Norman v. State (FL) Open Carry lawsuit

[press1280]

Sorry, my sarcasm was not apparent.

Well, if they pass on that case too, then yea it could be a while.

 

[shacklefordbanks]

I don't think the SCOTUS will touch Norman.

SCOTUS optical lens:

1. Florida has a liberal shall issue concealed carry law.

2. Norman had a concealed carry permit.

3. The duly elected legislators have determined as a matter of public safety carry is allowed, but only concealed carry.

4. Norman broke the law by openly carrying his gun.


SCOTUS majority analysis:

Gee people, what more could you want? Pass.

 

[teratos]

I don't think the SCOTUS will touch Norman.

SCOTUS optical lens:

1. Florida has a liberal shall issue concealed carry law.

2. Norman had a concealed carry permit.

3. The duly elected legislators have determined as a matter of public safety carry is allowed, but only concealed carry.

4. Norman broke the law by openly carrying his gun.


SCOTUS majority analysis:

Gee people, what more could you want? Pass.

This would be my guess. Isn't there a State Supreme Court case from Georgia in the 1800's that said you didn't need concealed carry because there was open carry? As long as you allow one, you can disallow the other. I can't remember the name of the case....

 

[GlocksAndPatriots]

This would be my guess. Isn't there a State Supreme Court case from Georgia in the 1800's that said you didn't need concealed carry because there was open carry? As long as you allow one, you can disallow the other. I can't remember the name of the case....

And you can even disallow both, as long as you have a process (in theory) with which to get a permit!

 

[teratos]

And you can even disallow both, as long as you have a process (in theory) with which to get a permit!

If you have a process to get a permit (must be shall-issue) you have not disallowed both.

 

[press1280]

This would be my guess. Isn't there a State Supreme Court case from Georgia in the 1800's that said you didn't need concealed carry because there was open carry? As long as you allow one, you can disallow the other. I can't remember the name of the case....

You're probably thinking of Nunn. There's also Chandler from around the same period. In effect they said concealed carry was a nefarious practice but open carry was noble as well as the "protected" form of carry.

The Norman opinion runs completely contrary to those. I'm curious whether SCOTUS would view that as a split or they're more focused on opinions post-Heller. In any event Norman and Peruta come to opposite conclusions on whether concealed carry (shall issue) is a protected alternative in the face of an OC ban.

 

[press1280]

I don't think the SCOTUS will touch Norman.

SCOTUS optical lens:

1. Florida has a liberal shall issue concealed carry law.
Yes, however SCOTUS has shown they won't touch a restrictive CCW law either.
2. Norman had a concealed carry permit.
Probably would help the case since he's obviously not a prohibited person.

3. The duly elected legislators have determined as a matter of public safety carry is allowed, but only concealed carry.
This is actually the weakest part of the state's defense. I believed (and still do) that the state's attorney is purposely trying to tank the OC law without literally abandoning it. Their defense was literally that it was a "policy choice" which should have been game over except that the FLSC is packed with activists who made the defense FOR the state.

4. Norman broke the law by openly carrying his gun.
That probably doesn't help Norman, but it's not like he shot anyone or robbed a bank.


SCOTUS majority analysis:

Gee people, what more could you want? Pass.

But they could say just that, and as long as they hold with the FL Supremes' reasoning about shall-issue, we win (Peruta is vindicated in a back-door manner).

 

[shacklefordbanks]

But they could say just that, and as long as they hold with the FL Supremes' reasoning about shall-issue, we win (Peruta is vindicated in a back-door manner).

I don't see how the SCOTUS denying cert (pass) in Norman helps anything.

Also, the point I was trying to make is that majority of SCOTUS justices would see things the way they want to see them and just pick and choose the arguments that supported their view. Just like the FL Supremes did. Well maybe not so clumsily. Then just decide to deny cert. No help.

 

[GlocksAndPatriots]

If you have a process to get a permit (must be shall-issue) you have not disallowed both.

Right, but a bunch of states don't, and the Supreme Court is still okay with it.

 

[mom2mymonkeys]

Unbelievable how these states work.

 

[press1280]

I don't see how the SCOTUS denying cert (pass) in Norman helps anything.

Also, the point I was trying to make is that majority of SCOTUS justices would see things the way they want to see them and just pick and choose the arguments that supported their view. Just like the FL Supremes did. Well maybe not so clumsily. Then just decide to deny cert. No help.

No, I meant if SCOTUS takes Norman and affirms.

If they pass on it then we're no better off.

 

[Inigoes]

By my calculations if Norman's clock got restarted on April 13, after the denial.

Then Norman has to petition for cert by July 12, which is about TWO WEEKS from today

 

[jcutonilli]

Right, but a bunch of states don't, and the Supreme Court is still okay with it.

You sound like the Washington post on the subject. Just because SCOTUS denies cert does not mean that they accept the results. It only means that they are not going to take the case.

 

[GlocksAndPatriots]

You sound like the Washington post on the subject. Just because SCOTUS denies cert does not mean that they accept the results. It only means that they are not going to take the case.

