensue to challenge many restrictive provisions of the license and more lobbying will happen to legalize licensed open carry. This "alternative outlet" thorey is what the 9th Cir. just rejected en banc in Peruta.

If the court rules that the Open Carry Ban is unconstitutional because the state did not meet its burden to show the legislative intent and/or any efficacy toward the purported public safety interest, we win. In that case, banning OC is unconstitutional... at least as applied to licensees and perhaps as applied to all law abiding people.
If it is only as applied to licensees, then all law abiding people have a RIGHT to the license rather than the privilege of a license that we have now. In that case, more litigation will ensue to challenge many restrictive provisions of the license.
If it is as applied to all law abiding people, banning Open Carry is unconstitutional but the concealed carry license continues to be a supplemental privilege. More lobbying will ensue to protect the unlicensed right to carry openly.​

If the court rules that the Open Carry Ban is unconstitutional because of a violation of substantive due process, we win. In that case, banning Open Carry is unconstitutional but the concealed carry license continues to be a supplemental privilege. More lobbying will ensue to protect the unlicensed right to carry openly.

There is a lot of nuance to what the court may or may not rule and it is ALL conjecture at this point, but it is pretty clear that we are all going to get something positive out of this case.
 

StogieC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
744
Location
Florida
Given that Beck screwed up his appeal in Young v. Hawaii (asking the court to compel the writing of a new law, among other things) that leaves my California Open Carry lawsuit as the last one standing in the 9th Circuit.

I read that the NRA is going to file its own Open Carry lawsuit. I suspect that the NRA/CRPA is going to fail to mention that it is impossible for them to get ahead of my appeal. Appeals are heard in the order in which they are filed and my appeal will be fully briefed long before the NRA could get a decision, even if it opened with a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Today's Peruta decision was a boon for the Florida Open Carry case now pending a decision by the FSC. If the FSC holds that Florida can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry then it would create another SCOTUS Rule 10 split, this time with the 9th Circuit.

You NEED to hire a qualified appellate attorney.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
If the court rules that the Open Carry Ban is constitutional because law abiding people have a RIGHT to the "alternative outlet" of a license, we win.
"You" might win but the Second Amendment would lose.

Unlike you, and a few others here, I support the Second Amendment right to bear arms which has always been a right to openly carry arms and has never been a right to carry concealed.
 

StogieC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
744
Location
Florida
"You" might win but the Second Amendment would lose.

Unlike you, and a few others here, I support the Second Amendment right to bear arms which has always been a right to openly carry arms and has never been a right to carry concealed.
I agree that the "alternative outlet" thorey is wrong. But it is undeniable that even that is more than we have now.
 
Last edited:

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
The state concedes that there is a right to carry outside the home and the FL Supreme Court will rule, just as the 4th DCA did, that there is a RIGHT to carry outside the home. No matter what could conceivably happen, we win something substantial.

If the court rules that the Open Carry Ban is constitutional because law abiding people have a RIGHT to the "alternative outlet" of a license, we win. But, the Open Carry Ban stands and Dale Norman still has to pay his fine (I'll pay it for him). In that case, law abiding people have a RIGHT to the concealed carry license rather than just the privilege of a license that we have now. More litigation will ensue to challenge many restrictive provisions of the license and more lobbying will happen to legalize licensed open carry. This "alternative outlet" thorey is what the 9th Cir. just rejected en banc in Peruta.

If the court rules that the Open Carry Ban is unconstitutional because the state did not meet its burden to show the legislative intent and/or any efficacy toward the purported public safety interest, we win. In that case, banning OC is unconstitutional... at least as applied to licensees and perhaps as applied to all law abiding people.
If it is only as applied to licensees, then all law abiding people have a RIGHT to the license rather than the privilege of a license that we have now. In that case, more litigation will ensue to challenge many restrictive provisions of the license.
If it is as applied to all law abiding people, banning Open Carry is unconstitutional but the concealed carry license continues to be a supplemental privilege. More lobbying will ensue to protect the unlicensed right to carry openly.​

If the court rules that the Open Carry Ban is unconstitutional because of a violation of substantive due process, we win. In that case, banning Open Carry is unconstitutional but the concealed carry license continues to be a supplemental privilege. More lobbying will ensue to protect the unlicensed right to carry openly.

There is a lot of nuance to what the court may or may not rule and it is ALL conjecture at this point, but it is pretty clear that we are all going to get something positive out of this case.
This is all predicated upon the notion that logic and reason are involved.

When we heard three of the justices openly promoting nonsense propaganda, do you really think logic and reason are in play? These people are not impartial, educated, etc. They care for nothing but pushing a flagrant leftist agenda. The law is irrelevant. Rights are irrelevant. Logic is irrelevant. Facts are irrelevant.

They can just give you the finger. The law has nothing to do with it. They have ultimate power to do whatever the hell they want with no consequences. Word salad is just a cover story.

If you don't go away on command, they'll just make your kids disappear. That's how it's done in Floriduh.

Conjecture it is. But even there, it's not even reasonable conjecture. We know what these freaks are.
 
Last edited:

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
375
Location
Phoenix, AZ
The Peruta ruling won't help because CA9's next trick will be to uphold CA's OC ban as a public safety exception. You will have no right to any mode of carry outside your home in their jurisdiction. They will write bear out of the 2A.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
The Peruta ruling won't help because CA9's next trick will be to uphold CA's OC ban as a public safety exception. You will have no right to any mode of carry outside your home in their jurisdiction. They will write bear out of the 2A.
Absolutely

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,199
Location
northern wis
The Peruta ruling won't help because CA9's next trick will be to uphold CA's OC ban as a public safety exception. You will have no right to any mode of carry outside your home in their jurisdiction. They will write bear out of the 2A.
What we have learned over many years of court cases, judges do not always rule on what is right and constitutional they often rule on emotion and on what they think the way things should be according to them.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,422
Location
Florida
The Peruta ruling won't help because CA9's next trick will be to uphold CA's OC ban as a public safety exception. You will have no right to any mode of carry outside your home in their jurisdiction. They will write bear out of the 2A.
i don't agree. the 9th circuit in their ruling hinted that if they would have come against the open carry ban, they would have won the case. but, based on years and years of historical context...i mean, they went back to like the 1500's....concealed carry is not protected by the second amendment, it may be licensed, banned, regulated, etc. but open carry is protected under the second amendment.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,422
Location
Florida
The state concedes that there is a right to carry outside the home and the FL Supreme Court will rule, just as the 4th DCA did, that there is a RIGHT to carry outside the home. No matter what could conceivably happen, we win something substantial.

If the court rules that the Open Carry Ban is constitutional because law abiding people have a RIGHT to the "alternative outlet" of a license, we win. But, the Open Carry Ban stands and Dale Norman still has to pay his fine (I'll pay it for him). In that case, law abiding people have a RIGHT to the concealed carry license rather than just the privilege of a license that we have now. More litigation will ensue to challenge many restrictive provisions of the license and more lobbying will happen to legalize licensed open carry. This "alternative outlet" thorey is what the 9th Cir. just rejected en banc in Peruta.

If the court rules that the Open Carry Ban is unconstitutional because the state did not meet its burden to show the legislative intent and/or any efficacy toward the purported public safety interest, we win. In that case, banning OC is unconstitutional... at least as applied to licensees and perhaps as applied to all law abiding people.
If it is only as applied to licensees, then all law abiding people have a RIGHT to the license rather than the privilege of a license that we have now. In that case, more litigation will ensue to challenge many restrictive provisions of the license.
If it is as applied to all law abiding people, banning Open Carry is unconstitutional but the concealed carry license continues to be a supplemental privilege. More lobbying will ensue to protect the unlicensed right to carry openly.​

If the court rules that the Open Carry Ban is unconstitutional because of a violation of substantive due process, we win. In that case, banning Open Carry is unconstitutional but the concealed carry license continues to be a supplemental privilege. More lobbying will ensue to protect the unlicensed right to carry openly.

There is a lot of nuance to what the court may or may not rule and it is ALL conjecture at this point, but it is pretty clear that we are all going to get something positive out of this case.


makes sense.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
What we have learned over many years of court cases, judges do not always rule on what is right and constitutional they often rule on emotion and on what they think the way things should be according to them.
Or put in terms we all recognize = legislating from the bench.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Notice of Supplemental Authority to Peruta v. San Diego en banc

Well, a strange thing happened yesterday. Florida filed a notice of supplemental authority to the en banc Peruta v. San Diego decision but did not say anything in its notice as to why Peruta is helpful to the states case.

I hope that Norman's attorney likewise files a notice, only this time explaining why the decision is helpful to his case.
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
Well, a strange thing happened yesterday. Florida filed a notice of supplemental authority to the en banc Peruta v. San Diego decision but did not say anything in its notice as to why Peruta is helpful to the states case.

I hope that Norman's attorney likewise files a notice, only this time explaining why the decision is helpful to his case.
The state's actions throughout this case have led me to believe they may be intentionally trying to throw the case. But the FL courts thus far haven't been complying.
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
i don't agree. the 9th circuit in their ruling hinted that if they would have come against the open carry ban, they would have won the case. but, based on years and years of historical context...i mean, they went back to like the 1500's....concealed carry is not protected by the second amendment, it may be licensed, banned, regulated, etc. but open carry is protected under the second amendment.
Perhaps, but still having a hard time believing these CA9 judges are going to make a positive ruling for meaningful OC. I have images in my head of Lucy, Charlie Brown and the football.
 
Top