• 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
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.
I don't get it. If it's not irrelevant to the case, doesn't it hurt the state's position that our right is the licensed privilege to carry the gun hidden only?

Maybe it's the dissent the state likes? Doesn't do them any good either.
 
Last edited:

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
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.
It's being hypothesized on another forum that the state didn't even read Peruta. The more I think about it, it's probably true. What this means is that if/when the FLSC rules that the OC ban is constitutional, our Judiciary is no better than Congo's or Eritrea's. The state will have argued against itself and the kourt will have proved its utter illegitimacy. If the legislature wants us to insert a gun into our butt hole, it's ok because the legislature passed an anti gun law.

I'm done, wake me up when the shooting starts.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
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.
They're happy with even the most absurd argument. At least 3 of the so-called "justices" on the FLSC would listen to you reading out of the phone book for 18 hours, and call it a sound argument for growing waffles on the moon. Which, of course, means that guns are bad. And potato. Don't forget potato. Their song and dance has become precisely this absurd, and putting a believable facade on it is damn near impossible. Fortunately, no one is paying any attention tot he man behind the curtain, so the emperor behind the curtain can dance naked and Huxley's masses will never notice that they've actually begged to be Orwell's...

Seems like generating chaos... So much word spaghetti that there's no way to follow the dis-logic, then conclude flatly that RKBA doesn't exist. Bye now.

Like a shell game with a million cups, and the prize was never on the table to begin with...
 
Last edited:

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
I'm done, wake me up when the shooting starts.
Sh!t, I've been there for 15 years... These cowards will never use it, therefore they will lose it.

The latest subtlties make it seem to me that they want to hand this hot potato off to SCOTUS, but want 9 sitting there first...
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
It's being hypothesized on another forum that the state didn't even read Peruta. The more I think about it, it's probably true. What this means is that if/when the FLSC rules that the OC ban is constitutional, our Judiciary is no better than Congo's or Eritrea's. The state will have argued against itself and the kourt will have proved its utter illegitimacy. If the legislature wants us to insert a gun into our butt hole, it's ok because the legislature passed an anti gun law.

I'm done, wake me up when the shooting starts.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
The one thing to consider though is a Norman win on the OC ban (licensing issue will be tossed IMO) under the FL Constitution is basically appeal proof. Just depends if these guys are willing to create a split and open them up to SCOTUS review to preserve the OC ban.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion 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.
Sorry, I just don't see the first result as a win. They're not going to rule on specific criteria of the license or say it has to be shall issue. I think it'll be a wash in practice.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
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.
A.K.A. Just plain makin' sh!t up...
 
Last edited:

2OLD2W8

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
138
Location
Black Waters
I called the clerk for the Florida Supreme Court and inquired about the time frame for court decisions. According to her; there are no time constraints on a decision.
Maybe they are going to wait us OFWGs out. :uhoh:
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
I called the clerk for the Florida Supreme Court and inquired about the time frame for court decisions. According to her; there are no time constraints on a decision.
Maybe they are going to wait us OFWGs out. :uhoh:
The Ol' Pharts Club is well practiced in waiting - plenty of prior experience. :)
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
I called the clerk for the Florida Supreme Court and inquired about the time frame for court decisions. According to her; there are no time constraints on a decision.
Maybe they are going to wait us OFWGs out. :uhoh:
I hope it's before the next legislative session. The opinion will be awful and treasonous, but the question is just how bad will it be? Hopefully, bad enough to push relatively pro gun law makers to push a licensed OC/ strict scrutiny bill all the way through.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
I called the clerk for the Florida Supreme Court and inquired about the time frame for court decisions. According to her; there are no time constraints on a decision.
Maybe they are going to wait us OFWGs out. :uhoh:
I hope it's before the next legislative session. The opinion will be awful and treasonous, but the question is just how bad will it be? Hopefully, bad enough to push relatively pro gun law makers to push a licensed OC/ strict scrutiny bill all the way through.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/03/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-ruled-unconstitutional-by-judge.html

No, you judicial hack. The burden of proof is wholly and only on the state to prove criminality in ANY case. Read Coffin v. United States!

Throw this quack off the bench. If this is allowed to go any further, you're going to see an avalanche of similar cases in any state that has similar laws. The families of all the criminals that have been killed by their intended victims in self defense are going to go after these laws, using this as a stepping stone, then after the intended victims. And there are enough moronic judges in this country like Hirsch that would allow the BS to go forward.
--Mod note-- moved from General Discussion.
 
Top