Yeah, in theory. But when the Supreme Court continually passes on cases, leaving in place numerous Circuit Court decisions that eviscerate the right, at some point, the Supreme Court is implicitly supporting it.

 

[Elliotte]

You sound like the Washington post on the subject. Just because SCOTUS denies cert does not mean that they accept the results. It only means that they are not going to take the case.

Legally, it doesn't mean that SCOTUS is ok with the results, but it does mean the results aren't so egregious in their minds that SCOTUS must step in and correct it. Its a lot like speeding, it's against the law, the cops have every right to stop anyone going 1+ mph over the limit, and the volume of cars is such that the cops could never stop everyone that speeds. People that speed know its against the law, but the ratio of speeding tickets received to times not caught speeding is such that people do it anyways. At least until they see the cops watching closely and/or pulling people over.

 

[jcutonilli]

Yeah, in theory. But when the Supreme Court continually passes on cases, leaving in place numerous Circuit Court decisions that eviscerate the right, at some point, the Supreme Court is implicitly supporting it.

Legally, it doesn't mean that SCOTUS is ok with the results, but it does mean the results aren't so egregious in their minds that SCOTUS must step in and correct it. Its a lot like speeding, it's against the law, the cops have every right to stop anyone going 1+ mph over the limit, and the volume of cars is such that the cops could never stop everyone that speeds. People that speed know its against the law, but the ratio of speeding tickets received to times not caught speeding is such that people do it anyways. At least until they see the cops watching closely and/or pulling people over.

First of all, we live in an adversarial system. It is not the courts job to figure things out. If you look at the cases that they have denied cert, everyone except Peruta has said individual rights can be curtailed due to public safety concerns. Peruta tried to get around the historic precedent without addressing the historical precedent. Both of these issues have been upheld as valid by the court in the general sense.

If you listen to any of the justices speak, they will say the correctness of the decision is not a factor. There were already at least two trials where the issue of correctness was decided. One of the main factors they look for are differences in how the cases are decided. Circuit splits are a good indication when this occurs. They tend to review cases that overturn laws. They look for systematic issues and ignore the correctness of specific cases.

If you want SCOTUS to address the 2A issue, you need to frame the issue differently; either by making different arguments or addressing why intermediate scrutiny was wrong. Norman does neither.

 

[GlocksAndPatriots]

First of all, we live in an adversarial system. It is not the courts job to figure things out. If you look at the cases that they have denied cert, everyone except Peruta has said individual rights can be curtailed due to public safety concerns. Peruta tried to get around the historic precedent without addressing the historical precedent. Both of these issues have been upheld as valid by the court in the general sense.

If you listen to any of the justices speak, they will say the correctness of the decision is not a factor. There were already at least two trials where the issue of correctness was decided. One of the main factors they look for are differences in how the cases are decided. Circuit splits are a good indication when this occurs. They tend to review cases that overturn laws. They look for systematic issues and ignore the correctness of specific cases.

If you want SCOTUS to address the 2A issue, you need to frame the issue differently; either by making different arguments or addressing why intermediate scrutiny was wrong. Norman does neither.

I don't know why you're such an apologist for the bad-faith judiciary. There's literally NO argument anyone could make that would make these leftist hacks change their minds.

 

[press1280]

First of all, we live in an adversarial system. It is not the courts job to figure things out. If you look at the cases that they have denied cert, everyone except Peruta has said individual rights can be curtailed due to public safety concerns. Peruta tried to get around the historic precedent without addressing the historical precedent. Both of these issues have been upheld as valid by the court in the general sense.

If you listen to any of the justices speak, they will say the correctness of the decision is not a factor. There were already at least two trials where the issue of correctness was decided. One of the main factors they look for are differences in how the cases are decided. Circuit splits are a good indication when this occurs. They tend to review cases that overturn laws. They look for systematic issues and ignore the correctness of specific cases.

If you want SCOTUS to address the 2A issue, you need to frame the issue differently; either by making different arguments or addressing why intermediate scrutiny was wrong. Norman does neither.

I think because we win under true intermediate scrutiny; the Circuit Courts are using rational basis and calling it intermediate. Literally ANY reason in their minds overcomes intermediate scrutiny.

 

[jcutonilli]

I don't know why you're such an apologist for the bad-faith judiciary. There's literally NO argument anyone could make that would make these leftist hacks change their minds.

I think because we win under true intermediate scrutiny; the Circuit Courts are using rational basis and calling it intermediate. Literally ANY reason in their minds overcomes intermediate scrutiny.

I don't see the judiciary as the problem at this point. There has only been one real argument presented (individual right vs public safety). That does not cover all possible arguments.

If you want the court to evaluate that they have been using rational basis instead of intermediate scrutiny you need to actually make that argument. Show me where anyone has submitted a reasoned argument on the subject. One sentence is not a reasoned argument.

 

[Inigoes]

I don't see the judiciary as the problem at this point. There has only been one real argument presented (individual right vs public safety). That does not cover all possible arguments.

If you want the court to evaluate that they have been using rational basis instead of intermediate scrutiny you need to actually make that argument. Show me where anyone has submitted a reasoned argument on the subject. One sentence is not a reasoned argument.

Look to Caetano, it was 9-0