Norman v Florida filed in SCOTUS by Stephen Halbrook, Fl Carry

[press1280]

My email to the NRA in Fl concerning our attorney general.

As you know, the Supreme Court of the US has requested a response from the state of Florida in the Norman open carry case. I did a little research and found out that there are no consequences for Mrs Bondi if she does not defend a statute. Governor Scott could suspend her and the legislature could recall her, but neither would happen because they would not want to publicly be seen to fight the 2nd amendment, especially at the national level.

Attorney General non defense of statutes is on the rise in the states. Given that Bondi likes to say she is for gun owners and our right to bear arms, her defense (such as it is) of 790.053 disqualifies her from my vote when/if she runs for political office again. I wish the NRA would carry this theme. I will not let her get away with this at the ballot box and neither should the NRA in today's political environment. It is time to start holding everyone to higher standards to accomplish our worthy goals.

Sincerely,

Look at the bigger picture. If she simply rolls over then, yes, FL gets open carry but no one else can benefit from it. We NEED her to defend the statute (albeit poorly, which she's done IMO) to create positive caselaw.
I'm also generally against AGs abandoning laws, even if they are crappy laws. The AG should not be in the position of being able to single handedly wipe out a statute-that should either be the job of the legislature, or, in some cases the courts.

 

[77zach]

Look at the bigger picture. If she simply rolls over then, yes, FL gets open carry but no one else can benefit from it. We NEED her to defend the statute (albeit poorly, which she's done IMO) to create positive caselaw.
I'm also generally against AGs abandoning laws, even if they are crappy laws. The AG should not be in the position of being able to single handedly wipe out a statute-that should either be the job of the legislature, or, in some cases the courts.

I am a big fan of nullification, especially jury nullification, which is the primary purpose of a real jury. I don't see how her non defense would effect the reach of supreme court decision in our favor. But you are right, the defense of the statute is terrible. Then again, it's an impossible task as there is no legal or statistical evidence to support the law. 50 pages of "some people might be scared to see a gun" and "ignorance is bliss" is a tough job. In reality, if no more justices are replaced, it doesn't matter if there is a response. The conclusion has already been decided, just not written.