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!
  • jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,473
    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.

    Norman is about FL, hence my comment. Peruta lost the en banc because they failed to rebut the historic presumption against concealed carry. I believe the reasoning behind this presumption had to do with prohibiting criminal behavior. The prohibition on criminal behavior is still valid, but the connection that only criminals concealed carry is not valid.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    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.

    When does the 4th Amendment protection not implicate "public safety"?
     

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    Norman is about FL, hence my comment. Peruta lost the en banc because they failed to rebut the historic presumption against concealed carry. I believe the reasoning behind this presumption had to do with prohibiting criminal behavior. The prohibition on criminal behavior is still valid, but the connection that only criminals concealed carry is not valid.

    Again, that would be a reasonable argument if open carry was legal in California. But it's not, so it's not.
     

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    The majority of the time.

    I am not aware of how my person, house, papers, or effects implicate "public safety" at any frequency but rarely.

    All the time. The very point of the 4th Amendment is that some things (like the sanctity of your person, house, etc.) must be maintained even when the government seeks to infringe upon it to further a government objective. What is the usual government objective in such cases? Public safety.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    The majority of the time.

    I am not aware of how my person, house, papers, or effects implicate "public safety" at any frequency but rarely.

    Seriously?

    You might be a dangerous criminal, and the 4th Amendment requirements can make the difference in whether or not you have enough time to destroy the evidence that incriminates you. There may be no way for the government to make a convincing case that you're a dangerous criminal until it has searched your house/papers/effects for that evidence. Surely that alone implicates "public safety", no?
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,701
    Messages
    7,248,955
    Members
    33,309
    Latest member
    Andre

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom