Florida Supremes will hear the case!
Norman v. State (FL) Open Carry lawsuit
- Thread starter press1280
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
Florida Supremes will hear the case!
fightinbluhen51
"Quack Pot Call Honker"
- Oct 31, 2008
- 8,974
No doubt about that!
I wonder what influence the legislature will have upon this with the bill floating about.
I wonder if the Legislature is telegraphing an outcome based up on the open carry augmentation of the permit process.
Herm....
I'm hoping not much, as Norman's attorney separates the licensing of concealed carry, a privilege, from that of exercising a right to open carry. The legislature still wants to license open carry. I don't think if it passes that it will moot the case, but I could be wrong as I don't know how that all works very well. I was hoping with the obvious ruling of the libtards sitting on the court, that it would be a nice open carry case for the SCOTUS to take....Another waiting game ensues.
Peaceful John
Active Member
- May 31, 2011
- 239
Wasn't the State to submit an answer brief yesterday (12/15/2015)?
Does anyone have a link?
Does anyone have a link?
By my math, yes it was due on the 15th. Docket is here: http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket...15&p_casenumber=650&psCourt=FSC&psSearchType=
Don't see the actual answer brief, just the response on the denial of Mississippi Carry to participate.
CrueChief
Cocker Dad/RIP Bella
Entry dated 12/11/2015 states response due 12/20/2015
The State of FL was granted a delay until January 20th to file.
fightinbluhen51
"Quack Pot Call Honker"
- Oct 31, 2008
- 8,974
Good grief.
JPG
Ultimate Member
Norman's reply https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2015/650/2015-650_brief_119605.pdf
It's the states' SCOTUS brief from Kachalsky????
Norman is also requesting oral arguments.
It's the states' SCOTUS brief from Kachalsky????
Norman is also requesting oral arguments.
krucam
Ultimate Member
The link is the Appendix to the Reply Brief. I don't see the actual Reply Brief on the docket link you provided.
http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket...15&p_casenumber=650&psCourt=FSC&psSearchType=
kcbrown
Super Genius
- Jun 16, 2012
- 1,393
Florida was one of those states in that brief. And counsel (Pamela Jo Bondi) for the state of Florida in that brief is also counsel for the respondents in Norman.
I don't see the petitioner's reply brief yet. This is an appendix for that brief, so I expect the reply brief itself to appear soon.
Here's Norman's reply brief, an excellent read: https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2015/650/2015-650_brief_119604.pdf
CONCLUSION
The right to bear arms in this state was first restricted because of skin color.
It is now restricted to those who pay a tax, prove specialized training and endure a
delay for processing of their application, and only if they do not let anyone knwo they
are exercising their right to bear arms. No tax, training, or application is required to
exercise any other right in the Declaration of Rights or the Bill of Rights. The right
to bear arms should be no different.
CONCLUSION
The right to bear arms in this state was first restricted because of skin color.
It is now restricted to those who pay a tax, prove specialized training and endure a
delay for processing of their application, and only if they do not let anyone knwo they
are exercising their right to bear arms. No tax, training, or application is required to
exercise any other right in the Declaration of Rights or the Bill of Rights. The right
to bear arms should be no different.
JPG
Ultimate Member
You would think they would have used spell check for such an important filing. Good read. Hope things go well for the Constitution.
The Court previously accepted jurisdiction. The Court will hear oral argument at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 8, 2016. A maximum of twenty minutes to the side is allowed for the argument, but counsel is expected to use only so much of that time as is necessary. NO CONTINUANCES WILL BE GRANTED EXCEPT UPON A SHOWING OF EXTREME HARDSHIP.
http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket/ds_docket?p_caseyear=2015&p_casenumber=650
http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket/ds_docket?p_caseyear=2015&p_casenumber=650
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
MD DNR Outdoor Recreation Survey -- Outdoorsman Responses Needed (1 Viewer)
- Started by Derwood
- Replies: 5