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!
  • GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    Whether there is a split depends how one frames the question.

    From the brief...



    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.

    Right, but how does that split implicate the Florida Supreme Court decision?
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,870
    WV
    Right, but how does that split implicate the Florida Supreme Court decision?

    That particular split doesn't. What does implicate that is Nunn and Chandler holding the OC is the right, and Peruta's holding that CC is not protected, regardless of what the OC law happens to be. There's also the Baldwin dicta.

    While our side has been pushing the "OC can be banned if shall issue CCW is available" , no other high level courts have held this until the FL supremes opinion.
     

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    That particular split doesn't. What does implicate that is Nunn and Chandler holding the OC is the right, and Peruta's holding that CC is not protected, regardless of what the OC law happens to be. There's also the Baldwin dicta.

    While our side has been pushing the "OC can be banned if shall issue CCW is available" , no other high level courts have held this until the FL supremes opinion.

    Fair enough, but I can see the Supreme Court framing the question as broadly or narrowly as it desires.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    Fair enough, but I can see the Supreme Court framing the question as broadly or narrowly as it desires.

    Of course they will!

    I mentioned in the Wrenn thread, in my estimation, the odds of the Court taking this went way up now that D.C. has declined to pursue Wrenn. This case has a quite a number of things going for it. Not the least of which its a State Supreme Court interpreting the US constitution. They may just want to put their stamp of approval on it. :D Or even better, say you cannot outright ban either on flimsy evidence (I doubt this). Or even further, open carry is the core right. :ohnoes:

    Now that Wrenn is done, I am wondering if SAF will file an amicus brief and urge the court to take this.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,870
    WV
    Of course they will!

    I mentioned in the Wrenn thread, in my estimation, the odds of the Court taking this went way up now that D.C. has declined to pursue Wrenn. This case has a quite a number of things going for it. Not the least of which its a State Supreme Court interpreting the US constitution. They may just want to put their stamp of approval on it. :D Or even better, say you cannot outright ban either on flimsy evidence (I doubt this). Or even further, open carry is the core right. :ohnoes:

    Now that Wrenn is done, I am wondering if SAF will file an amicus brief and urge the court to take this.

    They ought to, but time is short. They'll probably be at Conference in 2-3 weeks. There are no other amicus briefs which historically doesn't play well for getting cert.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    From Florida's Brief In Opposition:

    "What is more, this Court has recently and repeatedly denied certiorari in cases presenting a much more important issue: whether the Second Amendment protects any right to carry firearms outside the home. This case does not supply a good vehicle for resolving that logically antecedent question, which should be addressed before this Court considers the narrower and far less consequential question at issue here."

    Florida's attorneys are quite ignorant...The Court denied certiorari to those cases because they afforded no 2nd Amendment protections. Those cases all sought a license to carry concealed firearms outside the home. Oh, they'll address the right to carry outside the home all right. Norman will be that vehicle and appropriately so, as Norman was outside his home while exercising his fundamental right to openly carry a firearm for self-defense.
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    From Florida's Brief In Opposition:

    "What is more, this Court has recently and repeatedly denied certiorari in cases presenting a much more important issue: whether the Second Amendment protects any right to carry firearms outside the home. This case does not supply a good vehicle for resolving that logically antecedent question, which should be addressed before this Court considers the narrower and far less consequential question at issue here."

    Florida's attorneys are quite ignorant...The Court denied certiorari to those cases because they afforded no 2nd Amendment protections. Those cases all sought a license to carry concealed firearms outside the home. Oh, they'll address the right to carry outside the home all right. Norman will be that vehicle and appropriately so, as Norman was outside his home while exercising his fundamental right to openly carry a firearm for self-defense.

    I just don't see the Courts telling the States they need to make everyone open carry. That might be the historically correct position but if that is all the mattered the Commerce Clause would still have some meaning and I could grow pot in my backyard or build a machine gun without running afoul of federal authority.

    Things will change though if RBG and Kennedy retire while Trump is in office.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    I just don't see the Courts telling the States they need to make everyone open carry. That might be the historically correct position but if that is all the mattered the Commerce Clause would still have some meaning and I could grow pot in my backyard or build a machine gun without running afoul of federal authority.

    Things will change though if RBG and Kennedy retire while Trump is in office.


    Why not? Kennedy made all the states give out marriage licenses to the gays. Gotta give them a chance...This case will be the one.


    The reality of the matter at this point in Commerce Clause jurisprudence, is that we all, well most of us, have one thing in common with the Wickard v. Filburn case. Everyone voluntarily signed up for federal government subsidies...If you signed up for one(SSN), you can be regulated to a point where they compel payment into a national health care system...Some judges may actually understand this, but I would guess most don't. That's how it's going down and it won't ever be stopped through the courts.

    Wickard v. Filburn - 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

    "It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes."
     

    john_bud

    Ultimate Member
    Sep 23, 2009
    2,045
    Wickard v. Filburn - 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

    "It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes."

    There is no subsidy for me. I've paid in and paid in and paid in. Doubt that there is a snowball's chance of ever getting what was paid in.
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    Why not? Kennedy made all the states give out marriage licenses to the gays. Gotta give them a chance...This case will be the one.


    The reality of the matter at this point in Commerce Clause jurisprudence, is that we all, well most of us, have one thing in common with the Wickard v. Filburn case. Everyone voluntarily signed up for federal government subsidies...If you signed up for one(SSN), you can be regulated to a point where they compel payment into a national health care system...Some judges may actually understand this, but I would guess most don't. That's how it's going down and it won't ever be stopped through the courts.

    Wickard v. Filburn - 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

    "It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes."


    I've leave it like this. There are people in this world who wish to lower American birthrates and our sovereignty/. By removing God from our nation, promoting abortion, gay marriage and radical feminism they erode our institutions and our American way of life. As the birthrates decline the population becomes more open to immigration and leaders like Barrack Hussein Obama are allowed to give illegals amensty Thus our culture dies off.
    The end result? This is all a push for one world government.
    Gay marriage promotes their agenda by reducing the birthrates. That's why its the law of the land along with abortion.
    Issues that hurt that end goal the elites will fight tooth and nail to prevent.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    There is no subsidy for me. I've paid in and paid in and paid in. Doubt that there is a snowball's chance of ever getting what was paid in.

    And the government doesn't have to pay you either...Even though you paid a tax upon a tax as if the money was yours.

    See: Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960)
    There are no property rights to the money you contributed.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    I've leave it like this. There are people in this world who wish to lower American birthrates and our sovereignty/. By removing God from our nation, promoting abortion, gay marriage and radical feminism they erode our institutions and our American way of life. As the birthrates decline the population becomes more open to immigration and leaders like Barrack Hussein Obama are allowed to give illegals amensty Thus our culture dies off.
    The end result? This is all a push for one world government.
    Gay marriage promotes their agenda by reducing the birthrates. That's why its the law of the land along with abortion.
    Issues that hurt that end goal the elites will fight tooth and nail to prevent.

    Agree with that 100% sir.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,870
    WV
    From Florida's Brief In Opposition:

    "What is more, this Court has recently and repeatedly denied certiorari in cases presenting a much more important issue: whether the Second Amendment protects any right to carry firearms outside the home. This case does not supply a good vehicle for resolving that logically antecedent question, which should be addressed before this Court considers the narrower and far less consequential question at issue here."

    Florida's attorneys are quite ignorant...The Court denied certiorari to those cases because they afforded no 2nd Amendment protections. Those cases all sought a license to carry concealed firearms outside the home. Oh, they'll address the right to carry outside the home all right. Norman will be that vehicle and appropriately so, as Norman was outside his home while exercising his fundamental right to openly carry a firearm for self-defense.

    The license is a distinct issue from public carry. SCOTUS' actions (or specifically inactions) make me think licensing is far down the road and will not be part of this case.

    Now the state's brief is better than the previous ones, however, what should be pointed out is that those cases which the state is referring to have either A) lost and SCOTUS denied cert (the other CCW cases) or B) can't truly be had with no total carry bans existing now (outside of non-residents).
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    The license is a distinct issue from public carry. SCOTUS' actions (or specifically inactions) make me think licensing is far down the road and will not be part of this case.

    Now the state's brief is better than the previous ones, however, what should be pointed out is that those cases which the state is referring to have either A) lost and SCOTUS denied cert (the other CCW cases) or B) can't truly be had with no total carry bans existing now (outside of non-residents).

    Licensing was specifically addressed at the Florida supreme court...It'll be addressed here. The only way to carry a firearm in the exercise of a fundamental right, is by way of a license in Florida. This entails precondition requirements upon a right, which is a violation of substantive due process.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    Neither side asked to court to address licensing, so they wont.

    Actually,...they will. The prerequisites for obtaining a license, are part of Florida's public policy reasoning for requiring concealed carry over open carry...Whether they directly discuss them or not, they are a part of it. Norman's position is that those policies, in their totality, violate his right to open carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,870
    WV

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    Actually,...they will. The prerequisites for obtaining a license, are part of Florida's public policy reasoning for requiring concealed carry over open carry...Whether they directly discuss them or not, they are a part of it. Norman's position is that those policies, in their totality, violate his right to open carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.

    They do not need to get into licensing. No one is challenging the constitutionality of the licensing scheme.
     

    Peaceful John

    Active Member
    May 31, 2011
    239
    Actually,...they will. The prerequisites for obtaining a license, are part of Florida's public policy reasoning for requiring concealed carry over open carry...Whether they directly discuss them or not, they are a part of it. Norman's position is that those policies, in their totality, violate his right to open carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.

    They do not need to get into licensing. No one is challenging the constitutionality of the licensing scheme.

    Is it not possible that SCOTUS might vote in favor of unlicensed open carry as the enumerated right while leaving the prerequisites for the optional licensing concealed carry untouched?
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,702
    Messages
    7,249,020
    Members
    33,310
    Latest member
    Skarface

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom