Jump to content


Photo

Norman v. State (FL Open Carry)


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#31 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 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.



#32 kurt555gs

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,018 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+

#33 gunuser17

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 42 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. 



#34 Plinkermostly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 560 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.



#35 kurt555gs

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,018 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+

#36 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,038 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.

#37 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 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



#38 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,038 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.

#39 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 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.



#40 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,578 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.


The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#41 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 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."


#42 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 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.  



#43 Charles Nichols

    Member

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

Posted 08 May 2017 - 01:53 PM

Norman's lawyer got back to me.  He said he will be filing a cert petition.



#44 press1280

    Member

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

Posted 16 May 2017 - 04:02 PM

Excellent! I believe by the time Norman files (July) Peruta's fate will be known.



#45 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,137 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:35 PM

If you can, please post the cert petition. Should be a very interesting read. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#46 Charles Nichols

    Member

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

Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:51 PM

If you can, please post the cert petition. Should be a very interesting read. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Check this link in a couple of months ->  http://blog.californ...g/?page_id=6152

 

The cert petition is due in 53 days but SCOTUS often grants extensions of time which, if granted, would push the filing date back a month or two.



#47 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,137 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 19 May 2017 - 06:29 PM

Sleep deprivation makes me have "blonde moments." The whole dragging of feet briefing schedule for cert petitions slipped my mind and I should've known better that you'd be posting it. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#48 latetotheparty

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 396 posts
  • Joined: 18-October 13

Posted 10 July 2017 - 11:31 AM

https://www.floridac...-norman-v-state

#49 gunuser17

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

Posted 10 July 2017 - 11:56 AM

Too bad the petition for cert couldn't be filed earlier.  If you believe Supreme Court statistics, the summer pool is huge and the odds of cert being granted go down significantly when a petition is part of the summer pool.  Hopefully, this will be granted and result in a good outcome.


Edited by gunuser17, 10 July 2017 - 11:57 AM.


#50 press1280

    Member

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

Posted 10 July 2017 - 05:03 PM

We'll have to see if it does end up at the big conference. The state could easily get extensions through the summer and put them in a conference after.

#51 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,812 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 11 July 2017 - 11:58 AM

https://www.floridac...-norman-v-state

From the Florida Carry website :

"Petition for Cert. filed with US Supreme Court - 7/10/2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari

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."

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#52 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,137 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 13 July 2017 - 07:02 AM

All I have to say is that this SHOULD BE the cert petition (in a carry case) that is granted. It won't get any better than this. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#53 press1280

    Member

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

Posted 10 August 2017 - 02:00 AM

FL has waived its response rather quickly (7/26), and the case has been distributed for the big conference 9/25, although I won't be surprised if SCOTUS requests a response and the case gets pushed forward to another conference.

 

https://www.supremec...blic/17-68.html



#54 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,765 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 10 August 2017 - 04:35 PM

All I have to say is that this SHOULD BE the cert petition (in a carry case) that is granted. It won't get any better than this.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


How long can the justices keep rescheduling cases? Because if Kennedy is indeed gonna retire at the end of the year, maybe that'll give us the five man majority we need to start taking 2A cases.
"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

#55 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,137 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 11 August 2017 - 08:19 AM

He's likely done next year. Well, he hasn't explicitly announced retirement, but he hasn't hired his clerks for the October 2018 term and that's a sign that he's going to hang up his robe at the end of the upcoming term. Fortunately, Breyer has also been floating retirement and Ginsburg has the Grim Reaper right behind her. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#56 press1280

    Member

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

Posted 11 August 2017 - 08:31 AM

All I have to say is that this SHOULD BE the cert petition (in a carry case) that is granted. It won't get any better than this.
Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


How long can the justices keep rescheduling cases? Because if Kennedy is indeed gonna retire at the end of the year, maybe that'll give us the five man majority we need to start taking 2A cases.
Do you mean relisted? 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.

#57 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,137 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 12 August 2017 - 05:55 AM

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
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#58 press1280

    Member

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

Posted 12 August 2017 - 07:43 AM

Oddly enough Scotus denied that case with no comment....

#59 press1280

    Member

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

Posted 12 August 2017 - 09:17 AM

SCOTUS has requested a response, due September 11th. 1st test passed.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users