Jump to content


Photo

Norman v. State (FL Open Carry)


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#61 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,788 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 07 November 2017 - 08:30 AM

Problem

I think the record was 20 or so which is roughly the equivalent of 5 months. I think Norman will happen this term or won't happen at all.


It will happen this term or not at all. Only an extraordinary event could push it to October 2018, such as another Justice dying and leaving a 4-4 ideological split, which is why Texas v. United States was held for rehearing. 20 realists would mean they're crafting a per curiam order. That's an obscene amount of relists. That wouldn't happen in this case because of its importance, the Court would benefit from oral argument.



Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

But this once again begs the question...can we trust Kennedy? Or is he perhaps gonna quit during the Christmas recess?
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#62 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,788 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 07 November 2017 - 08:32 AM

Also, what questions is Norman asking? I'm assuming the questions are "does the 2A protect a right to carry?" and "can the government dictate the manner in which you can carry?"

I just wish somebody would bring up strict scrutiny. Half of our problems would be fixed overnight if that was the standard used.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#63 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,286 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 07 November 2017 - 09:18 AM

But this once again begs the question...can we trust Kennedy? Or is he perhaps gonna quit during the Christmas recess?
Answer to your first question is a big, fat "No." and he's not going anywhere during the recess. He likely will announce his retirement at end of term in May. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#64 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 07 November 2017 - 04:40 PM

Norman's question is quite broad:

 

QUESTION PRESENTED

Florida law provides for licenses to carry

handguns concealed, but prohibits carrying firearms

openly. Petitioner, who had such license, was

convicted of openly carrying a firearm on a public

street. The majority of the Florida Supreme Court

upheld the ban under intermediate scrutiny based on

conjecture by counsel about why the legislature may

have banned open carry.

The issue is whether a prohibition on peaceably

and openly carrying a lawfully-owned handgun

infringes on “the right of the people to . . . bear arms”

protected by the Second Amendment to the United

States Constitution. That issue also involves the

extent to which a restriction on a constitutional right

may be upheld, under a proper standard of review, on

the basis of a post hoc argument of counsel with no

foundation in the legislative or factual record.

 

The state's "question" is much more straightforward:

 

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether a state that broadly allows responsible,

law-abiding adults to carry handguns and other

weapons in public for self-defense may, consistent

with the Second Amendment, require that those

weapons generally remain concealed.



#65 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,286 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 07 November 2017 - 06:13 PM

This is a favorite of mine: "Applying intermediate scrutiny, the majority upheld the open carry ban on the basis that the alternative of concealed carry with a license was available and that the legislature could reasonably conclude that an armed attacker 'might be more likely to target an open carrier than a concealed carrier.' App. 43a. Since strict scrutiny does not apply, it added, such supposition need not be backed up by evidence and the court would defer to the legislative judgment. App. 43-44a." Ok then. "Intermediate scrutiny applies so we can just take wild guesses as to what the legislature was thinking in regard to how violent felons select their victims." That requires a lot of guesswork. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users