NRA steps into Norman v. Florida Open Carry case

[California Right To Carry]

Yesterday, April 8th, the Florida Supreme Court granted the motion by the NRA to enter the case as an Amicus in the Norman v. Florida Open Carry case, ostensibly in support of Norman.

I emailed the NRA lawyers asking them, rhetorically, if their Amicus brief was going to read like Act III, Scene 2 of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar ("I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.") only in reverse. Which is to say that the purpose of the NRA brief is to derail Norman's case.

We should know fairly soon when the NRA's Amicus brief is filed.

The NRA will not be participating in oral arguments.

There are now two Amici in this case and both are also Amici in the Peruta v. San Diego/Richards v. Prieto en banc appeal out of California:

Everytown for Gun Safety
National Rifle Association

In California, Everytown for Gun Safety filed an Amicus Brief arguing that there is no Second Amendment right to carry firearms in public be they carried openly or concealed.
In California, the National Rifle Association, to which its state organization the CRPA is a Plaintiff in the Peruta case, filed an Amicus brief in support of banning Open Carry.

In Florida, the Amicus brief from Everytown for Gun Safety filed an Amicus Brief saying that Florida's law banning Open Carry and providing for shall-issue concealed carry permits is all fine and dandy.
In Florida, the National Rifle Association....

Well, we'll just have to wait and see what the National Rifle Association has to say in its Florida Amicus Brief.

EDIT - New Blaze published my Op/Ed -> http://newsblaze.com/business/legal/has-the-nra-come-to-bury-the-second-amendment-or-to-defend-it_55846/

 

[77zach]

In the document I linked to in the other thread at the top of the Florida page, they assert there is a right to openly carry. I have high hopes, but we'll see. It matters not, FLSC will find that that the right to bear arms is a second class right. In short, the permit requirement will not be considered an infringement and they are free to redefine the regulation of the "manner of bearing arms" however they see fit. The unconstitutional ban will stand.

"The one set of sources consulted by the
Supreme Court that speaks unequivocally on the right to carry—antebellum state
3
supreme court cases—teaches that open carry of arms is protected. Any other
result would be inconsistent with Heller’s approach and with the sources on which
it relies. Instead, a faithful reading of Heller requires constitutionally protected
open carry. See Note, Jonathan Meltzer, Open Carry for All: Heller and Our
Nineteenth-Century Second Amendment, 123 Yale L. J. 1118 (March 2014)."

 

[press1280]

These lawyers are hired guns so to speak. That's why Everytown will argue in one case for a total carry ban and then in another say shall-issue is OK. Same with the NRA; they'll argue for open carry in this case and in another case argue that OC can be banned in favor of CC. I'm not reading into any ulterior motives on NRA's part.

 

[77zach]

These lawyers are hired guns so to speak. That's why Everytown will argue in one case for a total carry ban and then in another say shall-issue is OK. Same with the NRA; they'll argue for open carry in this case and in another case argue that OC can be banned in favor of CC. I'm not reading into any ulterior motives on NRA's part.

Absolutely. Everytown would much rather have unlicensed concealed carry over licensed open carry. Accepted OC is lethal to their program.

 

[77zach]

NRA says open carry is a right in brief to FLSC

https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2015/650/2015-650_brief_120118.pdf

Which it is of course. If only the tyranny loving social engineers on the kangaroo kourt felt the same.

 

[DrMark]

[h=2]NRA says open carry is a right in brief to FLSC

[/h]
Okay, as expected. That's good.

 

[Citizen]

NRA says open carry is a right in brief to FLSC

Oh, my. I can remember when NRA's stance on open carry was rather different.

Certainly, many, many concealed-carry instructors advocated against it.

And, I can remember having to email-bomb the NRA-ILA on a Virginia issue. I received an email reply declaring restaurant carry was not an OC issue.

Hopefully, the justices won't ask the NRA to explain their new-found support of OC.

 

[77zach]

Oh, my. I can remember when NRA's stance on open carry was rather different.

Certainly, many, many concealed-carry instructors advocated against it.

And, I can remember having to email-bomb the NRA-ILA on a Virginia issue. I received an email reply declaring restaurant carry was not an OC issue.

Hopefully, the justices won't ask the NRA to explain their new-found support of OC.

I don't think NRA ever officially said OC was not a right, they just ignored it or said that concealed carry is more popular among their members, which it is by a large margin. I don't think NRA is participating in the oral arguments on June 8.

The case will fail in recognizing open carry as a right because of the anti freedom bias of the kourt, and it really is grounds for the people to take to the streets to enforce the law on their own. But nothing will happen, a few local news outfits will briefly comment on it in a neutral or approving way and that will be that. Then we'll have to work to undo the damage the kourt caused in the legislature, which will take years if it ever happens at all.

 

[davidmcbeth]

One can argue both (right to OC and the opposite) in the same pleading ... its called alternate pleading. Kinda odd to have such opposing views w/i one pleading but its allowed.