Jump to content

Norman v. State (FL Open Carry)


skinnyb82

Recommended Posts

 

 

It is impossible to read the Peruta briefs or understand the oral arguments and come to the conclusion that the Peruta plaintiffs sought to carry a handgun in public in "some manner." Instead, the NRA lawyers argued that Open Carry can, should and must be banned in favor of concealed carry which is very different from the question the Peruta cert petition presents.

 

<snip>

This seems sufficient to render your two claims (which I quoted above in this post) debunked.

 

The 9th Circuit simply mischaracterized Peruto's arguments and ignored the issue of whether or not the 2nd Am protects our right to bear in public in some fashion. The good news is that they clearly avoided the question becaues they knew they'd lose. So that's encouraging.

 

So, moderator, tell me how you would respond to these follow-up posts?

 

What do you need from a moderator? He quoted parts of the briefs that he understands to support his position that you are incorrect in your statement regarding the NRA and Open Carry. A proper response would be to quote the parts of the briefs that support your statements, if you choose to continue the debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So, moderator, tell me how you would respond to these follow-up posts?

 

What do you need from a moderator? He quoted parts of the briefs that he understands to support his position that you are incorrect in your statement regarding the NRA and Open Carry. A proper response would be to quote the parts of the briefs that support your statements, if you choose to continue the debate.

 

I have already proved my claim and yet he persists. The moderator told me I should not use an attitude in my posts and so I ask again, moderator, how would you respond to his subsequent posts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

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.californiarighttocarry.org/?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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...