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

    First of all, his Heller position was nicely done. But Peruta's denial of cert has nothing to do with this case, along with his quote from Justice Thomas. More appropriately, a grant most be afforded to one that has been injured while exercising a fundamentally protected right. As Mr. Justice BRANDEIS states, one has a " right to challenge " such a damage. It's obviously an obligation of the court to grant them, otherwise, it's not much of a " right to challenge ".

    We'll also see how well he handles the licensing questions that are most likely to come forth during oral arguments...And I doubt he'll mention a certificate of competence as the least restrictive means over a license...This is serious stuff, with 300 million people being affected by his abilities.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    First of all, his Heller position was nicely done. But Peruta's denial of cert has nothing to do with this case, along with his quote from Justice Thomas. More appropriately, a grant most be afforded to one that has been injured while exercising a fundamentally protected right. As Mr. Justice BRANDEIS states, one has a " right to challenge " such a damage. It's obviously an obligation of the court to grant them, otherwise, it's not much of a " right to challenge ".

    Justice Brandeis' statement is a concurrence. That means what he said was not joined by the others, else it would have been in the decision itself. That doesn't make his statement incorrect, but it does illustrate that you aren't being careful in sourcing your claims.

    But more importantly, he said this:

    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.

    What he is stating is a condition under which the Court will not take the case. You seem to think that, therefore, if the condition is not present, the Court must take the case.

    I suggest you brush up on your fundamentals of logic, because it appears to be lacking here. That the court has stated a condition under which it will not take a case does not mean that it will take a case where the condition is absent. You are, in essence, claiming that

    A -> B ==> !A -> !B​

    which is a logical fallacy. The correct logic is:

    A -> B ==> !B -> !A​

    which, here, would mean that since the court will "not take a case" (which corresponds to B) when "one fails to show injury" (which corresponds to A), it follows that if the court does take the case (!B), one must have shown injury (!A).


    And finally, what you're talking about is the property called "standing". If the lower courts believed that the plaintiff failed to show injury, they would have dismissed the case on that basis alone.

    Standing is necessary for the Court to take a case. It does not guarantee that the Court will take a case. Justice Brandeis' concurrence does not state what you claim it states, because what you claim is based on an error of logic.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    Justice Brandeis' statement is a concurrence. That means what he said was not joined by the others, else it would have been in the decision itself. That doesn't make his statement incorrect, but it does illustrate that you aren't being careful in sourcing your claims.

    That's correct, it was a "concurrence" which gave light to the self governing rules they follow, as opposed to Thomas' denial of cert dissent...Peruta had nothing to do with the issue so stated in Halbrook's brief to justify a review in Norman. The issue was a license to carry concealed firearms..Period. Thomas needs to respect judicial restraint, but his authority to conjure up personal beliefs, has no bounds.

    But more importantly, he said this:

    What he is stating is a condition under which the Court will not take the case. You seem to think that, therefore, if the condition is not present, the Court must take the case.

    I suggest you brush up on your fundamentals of logic, because it appears to be lacking here. That the court has stated a condition under which it will not take a case does not mean that it will take a case where the condition is absent. You are, in essence, claiming that

    A -> B ==> !A -> !B​

    which is a logical fallacy. The correct logic is:

    A -> B ==> !B -> !A​

    which, here, would mean that since the court will "not take a case" (which corresponds to B) when "one fails to show injury" (which corresponds to A), it follows that if the court does take the case (!B), one must have shown injury (!A).

    If the opposite isn't true...It's quite the kangaroo system of justice we adhere to. And Brandies did say it was a "right to challenge" except in the opposite sense...As in " the denial of the RIGHT to challenge", if there isn't a personal right damage.
    " 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."

    Interestingly enough, the only gun case the court made notice of was Caetano....And guess what? She was damaged in the exercise of a constitutional right.


    And finally, what you're talking about is the property called "standing". If the lower courts believed that the plaintiff failed to show injury, they would have dismissed the case on that basis alone.

    Standing is necessary for the Court to take a case. It does not guarantee that the Court will take a case. Justice Brandeis' concurrence does not state what you claim it states, because what you claim is based on an error of logic.

    Who said the lower courts follow the rule of " right to challenge " as Brandeis stated....Not I. It's pretty obvious in the Peruta case, that there wasn't a damage, as the 9th Cir Court clearly stated that a 2nd Amendment right wasn't violated by San Diego's licensing policy.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    If the opposite isn't true...It's quite the kangaroo system of justice we adhere to.

    The opposite isn't true. The Court routinely rejects cert to cases where direct standing of the kind you're talking about here has been established.

    We don't have a "system of justice". We have a legal system. I'm astonished that you don't already realize this. And yes, it is quite the kangaroo system. This is exactly what I've tried to tell you before, but for some reason you have this fairy tale belief that the Supreme Court is somehow exempt from it. You will learn soon enough the folly of such naive faith.


    And Brandies did say it was a "right to challenge" except in the opposite sense...As in " the denial of the RIGHT to challenge", if there isn't a personal right damage.

    Yes. If there's no personal right damage, then the Court will deny the right to challenge. But again, your logic is mistaken if you believe that implies that a personal right damage means that the Court will not deny the right to challenge. That is directly the "A -> B ==> !A -> !B" fallacy I alluded to earlier. No, what it means is that if the court does not deny the right to challenge, then a personal right damage must exist (when the case in question is that sort of case, at any rate).


    Interestingly enough, the only gun case the court made notice of was Caetano....And guess what? She was damaged in the exercise of a constitutional right.

    Yes, well, so was Williams in Williams v Maryland. And the Court denied cert there.


    Who said the lower courts follow the rule of " right to challenge " as Brandeis stated....Not I. It's pretty obvious in the Peruta case, that there wasn't a damage, as the 9th Cir Court clearly stated that a 2nd Amendment right wasn't violated by San Diego's licensing policy.

    You're kidding, right? The lower courts dismiss cases due to lack of standing all the time. So yes, the lower courts follow the rule of "right to challenge". The right to challenge is the notion of standing.

    Do you really believe the lower courts would not avail themselves of available tools to get rid of cases? Seriously??


    I don't know where you get these lofty ideas of how the courts behave, but clearly they're not rooted in observation. Observation makes it plain that the courts are corrupt political entities that do what they want, when they want, and how they want, the actual law or intent behind it be damned. As I said, we do not have a justice system, we have a legal system, where the outcome is not justice but rather arbitrary exercise of power.
     

    StogieC

    Member
    Feb 4, 2016
    5
    This is a criminal defense. He was convicted of committing a crime and seeks cert. to appeal his criminal case. Civil standing or injury is not an issue at all. You're barking up the wrong tree in the wrong forest.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    This is a criminal defense. He was convicted of committing a crime and seeks cert. to appeal his criminal case. Civil standing or injury is not an issue at all. You're barking up the wrong tree in the wrong forest.

    Arguing that the Peruta case has anything to do with Norman...is clearly the wrong bark. Norman solely stands on the injury he received for exercising a fundamental right...You have much to learn grasshopper.

    Along with the guy below us....danb, you remind me of all your buddies in the law abusement community that kidnapped me in the mid 90's over not showing an ID( I wasn't in a vehicle )...Funny thing,...everyone in that gang, said that they were going to take my fingerprints from me, one way or another, but guess what...Go ahead and show me a fingerprint card or an FBI record of that arrest...False arrest at that. You'll never find one and I spent 10 days in Madison St jail here in Phoenix, Az....So keep laughing, grasshopper.
     
    Last edited:

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    The opposite isn't true. The Court routinely rejects cert to cases where direct standing of the kind you're talking about here has been established.

    Then, that would make Brandeis a liar and stare decisis meaningless.



    We don't have a "system of justice". We have a legal system. I'm astonished that you don't already realize this. And yes, it is quite the kangaroo system. This is exactly what I've tried to tell you before, but for some reason you have this fairy tale belief that the Supreme Court is somehow exempt from it. You will learn soon enough the folly of such naive faith.

    You have no proof of that with the gun issue at hand...And don't bring up all those licensed concealed carry cases that were rightly denied cert.



    Yes. If there's no personal right damage, then the Court will deny the right to challenge. But again, your logic is mistaken if you believe that implies that a personal right damage means that the Court will not deny the right to challenge. That is directly the "A -> B ==> !A -> !B" fallacy I alluded to earlier. No, what it means is that if the court does not deny the right to challenge, then a personal right damage must exist (when the case in question is that sort of case, at any rate).

    That makes Brandeis' list a ridiculous proposition and useless as a standard of supreme court conduct for self governance. I wonder why he thought that?...I guess supreme court justices are idiots.



    Yes, well, so was Williams in Williams v Maryland. And the Court denied cert there.

    Williams was carrying, and then hid, a (loaded,ie..ready for self-defense use) CONCEALED firearm without a license...What part of, there is no right to carry concealed firearms for self-defense, do you not understand?...His rights were not damaged and why he got cert denied.



    You're kidding, right? The lower courts dismiss cases due to lack of standing all the time. So yes, the lower courts follow the rule of "right to challenge". The right to challenge is the notion of standing.

    Do you really believe the lower courts would not avail themselves of available tools to get rid of cases? Seriously??


    I don't know where you get these lofty ideas of how the courts behave, but clearly they're not rooted in observation. Observation makes it plain that the courts are corrupt political entities that do what they want, when they want, and how they want, the actual law or intent behind it be damned. As I said, we do not have a justice system, we have a legal system, where the outcome is not justice but rather arbitrary exercise of power.

    Great observation, but on the previous gun cases and the Norman case we have before us...You have no proof of this so called " arbitrary exercise of power ".
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    Then, that would make Brandeis a liar and stare decisis meaningless.

    No, Brandeis is not a liar. He stated exactly what the Court does when the plaintiff has NOT shown injury. It's YOUR CONCLUSION about what happens when the plaintiff DOES show injury that is at fault here, because you're trying to invert the logic in an improper way.


    Great observation, but on the previous gun cases and the Norman case we have before us...You have no proof of this so called " arbitrary exercise of power ".

    Oh yes I do, and the Norman case is perfect proof. My proof is the Florida Supreme Court opinion itself. Courts are not authorized to nullify the Constitution by "interpreting" it in a way that is contrary to the meaning of the Constitution, but that is precisely what the Florida Supreme Court has done. That IS arbitrary exercise of power.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Last edited:

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    Williams was carrying, and then hid, a (loaded,ie..ready for self-defense use) CONCEALED firearm without a license...What part of, there is no right to carry concealed firearms for self-defense, do you not understand?...His rights were not damaged and why he got cert denied.

    Did you actually read the Maryland Appellate Court's decision on the matter (in my prior message where I mentioned a link, I ended up linking the wrong case, the one decided before McDonald. Didn't even realize it until now. Sorry about that)? At the time of his arrest, the firearm was out in the open (well, in the "brush area"). The notion that he was carrying it in his backpack is inferred, not observed. For all you know, Williams could have been carrying the firearm openly (though I do agree that is highly unlikely, since there's no mention of a holster). He was convicted of possessing ("wearing, carrying, or transporting") in public without a permit. Surely open carry is a subset of possession in public, no?

    Is it your contention that placing a firearm on the ground in public is sufficient grounds to abandon Constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms? Or perhaps, consistent with your view of carry, it is only protected if one were to place it on the ground in plain sight of surrounding onlookers?

    While I agree that the case is a bad case, it is quite the stretch, to say the least, to claim that Williams suffered no injury under the law.

    Standing isn't determined by whether or not one's rights are injured, it's determined by whether or not the law (or the actions of the other party, in the case of a civil lawsuit) injures the individual challenging the law in some way, whether it be through injury to his fundamental rights, to his liberty, to his property, or any other such thing. The law might stand anyway, and most often does, but that is not the same thing as not being subject to challenge, which is what Justice Brandeis was talking about.

    Justice Brandeis concurred in judgment. But his concurrence makes plain that he believed that the Supreme Court should not have decided the case on its merits, but instead should have affirmed without comment precisely because the plaintiffs failed to show injury. The contended injury wasn't to fundamental rights, it was alleged to be to the business prospects of the Alabama Power Company and, in particular, to the financial prospects of the holders of preferred stock in said Company. He didn't say that the nature of the alleged injury mooted it as regards the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, he said that they failed to show injury, which is a different thing. As such, it is clear that "injury" can come in many forms, not just to one's fundamental Constitutional rights.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    Did you actually read the Maryland Appellate Court's decision on the matter (in my prior message where I mentioned a link, I ended up linking the wrong case, the one decided before McDonald. Didn't even realize it until now. Sorry about that)? At the time of his arrest, the firearm was out in the open (well, in the "brush area"). The notion that he was carrying it in his backpack is inferred, not observed. For all you know, Williams could have been carrying the firearm openly (though I do agree that is highly unlikely, since there's no mention of a holster). He was convicted of possessing ("wearing, carrying, or transporting") in public without a permit. Surely open carry is a subset of possession in public, no?

    Is it your contention that placing a firearm on the ground in public is sufficient grounds to abandon Constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms? Or perhaps, consistent with your view of carry, it is only protected if one were to place it on the ground in plain sight of surrounding onlookers?

    While I agree that the case is a bad case, it is quite the stretch, to say the least, to claim that Williams suffered no injury under the law.

    Standing isn't determined by whether or not one's rights are injured, it's determined by whether or not the law (or the actions of the other party, in the case of a civil lawsuit) injures the individual challenging the law in some way, whether it be through injury to his fundamental rights, to his liberty, to his property, or any other such thing. The law might stand anyway, and most often does, but that is not the same thing as not being subject to challenge, which is what Justice Brandeis was talking about.

    Justice Brandeis concurred in judgment. But his concurrence makes plain that he believed that the Supreme Court should not have decided the case on its merits, but instead should have affirmed without comment precisely because the plaintiffs failed to show injury. The contended injury wasn't to fundamental rights, it was alleged to be to the business prospects of the Alabama Power Company and, in particular, to the financial prospects of the holders of preferred stock in said Company. He didn't say that the nature of the alleged injury mooted it as regards the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, he said that they failed to show injury, which is a different thing. As such, it is clear that "injury" can come in many forms, not just to one's fundamental Constitutional rights.

    My god...What part of, "The defendant would have testified that he purchased the handgun for self-defense, and that on the date of this arrest, he had just left the handgun at his girlfriend’s house, place of residence. When he got off work, he went to her residence and picked up that handgun and was en route to his home when the arrest occurred behind the bus stop." " Officer Molake then recovered an Austria [sic] made, black Glock handgun with 15 rounds in the magazine in the brush area where he saw the defendant go. The defendant gave a written statement after being given his Miranda rights by Officer Santa Cruz, admitting to possession of the gun and placing the gun in the bush area where the officer subsequently located it." ...do you not understand. He CONCEALED his loaded firearm in his backpack, took it out of the backpack and CONCEALED it in the bushes. There's no 2nd Amendment right to do that. He INTENDED to CONCEAL a firearm from the time he left his girlfriends home to concealing it in the bushes. Peruta's sole INTENT, was to get a CONCEALED carry license...There's a common factor there and no personal damage occurred in either case.

    Williams, once he hid the firearm, was no longer keeping or bearing arms for self-defense.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    My god...What part of, "The defendant would have testified that he purchased the handgun for self-defense, and that on the date of this arrest, he had just left the handgun at his girlfriend’s house, place of residence. When he got off work, he went to her residence and picked up that handgun and was en route to his home when the arrest occurred behind the bus stop." " Officer Molake then recovered an Austria [sic] made, black Glock handgun with 15 rounds in the magazine in the brush area where he saw the defendant go. The defendant gave a written statement after being given his Miranda rights by Officer Santa Cruz, admitting to possession of the gun and placing the gun in the bush area where the officer subsequently located it." ...do you not understand.

    I understand all of that. Where in the above does it explicitly say that he was concealing the firearm prior to placing it in the bushes? It doesn't. Concealed carry is an inference, not an observation.


    He CONCEALED his loaded firearm in his backpack,

    And you KNOW this how, exactly? Clairvoyance, perhaps? It wasn't explicitly stated in the case anywhere, now was it? All that was stated was that he was "rummaging through his backpack" prior to dropping the pistol in the brush. Yes, it's likely that he concealed it in his backpack but again, that is an inference, not an observation! He wasn't observed taking his pistol out of his backpack. If that were what was observed, the case would have stated so plainly.


    Williams, once he hid the firearm, was no longer keeping or bearing arms for self-defense.

    So if you hide your firearm somewhere, you give up your right to it? You're treading thin ice here. Better think this through.
     
    Last edited:

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    Peruta's sole INTENT, was to get a CONCEALED carry license...There's a common factor there and no personal damage occurred in either case.

    I agree with you with respect to Peruta. It was primarily a concealed carry case. Not solely a concealed carry case, since it asked whether the right to bear arms extends outside the home, but yes, it was primarily a concealed carry case. It was not the ideal vehicle for securing the right to bear in public.

    Woollard, on the other hand, was about as good as it gets. The mode of carry for that case was completely irrelevant, and not even mentioned by the plaintiffs, because the law equally invalidates all forms of carry and is written in such a way that the courts can strike the open carry prohibition within it while retaining the concealed carry prohibition. But the Supreme Court denied cert to it as well.

    Norman is all that's left. Everything turns on it. I expect you'll find out for yourself just how political the Court is on these things when it denies cert here as well. It did, after all, deny cert to Friedman v City of Highland Park, wherein the circuit court claimed that the prospect of people feeling safer with the "assault weapons ban" in place was sufficient justification to uphold the ban. It is not just carry cases that the Court has denied cert to. It is all 2nd Amendment firearms cases since McDonald. It is arrogance of the highest order to proclaim that all of those cases were lacking merit at the Supreme Court level.

    And lest you believe that the reason they denied cert in all of those cases was "lack of injury", that is just as true of both Heller and McDonald. Neither Heller nor McDonald were arrested, much less convicted, for violating the challenged law, but the Court took the cases anyway, thus making it clear that in the eyes of the Court, they had demonstrated injury. The plaintiffs in the other cases that they denied cert to demonstrated the same level of injury as Heller and McDonald had. Thus, they were not denied due to lack of standing (i.e., for not demonstrating injury).
     
    Last edited:

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    I agree with you with respect to Peruta. It was primarily a concealed carry case. Not solely a concealed carry case, since it asked whether the right to bear arms extends outside the home, but yes, it was primarily a concealed carry case. It was not the ideal vehicle for securing the right to bear in public.

    Woollard, on the other hand, was about as good as it gets. The mode of carry for that case was completely irrelevant, and not even mentioned by the plaintiffs, because the law equally invalidates all forms of carry and is written in such a way that the courts can strike the open carry prohibition within it while retaining the concealed carry prohibition. But the Supreme Court denied cert to it as well.

    Norman is all that's left. Everything turns on it. I expect you'll find out for yourself just how political the Court is on these things when it denies cert here as well. It did, after all, deny cert to Friedman v City of Highland Park, wherein the circuit court claimed that the prospect of people feeling safer with the "assault weapons ban" in place was sufficient justification to uphold the ban. It is not just carry cases that the Court has denied cert to. It is all 2nd Amendment firearms cases since McDonald. It is arrogance of the highest order to proclaim that all of those cases were lacking merit at the Supreme Court level.

    And lest you believe that the reason they denied cert in all of those cases was "lack of injury", that is just as true of both Heller and McDonald. Neither Heller nor McDonald were arrested, much less convicted, for violating the challenged law, but the Court took the cases anyway, thus making it clear that in the eyes of the Court, they had demonstrated injury. The plaintiffs in the other cases that they denied cert to demonstrated the same level of injury as Heller and McDonald had. Thus, they were not denied due to lack of standing (i.e., not demonstrating injury).

    You're right of course, but it's amazing to me how many so called conservatives just don't get it.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,701
    Messages
    7,248,951
    Members
    33,309
    Latest member
    Andre

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom