77zach
Regular Member
It does not overturn state open carry bans, but provides good ammo for our case here. It doesn't apply to prisons, but I'm pretty sure that it applies to the parking lots of all post offices nation wide.
-
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
It does not overturn state open carry bans, but provides good ammo for our case here. It doesn't apply to prisons, but I'm pretty sure that it applies to the parking lots of all post offices nation wide.
michigan0626
Regular Member
The decision came from where? Federal appealate court? Couldnt some other judge from a different district put in a brief that open carry is NOT a protected right under the 2A and completely undermind any future lawsuit?
77zach
Regular Member
Unless the SC rules, then any decision can be overturned. Even then it doesn't mean we win. Assuming the judges on the Norman case are anti-gun, which is about a 90% chance, it doesn't matter what any other court says. And again, it doesn't mean the government will obey a court. The FL SC gave whites constitutional carry but the legislature just passed more laws and ignored the decision. This happened in a number of states, why Vermont is the only one to respect it I don't know.
press1280
Regular Member
That was from Colorado, and is on appeal to the 10th Circuit.
I read the brief from Pam Bondy, and I wasn't impressed with her 2A explanation. She just kept saying it's "reasonable" with no real explanation why other than its a regulation. Should be easy to pick apart.
77zach
Regular Member
You're right, but it felt honest and heart felt to me. Peering into the mind of people who have been raised by the state, believe it is a force for good, believing it's their Daddy. It must be constitutional because, well, it's the law. lol
This is why I believe the state will win on the constitutional question and then I'll be done being verbose and negative on this topic: The right is written such that interpretation will depend on your attitude toward guns and gun rights.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law."
An equivalent way of saying "except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law" is "except that the way in which arms are carried may be regulated by law". Now we like freedom and guns. We look at other states and other decisions in Florida and say "this means the state could require us to carry in a holster, or ban kids from carrying, etc".
The anti gun court says "Manner means we can require you to carry in your underwear or wear a pistol around your neck like a necklace. In furtherance of arms being carried safely, we have to make sure they're not carried by 'lawless' or 'unskilled' people (per FL SC decisions) thus the permit process. Therefore, since the state 'shall' issue a permit once we know you can bear arms skillfully and lawfully the right is respected, and we can require you to carry concealed, 790.53 is constitutional on its face. QED."
Is this a sound conclusion? Not really, it's a stretch to say the least. What if you don't like guns and believe only a kook would openly carry? Then the logic is crystal clear
BTW, the people who put the right to bear arms in the Fl Constitution were no lovers of it. They sabotaged us and knew it. I could write a better one, one that leaves zero wiggle room while still protecting law and order, in 5 minutes. Sad.
Last edited:
77zach
Regular Member
SC refuses to hear concealed carry case again
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...s-supreme-court-not-taking/?utm_source=feedly
Why should the US SC concern itself with what is universally regarded as a privilege? While CC is actually just as rightful as a OC, the federal courts have said only OC is the right.
When the FL courts deny us OC and rule against Norman, and they will, Fl carry should go to the supreme court in an attempt to give not only Florida, but the whole country OC.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...s-supreme-court-not-taking/?utm_source=feedly
Why should the US SC concern itself with what is universally regarded as a privilege? While CC is actually just as rightful as a OC, the federal courts have said only OC is the right.
When the FL courts deny us OC and rule against Norman, and they will, Fl carry should go to the supreme court in an attempt to give not only Florida, but the whole country OC.
Given the incredibly unconvincing answer brief, I don't think so. I'm pretty convinced the court will have no choice but to rule in our favor. I also think the State will appeal to the FL Supreme Court.
Last edited:
Though we might prefer it to be otherwise, even the top pro-2A scholars and historic researchers (Halbrook, et al) hold that concealed carry is not a right as in the founding era concealed carry was considered a nefarious deed. The founders generally felt that an honorable man would have no reason to hide the fact that he was armed. I'm sure if his coat happened to cover his gun they didn't consider it a hanging offense or anything, but the writings of the time make it pretty clear that open carry was what was envisioned by the "bear arms" in the 2A.
Honestly I think states could completely prohibit concealed carry, constitutionally, as long as open carry of handguns and long guns required no license.
Where you run into a problem is states like Florida that license concealed carry, and generally (but not absolutely) prohibit open carry, leaving no mode of exercising your 2A right "to bear" without a government issued permission slip.
In my opinion, if a state just can't handle the idea of open carry (think Florida and tourism, or liberal states like NY, NJ, MA, etc. where the populace would be unduly stressed about the sight of an inanimate object) then they could prohibit open carry of handguns so long as they permit unlicensed concealed carry of handguns and allow unlicensed open carry of long guns (since it's generally not practical to carry a long gun concealed, yet readily available for self-defense).
Since the 2A is "shall not be infringed" as opposed to "shall make no law" I think the states have some latitude in how arms are borne so long as the right to bear is not infringed. In my opinion, even requiring a license of any kind is infringing.
I think that the majority of the State's brief was quite poor. That said, I think there are a couple aspects that I expect the State will prevail on. For example I fully expect the State will win on the issue of the question of OC exceptions (hunting, fishing, etc.) being affirmative defenses vs. elements of the crime. I think that's pretty well settled law at this point (but I could certainly be wrong).
Unless the court sticks it's head in the sand and just does what it pleases, I can't see how it could avoid finding that Florida's current "licensed concealed carry and no general unlicensed open carry" violates the 2A. Assuming the court rules in Norman's favor on that count, then we get to truly see where Bondi's head is at. If the State wins at the local court level and someone appeals, you can't really expect the AG to just say "we're not going to respond to your appeal" or to just forfeit. But if the State loses on the appeal, and then the AG decides to appeal to the FL Supreme Court, that's a whole different matter.
Politically if the State loses here, Bondi would have to be crazy to appeal it to the FLSC. The anti-gun crowd isn't going to flip out if she doesn't appeal the loss, but the pro-gun crowd will. She can twinkle her eyes and say she "did her job" and defended the suit at hand, and lost and didn't think it was the best use of taxpayer funds to appeal it further.
After the 11/4 brief deadline I wonder how long we should expect to actually get to a verdict. I know the wheels of "justice" move slowly, but Norman has been awaiting his justice for too long now thanks to the State's stalling.
77zach
Regular Member
Hope you're right. See my pessimistic rants above though. You're convinced because you're an honest and logical guy. In the eyes of the anti-gun statist who wrote the state's answer brief, it's a masterpiece, and not poorly written.
I was under the impression that if the state lost, it goes automatically to the Fl SC. Either at the 4th DCA or at the FL SC, I expect Norman to lose. I will be shocked if they do the logical/right/necessary thing and restore the right to OC. However, I'm not understanding the state's answer to the void for vagueness question so I'll only be mildly surprised if we gain OC with a CWFL from this.
If it's not automatically appealed, Bondi will do so. She's awful, and no friend of any of our rights.
Last edited:
"Although the court believes that the recent exception to the law,
allowing those with concealed carry licenses to “briefly and openly
display” the weapon, would be unconstitutionally vague under other
fact patterns, in the case at bar it is not since there was no credible
evidence presented that this defendant at any time prior to his arrest
attempted to conceal the firearm as required by the exception, which
is designed to protect those with concealed carry licenses who are
carrying the weapon concealed prior to its display. "
so here we see them admitting that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, except as it is applied here.
also, from what i gather from the state's argument in this paragraph, as long as i conceal my gun first, in public, then i can open carry without offense.
as we see later on, they use a dictionary to define "briefly".
what i don't find is the part in the statute that requires you to prove you were concealing your handgun first before you briefly and openly displayed it.
i think they bit off more than they could chew here.
allowing those with concealed carry licenses to “briefly and openly
display” the weapon, would be unconstitutionally vague under other
fact patterns, in the case at bar it is not since there was no credible
evidence presented that this defendant at any time prior to his arrest
attempted to conceal the firearm as required by the exception, which
is designed to protect those with concealed carry licenses who are
carrying the weapon concealed prior to its display. "
so here we see them admitting that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, except as it is applied here.
also, from what i gather from the state's argument in this paragraph, as long as i conceal my gun first, in public, then i can open carry without offense.
as we see later on, they use a dictionary to define "briefly".
what i don't find is the part in the statute that requires you to prove you were concealing your handgun first before you briefly and openly displayed it.
i think they bit off more than they could chew here.
randian
Regular Member
You underestimate the ability of a court to come up with any result they want regardless of the evidence.
77zach
Regular Member
Hear, hear!
And this decision can be used against us in the future on related issues. That's why I oppose this litigation and favor the legislative route.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Nobody who believes historical precedent is sufficient to establish that something is "not a right" is a "top pro-2A scholar" in my book.
Fair enough. A couple questions to help me understand your position if I may.
Who do you consider to be a legit "top pro-2A scholar"?
Other than looking at the practices and writings at the time of the founding, and perhaps some common law precedent from England (upon which the concept of pre-existing rights is said to flow) to fill in the gaps, what do you feel is the appropriate way to ascertain the nature and limits of the fundamental, pre-existing rights the founders were attempting to recognize?
See this as heading too far off-topic for this thread, though the material interest may be there to justify a separate thread and linking it here.
I agree - my apologies. Thanks for nipping it. So easy to veer off into the woods, but thread jacking is no good.
michigan0626
Regular Member
If the court decides against and their brief has holes large enough for a VW Bug to drive through, would that tie the hands of the FLSC in that they can see the district court would be justifying the states case with no solid footing. Even if the FLSC agrees with the lower court, wouldnt they have to overturn because it sucks legaly?
Or am I simply looking at this with common sense glasses on, and not government nanny statist glasses.
Or am I simply looking at this with common sense glasses on, and not government nanny statist glasses.
77zach
Regular Member
Common sense glasses. The government's kourts are not there for the reasons most people believe.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...t-appeals-2a-doesnt-apply-ak-platform-rifles/
randian
Regular Member
They either misunderstand, or are deliberately lying about, what the holding was in Miller.