Norman v. State (FL) Open Carry lawsuit

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • 777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    Mabe they are hoping that SCOTUS will deny cert in the case... If they grant cert then FLA will be in a world of hurt ....

    Florida lost their case when they erred in concluding that a fundamental right can be substituted with a licensed privilege...The hole in that ship is too big to fix, with or without a response.
     
    Last edited:

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,570
    Hazzard County
    In a perfect world that would be true.
    But in a world where there are nine humans on a bench, it matters if Thomas and Gorsuch can find sufficient votes to grant cert...
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,869
    WV
    Florida lost their case when they erred in concluding that a fundamental right can be substituted with a licensed privilege...The hole in that ship is too big to fix, with or without a response.

    This assumes that there are 5 votes on SCOTUS to rule licensing is unconstitutional. Highly unlikely considering how many cases they have passed on.
    Licensing (in and of itself) will not play a part in this case.

    It's now been distributed for the big conference 9/25 https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-68.html

    If SCOTUS requests a response this will be pushed to another conference.
     

    frogman68

    товарищ плачевная
    Apr 7, 2013
    8,774
    What I find disheartening is in the last two days, Bill Clinton's first choice for SCOTUS has died . That seat went to Ginsberg and the judge who was the deciding vote to rule NY'S death penalty unconstitutional have died. Still hoping Ginsberg follows suit soon
     

    motorcoachdoug

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Na. She hates Trump so much that will keep her alive until Trump leaves office then she will let herself leave this world. Its amazing that hating a person that much will keep her alive and give her the willpower to live. Wonder what will happen if Trump is reelected? Will she stay alive or go in a fit of rage because he didnt lose the election like she wanted him to lose.....
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    This assumes that there are 5 votes on SCOTUS to rule licensing is unconstitutional. Highly unlikely considering how many cases they have passed on.
    Licensing (in and of itself) will not play a part in this case.

    It's now been distributed for the big conference 9/25 https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-68.html

    If SCOTUS requests a response this will be pushed to another conference.

    A state can't charge a fee to exercise a fundamental right protected by the federal constitution. Stare Decisis....MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

    "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."

    "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."

    Also, a license is not the least restrictive. A certificate of competence would meet that requirement quite nicely...We'll see if Friday plays that card if need be. He knows about it, as I sent off an email to him...Quite possibly flew right over his head though.

    Your statistical thinking is flawed...They've only passed on one other open carry case and Embody failed to exhaust all his administrative remedy's in that one. We also have an actual injured party with Norman, in which, all other cases have failed to bring forth.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,869
    WV
    1st test passed for Norman, SCOTUS has requested a response, due September 11th.

    The page on the SCOTUS website has that weird glitch again where some get the latest version and others only see the cert petition.
     

    StogieC

    Member
    Feb 4, 2016
    5
    I believe it only takes one justice to ask for it.. but I might be wrong... what say our legal eagle? :mdpatriot:

    Each Justice is assigned to oversee petitions submitted from the various jurisdictions of one or more circuit. Petitions from Florida, being in the 11th Cir., are referred to Associate Justice Clarence Thomas :party29:
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,869
    WV
    Each Justice is assigned to oversee petitions submitted from the various jurisdictions of one or more circuit. Petitions from Florida, being in the 11th Cir., are referred to Associate Justice Clarence Thomas :party29:

    Wish it would have been from Kennedy or Roberts. Thomas seems to be a shoe-in at this point.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    A state can't charge a fee to exercise a fundamental right protected by the federal constitution. Stare Decisis....MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

    "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."

    "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."

    Then explain Kwong v de Blasio (a.k.a. Kwong v Bloomberg), and (much more importantly) why the Supreme Court denied cert there, rather than granting and reversing.

    No, a fee can't be charged for the exercise of a fundamental Constitutional right except when that right is the right to keep and bear arms.

    The right to keep and bear arms is clearly the exceptional case as regards essentially every Constitutional rule in the book. It is, essentially, the only Constitutionally-protected right that is actually a privilege in nearly every way. That will remain the case until the composition on the Supreme Court substantially changes in our favor.

    As of now, the 2nd Amendment basically protects nothing.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    Then explain Kwong v de Blasio (a.k.a. Kwong v Bloomberg), and (much more importantly) why the Supreme Court denied cert there, rather than granting and reversing.

    No, a fee can't be charged for the exercise of a fundamental Constitutional right except when that right is the right to keep and bear arms.

    The right to keep and bear arms is clearly the exceptional case as regards essentially every Constitutional rule in the book. It is, essentially, the only Constitutionally-protected right that is actually a privilege in nearly every way. That will remain the case until the composition on the Supreme Court substantially changes in our favor.

    As of now, the 2nd Amendment basically protects nothing.

    I don't think you understand the importance of there being an injured party for a certiorari to be granted. Who got arrested in that case?...The answer is, nobody did and in fact, they all paid the license fee without objection. That's a clear waiver of right, right there. Which then means that, nobody was exercising a constitutionally protected right and had that right violated by the state...There's the error which prevented certiorari. If the court is conducting themselves as you say they are, they will not take Norman...I believe they will. With that said, I do hope you're wrong.
     

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    I don't think you understand the importance of there being an injured party for a certiorari to be granted. Who got arrested in that case?...The answer is, nobody did and in fact, they all paid the license fee without objection. That's a clear waiver of right, right there. Which then means that, nobody was exercising a constitutionally protected right and had that right violated by the state...There's the error which prevented certiorari. If the court is conducting themselves as you say they are, they will not take Norman...I believe they will. With that said, I do hope you're wrong.

    With all due respect, it doesn't do our side any favor for conservatives to make excuses for liberal malfeasance. Every case from the judiciary post MacDonald has been in bad faith. Period. Saying, "There was no injured party" or "It wasn't the right case" is just delusion.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,869
    WV
    I don't think you understand the importance of there being an injured party for a certiorari to be granted. Who got arrested in that case?...The answer is, nobody did and in fact, they all paid the license fee without objection. That's a clear waiver of right, right there. Which then means that, nobody was exercising a constitutionally protected right and had that right violated by the state...There's the error which prevented certiorari. If the court is conducting themselves as you say they are, they will not take Norman...I believe they will. With that said, I do hope you're wrong.

    The courts are trying to have it both ways. On one hand, you can't get standing to sue without paying for the license. On the other hand, you pay the fee so obviously you can afford it and weren't harmed.
     

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    Then explain Kwong v de Blasio (a.k.a. Kwong v Bloomberg), and (much more importantly) why the Supreme Court denied cert there, rather than granting and reversing.

    No, a fee can't be charged for the exercise of a fundamental Constitutional right except when that right is the right to keep and bear arms.

    The right to keep and bear arms is clearly the exceptional case as regards essentially every Constitutional rule in the book. It is, essentially, the only Constitutionally-protected right that is actually a privilege in nearly every way. That will remain the case until the composition on the Supreme Court substantially changes in our favor.

    As of now, the 2nd Amendment basically protects nothing.

    Right, when you have courts ruling that it's not the job of the judiciary to second guess the legislatures, but of course ONLY when it comes to laws affecting guns, the 2nd Amendment protects nothing.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    With all due respect, it doesn't do our side any favor for conservatives to make excuses for liberal malfeasance. Every case from the judiciary post MacDonald has been in bad faith. Period. Saying, "There was no injured party" or "It wasn't the right case" is just delusion.

    Hardly delusional, you've got to know how to play the game...If the court doesn't take Norman, we clearly have a rogue court on our hands, as Norman was damaged(arrested) for exercising a fundamental right protected by the federal constitution.

    U.S. Supreme Court
    ASHWANDER v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288 (1936)

    Mr. Justice BRANDEIS (concurring)

    The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:


    5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation. 6 Tyler v. Judges, etc., 179 U. [297 U.S. 288, 348] * S. 405, 21 S.Ct. 206; Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 621 , 35 S.Ct. 140. Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the right of challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right. Thus, the challenge by a public official interested only in the performance of his official duty will not be entertained. Columbus & Greenville Ry. Co. v. Miller, 283 U.S. 96, 99 , 100 S., 51 S.Ct. 392. In Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126 , 42 S.Ct. 274, the Court affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a citizen who sought to have the Nineteenth Amendment declared unconstitutional. In Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 , 43 S.Ct. 597, the challenge of the federal Maternity Act was not entertained although made by the commonwealth on behalf of all its citizens.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,473
    Then explain Kwong v de Blasio (a.k.a. Kwong v Bloomberg), and (much more importantly) why the Supreme Court denied cert there, rather than granting and reversing.

    No, a fee can't be charged for the exercise of a fundamental Constitutional right except when that right is the right to keep and bear arms.

    The right to keep and bear arms is clearly the exceptional case as regards essentially every Constitutional rule in the book. It is, essentially, the only Constitutionally-protected right that is actually a privilege in nearly every way. That will remain the case until the composition on the Supreme Court substantially changes in our favor.

    As of now, the 2nd Amendment basically protects nothing.

    I would suggest that you read the 2CA decision. It seems self explanatory to me. "The Supreme Court's “fee jurisprudence” has historically addressed the constitutionality of fees charged by governmental entities on expressive activities protected by the First Amendment—such as fees charged to hold a rally or parade." It was determined that the fees did not exceed the costs so it was acceptable. It is the same public safety issue you see in other cases. It is not limited to the 2A. SCOTUS passed on the issue because it is not inconsistent with what it has said in the past on similar issues.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    The courts are trying to have it both ways. On one hand, you can't get standing to sue without paying for the license. On the other hand, you pay the fee so obviously you can afford it and weren't harmed.

    You're mostly right,..the courts are not making it easy. Voluntarily signing an application for a license is a waiver of any rights that may be involved. One can contract(license application) away every right they have. The best option in that case would have been for someone to get arrested for not having the license. Of course you're not going to get anyone to do that if the penalty is a felony. We could easily find out just how rogue the court is by redoing Friedman v Highland Park...But with an actual damage with someone getting arrested for possessing an "assault weapon" for self-defense. It's a misdemeanor charge of up to 6mos in jail, so there is no lose of ones 2nd Amendment rights...I would volunteer to do that with financial support during time in jail. And if I were Wayne LaPierre, I'd do it on my own dime, but we all know what he's all about. The fact that we can't get any retired gun guy to do something along these lines, is pretty pathetic in a country of 300 million people...Pretty sad. So now we wait for a circuit split.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,702
    Messages
    7,249,001
    Members
    33,310
    Latest member
    Skarface

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom