• 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

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,597
Location
, ,
Florida Carry:

The Fact that The State has Filed a Motion Asking The Court to Dismiss its' Previous Motion is Great News!

Hopefully, Florida Carry will Prevail in This Case and The Important Constitutional Question of Open Carry will be Restored in Florida.

aadvark
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
There are so many ups, downs, and legal maneuvers in this case that it's hard to tell what's good and what's not. Arrrrgh.

The criminal "justice" system is beyond repair.....this from a criminal justice minor.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
Criminal Justice System was a misnomer, and has been for many decades.

Actually, it's the Criminal Legal System, and "justice" has little to do with it...

Very true, but the USSC has made some good decisions recently, smacking down the evil bastard in the white house. It's almost like they do this sometimes to maintain a little bit of legitimacy. Having the Fl kourts restore the right to open carry would be shocking but also evidence we don't live in a complete banana republic yet. I've reread the briefs multiple times making every effort to be dispassionate and play devil's advocate and I think the state's arguments are significantly weaker than Fl Carry's.
 

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
380
Location
Phoenix, AZ
I've reread the briefs multiple times making every effort to be dispassionate and play devil's advocate and I think the state's arguments are significantly weaker than Fl Carry's.
If only weakness mattered to a court determined to get a particular result. WA state's constitution has a very strong RKBA provision, which its liberal Supreme Court wanted to weaken, so they ruled that "knife" is not included in the definition of "arms" in WA's constitution and that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution doesn't apply to knives. Several convictions for knife carry have been upheld thereby. No law or constitution is safe when you can make words mean anything you want them to mean.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
If only weakness mattered to a court determined to get a particular result. WA state's constitution has a very strong RKBA provision, which its liberal Supreme Court wanted to weaken, so they ruled that "knife" is not included in the definition of "arms" in WA's constitution and that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution doesn't apply to knives. Several convictions for knife carry have been upheld thereby. No law or constitution is safe when you can make words mean anything you want them to mean.

Right, and Fl's Constitution is purposely written to deny the right to carry firearms. The FL SC has said that regulating the "manner" of bearing arms can mean prohibiting the "unskilled" or "lawless" from carrying. This will provide enough plausible deniability, imo, for the kourt to wring out a tortured ruling in favor of the state.
 
Last edited:

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
Right, and Fl's Constitution is purposely written to deny the right to carry firearms. The FL SC has said that regulating the "manner" of bearing arms can mean prohibiting the "unskilled" or "lawless" from carrying. This will provide enough plausible deniability, imo, for the kourt to wring out a tortured ruling in favor of the state.

It's already written. They're jsut going to make us wait so that foolish people will hold off on seeking legislative recouse, again... Not that it would do any good with so many RINOs in FL. Everything I learn about him makes me believe Dean is Satan's right-hand-man... Even without RINOs, he knows where your children sleep, so you'll do as he tells you.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
It's already written. They're jsut going to make us wait so that foolish people will hold off on seeking legislative recouse, again... Not that it would do any good with so many RINOs in FL. Everything I learn about him makes me believe Dean is Satan's right-hand-man... Even without RINOs, he knows where your children sleep, so you'll do as he tells you.

Speaking of legislative recourse, looks like we'll lose some votes in the House.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/florida-congressional-map-108795.html?hp=t2_3

The only thing worse than a republican is democrat scum. Die Dems, die......
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
DC ban on carry falls

http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DCT_OPINION.pdf


Another case clearly spelling out that there is a right to carry outside the home. Makes Fl's OC ban look worse especially when the state's position is that target shooting, camping, and hunting are more protected than self defense, which is silly. It does say that having to get a license is a right and implies there is no difference between a privilege and a right (right to bear arms still a 2nd class right and Newspeak must be employed) which is what I expect the 4th DCA to come out with.
 
Last edited:

marrandy

Newbie
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
54
Location
, Florida, USA
Right, and Fl's Constitution is purposely written to deny the right to carry firearms. The FL SC has said that regulating the "manner" of bearing arms can mean prohibiting the "unskilled" or "lawless" from carrying. This will provide enough plausible deniability, imo, for the kourt to wring out a tortured ruling in favor of the state.


Right.

The Florida Constitution is in conflict with the Federal Constitution, that Florida agreed to, ratified and signed.

There is NO restriction in the Federal Constitution as to how, and where arms may be carried.

Other States do this as well. The Tennessee Constitution, for example, makes it illegal to have a firearm. They then add that a defense to that charge, is having a concealed permit. Pretty weird the way it's worded. (As of July 1st 2014, its apparently legal to carry any firearm you want inside your own car without a permit).

Unfortunately, Federal AG's never go after these 'civil rights violations'. They prefer to after States that want to prove that only eligible voters can vote (ID).
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
Last edited:

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
RE: the case of OC/CC in DC...

Yesterday, DC asked for "at least" a 180 day stay on the court's ruling, so the OC or CC window presently open in DC may close shortly. We await the court granting the stay or not.

But even after the stay -- or during it, while DC "works on" a carry law -- DC could decide to go may-issue, with all kinds of "disqualifiers" listed, so that no one can ever get a CC permit. The BIGGEST disqualifier -- and most popluar in may-issue states -- is not having a "good" or "substantial" or "compelling" reason to apply for a CC permit.

No, surprisingly NOT, protecting your LIFE (or family, or another good citizen, etc.) is not considered "substantial" or "compelling" -- despite a least one court ruling otherwise, as in Wollard vs. Sheridan in MD (2012).

Like it's been for residents of The Not So Great State of Hawaii for many years now, HI is (on paper) SUPPOSED to issue CC permits, but it's may-issue and never DOES issue permits. It has never heard any "good & compelling reason" to issue any (again, one's life is not considered a "good & compelling reason"), so it never issues any CC permits. There's plenty of crime in HI< but its residents can't protect themselves from it outside of their homes (and who can afford stay home 24/7, or even WANT to...what about going to work, school, etc.). They're are only allowed (!) the right to exercise HALF of the 2nd Amendment/RKBA -- to "keep arms" @ home (yet ONLY after they are duly registered with the local police, of course) -- but not allowed to exercise the OTHER half: The "bear arms" part -- such as taking them past their front door with a CC permit (OC is not allowed in HI, either).

You need BOTH halves of something to make it whole! HI (at the very least) needs to go SHALL-issue. HI and every other state that HAS may-issue should be ruled unconstitutional as a right delayed/impeded is a right denied. And rights should not be subjected to arbitrary approval/disapproval, which a may-issue policy clearly demonstrates.

So only a SHALL-issue CC policy in DC would be an acceptable outcome of all this after the legal dust settles, not MAY-issue. UNpermitted OC would be outstanding. Constitutional Carry would be the BEST, but who thinks DC would go there?


But back to Florida...and I'm asking this here in the Florida sub-forum because you all would know and could correct any misunderstandings I have:

Wasn't Florida the state that "set the standards" some years back when it allowed carry (forget which it was, shall-issue CC I guess). Up until then, most states didn't have CC available to its residents, or, it was may-issue CC (even if some state DID have Unpermitted OC also). All the other states then started following FL's example and went to shall-issue CC. Even Texas did, when it went shall-issue. And people from other states wanted to apply for a Florida CC permit back then (non-resident permit), too, because their HOME state didn't have CC yet.

Wasn't it FLORIDA that got the ball rolling on all that back then?

So people in OTHER states who finally got shall-issue CC back then can thank Florida for blazing the trail, yes?

Am I recalling this correctly?

So I was surprised to read here about FL's State Constitution "is purposely written to deny the right to carry firearms." (quoting 77zach)

If so, then that document REALLY needs some editing! ;-)
 
Last edited:

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
380
Location
Phoenix, AZ
NJ courts routinely rule that may-issue is not a discretionary standard and therefore is not subject to equal protection attacks. I can't get my head wrapped around redefining "discretionary" in that way.
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
RE: the case of OC/CC in DC...

DC has asked for "at least" a 180 day stay on the court's ruling, so the OC or CC window presently open in DC may close shortly. We await the court granting the stay or not.

But even after the stay -- or during it, while DC "works on" a carry law -- DC could decide to go may-issue, with all kinds of "disqualifiers" listed, so that no one can ever get a CC permit. The BIGGEST disqualifier -- and most popluar in may-issue states -- is not having a "substantial" or "compelling" reason to apply for a CC permit.

No, surprisingly NOT, protecting your LIFE (or family, or another good citizen, etc.) is not considered "substantial" or "compelling" -- despite a least one court ruling otherwise, as in Wollard vs. Sheridan in MD (2012).

Like its been for residents of The Not So Great State of Hawaii for many years now, HI is (on paper) SUPPOSED to issue CC permits, but it's may-issue and never issues permits. It has never heard any "good & compelling reason" to issue any (again, one's life is not considered a "good & compelling reason"), so it never issues any CC permits. Residents are only allowed (!) the right to exercise HALF of the 2nd Amendment/RKBA -- to "keep arms" @ home (but ONLY after they are duly registered with the local police) -- but not allowed to exercise the OTHER half: The "bear arms" part -- taking them past their front door with a CC permit (OC is not allowed in HI, either). You need BOTH halves of something to make it whole! HI (at the very least) needs to go SHALL-issue.

So only a SHALL-issue policy in DC would be an acceptable outcome of all this after the legal dust settles, not MAY-issue.


But back to Florida...and I'm asking this here in the Florida sub-forum because you all would know and could correct any misunderstandings I have:

Wasn't Florida the state that "set the standards" some years back when it allowed carry (forget which it was, shall-issue CC I guess). Up until then, most states didn't have CC available to its residents, or, it was may-issue CC (even if some state DID have Unpermitted OC also). All the other states then started following FL's example and went to shall-issue CC. Even Texas did, when it went shall-issue. And people from other states wanted to apply for a Florida CC permit back then (non-resident permit), too, because their HOME state didn't have CC yet.

Wasn't it FLORIDA that got the ball rolling on all that back then?

So people in OTHER states who finally got shall-issue CC back then can thank Florida for blazing the trail, yes?

Am I recalling this correctly?

So I was surprised to read here about FL's State Constitution "is purposely written to deny the right to carry firearms." (quoting 77zach)

If so, then that document REALLY needs some editing! ;-)

Yes to all of your questions.
And here's a helpful hint: Ignore Zach's little mini-rants.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
Read "Hologram of Liberty". It's possible for the average person to use language in such a way to make our rights all but bullet proof on paper. Starting with the Federalists the language was written so you could drive a train through it. This is clearly seen in Fl's Constitution as it relates to bearing arms.
 

StogieC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
745
Location
Florida
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
This case is set for Oral Argument for Wednesday, October 8, 2014, at 10:30 A.M., 20 minutes per side. The court calendars can be viewed on this court’s website at www.4dca.org
 
Last edited:

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
This case is set for Oral Argument for Wednesday, October 8, 2014, at 10:30 A.M., 20 minutes per side. The court calendars can be viewed on this court’s website at www.4dca.org

Wow they take their sweet time. You guys have so much ammunition it will be hard to know how to spend the 20 minutes. Hope they listen. I thought they originally denied oral arguments. Really it shouldn't be needed so would you say this is an ominous sign?
 
Top