Norman v. State (FL) Open Carry lawsuit

Inigoes · Jul 11, 2017

motorcoachdoug said:
It is well written and I for one will be interested to see if SCOTUS does grant cert. IMO i believe they will take it and grant cert. As to how this will help us here in MD if they do prevail I would like the legal eagles here to respond and let the rest of us who are not well versed in legalese what would happen if they did strike down FL law against open carry..

Pretty much a Caetano remake. If the court holds OC is part of the right to bear arms for self defense and all lawful purposes, That means the states are against strict scrutiny.

Plan on lots of lawsuits to strike down any OC prohibitions, because the states will have to defend those prohibitions are narrowly tailored for a specific government interest. The states will no longer be able to safe "public safety" without a darn good reason.

Bigfoot21075 · Jul 11, 2017

This was in Brietbart today;

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...rry-asks-scotus-rule-open-carry-outside-home/

press1280 · Jul 11, 2017

shacklefordbanks said:
Charles Nichols is hopping mad that Norman's lawyers did not take his advice in structuring the cert brief.

Isn't Nichols like 0 to 2 or 3 in his lawsuits so far? 0 to 0 in SCOTUS so far and just as likely to be shot down by the 9th circuit as anybody with a gun. (pun intended)

Probably because if Norman wins then all of Nichols' claims are validated and he wins automatically. With Norman only challenging handgun OC, Nichols would still have some work to do.
But I still don't see why he thinks that Norman passing on long gun carry is going to mean cert denied.

motorcoachdoug · Jul 11, 2017

I guess we will not find out if SCOTUS will grand cert until the end of Oct.

jcutonilli · Jul 11, 2017

Inigoes said:
Pretty much a Caetano remake. If the court holds OC is part of the right to bear arms for self defense and all lawful purposes, That means the states are against strict scrutiny.

Plan on lots of lawsuits to strike down any OC prohibitions, because the states will have to defend those prohibitions are narrowly tailored for a specific government interest. The states will no longer be able to safe "public safety" without a darn good reason.

I don't see that Norman is a Caetano remake. The court in Norman never said OC was not part of the right. If they said that then Norman would be like Caetano. The court said that Norman could still exercise the right (self defense outside the home) but that there were extenuating circumstances (public safety issues) that allowed the government to restrict particular aspects of the right. This makes the case more like Woollard or Friedman, which have been denied cert by SCOTUS.

Inigoes · Jul 11, 2017

jcutonilli said:
I don't see that Norman is a Caetano remake. The court in Norman never said OC was not part of the right. If they said that then Norman would be like Caetano. The court said that Norman could still exercise the right (self defense outside the home) but that there were extenuating circumstances (public safety issues) that allowed the government to restrict particular aspects of the right. This makes the case more like Woollard or Friedman, which have been denied cert by SCOTUS.

We were discussing how to get a remedy to apply in Maryland, if Norman prevailed. It took a lot of lawsuits to get the stun gun laws rescinded at the state and local levels.

We were not discussing the content of the case.

777GSOTB · Jul 11, 2017

jcutonilli said:
I don't see that Norman is a Caetano remake. The court in Norman never said OC was not part of the right. If they said that then Norman would be like Caetano. The court said that Norman could still exercise the right (self defense outside the home) but that there were extenuating circumstances (public safety issues) that allowed the government to restrict particular aspects of the right. This makes the case more like Woollard or Friedman, which have been denied cert by SCOTUS.

Too bad the Heller court clearly indicated its position on a states regulatory powers involving the public's safety to that of carrying concealed weapons only...Somehow you've let this liberal mindset of "public safety" convince you that it must be historically rebutted to overcome. It already has through numerous 19th century courts that have concluded that the open carrying of firearms, in PUBLIC, can not be prohibited. We will surely find out in Oct. who is correct in regards to this. Certiorari will be granted and I'll buy you a $50 steak dinner if I'm wrong.

krucam · Jul 11, 2017

In spite of what all the earlier cases said about Open carry being protected, added to that what the CA9 en banc court said about Concealed not being protected....I feel that if (actually big IF) the Court takes this one, they address only "Bear" and that it IS protected.

Essentially, Norman would likely lose since FL offers a freely available Concealed license, which satisfies "Bear". The States would be allowed to choose their preferred Manner of Carry.

This would then require a new round of cases in CA9/CA4/CA3 & CA2, stating that the right exists outside the home. I don't see how this gets restrictive May Issue States into the Shall Issue world. I don't believe every legislature will act as they did in IL.

777GSOTB · Jul 11, 2017

krucam said:
In spite of what all the earlier cases said about Open carry being protected, added to that what the CA9 en banc court said about Concealed not being protected....I feel that if (actually big IF) the Court takes this one, they address only "Bear" and that it IS protected.

Essentially, Norman would likely lose since FL offers a freely available Concealed license, which satisfies "Bear". The States would be allowed to choose their preferred Manner of Carry.

This would then require a new round of cases in CA9/CA4/CA3 & CA2, stating that the right exists outside the home. I don't see how this gets restrictive May Issue States into the Shall Issue world. I don't believe every legislature will act as they did in IL.

Norman was arrested for open carrying a firearm outside the home. The case thus involves bearing arms, OPENLY, outside the home. Having to ask permission from the government to exercise a fundamental right violates substantive due process. Florida can regulate concealed carry through its licensing scheme, but may not license or prohibit the right to open carry.

MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

"This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution."

"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution."

"The tax imposed by the City of Jeannette is a flat license tax, the payment of which is a condition of the exercise of these constitutional privileges. The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment."

"It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant [319 U.S. 105, 113] if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax – a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution."

"It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U. S. 174, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution."

kcbrown · Jul 11, 2017

The Supreme Court will deny cert. It has nothing to do with the merits of the case. It has nothing to do with whether or not the plaintiff was convicted of violating the law.

It has everything to do with the apparent fact that the Court, for political reasons, has insufficient support for the right to arms to take any case except when the plaintiff's plight is "heart wrenching" (abused homeless woman faced with imminent attack), the situation is innocuous (non-lethal weapon), and the lower court decision's "reasoning" is identical to that which the Court previously found to be "bordering on the frivolous".

We'll get no relief from the Supreme Court until its composition changes, period.

press1280 · Jul 11, 2017

krucam said:
In spite of what all the earlier cases said about Open carry being protected, added to that what the CA9 en banc court said about Concealed not being protected....I feel that if (actually big IF) the Court takes this one, they address only "Bear" and that it IS protected.

Essentially, Norman would likely lose since FL offers a freely available Concealed license, which satisfies "Bear". The States would be allowed to choose their preferred Manner of Carry.

This would then require a new round of cases in CA9/CA4/CA3 & CA2, stating that the right exists outside the home. I don't see how this gets restrictive May Issue States into the Shall Issue world. I don't believe every legislature will act as they did in IL.

They have to come to a holding beyond that. The lower court & the state are not arguing against that point, so it would seem a waste of time for SCOTUS to rule that public carry is protected, yet provide no guidance on open or concealed.
As far as the manner, it's possible they do come to that conclusion although they could have taken Peruta and ALSO come to that very conclusion.

Wonder if we'll have a weird split where the Heller 5 (Gorsuch for Scalia) disagree on the manner, but agree on carry outside the home? Gorsuch and Thomas have pretty much stated through the Peruta dissent that may-issue is a non-starter.

777GSOTB · Jul 11, 2017

kcbrown said:
The Supreme Court will deny cert. It has nothing to do with the merits of the case. It has nothing to do with whether or not the plaintiff was convicted of violating the law.

It has everything to do with the apparent fact that the Court, for political reasons, has insufficient support for the right to arms to take any case except when the plaintiff's plight is "heart wrenching" (abused homeless woman faced with imminent attack), the situation is innocuous (non-lethal weapon), and the lower court decision's "reasoning" is identical to that which the Court previously found to be "bordering on the frivolous".

We'll get no relief from the Supreme Court until its composition changes, period.

Certiorari Granted, period....And to you a $50 steak dinner on me if I'm wrong. Sooo, take that.

kcbrown · Jul 11, 2017

777GSOTB said:
Certiorari Granted, period....And to you a $50 steak dinner on me if I'm wrong. Sooo, take that.

Sadly, I'm probably not located where I'd be able to take you up on that, so feel free to give the $50 to the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund in the (inevitable

) event you're wrong.

Let me put the case for denial of cert here in perspective. To insist that cert will be granted to this case is to simultaneously insist that, firstly, Kennedy is even more of an originalist (from the perspective of this case, at least -- I personally view Bliss as the case that is, logically, the most relevant if originalism is what one claims to adhere to) than is Thomas, in light of Thomas' dissent to denial of cert in Peruta, and, secondly, that Thomas' understanding of Heller is incorrect (since if the plaintiffs' interpretation of Heller is correct and Thomas knowingly disagreed with that interpretation, then he would have penned an independent concurrence).

CrueChief · Jul 11, 2017

kcbrown said:
The Supreme Court will deny cert. It has nothing to do with the merits of the case. It has nothing to do with whether or not the plaintiff was convicted of violating the law.

It has everything to do with the apparent fact that the Court, for political reasons, has insufficient support for the right to arms to take any case except when the plaintiff's plight is "heart wrenching" (abused homeless woman faced with imminent attack), the situation is innocuous (non-lethal weapon), and the lower court decision's "reasoning" is identical to that which the Court previously found to be "bordering on the frivolous".

We'll get no relief from the Supreme Court until its composition changes, period.[/QUOTE]

This is all anyone watching this needs to keep in mind. It sucks for the deep blue liberal states but it is the reality. To think differently is wishful thinking. And even if/when they do take a case don't think for a moment that Annapolis won't make us file our own new court case to get it to apply to MD.

Kharn · Jul 12, 2017

But they would be told to shut it down by the first federal judge to hear it on a PI.

Bigfoot21075 · Jul 12, 2017

CrueChief said:
kcbrown said:

The Supreme Court will deny cert. It has nothing to do with the merits of the case. It has nothing to do with whether or not the plaintiff was convicted of violating the law.

It has everything to do with the apparent fact that the Court, for political reasons, has insufficient support for the right to arms to take any case except when the plaintiff's plight is "heart wrenching" (abused homeless woman faced with imminent attack), the situation is innocuous (non-lethal weapon), and the lower court decision's "reasoning" is identical to that which the Court previously found to be "bordering on the frivolous".

We'll get no relief from the Supreme Court until its composition changes, period.[/QUOTE]

This is all anyone watching this needs to keep in mind. It sucks for the deep blue liberal states but it is the reality. To think differently is wishful thinking. And even if/when they do take a case don't think for a moment that Annapolis won't make us file our own new court case to get it to apply to MD.

Click to expand...

I would gleefully file that case too. that is why we fight this battle. Yes the victories are slow coming and often far and few between, but they are victories in the end. With a pro 2a administration and a now once again conservative leaning court we may be in for more regular wins....

GlocksAndPatriots · Jul 12, 2017

kcbrown said:
The Supreme Court will deny cert. It has nothing to do with the merits of the case. It has nothing to do with whether or not the plaintiff was convicted of violating the law.

It has everything to do with the apparent fact that the Court, for political reasons, has insufficient support for the right to arms to take any case except when the plaintiff's plight is "heart wrenching" (abused homeless woman faced with imminent attack), the situation is innocuous (non-lethal weapon), and the lower court decision's "reasoning" is identical to that which the Court previously found to be "bordering on the frivolous".

We'll get no relief from the Supreme Court until its composition changes, period.

^This. I'm so tired of hearing "conservatives" try to justify the decisions, based on a bad fact pattern, poor lawyering, or anything else. The fact is, the Supreme Court is composed of liberals who will rule in bad faith to reach their policy preferences. There's nothing else to it.

777GSOTB · Jul 12, 2017

kcbrown said:
Sadly, I'm probably not located where I'd be able to take you up on that, so feel free to give the $50 to the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund in the (inevitable ) event you're wrong.

Let me put the case for denial of cert here in perspective. To insist that cert will be granted to this case is to simultaneously insist that, firstly, Kennedy is even more of an originalist (from the perspective of this case, at least -- I personally view Bliss as the case that is, logically, the most relevant if originalism is what one claims to adhere to) than is Thomas, in light of Thomas' dissent to denial of cert in Peruta, and, secondly, that Thomas' understanding of Heller is incorrect (since if the plaintiffs' interpretation of Heller is correct and Thomas knowingly disagreed with that interpretation, then he would have penned an independent concurrence).

I agree with you wholeheartedly on Bliss and your originalism assessment. But from what I got from Heller, the justices have come to an understanding that concealed carry can be prohibited under the 2nd Amendment based on the jurisprudence from a majority of 19th century courts. Right or wrong, that's how they decided to meter a states public policy choice on the manner of carry...Concealed carry can be prohibited, but open carry can not be prohibited. Besides Caetano, Norman is the only other case where the plaintiff was actually injured while exercising a constitutionally protected right. His case is solidly set for review and why I believe cert will be granted. I'm going to give Kennedy the benefit of the doubt here and believe he'll properly administer justice as a signer to the Heller decision.

kcbrown · Jul 12, 2017

777GSOTB said:
I agree with you wholeheartedly on Bliss and your originalism assessment. But from what I got from Heller, the justices have come to an understanding that concealed carry can be prohibited under the 2nd Amendment based on the jurisprudence from a majority of 19th century courts.

And if Thomas hadn't penned his dissent to denial of cert in Peruta, I'd agree that your assessment of what Heller implies is, at least, plausible.

But it almost certainly cannot be in the face of that dissent.

Why? Because:

If Thomas agreed with the understanding you believe the Heller justices came to, then he wouldn't have penned the dissent to denial of cert in Peruta. So it follows that Thomas disagrees with the understanding you believe the Heller justices came to. But since that's the case, then:
If Thomas disagreed with the understanding you believe the Heller justices came to, then he would have penned a separate concurrence in Heller explaining his views, just like he did with McDonald.

Since Thomas penned a dissent to denial of cert in Peruta and did not pen a separate concurrence in Heller, it follows that Thomas disagrees with the interpretation you're using and that he believes his understanding to match that of the other Heller justices.

So either Thomas is wrong about his beliefs matching that of the other justices (highly unlikely, seeing how they were in deep discussion about the decision at the time it was being penned), or their interpretation does not match yours.

Guess which conclusion is, by far, the most likely case? Hint: it's not the first one.

777GSOTB · Jul 13, 2017

kcbrown said:
And if Thomas hadn't penned his dissent to denial of cert in Peruta, I'd agree that your assessment of what Heller implies is, at least, plausible.

But it almost certainly cannot be in the face of that dissent.

Why? Because:

If Thomas agreed with the understanding you believe the Heller justices came to, then he wouldn't have penned the dissent to denial of cert in Peruta. So it follows that Thomas disagrees with the understanding you believe the Heller justices came to. But since that's the case, then:

If Thomas disagreed with the understanding you believe the Heller justices came to, then he would have penned a separate concurrence in Heller explaining his views, just like he did with McDonald.

Since Thomas penned a dissent to denial of cert in Peruta and did not pen a separate concurrence in Heller, it follows that Thomas disagrees with the interpretation you're using and that he believes his understanding to match that of the other Heller justices.

So either Thomas is wrong about his beliefs matching that of the other justices (highly unlikely, seeing how they were in deep discussion about the decision at the time it was being penned), or their interpretation does not match yours.

Guess which conclusion is, by far, the most likely case? Hint: it's not the first one.

You forgot this one:

3. Justice Thomas doesn't seem to have the judicial restraint he should be adhering to as a supreme court justice sitting on the highest court in America.

Peruta had two options to challenge California's deprivation of his 2nd Amendment rights. Challenge the protected right of open carry(per Heller) or challenge the unprotected privilege to conceal carry. But, no, Peruta chooses the privilege to conceal carry and sought a license, and was ok with a supposedly fundamental right being licensed...Not sure how anyone could be ok with that, oh wait,...government brainwashing of its sheeple. Anyway, I'm not sure how one seeks the legal remedy to open carry by seeking a license to conceal carry...Makes no sense to me and obviously it didn't to the astute supreme court justices that would not accept certiorari. October can't come soon enough...Until then my friend, may the winds blow you back on course to the Sea Of Reality.

Norman v. State (FL) Open Carry lawsuit

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Super Genius

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Super Genius

Cocker Dad/RIP Bella

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

Active Member

Super Genius

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics