Jump to content


Photo

Norman v. State (FL Open Carry)


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#31 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,514 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 13 March 2017 - 04:19 PM

Mr. Nichols, as much as I support your goal, I feel I'd be speaking for the majority by stating that your interpretation of this and other decisions is a stretch. By this, I mean your readings of many decisions appear far more cut and dry than the courts have presented, and presumably intended, them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#32 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 13 March 2017 - 04:30 PM

Mr. Nichols, as much as I support your goal, I feel I'd be speaking for the majority by stating that your interpretation of this and other decisions is a stretch. By this, I mean your readings of many decisions appear far more cut and dry than the courts have presented, and presumably intended, them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And yet my readings of all of the decisions is based on what the court actually said whereas the readings of others is that the court meant the exact opposite of what it said.  Take for example the decisions in Baldwin, Heller and McDonald.  It is impossible to understand them to say that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry or that there is a general right to concealed carry under the Second Amendment and yet there are those who do.  No doubt, you are one of them.

 

This decision, Norman v. State, is the only decision which holds that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry. 

 

And once again, we have another concealed carry cert petition citing Moore with no claim by the petitioner that Moore stands for the proposition that states can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry and no explanation by those here who cling to the fantasy that it does as to why if this were true, none of the so called gun-rights lawyers have put forth their interpretation of Moore in their cert petitions?

 

The inability of others to be able to read a court decision or a brief does not constitute a problem on my part.



#33 kurt555gs

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,006 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 09

Posted 14 March 2017 - 10:32 AM

Two whole pages about open carry and the thread isn't locked yet? Amazing. Simply amazing. 


Kurt on G+

#34 gunuser17

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 17

Posted 14 March 2017 - 11:44 AM

At this point, the only opinion that will matter is the opinion of the court. 



#35 Plinkermostly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 381 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 14 March 2017 - 02:43 PM

Open . . .  Concealed . . . high capacity magazines . . . evil black rifles -- oh, for the sake of some clarity, preferably judiciously applied with some sanity.



#36 kurt555gs

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,006 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 09

Posted 17 March 2017 - 09:09 AM

As many of you know, restoring open carry to illinois is the most important state 2A issue in Illinois for me. I look at this Florida ruling with sadness because although it doesn't legally effect what happens here, the concealed only bunch will be repeating it chapter and verse every time the subject is brought up. There was a time when I thought legalizing open carry was possible here. Now I think it will be a very long time, if ever. So, realistically I have given up. I can still wish for some judicial miracle,  but legislatively I think it's over.

It's sad because tactically open carry isn't that important in the short term but strategically it is in the long run. 

 

Eventually I'll just move to one of the 45 states where open carry is legal. Until then, I can only watch.


Kurt on G+

#37 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,514 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 17 March 2017 - 05:07 PM

Mr. Nichols, as much as I support your goal, I feel I'd be speaking for the majority by stating that your interpretation of this and other decisions is a stretch. By this, I mean your readings of many decisions appear far more cut and dry than the courts have presented, and presumably intended, them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


And yet my readings of all of the decisions is based on what the court actually said whereas the readings of others is that the court meant the exact opposite of what it said.  Take for example the decisions in Baldwin, Heller and McDonald.  It is impossible to understand them to say that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry or that there is a general right to concealed carry under the Second Amendment and yet there are those who do.  No doubt, you are one of them.
 
This decision, Norman v. State, is the only decision which holds that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry. 
 
And once again, we have another concealed carry cert petition citing Moore with no claim by the petitioner that Moore stands for the proposition that states can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry and no explanation by those here who cling to the fantasy that it does as to why if this were true, none of the so called gun-rights lawyers have put forth their interpretation of Moore in their cert petitions?
 
The inability of others to be able to read a court decision or a brief does not constitute a problem on my part.


No, I do not think that there is a general right to *concealed* carry under the 2A. I think there is a general right to carry, period. I have done no hair splitting as to the manner, and my personal opinion is that "keep and bear" more closely approaches openly carried arms; any arms short of crew served weapons.

Practically, Moore says one thing: a state cannot ban ALL carriage of firearms in public. CA7 did not say that OC could be banned in favor of CC, but they also didn't say it couldn't, and held that while the state has the power to regulate the manner, it did not have the power to prohibit it completely. This is very much in line with Heller.

#38 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 18 March 2017 - 12:39 AM

 

Mr. Nichols, as much as I support your goal, I feel I'd be speaking for the majority by stating that your interpretation of this and other decisions is a stretch. By this, I mean your readings of many decisions appear far more cut and dry than the courts have presented, and presumably intended, them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


And yet my readings of all of the decisions is based on what the court actually said whereas the readings of others is that the court meant the exact opposite of what it said.  Take for example the decisions in Baldwin, Heller and McDonald.  It is impossible to understand them to say that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry or that there is a general right to concealed carry under the Second Amendment and yet there are those who do.  No doubt, you are one of them.
 
This decision, Norman v. State, is the only decision which holds that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry. 
 
And once again, we have another concealed carry cert petition citing Moore with no claim by the petitioner that Moore stands for the proposition that states can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry and no explanation by those here who cling to the fantasy that it does as to why if this were true, none of the so called gun-rights lawyers have put forth their interpretation of Moore in their cert petitions?
 
The inability of others to be able to read a court decision or a brief does not constitute a problem on my part.


<snip>CA7 did not say that OC could be banned in favor of CC, but they also didn't say it couldn't<snip>

 

quod erat demonstrandum



#39 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,514 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 18 March 2017 - 07:06 AM

 

Mr. Nichols, as much as I support your goal, I feel I'd be speaking for the majority by stating that your interpretation of this and other decisions is a stretch. By this, I mean your readings of many decisions appear far more cut and dry than the courts have presented, and presumably intended, them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And yet my readings of all of the decisions is based on what the court actually said whereas the readings of others is that the court meant the exact opposite of what it said.  Take for example the decisions in Baldwin, Heller and McDonald.  It is impossible to understand them to say that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry or that there is a general right to concealed carry under the Second Amendment and yet there are those who do.  No doubt, you are one of them.
 
This decision, Norman v. State, is the only decision which holds that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry. 
 
And once again, we have another concealed carry cert petition citing Moore with no claim by the petitioner that Moore stands for the proposition that states can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry and no explanation by those here who cling to the fantasy that it does as to why if this were true, none of the so called gun-rights lawyers have put forth their interpretation of Moore in their cert petitions?
 
The inability of others to be able to read a court decision or a brief does not constitute a problem on my part.


<snip>CA7 did not say that OC could be banned in favor of CC, but they also didn't say it couldn't<snip>
 


quod erat demonstrandum


Indeed.

#40 press1280

    Member

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

Posted 18 March 2017 - 09:57 AM

As many of you know, restoring open carry to illinois is the most important state 2A issue in Illinois for me. I look at this Florida ruling with sadness because although it doesn't legally effect what happens here, the concealed only bunch will be repeating it chapter and verse every time the subject is brought up. There was a time when I thought legalizing open carry was possible here. Now I think it will be a very long time, if ever. So, realistically I have given up. I can still wish for some judicial miracle,  but legislatively I think it's over.

It's sad because tactically open carry isn't that important in the short term but strategically it is in the long run. 

 

Eventually I'll just move to one of the 45 states where open carry is legal. Until then, I can only watch.

Why doesn't someone challenge it? The court will be in a box just like in Norman. Uphold the OC ban, split with Peruta. Or the ban gets knocked down, you win.



#41 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,508 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 21 March 2017 - 10:16 AM

As many of you know, restoring open carry to illinois is the most important state 2A issue in Illinois for me. I look at this Florida ruling with sadness because although it doesn't legally effect what happens here, the concealed only bunch will be repeating it chapter and verse every time the subject is brought up. There was a time when I thought legalizing open carry was possible here. Now I think it will be a very long time, if ever. So, realistically I have given up. I can still wish for some judicial miracle,  but legislatively I think it's over.

It's sad because tactically open carry isn't that important in the short term but strategically it is in the long run. 

 

Eventually I'll just move to one of the 45 states where open carry is legal. Until then, I can only watch.

Non-residents would be good plaintiffs for an open carry challenge.  Those non-residents that had their out of state license unilaterally revoked due to the ISP unilaterally declaring the state as no longer substantially similar would be even better.  Many non-residents will have standing to sue due to being unable to apply for the license.


Virgin Mobile runs through Sprint towers anyone interested can sign up for virgin mobile through the following link.
https://refer.virgin...usa.com/7eoz3TQ

#42 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 03 April 2017 - 10:59 PM

The State of Florida's opposition is now online at my website under the April 3, 2017, update.

 

Florida did not specifically address paragraph 17 of Norman's motion:

 

"17. This Court's reliance on the discredited work of Saul Cornell, is a direct

repudiation of the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings in Heller and McDonald which
relied on the research of Clayton Cramer, a noted Second Amendment scholar.
Notably, Mr. Cornell appeared as the co-author an amicus brief in support of the
non-prevailing side in Heller."


#43 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 13 April 2017 - 10:28 PM

Norman's motion for rehearing was denied by the Florida Supreme Court today.  I am waiting to hear back from his lawyer if he is going to file a cert petition.  






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (1)