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!
  • kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    Because there were some who were so smug, so confident, so incredibly certain that they were right in their belief that "Heller says that open carry is the only protected mode" that they even went so far as to accuse Clarence Thomas of a personal agenda (due to his dissent in Peruta's denial of cert) in order to justify their claim that SCOTUS would grant cert in this case:

    TOLD.

    YOU.

    SO.


    The courts are political animals. What the Constitution says doesn't matter to them. Even what they previously said doesn't matter to them. They will issue decisions (or, in this case, refuse to issue decisions) as they please. For this court as regards the 2nd Amendment, "as they please" is limited to cases where a poor downtrodden woman is attempting to carry a nonlethal weapon.

    Only a change to the composition of the Court will change outcomes from it, and only because that is how you change institutional political behavior.
     

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    Because there were some who were so smug, so confident, so incredibly certain that they were right in their belief that "Heller says that open carry is the only protected mode" that they even went so far as to accuse Clarence Thomas of a personal agenda (due to his dissent in Peruta's denial of cert) in order to justify their claim that SCOTUS would grant cert in this case:

    TOLD.

    YOU.

    SO.


    The courts are political animals. What the Constitution says doesn't matter to them. Even what they previously said doesn't matter to them. They will issue decisions (or, in this case, refuse to issue decisions) as they please. For this court as regards the 2nd Amendment, "as they please" is limited to cases where a poor downtrodden woman is attempting to carry a nonlethal weapon.

    Only a change to the composition of the Court will change outcomes from it, and only because that is how you change institutional political behavior.

    I'm with you. I saw no convincing reason why they would have taken this case and not any of Kachalsky, Woollard, Drake or Peruta.
     

    eruby

    Confederate Jew
    MDS Supporter
    Because there were some who were so smug, so confident, so incredibly certain that they were right in their belief that "Heller says that open carry is the only protected mode" that they even went so far as to accuse Clarence Thomas of a personal agenda (due to his dissent in Peruta's denial of cert) in order to justify their claim that SCOTUS would grant cert in this case:

    TOLD.

    YOU.

    SO.


    The courts are political animals. What the Constitution says doesn't matter to them. Even what they previously said doesn't matter to them. They will issue decisions (or, in this case, refuse to issue decisions) as they please. For this court as regards the 2nd Amendment, "as they please" is limited to cases where a poor downtrodden woman is attempting to carry a nonlethal weapon.

    Only a change to the composition of the Court will change outcomes from it, and only because that is how you change institutional political behavior.

    NSFW

     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    Because there were some who were so smug, so confident, so incredibly certain that they were right in their belief that "Heller says that open carry is the only protected mode" that they even went so far as to accuse Clarence Thomas of a personal agenda (due to his dissent in Peruta's denial of cert) in order to justify their claim that SCOTUS would grant cert in this case:

    TOLD.

    YOU.

    SO.


    The courts are political animals. What the Constitution says doesn't matter to them. Even what they previously said doesn't matter to them. They will issue decisions (or, in this case, refuse to issue decisions) as they please. For this court as regards the 2nd Amendment, "as they please" is limited to cases where a poor downtrodden woman is attempting to carry a nonlethal weapon.

    Only a change to the composition of the Court will change outcomes from it, and only because that is how you change institutional political behavior.

    YOu son-of-a-mother fuuu...Just kinding, lol.:D You win and it is a very sad day indeed. Unless of course, with the right to carry outside the home not being established and declared a right as of yet, that they are viewing his concealed carry license(a contractual agreement with the state) as a waiver of right to open carry...Though, I know that seems pretty far fetched, the first conference denial and no dissent from denial makes me think that is a reasonable assertion. At this point, with the Peruta denial, they are essentially indicating that there is no right to carry outside the home...Which is a ridiculous proposition.

    I forgot where you wanted that $50 to go...Let me know and there was another guy also....Maan, kangaroo justice rules the day.
     
    Last edited:

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    YOu son-of-a-mother fuuu...Just kinding, lol.:D You win and it is a very sad day indeed. Unless of course, with the right to carry outside the home not being established and declared a right as of yet, that they are viewing his concealed carry license(a contractual agreement with the state) as a waiver of right to open carry...Though, I know that seems pretty far fetched, the first conference denial and no dissent from denial makes me think that is a reasonable assertion. At this point, with the Peruta denial, they are essentially indicating that there is no right to carry outside the home...Which is a ridiculous proposition.

    I forgot where you wanted that $50 to go...Let me know and there was another guy also....Maan, kangaroo justice rules the day.

    You're right, it is indeed a ridiculous proposition, but the fact that 4 of the "justices" don't think there is any right to own any firearm whatsoever for any purpose makes it not a shock that 5 won't agree there is a right to carry open or concealed outside the home.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    YOu son-of-a-mother fuuu...Just kinding, lol.:D

    Hehehehe. :lol2:

    Thanks for being such a good sport about this. In the end, we can only laugh because the alternative is too depressing to consider.


    You win and it is a very sad day indeed. Unless of course, with the right to carry outside the home not being established and declared a right as of yet, that they are viewing his concealed carry license(a contractual agreement with the state) as a waiver of right to open carry...

    Well, that presumes that, firstly, the license really is a contractual agreement with the state; secondly, that the license explicitly includes an agreement to not carry openly (that might be in the form of not violating any laws or something); and finally, that one can, by signing a contract with a government entity, waive one's fundamental Constitutional rights in the first place.

    Were the last the case, then one could become a literal slave simply by signing the appropriate contract.


    Though, I know that seems pretty far fetched, the first conference denial and no dissent from denial makes me think that is a reasonable assertion. At this point, with the Peruta denial, they are essentially indicating that there is no right to carry outside the home...Which is a ridiculous proposition.

    But Kolbe was denied cert in the same way: first conference denial and no dissent. Unless you think the 2nd Amendment really doesn't cover the AR-15 and other rifles like it, the way cert was denied here can hardly be used as a meaningful indicator of what the Court thinks.


    I forgot where you wanted that $50 to go...Let me know and there was another guy also....Maan, kangaroo justice rules the day.

    I'd say just donate it to whichever pro-2A organization you believe will help the most. We need all the help we can get. Unless we get substantial help soon, the 2nd Amendment is dead and buried. With the Court behaving as it is now, my bet is that even a law requiring one to keep a trigger lock on their unloaded gun at home would see denial of cert of its challenging case, because a firearm would be involved.
     

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    I'd say just donate it to whichever pro-2A organization you believe will help the most. We need all the help we can get. Unless we get substantial help soon, the 2nd Amendment is dead and buried. With the Court behaving as it is now, my bet is that even a law requiring one to keep a trigger lock on their unloaded gun at home would see denial of cert of its challenging case, because a firearm would be involved.

    You're exactly right. Our success in some areas of the country may have been motivated by the legislatures' commitment to the 2nd Amendment, but the 2nd Amendment itself doesn't protect anything the way the courts have behaved. In other words, the pro-gun rights laws that have passed would have done so without the 2nd Amendment even being a factor.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,473
    YOu son-of-a-mother fuuu...Just kinding, lol.:D You win and it is a very sad day indeed. Unless of course, with the right to carry outside the home not being established and declared a right as of yet, that they are viewing his concealed carry license(a contractual agreement with the state) as a waiver of right to open carry...Though, I know that seems pretty far fetched, the first conference denial and no dissent from denial makes me think that is a reasonable assertion. At this point, with the Peruta denial, they are essentially indicating that there is no right to carry outside the home...Which is a ridiculous proposition.

    I forgot where you wanted that $50 to go...Let me know and there was another guy also....Maan, kangaroo justice rules the day.

    I would not read too much into the denials. While I believe the Peruta argument was technically correct (legislature can determine whether open or concealed), they failed to argue why concealed carry is part of the right. Norman failed to understand that there may be reasons why one or the other may be prohibited.

    You're right, it is indeed a ridiculous proposition, but the fact that 4 of the "justices" don't think there is any right to own any firearm whatsoever for any purpose makes it not a shock that 5 won't agree there is a right to carry open or concealed outside the home.

    The 5 justices likely to vote for the case have specifically stated "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" I am not sure why you think otherwise.
     

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    I would not read too much into the denials. While I believe the Peruta argument was technically correct (legislature can determine whether open or concealed), they failed to argue why concealed carry is part of the right. Norman failed to understand that there may be reasons why one or the other may be prohibited.



    The 5 justices likely to vote for the case have specifically stated "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" I am not sure why you think otherwise.

    There's quite a lot of room between the right to carry "any weapon in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" and the right to carry in general.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,473
    There's quite a lot of room between the right to carry "any weapon in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" and the right to carry in general.

    FL does not interfere with the right in general. It simply states that it must be done concealed as opposed to open.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    The 5 justices likely to vote for the case have specifically stated "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" I am not sure why you think otherwise.

    (emphasis mine)

    Which other rights are ones that are completely void save for specific protections the Supreme Court has explicitly created (here, protection against complete bans on handguns and stun guns, limited only to the home)? Thus far, that is exactly what the 2nd Amendment right is, if the interpretation of the lower courts is indeed correct.

    Put another way, it appears the courts are reading the above as meaning "the 2nd Amendment right protects no weapons, no manners of carry, and no purposes for those weapons, save for keep of handguns (and, now, stun guns) in the home". Is this the interpretation you are using here?

    Which other rights are equivalent in that regard?
     

    Peaceful John

    Active Member
    May 31, 2011
    239
    Disappointing, but possibly the best conclusion we could hope for given the Court's present makeup. Much better to have denial of cert rather than have to deal with stare decisis issues next term. What we're waiting for is one more Trump replacement. It's a matter of when, not "if".

    Popcorn time.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,473
    (emphasis mine)

    Which other rights are ones that are completely void save for specific protections the Supreme Court has explicitly created (here, protection against complete bans on handguns and stun guns, limited only to the home)? Thus far, that is exactly what the 2nd Amendment right is, if the interpretation of the lower courts is indeed correct.

    Put another way, it appears the courts are reading the above as meaning "the 2nd Amendment right protects no weapons, no manners of carry, and no purposes for those weapons, save for keep of handguns (and, now, stun guns) in the home". Is this the interpretation you are using here?

    Which other rights are equivalent in that regard?

    No individual right survives when it is measured against public safety. It is not typically an issue with the other rights because they generally do not implicate public safety the way the 2A does. So long as you see the right as a pure individual right with no implications to society you will find it is not much of a right.

    I believe that I am both an individual and a member of public and that my individual safety is part of the public safety. Denying the collective of the individual is denying the public of its safety. The government is certainly not going to provide my safety.
     

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    No individual right survives when it is measured against public safety. It is not typically an issue with the other rights because they generally do not implicate public safety the way the 2A does. So long as you see the right as a pure individual right with no implications to society you will find it is not much of a right.

    I believe that I am both an individual and a member of public and that my individual safety is part of the public safety. Denying the collective of the individual is denying the public of its safety. The government is certainly not going to provide my safety.

    That is absolutely not true. For example, the 4th Amendment certainly implicates public safety (look at the decisions regarding stop and frisk, for example). The 1st Amendment implicates public safety (look at the decisions regarding shutting down a speaker because some listeners "might" become violent). The 8th Amendment implicates public safety. You might be able to see a more direct relationship with the 2nd, but that doesn't mean that public safety is never an issue with every other Constitutional right.
     

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    FL does not interfere with the right in general. It simply states that it must be done concealed as opposed to open.

    Right, Florida doesn't. But California, New York, Maryland, and New Jersey certainly do. If Peruta is right, and concealed carry is not a right, and the Florida Supreme Court is right, and open carry is not a right, then the only thing that you can infer is that there is no carry right at all.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    No individual right survives when it is measured against public safety.

    Not even in the presence of a direct command in the Constitution to protect that right?

    Why not? Is not the Constitution the supreme law of the land?


    It is not typically an issue with the other rights because they generally do not implicate public safety the way the 2A does. So long as you see the right as a pure individual right with no implications to society you will find it is not much of a right.

    Where in the Constitution does it say, or even imply, that "implications to society" trumps Constitutional protections?


    I believe that I am both an individual and a member of public and that my individual safety is part of the public safety. Denying the collective of the individual is denying the public of its safety. The government is certainly not going to provide my safety.

    I most certainly agree with this last. I just have no reason to believe that the courts will see it that way, most especially in light of the relevant case law (which we went over in a different discussion).
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,473
    That is absolutely not true. For example, the 4th Amendment certainly implicates public safety (look at the decisions regarding stop and frisk, for example). The 1st Amendment implicates public safety (look at the decisions regarding shutting down a speaker because some listeners "might" become violent). The 8th Amendment implicates public safety. You might be able to see a more direct relationship with the 2nd, but that doesn't mean that public safety is never an issue with every other Constitutional right.

    I don't believe I used the word "never". There are definitely exceptions as you correctly point out. I don't see them as the typical situation when one thinks of individual rights.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,705
    Messages
    7,249,049
    Members
    33,310
    Latest member
    Skarface

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom