• 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.

The Florida 4th DCA ruled today against the right to carry openly in the Norman case

StogieC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
745
Location
Florida
The Florida 4th DCA ruled today against the right to carry openly in the Norman case. We're going to the Florida Supreme Court and we need your support to get there.


"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."


https://edca.4dca.org/DCADocs/2012/3525/123525_DC05_02182015_083006_i.pdf
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
The ruling: what unbelievable BS!

This sentence (among others): "...the Second Amendment conferred a personal right on citizens to keep and bear arms..." - more BS.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
They just officially recognized the RKBA while mentioning that they can say HOW, but did they even address how it can be REQUIRED to have a license to do so?

Their argument MIGHT have SOME logic to it, IF they were to require concealment, but correctly ruled that a permit can not be required.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
They just officially recognized the RKBA while mentioning that they can say HOW, but did they even address how it can be REQUIRED to have a license to do so?

Their argument MIGHT have SOME logic to it, IF they were to require concealment, but correctly ruled that a permit can not be required.
"In our opinion, section 790.053 does not effectively enjoin responsible, law-abiding citizens from the right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. Rather, it permits the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen theability to bear arms in public, albeit with constitutionally permissible restrictions, for the lawful purpose of self-defense." (page 24 of the ruling - my bold)

So having the "ability" to bear arms, as a state-sanctioned privilege, is good enough for the court. The court says there's a RIGHT, then says a privilege suffices. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Tell me more about this support.

When?

Where do I send it?

What forms of FRN transfer do you handle?

Will my name go on a list if I donate more than $X? (And what is that $X?) (And is it "per donation" or aggregated?)

BTW - the decision sucks on many levels.

stay safe.
 

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
750
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
As usual, when the court discusses what, if any, level of scrutiny is required they conveniently ignore the text of the Second Amendment itself, which states plain as day that the right shall not be infringed.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
As usual, when the court discusses what, if any, level of scrutiny is required they conveniently ignore the text of the Second Amendment itself, which states plain as day that the right shall not be infringed.

So I suppose that since you insist in absolutely unrestricted exercise of the 2nd Amendment right you would support the absolutely unrestricted exercise of my 1st Amendment right? (Or do you think there is some reason to support the restriction of my Mayan religious practice of sacrificing still-beatinng human hearts?)

stay safe.
 

Ezek

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
411
Location
missouri
So I suppose that since you insist in absolutely unrestricted exercise of the 2nd Amendment right you would support the absolutely unrestricted exercise of my 1st Amendment right? (Or do you think there is some reason to support the restriction of my Mayan religious practice of sacrificing still-beatinng human hearts?)

stay safe.

uhm, you sacrificing those would require you intrude on the basic rights of others ( ie the right of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness)and as such is not an exercise of the 1st amendment, but a restriction of the rights of others.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
uhm, you sacrificing those would require you intrude on the basic rights of others ( ie the right of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness)and as such is not an exercise of the 1st amendment, but a restriction of the rights of others.
Hmmm - would that be the case if the heart donor where also a practicing believer of the same religion?
 

Ezek

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
411
Location
missouri
Hmmm - would that be the case if the heart donor where also a practicing believer of the same religion?

in essence of law.. yes, and no. I guess if they wish to end their life in painfully "Kavorkian" style, that is their choice. although I would believe it would be hard to find sacrificial volunteers who are "of sound mind"
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
in essence of law.. yes, and no. I guess if they wish to end their life in painfully "Kavorkian" style, that is their choice. although I would believe it would be hard to find sacrificial volunteers who are "of sound mind"
I would think that would depend on who you asked. Suicide bombers believe they are going to a better place and will be rewarded according to their religious instruction.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
They just officially recognized the RKBA while mentioning that they can say HOW, but did they even address how it can be REQUIRED to have a license to do so?

Their argument MIGHT have SOME logic to it, IF they were to require concealment, but correctly ruled that a permit can not be required.

Yeah, they want to have their cake and eat it too, all while ignoring the elephant in the room.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
uhm, you sacrificing those would require you intrude on the basic rights of others ( ie the right of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness)and as such is not an exercise of the 1st amendment, but a restriction of the rights of others.

I hate to say it but "Gotcha!"

While ripping out the hearts of folks selected to be sacrificed may be malum per se it seems you are more interested in prosecuting me for a violation of their civil rights. And yet those civil rights violations have only been applied to a limited class of protected persons.

And to swing things back around to RKBA - I need a little help here. I can't seem to remember the civil rights cases that were brought and won against any State that limits the method of exercising that right (OC, CC, or two/three/five steps) so long as there was not an arbitrary issue of deciding who could or could not get official government permission if there was only one approved method available. I can recall reading briefs where the notion was put forward that there should be absolutely no limitation but they were both outnumbered by all the other briefs focusing on the elimination of arbitrary and caprecious awarding of official permission and roundly and soundly ignored by the courts.

stay safe.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
I'd like to swing this thread back to the original post - the one that said
We're going to the Florida Supreme Court and we need your support to get there.

How can we support that effort? If it involves sending money, where do we send it and what forms of exchange will be available to do that? Can we designate our donation to be used only for the FSC appeal of the Norman decision?

stay safe.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
So I suppose that since you insist in absolutely unrestricted exercise of the 2nd Amendment right you would support the absolutely unrestricted exercise of my 1st Amendment right? (Or do you think there is some reason to support the restriction of my Mayan religious practice of sacrificing still-beatinng human hearts?)

stay safe.
Specious (look it up) argument. Yelling fire in a crowded movie theater should not be a "unlawful" exercise of our 1A if nobody gets hurt, or who joins in on the yelling. ;)

"...some states sensibly require that an applicant for a handgun permit establish his competence in handling firearms.”
So, permission (a permit) to exercise a right is OK, and our right(s) are subject to a vote. :rolleyes: A bunch of anti-liberty judges is what they are.

If there is a penalty for the lawful and peaceful exercise of a right then there is no right recognized.

The lengths that a court will go to justify illogical opinions.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
It sure looks like you are trying toattribute that second quoted segment to me. How about putting some accurate attribution to it, OK?

stay safe.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Specious (look it up) argument. Yelling fire in a crowded movie theater should not be a "unlawful" exercise of our 1A if nobody gets hurt, or who joins in on the yelling. ;)

So, permission (a permit) to exercise a right is OK, and our right(s) are subject to a vote. :rolleyes: A bunch of anti-liberty judges is what they are.

If there is a penalty for the lawful and peaceful exercise of a right then there is no right recognized.

The lengths that a court will go to justify illogical opinions.

Not saying I agree with it, but the thinking goes:

"If everybody can get permission, there is no foul in requiring permission." (Well, OK, everybody except felons and the basically crazy. We'll discuss those folks' rights later.)

But tell me, how is this getting us back on track to find out how to support the case's appeal to the FSC?

stay safe.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
For context.
So I suppose that since you insist in absolutely unrestricted exercise of the 2nd Amendment right you would support the absolutely unrestricted exercise of my 1st Amendment right? (Or do you think there is some reason to support the restriction of my Mayan religious practice of sacrificing still-beatinng human hearts?)

stay safe.
How about you own up to your own remarks, OK? OC4me did not address the 1A in any way shape or form...you did. In fact, I reread the posts before yours, many times just in case and the 1A wasn't mention anywhere, not even once. Thus, rightly or wrongly, your reference to the 1A is a specious argument...or more accurately, a specious accusation of what oc4me would or would not support.

Mayans? Human sacrifice? Religion?

Not saying I agree with it, but the thinking goes:

"If everybody can get permission, there is no foul in requiring permission." (Well, OK, everybody except felons and the basically crazy. We'll discuss those folks' rights later.)

But tell me, how is this getting us back on track to find out how to support the case's appeal to the FSC?

stay safe.
Yeah, I read that too...you have no right to keep and bear arms unless we grant you a permission slip so that you will not get pinched for exercising a right. Swerving off the road to do a drive by on OC4me was the start of the swerve. But, you did swerve back on to the road. I'll give you props for that. I'll recede now so as not to swerve us off the other side of the road.
 

StogieC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
745
Location
Florida
I'd like to swing this thread back to the original post - the one that said

How can we support that effort? If it involves sending money, where do we send it and what forms of exchange will be available to do that? Can we designate our donation to be used only for the FSC appeal of the Norman decision?

stay safe.

You can Join or donate at https://www.FloridaCarry.org

If you just want to fund the lawsuit, go to: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=PREQH8LCA9ML8
 
Top