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!
  • danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    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?

    Anything is possible. There is nothing in the various dissents from denials of cert for Peruta etc. that would lead me to think someone is leaning this way, let alone 5 Justices. If they take this case (huge IF, since this is a sleeper case), I expect them to uphold the FL Supreme Court opinion. Which by the way, is still a huge win.
     

    Peaceful John

    Active Member
    May 31, 2011
    239
    . . . I expect them to uphold the FL Supreme Court opinion. Which by the way, is still a huge win.

    I'm sorry, Dan, I'm unclear on how that can be. The Justia Opinion Summary (Norman) concludes: "The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State has an important interest in regulating firearms as a matter of public safety, and Florida’s Open Carry Law is substantially related to this interest; and (2) therefore, Florida’s Open Carry Law violates neither the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution nor article I, section 8 of the Florida Constitution."

    The essential element of Florida's Open Carry Law is that you really can't, no? In lieu, the Fla SC ratified licensing an enumerated right. How is that a win for us?
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    I'm sorry, Dan, I'm unclear on how that can be. The Justia Opinion Summary (Norman) concludes: "The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State has an important interest in regulating firearms as a matter of public safety, and Florida’s Open Carry Law is substantially related to this interest; and (2) therefore, Florida’s Open Carry Law violates neither the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution nor article I, section 8 of the Florida Constitution."

    The essential element of Florida's Open Carry Law is that you really can't, no? In lieu, the Fla SC ratified licensing an enumerated right. How is that a win for us?

    Florida law allows all law abiding residents one manner of carry. If its a choice between shall-issue CCW (that is, affirm the FL court opinion) or unlicensed open carry (strike down a FL law), either would be a vast improvement over what people have in MD, NJ, parts of CA, or NYC. A key part of the reasoning for the FL Supreme Court was that CCW was shall-issue, and there was no discretion left to the state to issue permits. That would be a major improvement for MD.
     

    john_bud

    Ultimate Member
    Sep 23, 2009
    2,045
    Florida law allows all law abiding residents one manner of carry. If its a choice between shall-issue CCW (that is, affirm the FL court opinion) or unlicensed open carry (strike down a FL law), either would be a vast improvement over what people have in MD, NJ, parts of CA, or NYC. A key part of the reasoning for the FL Supreme Court was that CCW was shall-issue, and there was no discretion left to the state to issue permits. That would be a major improvement for MD.

    Yet it seems to this layman to cement the GOVERNMENT'S total control over citizen's carrying a firearm. If you have to ask permission, it's not a RIGHT.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    Then let me ask a stupid question here. How could we use that here in Maryland since we have to prove G&S to MSP in order to get a permit?

    The FL supreme court specifically rejected the restrictive schemes in MD, NJ, and NY:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ather-than-open-carry/?utm_term=.ab85f99cc236

    We stress, however, that the Legislature’s discretion in this area is not limitless. For example, the [Second Circuit] in Kachalsky upheld New York’s prohibitive licensing scheme using an intermediate scrutiny analysis that gave too much deference to the legislature, without considering the fact that the licensing scheme in question rendered the right to bear arms outside the home virtually non-existent…. A right is essentially “destroyed [if the] exercise of [that] right is limited to a few people, in a few places, at a few times.” Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1170 [that’s the Ninth Circuit decision striking down California’s restrictive licensing regime -EV]. The degree of legislative deference exhibited in cases such as Woollard [Fourth Circuit], Drake [Third Circuit] and Kachalsky [Second Circuit] goes too far, and would serve to validate expansive restrictions inconsistent with those rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment and the Florida Constitution.

    I am not getting too excited, because the odds of them taking any case are pretty slim. This is a sleeper case. But now that Wrenn is decided it definitely has a higher than usual chance.

    But if they do take this case, whether they affirm the FL court opinion or strike it down, its is a definite win. It has a lot going for it, strategically.
     

    Peaceful John

    Active Member
    May 31, 2011
    239
    Florida law allows all law abiding residents one manner of carry. If its a choice between shall-issue CCW (that is, affirm the FL court opinion) or unlicensed open carry (strike down a FL law), either would be a vast improvement over what people have in MD, NJ, parts of CA, or NYC. A key part of the reasoning for the FL Supreme Court was that CCW was shall-issue, and there was no discretion left to the state to issue permits. That would be a major improvement for MD.

    I understand now. Thank you.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,869
    WV
    Yet it seems to this layman to cement the GOVERNMENT'S total control over citizen's carrying a firearm. If you have to ask permission, it's not a RIGHT.

    Yes, kind of, except they have no discretion to deny the permit. You either meet the standard or not, unlike may issue which is "we know if when we see it"
     

    Fox123

    Ultimate Member
    May 21, 2012
    3,923
    Rosedale, MD
    If they affirm the lower court, would it really change anything here?

    Maryland has already claimed open carry with long gun, they can lean on that and continue G&S for handgun.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,869
    WV
    If they affirm the lower court, would it really change anything here?

    Maryland has already claimed open carry with long gun, they can lean on that and continue G&S for handgun.

    Depends on the language they use. If they say for example, "We agree with the FL supremes that shall issue CCW is an acceptable Avenue for public carry" Then that sort of does it.
    Of course, it may come down to the exact holding of scotus. Some lower court may try to weave around dicta.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    There's no way in the world, that the SCOTUS will affirm Florida's position when they take Norman...If Florida's position is correct, Norman never had his 2nd Amendment rights violated and there would be no need for the court to hear the case. Peruta was actually a better case if that's their thinking, as he was denied access to a license to carry concealed firearms for self-defense...But it isn't.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,869
    WV
    There's no way in the world, that the SCOTUS will affirm Florida's position when they take Norman...If Florida's position is correct, Norman never had his 2nd Amendment rights violated and there would be no need for the court to hear the case. Peruta was actually a better case if that's their thinking, as he was denied access to a license to carry concealed firearms for self-defense...But it isn't.

    My take is that the reason they may take Norman over Peruta only to affirm the FL Supremes is that all parties agree on a right to carry, so with no one to advocate no protected carry the fence sitter(s) of the Heller 5 may decide this is the time and the case to take.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    My take is that the reason they may take Norman over Peruta only to affirm the FL Supremes is that all parties agree on a right to carry, so with no one to advocate no protected carry the fence sitter(s) of the Heller 5 may decide this is the time and the case to take.

    California's position in Peruta was that the core right to self-defense applied outside the home....But not to concealed carry, which was on point with Heller and why the SCOTUS didn't take it for review. They won't be siding with Florida...Norman had a concealed carry permit.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzmt_TCBXUM
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,869
    WV
    California's position in Peruta was that the core right to self-defense applied outside the home....But not to concealed carry, which was on point with Heller and why the SCOTUS didn't take it for review. They won't be siding with Florida...Norman had a concealed carry permit.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzmt_TCBXUM

    We don't know that for sure, and there's also the fact 2 of the Heller 5 (Gorsuch for Scalia of course) would clearly have sided with Peruta FOR a CCW license under CA's scheme.
    That means, even assuming Kennedy, Alito and Roberts take the "OC is the Right" position, you still need 2 votes. Which 2 of the liberal justices will find for an OC right?
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    We don't know that for sure, and there's also the fact 2 of the Heller 5 (Gorsuch for Scalia of course) would clearly have sided with Peruta FOR a CCW license under CA's scheme.
    That means, even assuming Kennedy, Alito and Roberts take the "OC is the Right" position, you still need 2 votes. Which 2 of the liberal justices will find for an OC right?

    That's not true...You're getting loose with the facts there.

    From their decent of denial:

    " The court thus declined to "answer the question of whether or to what degree the Second Amendment might or might not protect a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms OPENLY in public." It instead held only that "the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry CONCEALED firearms in public."
    "WE SHOULD HAVE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE."...."

    For whatever reason, Thomas wants to ignore a very important FACT of the case. Peruta, initiated his case by seeking a license to carry CONCEALED firearms. There is not a right to carry concealed firearms, thus no damage to ones 2nd Amendment rights. The other justices on the court, choose to adhere to well established, self-governing rules.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,869
    WV
    That's not true...You're getting loose with the facts there.

    From their decent of denial:

    " The court thus declined to "answer the question of whether or to what degree the Second Amendment might or might not protect a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms OPENLY in public." It instead held only that "the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry CONCEALED firearms in public."
    "WE SHOULD HAVE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE."...."

    For whatever reason, Thomas wants to ignore a very important FACT of the case. Peruta, initiated his case by seeking a license to carry CONCEALED firearms. There is not a right to carry concealed firearms, thus no damage to ones 2nd Amendment rights. The other justices on the court, choose to adhere to well established, self-governing rules.

    The en banc court's decision to limit its review to whether the Second Amendment protects the right to concealed carry — as opposed to the more general right to public carry — was untenable.

    Thomas and Gorsuch are looking at the larger picture, not just CCW or open carry in a vacuum. So if that's their take it makes for an interesting Norman case, if SCOTUS takes it.
    Now of course they could flip and decide that FL's "policy choice" of an OC ban just doesn't cut it, and rule for OC. But the reverse could be true if they want to establish a public right to carry and join with 3 other justices to put a stamp of approval for FL's shall issue CCW scheme, which is basically the same as CA's except for may vs. shall issue.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    That's not true...You're getting loose with the facts there.

    From their decent of denial:

    " The court thus declined to "answer the question of whether or to what degree the Second Amendment might or might not protect a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms OPENLY in public." It instead held only that "the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry CONCEALED firearms in public."
    "WE SHOULD HAVE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE."...."

    For whatever reason, Thomas wants to ignore a very important FACT of the case.

    "For whatever reason"? Really?

    Thomas is one of the justices who signed on to the Heller decision. To claim that Thomas "wants to ignore a very important fact of the case" is tantamount to accusing Thomas of incompetence, because it amounts to a claim that either Thomas does not understand the very decision he signed on to, or that he can't read.


    Do you seriously claim that?? :facepalm:
     

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    "For whatever reason"? Really?

    Thomas is one of the justices who signed on to the Heller decision. To claim that Thomas "wants to ignore a very important fact of the case" is tantamount to accusing Thomas of incompetence, because it amounts to a claim that either Thomas does not understand the very decision he signed on to, or that he can't read.


    Do you seriously claim that?? :facepalm:

    Unbelievable. There are many intellectually dishonest judges on the judiciary, but Justice Thomas is not one of them. He's the only one with the principles and the balls to say that if precedent was nonsense in the first place, it's nonsense today, and shouldn't be given any weight.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    That's not true...You're getting loose with the facts there.

    From their decent of denial:

    " The court thus declined to "answer the question of whether or to what degree the Second Amendment might or might not protect a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms OPENLY in public." It instead held only that "the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry CONCEALED firearms in public."
    "WE SHOULD HAVE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE."...."

    For whatever reason, Thomas wants to ignore a very important FACT of the case. Peruta, initiated his case by seeking a license to carry CONCEALED firearms. There is not a right to carry concealed firearms, thus no damage to ones 2nd Amendment rights. The other justices on the court, choose to adhere to well established, self-governing rules.

    You are quoting the dissent out of context. That also only accounts for 2 of 9 votes. Who are the 5 who will vote for open carry? Kagan? Ginsburg?

    The dissent also says:


    Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively.

    So maybe other members dont think there is any right to bear arms?
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,702
    Messages
    7,248,993
    Members
    33,310
    Latest member
    Skarface

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom