-
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.
-
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
- Thread starter StogieC
- Start date
michigan0626
Regular Member
So, is it saying the State needs to respond by July 30th? What is the process of this challenge going forward towards getting the ban overturned?
77zach
Regular Member
makes way for constitutional challenge to Open Carry Ban
If by some miracle this court rules the oc ban unconstitutional (a long time from now), then it will go to the Fl supreme court.
If by some miracle this court rules the oc ban unconstitutional (a long time from now), then it will go to the Fl supreme court.
press1280
Regular Member
The "manner" of bearing arms phrase is similiar to that of other states' constitutions, although it was typically to nullify concealed carry, not open carry. I believe it's vague enough that the FL Supreme Court could easily find that the state can ban OC while allowing for shall-issue CCW. They would probably have to strike down(or at least clarify) the 1989 appeals court ruling.
77zach
Regular Member
Bingo. If they hear the case at all, we'll have a ruling that says concealed carry is the right and that the privilege to carry concealed is our right. It's been many years but I still remember the scene in the novel 1984 when O'brien is asking Winston how many fingers he's holding up. That's what I expect when dealing with government courts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTFV9w4B0eg
Last edited:
Just as there are only 4 lights!
[video=youtube;o_eSwq1ewsU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_eSwq1ewsU[/video]
77zach
Regular Member
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...carry-law-over-fears-of-blood-in-the-streets/
This is really a remarkable thing of tyranny out in MS. Judges don't like to go against the wishes of the legislature usually. This gives us an idea of the obstacles Norman Vs Fl has here. The will of the legislature in re-legalizing open carry in MS was explicit and the anti gun courts went out of their way to delay or possibly even permanently derail enforcement. How much more difficult will it be for the courts to grant us our right here when it is the will of the Fl legislature to deny our rights?
This is really a remarkable thing of tyranny out in MS. Judges don't like to go against the wishes of the legislature usually. This gives us an idea of the obstacles Norman Vs Fl has here. The will of the legislature in re-legalizing open carry in MS was explicit and the anti gun courts went out of their way to delay or possibly even permanently derail enforcement. How much more difficult will it be for the courts to grant us our right here when it is the will of the Fl legislature to deny our rights?
hermannr
Regular Member
For a comparison: Idaho state constitution:
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
Section 11. Right to keep and bear arms. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.
Idaho state Supreme Court Ruling on regulation of carry, "in re Brickley" 1902 : link here. http://www.guncite.com/court/state/70p609.html (Very short and sweet)
The fact of the matter is: Either everyone CCs without a license, or with a license that costs nothing, or you can OC without a license. One way or another, a "right" cannot be licensed, or it becomes a privilege. A no cost license would be more like a voter's registration, and probably would be permissible...Read the Idaho ruling.
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
Section 11. Right to keep and bear arms. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.
Idaho state Supreme Court Ruling on regulation of carry, "in re Brickley" 1902 : link here. http://www.guncite.com/court/state/70p609.html (Very short and sweet)
The fact of the matter is: Either everyone CCs without a license, or with a license that costs nothing, or you can OC without a license. One way or another, a "right" cannot be licensed, or it becomes a privilege. A no cost license would be more like a voter's registration, and probably would be permissible...Read the Idaho ruling.
Last edited:
Still see private property as remaining private - the constitution being restrictive on the government.
you know that i know that....but you were just putting that for clarification, right?
i meant law-ordered off-limits places. like, all the places listed in florida can't be listed in idaho. except the SCOTUS ordered off-limits places....
Not shaking my finger. Strictly intended conversationally, yet to clarify for those that might be otherwise confused.
77zach
Regular Member
The state's dishonest response is due tonight. Does anyone know anything about time frames on this court's decision? I know the UNF lawsuit is taking years. 
The state's dishonest response is due tonight. Does anyone know anything about time frames on this court's decision? I know the UNF lawsuit is taking years.
Actually the state got another 30 day extension. It is now due Aug 23rd
randian
Regular Member
What's the excuse this time? The dog ate my brief?
We dont say I'm wearing short or pant, so think maybe that should be the plural form too
Last edited:
randian
Regular Member
I was going for the legal side of things, so the singular is quite correct.We dont say I'm wearing short or pant, so think maybe that should be the plural form too
I find the endless, no meaningful justification needed, extensions the government gets to be outrageous. Judges are never so lenient to the non-government side. See also Moore v. Madigan.
77zach
Regular Member
Obviously the court is going to be in the state's corner. Obviously this is an unreasonable amount of time. What's to keep the court from giving extensions forever?
There will not be another extension at this phase of the trial absent some extremely good reason. The state knows that it has run out the clock as long as the court will allow for the filing of an answer. Delays like this are quite common in cases like this.
Last edited: