Norman v. State (FL) Open Carry lawsuit

press1280 said:

Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Certiorari
Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:
(a)
a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort;

Splitzo. Peruta held the 2A in no way shape or form protected concealed carry. The FL Supremes hold that OC can be banned if (reasonable, shall-issue) CCW is available.

Click to expand...

abu Haqiqa said:

Sorry, for some reason thought Norman was only challenge under FL state Constitution so no Federal question. Should have looked before posting.

The split is still more implied than explicit, so I'm not convinced they'd jump on it (to say nothing of fact they usually want several circuits to have ruled on a issue before taking it up...).

Click to expand...

Kharn said:

IIRC with Peruta, every circuit that contains a may-issue state has ruled that may-issue is acceptable. 5, 6, 8, and 11 don't contain any may-issue states, so they wouldn't have much to talk about.

Click to expand...

boundlessdyad said:

Except for the fact that permitting is an infringement all by itself...

Click to expand...

press1280 said:

Correct. That's why this case IMO is so important. Even though may-issue isn't on the table specifically, the opinion seemed to indicate shall-issue was an alternative to open carry and that states could choose the manner of carry. Peruta OTOH said CC wasn't protected no matter if OC was available or not and that the solution was to attack the OC ban.

Click to expand...

swinokur said:

Volokh

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tm_term=.13f22b79dd92&wpisrc=nl_volokh&wpmm=1

Click to expand...

This truth should be acknowledged: opposition to open carrying stems not from concrete public safety concerns but from the fact that many people “are (sensibly or not) made uncomfortable by the visible presence of a deadly weapon.”

Of course, many people are made uncomfortable by the fact that others are permitted to keep and bear arms at all. But contemporary sensibilities cannot be the test. Such sensibilities are no more a basis for defeating the historic right to open carrying than for defeating the understanding that the Second Amendment recognizes the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

Click to expand...

motorcoachdoug said:

So I wonder how long the FSC will make up its mind if it will rehear the case and if it does decide to rehear the case then how long do we wait until the court date. IMO I think it will take about 6 months to a year before this is answered if their is a rehearing.

Click to expand...

JPG said:

So this is the case we are waiting for?

Click to expand...

fightinbluhen51 said:

I think the default time is now two years instead of two weeks.

Click to expand...

press1280 said:

Nope, they should be filing for cert in a few weeks. Add on a few months for briefings and that puts us at late this year.

Click to expand...