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
    Maan,...you guys are really going to be confused when they grant cert on this one.:D
     

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    More precisely, it'll take a composition change on the Court for Norman to be granted cert, or any other carry case for that matter. The Supreme Court has had plenty of opportunity to opine on the matter and has refused to (and, indeed, has refused to for any and all 2A cases save for Caetano).

    No other newly-recognized right has been treated this way by the Court. That should be a clear indication that the Court is political in nature, and not an objective arbiter of law.

    This is correct. I was perhaps being too brash and hopeful :)
     

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    There was no split (as far as I know) in Caetano. The Court took it anyway.

    That common theme is also shared by (numerous) cases involving other rights that the Court has taken.

    For the Court to demand that 2nd Amendment firearms cases somehow adhere to a standard that cases involving other rights don't have to is for the Court to treat the 2nd Amendment as a second-class right. Again, no other right has been treated this way by the Court immediately after its recognition.

    Exactly. I could see the lack of split argument if there were literally three or four cases in the circuits at the same time, and they wanted to wait for all to opine in a several month period. But given that the circuit courts have stretched these cases out over years, and in fact made some rulings that make clear that the 2nd Amendment protects absolutely nothing in practice, shows that the Supreme Court is making a political decision. Even with no split, if they were concerned with their precedent, they'd have taken a case within a year of case after case coming out of the circuits applying rational basis scrutiny to the 2nd Amendment.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,870
    WV
    There was no split (as far as I know) in Caetano. The Court took it anyway.

    That common theme is also shared by (numerous) cases involving other rights that the Court has taken.

    For the Court to demand that 2nd Amendment firearms cases somehow adhere to a standard that cases involving other rights don't have to is for the Court to treat the 2nd Amendment as a second-class right. Again, no other right has been treated this way by the Court immediately after its recognition.

    Caetano had a minor split with people v. YANNA. And, part of the reason it was taken was the reasoning was directly opposed to Heller.

    As a frame of reference, what other rights have gotten cert when no split existed?
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    Caetano had a minor split with people v. YANNA. And, part of the reason it was taken was the reasoning was directly opposed to Heller.

    As a frame of reference, what other rights have gotten cert when no split existed?

    All of them, I expect. But if you need some cases listed, then Thomas and Scalia have been gracious enough to provide a few. From their dissent to denial of cert in Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco:

    Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco said:
    The Court's refusal to review this decision is difficult to account for in light of its repeated willingness to review splitless decisions involving alleged violations of other constitutional rights. See, e.g., Glossip v. Gross, 574 U. S. ___ (2015) (cert. granted) (Eighth Amendment); Ontario v. Quon, 560 U. S. 746 (2010) (Fourth Amendment); Hill v. Colorado, 530 U. S. 703 (2000) (First Amendment). Indeed, the Court has been willing to review splitless decisions involving alleged violations of rights it has never previously enforced. See, e.g., BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U. S. 559 (1996) (right to limit on punitive damages awards). And it has even gone so far as to review splitless decisions involving alleged violations of rights expressly foreclosed by precedent. See, e.g., Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U. S. 723 (2008) (right of aliens held outside U. S. territory to the privilege of habeas corpus); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in adult, consensual same-sex intimate behavior). I see no reason that challenges based on Second Amendment rights should be treated differently.

    I expect that there are quite a few more. Identifying them properly probably requires going to rather great lengths, e.g. examining cert pool memos.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    When do we get the denial notice?

    You obviously are not basing that position off of the fact that not one previous carry case prior to Norman had an injured party involving a fundamental right...Just a crystal ball guess.

    Being arrested for exercising the fundamental right of open carrying a firearm for self-defense outside the home will compel this courts review mechanism, otherwise known as...certiorari granted:D
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    You obviously are not basing that position off of the fact that not one previous carry case prior to Norman had an injured party involving a fundamental right...Just a crystal ball guess.



    Being arrested for exercising the fundamental right of open carrying a firearm for self-defense outside the home will compel this courts review mechanism, otherwise known as...certiorari granted:D


    Williams v Maryland proves that an injured party being injured by a law that imposes upon a fundamental right isn't sufficient. Now, Williams wasn't necessarily carrying openly while Norman clearly was. Maybe that'll make the difference. Certainly, the argument put forth in Norman is the one that the "open carry is the only protected manner of carry" folks have been making, and that sets it apart from the rest.

    But I very much doubt it'll make any difference at all. You'll see for yourself soon enough that the Court is an entirely (or near enough as makes no difference) political animal.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    Williams v Maryland proves that an injured party being injured by a law that imposes upon a fundamental right isn't sufficient. Now, Williams wasn't necessarily carrying openly while Norman clearly was. Maybe that'll make the difference. Certainly, the argument put forth in Norman is the one that the "open carry is the only protected manner of carry" folks have been making, and that sets it apart from the rest.

    But I very much doubt it'll make any difference at all. You'll see for yourself soon enough that the Court is an entirely (or near enough as makes no difference) political animal.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Williams HAD a constitutional argument had he left the firearm(and it was unloaded) in his backpack as the right to KEEP arms obviously would allow their transport to ones home. In an unloaded condition, a firearm is obviously not being used for self-defense and therefore, should be outside the purview of a states licensing requirements...The courts will have to settle this point at some time of course. As it is, he decided to conceal the loaded firearm in some bushes...Therefore, he was neither keeping nor bearing arms under 2nd Amendment protections. A least that's the way I see it.

    On the last point...I do hope you are wrong. If not, your point will be an absolute, undeniable truth.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    You obviously are not basing that position off of the fact that not one previous carry case prior to Norman had an injured party involving a fundamental right...Just a crystal ball guess.

    Being arrested for exercising the fundamental right of open carrying a firearm for self-defense outside the home will compel this courts review mechanism, otherwise known as...certiorari granted:D

    I am basing on the facts that a)99% of cases get denied and b) the court has not had an appetite for taking 2nd amendment cases. I have not seen one scintilla of evidence that 5 justices on this court currently think "open carry" is the true right. 2 or at most 3 justices, perhaps. Generously. Certainly not enough for cert, let alone a majority opinion. After Peruta, I'd be shocked if we even get a dissent from denial.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,870
    WV
    Williams v Maryland proves that an injured party being injured by a law that imposes upon a fundamental right isn't sufficient. Now, Williams wasn't necessarily carrying openly while Norman clearly was. Maybe that'll make the difference. Certainly, the argument put forth in Norman is the one that the "open carry is the only protected manner of carry" folks have been making, and that sets it apart from the rest.

    But I very much doubt it'll make any difference at all. You'll see for yourself soon enough that the Court is an entirely (or near enough as makes no difference) political animal.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Williams is a bad example. For one thing he never applied for a CCW. I doubt the court will want to find a right to carry AND strike down a permit requirement in one fell swoop. Another thing is Williams was so early after McDonald that the court simply wasn't going to take another case that fast.

    This case is so much more unique in that there's no advocates in this case for NO public carry. IMO-this makes it so a "compromise" can be made. If the votes aren't there for Norman, then they can take the state's position and hold shall-issue CCW is an acceptable substitute.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,273
    SoMD / West PA
    Williams is a bad example. For one thing he never applied for a CCW. I doubt the court will want to find a right to carry AND strike down a permit requirement in one fell swoop. Another thing is Williams was so early after McDonald that the court simply wasn't going to take another case that fast.

    This case is so much more unique in that there's no advocates in this case for NO public carry. IMO-this makes it so a "compromise" can be made. If the votes aren't there for Norman, then they can take the state's position and hold shall-issue CCW is an acceptable substitute.

    Recognizing Concealed carry will throw out hundreds of years of precedent.

    Courts will probably accept licensed open carry for a start.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    Williams is a bad example. For one thing he never applied for a CCW. I doubt the court will want to find a right to carry AND strike down a permit requirement in one fell swoop.

    Frankly, I doubt the Court will want to strike down a permit requirement at all. "Public safety" and all that, you know. :facepalm:


    Another thing is Williams was so early after McDonald that the court simply wasn't going to take another case that fast.

    Maybe so and maybe not. The Court decided Brown v Board of Education on May 17, 1954. The next case it decided after that was Brown II, on May 31, 1955. Then came Browder v Gayle, decided on November 13, 1956, then NAACP v Alabama on June 30, 1958, then Cooper v Aaron on September 11, 1958. Starting to see a pattern there?

    Compare and contrast with the right to arms, which save for the gutless per curium opinion in Caetano v Massachusetts has received absolutely no attention whatsoever.

    We had absolutely every right to expect the Supreme Court to actually back its claims in Heller and McDonald with further action. It hasn't, and I all but knew that they wouldn't after they declined cert to Kachalsky. Their treatment of the right to arms has been a judicial travesty of the highest order, proving beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever that the Supreme Court is a political institution and not an objective arbiter of law.

    And honestly, how can anyone with any ability to think whatsoever truly claim otherwise with a straight face? After all, the members are nominated by politicians for political reasons. How could they not be political when the motives of those who selected them are purely political?


    This case is so much more unique in that there's no advocates in this case for NO public carry. IMO-this makes it so a "compromise" can be made. If the votes aren't there for Norman, then they can take the state's position and hold shall-issue CCW is an acceptable substitute.

    If the votes aren't there for Norman, then the Court will take no position whatsoever. It will decline cert just as it has for every single 2A firearms case since McDonald. Why? Because it's the safest political move it can make. After all, if it denies cert, then the existing decision stands and the Supreme Court can claim to have "clean hands".

    The Supreme Court is now populated by a bunch of gutless wimps, save for Thomas, Gorsuch, and maybe Alito. Nobody else on the Court is truly willing to back the right to arms anymore, save perhaps when the arm is relatively harmless, the plaintiff is a woman, and the plaintiff's situation is sufficiently heart-wrenching to cause the liberals on the bench to cry.


    Bitter? You're goddamned right I am. :mad54:
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    I am basing on the facts that a)99% of cases get denied and

    Yup, 99% were denied because not a single case had a damaged party as a result of all those state concealed carry license laws. The one case that the court took on per curiam, was Caetano, and she was damaged while exercising her 2nd Amendment right.


    b) the court has not had an appetite for taking 2nd amendment cases.

    That's because they follow certain self governing rules...Sometimes they are followed to the letter and sometimes not. The ONE time someone was ACTUALLY damaged by a state law involving a 2nd Amendment right(Caetano), they reviewed it per curiam.


    I have not seen one scintilla of evidence that 5 justices on this court currently think "open carry" is the true right. 2 or at most 3 justices, perhaps. Generously. Certainly not enough for cert, let alone a majority opinion.

    They certainly did in Heller...I've presented more than enough evidence on that point in previous posts. Also, how can you make such an assumption, when there hasn't been one,..not one, case brought to the court that involved open carry...Norman is the first absolutely clean open carry case to be brought before the court.


    After Peruta, I'd be shocked if we even get a dissent from denial.

    Peruta wanted a license to carry a concealed firearm...There is no right to carry concealed firearms under the 2nd Amendment. The 9th Circuit got it completely right on their Peruta decision...You, like many others, are in a state on denial on that point.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    Whether there is a split depends how one frames the question.

    From the brief...

    The decision below also does not conflict with the post - Heller decision of any other court. Some post - Heller lower courts have held that the Second Amendment protects a right to carry arms in public for self - defense. E .g. , Wrenn v. District of Columbia , 864 F.3d 650 , 667 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ; Moore , 702 F.3d at 942 . Other courts have either rejected that position or otherwise upheld severe restrictions that effectively deny any right of armed self - defense beyond the home . E .g. , Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego , 824 F.3d 919 , 924 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) , cert. denied , 137 S. Ct. 1995 (2017); Drake , 724 F.3d at 440 , cert. denied sub nom. Drake v. Jerejian , 134 S. Ct. 2134 (2014); Woollar d v. Gallagher , 712 F.3d 865 , 882 (4th Cir. 2013) , cert. denied , 134 S. Ct. 422 (2013); Kachalsky v. Cty. of Westchester , 701 F.3d 81 , 101 (2d Cir. 2012) , cert. denied sub nom. Kachalsky v. Cacace , 133 S. Ct. 1806 (2013); Hightower v. Boston , 693 F.3d 61 , 65 (1st Cir. 2012) ; Commonwealth v. Gouse , 965 N.E.2d 774 , 802 (Mass. 2012) ; Williams v. State , 10 A.3d 1167 , 1169 (Md. 2011) , cert. denied sub nom. Williams v. Maryland , 565 U.S. 815 (2011); Wooden v. United States , 6 A.3d 833 , 841 (D.C. 2010) . Still others have upheld restrictions on concealed carry while being careful not to signal approval for total carry bans. E.g. , Peterson v. Martinez , 707 F.3d 1197 , 1209 (10th Cir. 2013)

    There is a clear split, if framed as the right to public carry.

    The Supreme Court could take this case and affirm the lower court decision. That would still be a win for public carry.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,702
    Messages
    7,249,025
    Members
    33,310
    Latest member
    Skarface

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom