• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Florida Carry legal victory makes way for constitutional challenge to Open Carry Ban

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
750
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
Lawyer, getting back on topic, what do you think of the Norman opinion? This summary is interesing:

"While the right to carry outside the home has been established by the highest court of the land, no decision interpreting the Second Amendment can be cited for the proposition that a state must allow for one form of carry over another. Because the Legislature has the right to enact laws regarding the manner in which arms can be borne, it is likewise permitted to forbid the carrying of arms in a particular place or manner which, in its collective judgment, is likely to lead to breaches of the peace, see Carlton v. State, 58 So. 486, 488-89 (Fla. 1912), provided a reasonable alternative manner of carry is provided."

"...no decision interpreting the Second Amendment can be cited for the proposition that a state must allow for one form of carry over another". Isn't this false on its face? The supreme court cited SC cases from Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana that said OC could not be banned. We also have a recent federal court case from Colorado that says OC is a right.

Bingo!
 

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
750
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
I especially like the part where they say open carry can be banned because concealed carry can be banned. Non sequitur much?
Well I don't think that was quite what the judge said but rather instead opined that since concealed carry was an option, then open carry could be banned. His supporting arguments, nevertheless, where spurious.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
Well I don't think that was quite what the judge said but rather instead opined that since concealed carry was an option, then open carry could be banned. His supporting arguments, nevertheless, where spurious.

"Because the Supreme Court in Heller I recognized that concealed-carry restrictions were “presumptively lawful regulatory measures,” id. at 627 n.26, limitations on open-carry would be presumptively lawful by logical extension so long as limitations onthe right to carry outside the home are not so unduly restrictive as to destroy “the central component” of the right; namely, the right to self defense."

He also says that because of the Crane case in another FL DCA, which says that the CWFL is a privilege, that's ok because Mcdonald says carry outside the home is a right.

"We recognize that some cases pre-dating Heller I and McDonald have held that
the carrying of firearms outside the home for self-defense purposes is a
privilege. Crane v. Dep’t of State, Div. of Licensing, 547 So. 2d 266, 267 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1989) (“[A] license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm is a privilege and
not a vested right.”). However, recent cases decided since Heller I and McDonald,
including Peruta, have established that the carrying of firearms outside the home
for self-defense purposes is more than a mere privilege, and is instead a right
protected under both the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution
and Article 1, Section 8 of the Florida Constitution, and thus subject to
reasonable restrictions"

WTF? Thanks Alan Gura. Still, a license is a privilege to do something that would be illegal. Is our right illegal without a license? And scotus still says OC is a right and that trumps Peruta, which isn't settled yet anyway. Crane didn't say carry outside the home was a privilege, it said having a CWFL was a privilege. Good grief, this kourt got it wrong on purpose, like Ixtow said. Well, as I said they would too.
 
Last edited:

tonygreene113

Newbie
Joined
Feb 26, 2015
Messages
2
Location
Tampa
The guy with the tight t-shirt being videoed seems to have lost his appeal and the State went with keeping the CC in place.
 

nobama

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
756
Location
, ,
Florida is pro gun YANKEE!

Like most yankees they confuse guns for their purpose with second amendment. This is why OC frightens the Florida legislature and the courts. New Jersey yankees move to Fl to retire they bring their NJ money, and attitudes. Over the years they have done a good job through the media of convincing the rest of the residents that blood will run in the streets if OC is legal.

Yankees like to own guns, on their terms, it has always been that way. They could care less about the constitution, as long as they can move to Floriida buy a pink shirt and off white sport coat and play Sonny Crocket, or Tubbs. I saw it when I lived there. The TV show helped shape the gun image in Florida.

This is why it is so important we make people understand that CC by permit is NOT 2A. The courts have wrongly ruled that 2A is about self defense, it is not, and never should have been perverted. It is about having the tools to keep governments from controlling the people. Which is exactly where we have ended up. The conceal carry only fools have brought this on us. The NRA has brought this on us.

Self defense is a right, just not a 2A right, it is covered by those rights not enumerated. It is important that people interpret, and read the constitution as it was written. As much as the NRA has tried, and successfully to separate the 2A into two separate phrases they are tied together, and reveal the purpose for the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is not about hunting, it is not about self defense, it is not about collecting. It's sole purpose was to protect the people from our own government as well as those governments outside our border. Sorry, but if (general) you cannot grasp that YOU are part of the problem.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Want your conceal carry self defense rights argue them using "Roe V Wade". The ruling paved the way for the right to decide for yourself your security, and the privacy to do so. The problem is so called conservatives hate pro choice so much they are not willing to accept the ruling that will never go away. I am not wild about abortion as birth control, but the ruling supports conceal carry as a right. The second does not. Separate the two CC and OC, and we have a chance of having both unfettered.

I am not against CC as right, just argue it with the right amendment. Let OC stand on it's own and for the purpose it was intended. Once OC is gained without government meddling politicians will gladly make CC available because OC scares them more. And it should, it is the purpose of the second amendment.

Those black panthers would have never been able to frighten the CA legislature if they hid their guns in their coats. They failed that battle but they did not lose, they did pave the way for an attitude that the constitution means what it says it means. The purpose of the second IS to intimidate the government, and keep them in check.
This is soooo true!!
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
Here is the justification for rehearing and appeal to the supreme kourt.

https://www.floridacarry.org/images/stories/norman/Norman_Mtn_Rehearing.pdf


The decision was worse than I completely understood. This is truly a kangaroo kourt. I feel as if I live in the Democratic Republic of Congo or North Korea. As Ixtow said, they probably didn't read our brief, and probably won't read this one either. The decision has been made, and the truth is no defense. Privileges are the new rights. We put up with it so nothing will change.

https://www.floridacarry.org/images/stories/norman/Norman_Mtn_Rehearing.pdf
 
Last edited:

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
Re-walking a 20 year old failed proposition while insulting the only person who is paying attention by pretending he hasn't already been there, done that...

The piper has his rats well under control...

Call me names all you wish. You're led astray by someone who either isn't paying attention himself, or is just enjoying that fact that you're not. The Judicial is already solidly corrupted and the decisions already made. To pursue this in the courts is a fools errand.

As long as Dean and company are there to breach the separation of powers, you're not doing sh!t. He's willing to murder children to get his way. How do you trump that?

Don't bother.
 
Last edited:

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Peruta is being reheard. Does this ruin one of the termite eaten legs of the 4th DCA'S opinion against us in Norman?

Sadly, no. The Nordyke v. King "substantial burden" framework was vacated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals but that did not stop the Second and Third Federal Courts of Appeal from relying on it in Kachalsky and Drake.
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
399
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
In the grand scheme of things this is good. This needs to be moved up the food chain.

I agree. Even though SCOTUS clearly states on its own website that it doesn't grant cert petitions in order to correct mistakes from the lower courts it does grant cert petitions in order to resolve circuit splits. The Norman decision creates an explicit Circuit split between the 7th and 10th Circuits on the Open Carry question and with every Federal Circuit which has upheld prohibitions on concealed carry.

Before Norman's attorney filed his motion for a rehearing/rehearing en banc I suggested to him that he buy time in the state courts until the Peruta en banc is resolved. Yesterday, I sent him an email suggesting that an appeal to the Florida Supreme Court might be best but if he files a cert petition, he can always ask in the cert petition that a decision on whether or not to grant cert be held until the inevitable cert petition in Peruta.

I, of course, would have liked for the cert petition in my California Open Carry case to reach SCOTUS at the same time but unfortunately the worst that can happen to my appeal is that it be remanded by the 9th Circuit back to the district court for further proceedings. The district court dismissed my lawsuit with prejudice based on a Rule 12(c) motion by California AG Harris. Procedural law prohibits Rule 12(c) motions from being granted with prejudice unless the case is frivolous or incapable of amendment.
 

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
380
Location
Phoenix, AZ
I agree, as long as the legislature lets license holders OC next year.
I'm seeing no movement on this year's OC bill, why you expect next year's to get passed? Personally I'd rather several of the prohibit places get removed than OC.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
I'm seeing no movement on this year's OC bill, why you expect next year's to get passed? Personally I'd rather several of the prohibit places get removed than OC.

That's definitely a minority view, Florida's prohibited places are few and have no effect on most peoples' lives. OC was not on the table this year. A lot of people thought Norman would be in our favor...they should have listened to me. There is also political capital, campus carry is going through and we don't want to endanger it. I will laugh though if it dies or gets amended to crap.
 

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
380
Location
Phoenix, AZ
That's definitely a minority view, Florida's prohibited places are few and have no effect on most peoples' lives.
I'd think K-12, school administration buildings, school/professional athletic events, and airport terminals occur frequently enough to have more than no effect on most carriers. Polling places are only once a year or so, but there's no reason to prohibit carry there since concealed carry has no intimidation element.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
We don't want the appeal mooted though. This vehicle needs to keep moving as far as it can.

I agree. From this "campus carry" bill, we see that Senate Judiciary chairman, rino Portilla, is a raving anti. OC will have to go through that committee so it may be a nonstarter.
 
Top