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
    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?

    No, I'm not quoting out of context. Read the dissent, that's the exact moment Thomas stated they should have granted cert. How about the other 3 that participated in Heller...That equals a 5-4 vote for the right to open carry.

    The dissent also says:

    Quoting Thomas:
    "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?

    From that statement, Thomas obviously doesn't have a clue what the other members are thinking...Maybe they're thinking that Peruta sought to carry a concealed weapon(and that's EXACTLY what he did), which they already indicated in Heller that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect such a right, and therefore he lacks a damage.

    Funny thing, I'm being accused of calling Thomas " incompetent ", yet your side is saying the Justices who signed onto the Heller decision actually don't agree with it...That's judicial incompetence at its finest right there, if it were true...That, we'll find out soon enough with Norman.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    No, I'm not quoting out of context. Read the dissent, that's the exact moment Thomas stated they should have granted cert. How about the other 3 that participated in Heller...That equals a 5-4 vote for the right to open carry.

    Here is what we know about the other 7 who did not sign the dissent:


    Anything more is pure speculation. maybe they will vote for open carry, maybe they think there is no right to public carry. Maybe they will vote for some manner of carry. Maybe they merely thought Peruta was not as good a vehicle as we thought. Maybe they wanted to wait for Wrenn, or Baker, or Young, or Norman, or some other case.
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,570
    Hazzard County
    Signing a dissent is just as strategic as not signing one. IIRC Alito signed a prior pro gun dissent from denial of cert, but I can't recall any pro-gun dissents as having three signatures.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,869
    WV
    Signing a dissent is just as strategic as not signing one. IIRC Alito signed a prior pro gun dissent from denial of cert, but I can't recall any pro-gun dissents as having three signatures.

    That was a concurrence with Thomas on Caetano. Otherwise he's been silent since McDonald.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    Here is what we know about the other 7 who did not sign the dissent:



    Anything more is pure speculation. maybe they will vote for open carry, maybe they think there is no right to public carry. Maybe they will vote for some manner of carry. Maybe they merely thought Peruta was not as good a vehicle as we thought. Maybe they wanted to wait for Wrenn, or Baker, or Young, or Norman, or some other case.

    Who cares about the liberal side of the court?...Those four are corrupt liars through and through. But anyway, somehow, you missed the Heller decision...Lots a good legalese in there. You should give it another read to better understand its meaning.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    Who cares about the liberal side of the court?...Those four are corrupt liars through and through. But anyway, somehow, you missed the Heller decision...Lots a good legalese in there. You should give it another read to better understand its meaning.


    I have, many times. To interpret it as you are requires that you ignore the context of the discussion from which you derive your interpretation. That context is that the right to bear arms is independent of militia service.

    You have to "read between the lines" to arrive at the conclusion you have. It is neither a straightforward conclusion nor is it directly stated in Heller. But reading between the lines in that way is fraught with uncertainty, and the probability of being incorrect as a result is quite significant.

    So it does no good to simply say "see Heller" precisely because Heller doesn't simply come out and say that open carry is the only protected mode of carry. Other decisions that it references do, but those decisions are not being referenced for the purpose of determining what about carry is protected, but rather whether or not the right to carry is connected to militia service.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,869
    WV
    I like it too although I'm surprised Wrenn was not cited in the brief. It would have been good to point out Wrenn and Peruta are in conflict, but that Wrenn will not be appealed, so this case presents the only viable option at this point for public carry.
     

    StogieC

    Member
    Feb 4, 2016
    5
    I like it too although I'm surprised Wrenn was not cited in the brief. It would have been good to point out Wrenn and Peruta are in conflict, but that Wrenn will not be appealed, so this case presents the only viable option at this point for public carry.

    That 3,000 word limit hits pretty fast. (there are 2,998 in the brief)
     
    Last edited:

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    I like it too although I'm surprised Wrenn was not cited in the brief. It would have been good to point out Wrenn and Peruta are in conflict, but that Wrenn will not be appealed, so this case presents the only viable option at this point for public carry.

    The deciding factor is that Norman had his 2nd Amendment constitutional right violated and was injured by Florida's statute prohibiting said right. How a seasoned attorney misses this in his brief, I don't understand...It's quite clear to this supreme court justice:

    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.
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    The deciding factor is that Norman had his 2nd Amendment constitutional right violated and was injured by Florida's statute prohibiting said right. How a seasoned attorney misses this in his brief, I don't understand...It's quite clear to this supreme court justice:

    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.

    The man that wrote that brief has 3 wins in front of the Supreme Court. I think he knows what the court wants
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,869
    WV
    So only 5 more reschedules and a denial left to go?

    Boy I hope not because it's gonna be a while before another carry case gets there and I'm not sure what those would bring to the table that the previous dozen didn't.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,702
    Messages
    7,248,986
    Members
    33,310
    Latest member
    Skarface

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom