Norman v. State (FL) Open Carry lawsuit

GlocksAndPatriots · Jun 28, 2017

press1280 said:
I think because we win under true intermediate scrutiny; the Circuit Courts are using rational basis and calling it intermediate. Literally ANY reason in their minds overcomes intermediate scrutiny.

Exactly. Not to mention that for intermediate scrutiny, the law is supposed to "fit" the government interest. This is fine in theory, but the courts have completely deferred to the legislatures on the degree of fit and to their weighing of the evidence. That's not intermediate scrutiny.

GlocksAndPatriots · Jun 28, 2017

jcutonilli said:
I don't see the judiciary as the problem at this point. There has only been one real argument presented (individual right vs public safety). That does not cover all possible arguments.

If you want the court to evaluate that they have been using rational basis instead of intermediate scrutiny you need to actually make that argument. Show me where anyone has submitted a reasoned argument on the subject. One sentence is not a reasoned argument.

We'll have to agree to disagree there. I've been practicing law for many years, and it's quite obvious to me when judges are being fair and when they're not.

jcutonilli · Jun 28, 2017

Inigoes said:
Look to Caetano, it was 9-0

I don't believe Caetano was about intermediate scrutiny and public safety. I seem to recall it was simply about the fact that stun guns were not something that was around when the amendment was ratified. SCOTUS said that that was not a valid excuse try again. MA chose not to try again.

jcutonilli · Jun 28, 2017

GlocksAndPatriots said:
Exactly. Not to mention that for intermediate scrutiny, the law is supposed to "fit" the government interest. This is fine in theory, but the courts have completely deferred to the legislatures on the degree of fit and to their weighing of the evidence. That's not intermediate scrutiny.

GlocksAndPatriots said:
We'll have to agree to disagree there. I've been practicing law for many years, and it's quite obvious to me when judges are being fair and when they're not.

I am not disagreeing with you about intermediate scrutiny. I disagree over where the problem lies.

In your professional opinion, when you don't really raise an issue. Do judges accept that issue or reject/ignore it?

All you need to do is point out where there was a reasoned argument that supports your supposition. I do not remember seeing one so I cannot blame the judge/court for ignoring it.

Inigoes · Jun 28, 2017

jcutonilli said:
I don't believe Caetano was about intermediate scrutiny and public safety. I seem to recall it was simply about the fact that stun guns were not something that was around when the amendment was ratified. SCOTUS said that that was not a valid excuse try again. MA chose not to try again.

Caetano dealt with a complete ban. If somehow the question can be framed as a "ban", the better chance you have.

GlocksAndPatriots · Jun 28, 2017

jcutonilli said:
I am not disagreeing with you about intermediate scrutiny. I disagree over where the problem lies.

In your professional opinion, when you don't really raise an issue. Do judges accept that issue or reject/ignore it?

All you need to do is point out where there was a reasoned argument that supports your supposition. I do not remember seeing one so I cannot blame the judge/court for ignoring it.

In my experience, judges raise issues on their own when they want to and don't when they don't want to. There's no rule to it.

jcutonilli · Jun 28, 2017

GlocksAndPatriots said:
In my experience, judges raise issues on their own when they want to and don't when they don't want to. There's no rule to it.

I understand what judges do, but what about issues that one side raises or does not raise. (Obviously the judge can raise the issue if they want, but what if the judge does not realize what is happening)

How is the judge supposed to determine if they have gone too far (used rational basis as opposed to intermediate scrutiny) if you do not raise the issue and explain why it happened?

jcutonilli · Jun 28, 2017

Inigoes said:
Caetano dealt with a complete ban. If somehow the question can be framed as a "ban", the better chance you have.

I think framing something as a ban can help, but it does not necessarily improve your chances. Heller pointed out the historical ban on CCW and dangerous and unusual weapons. This is the type of issue that the public safety argument and intermediate scrutiny address.

Elliotte · Jun 29, 2017

Inigoes said:
Look to Caetano, it was 9-0

First off, the Caetano per curium was 8-0, there was no 9th justice at the time.

Second, Caetano was really a 2-6 against the 2A case. All the PC did was say that Mass's reasoning for deciding the case and supporting the stun gun ban wasn't any good. The PC said those reason are BS, try again, and everyone took that as "stun gun bans are unconstitutional". The PC didn't reverse Mass's ruling or correct it, it simply vacated it and sent it back to the Mass SC.

Justice Alito wrote a longer opinion that Justice Thomas joined in that took the position that stun guns are absolutely protected by the 2A and stun gun bans are unconstitutional. This is what everyone seems to be taking as the official Caetano ruling of the court, but that was only the ruling of 2 of the 8 justices. Kennedy and Roberts wouldn't even sign on to that, furthering the impression that one or both may have second thoughts on taking any further 2A cases.

It wouldn't surprise me if the court didn't want to take Caetano, especially with only 8 justices, but Alito and/or Thomas badgered them into issuing the PC.

press1280 · Jul 6, 2017

Cert petition is due in less than 1 week. I had expected them to ask for an extension, but the deadline for that has passed. So unless the SCOTUS clerk is behind, we should see the cert petition next week.

GlocksAndPatriots · Jul 6, 2017

Elliotte said:
First off, the Caetano per curium was 8-0, there was no 9th justice at the time.

Second, Caetano was really a 2-6 against the 2A case. All the PC did was say that Mass's reasoning for deciding the case and supporting the stun gun ban wasn't any good. The PC said those reason are BS, try again, and everyone took that as "stun gun bans are unconstitutional". The PC didn't reverse Mass's ruling or correct it, it simply vacated it and sent it back to the Mass SC.

Justice Alito wrote a longer opinion that Justice Thomas joined in that took the position that stun guns are absolutely protected by the 2A and stun gun bans are unconstitutional. This is what everyone seems to be taking as the official Caetano ruling of the court, but that was only the ruling of 2 of the 8 justices. Kennedy and Roberts wouldn't even sign on to that, furthering the impression that one or both may have second thoughts on taking any further 2A cases.

It wouldn't surprise me if the court didn't want to take Caetano, especially with only 8 justices, but Alito and/or Thomas badgered them into issuing the PC.

Right. Roberts is worried about his "legacy," which means he's a liberal.

777GSOTB · Jul 10, 2017

With the court granting certiorari and deciding in Norman's favor..I cant' wait to be open carrying a firearm, without a license, in California by the 4th of July next year. Freedom will never feel so good as it will on that day. :party29:

Inigoes · Jul 10, 2017

Petition for writ of certiorari has been filed today

https://www.floridacarry.org/images/stories/norman/SCOTUS/Petition-Cert-Norman-Final.pdf

danb · Jul 10, 2017

Well, Halbrook is on the cert petition, and he did write the book on original meaning of the 2nd amendment...

This case puts the court in a peculiar position. Uphold carry ban so long as there is a liberal concealed carry licensing scheme, or force open carry.

Here's hoping maybe Roberts and Kennedy grow a spine. Not holding my breath though.

press1280 · Jul 10, 2017

danb said:
Well, Halbrook is on the cert petition, and he did write the book on original meaning of the 2nd amendment...

This case puts the court in a peculiar position. Uphold carry ban so long as there is a liberal concealed carry licensing scheme, or force open carry.

Here's hoping maybe Roberts and Kennedy grow a spine. Not holding my breath though.

And I'm sure the state will be arguing for shall issue, leaving the court with a nice choice which we win each way.

shacklefordbanks · Jul 10, 2017

press1280 said:
And I'm sure the state will be arguing for shall issue, leaving the court with a nice choice which we win each way.

Unless that take a pass and deny cert.

shacklefordbanks · Jul 10, 2017

Charles Nichols is hopping mad that Norman's lawyers did not take his advice in structuring the cert brief.

I had pleaded with Norman’s attorney to not limit the question before the court to handguns. Which is exactly what he did.

... blah blah blah ...

Unless President Trump has the opportunity to appoint another justice or two this summer or fall, I’m afraid we are looking at another “Cert Denied!”

Isn't Nichols like 0 to 2 or 3 in his lawsuits so far? 0 to 0 in SCOTUS so far and just as likely to be shot down by the 9th circuit as anybody with a gun. (pun intended)

danb · Jul 10, 2017

shacklefordbanks said:
Charles Nichols is hopping mad that Norman's lawyers did not take his advice in structuring the cert brief.

Isn't Nichols like 0 to 2 or 3 in his lawsuits so far? 0 to 0 in SCOTUS so far and just as likely to be shot down by the 9th circuit as anybody with a gun. (pun intended)

Also Halbrook has won 3 cases, written amicus for more, and literally wrote the book on the 2nd amendment. Nichols can suck my HBAR.

777GSOTB · Jul 10, 2017

shacklefordbanks said:
Charles Nichols is hopping mad that Norman's lawyers did not take his advice in structuring the cert brief.

Isn't Nichols like 0 to 2 or 3 in his lawsuits so far? 0 to 0 in SCOTUS so far and just as likely to be shot down by the 9th circuit as anybody with a gun. (pun intended)

Nichols fails to understand that if there is an actual damaged party of a constitutionally protected right, and the lower court gets it wrong, they will accept the cert petition. Though I respect anyone that does it on their own as a pro-se litigant. When I found out about his desire for a license to be issued to him, I was elated about Norman beating him to the high court.

It is mentioned in the cert petition that rifles and shotguns are prohibited from open or concealed carry, though they are not a part of the question presented, " firearms " is used generally in the first part.

" Florida law provides for licenses to carry handguns concealed, but prohibits carrying firearms openly. "

" Yet Florida prohibits any and all carrying of long guns (rifles and shotguns) whether openly or concealed, and bans any and all carrying of handguns, both openly and concealed, except for concealed carry by license holders as a privilege, not a right. "

motorcoachdoug · Jul 11, 2017

It is well written and I for one will be interested to see if SCOTUS does grant cert. IMO i believe they will take it and grant cert. As to how this will help us here in MD if they do prevail I would like the legal eagles here to respond and let the rest of us who are not well versed in legalese what would happen if they did strike down FL law against open carry..

Norman v. State (FL) Open Carry lawsuit

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Banned

Banned

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Banned

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

Active Member

Head'n for the hills

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

dont be a dumbass

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics