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

skidmark said:

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.

Click to expand...

StogieC said:

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

Click to expand...

My understanding is that such donations are given and received w/o limiting conditions. At least that is what my legal beagle tells me.

Those that give do so in good faith with the hope/trust that funds will first be used for the advertised primary purpose.

The Florida 4th DCA ruled today against the right to carry openly in the Norm...

We have separate accounting for the legal fund. But, most people just make general donations.

StogieC said:

We have separate accounting for the legal fund. But, most people just make general donations.

Click to expand...

Donation sent with notation that it is specifically for the Norman appeal.

stay safe.

OC for ME said:

For context.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?

....

Click to expand...

I keep reading that the right in the 2nd Amendment is an absolute right that may not be infringed in any manner. Just checking to see if the absoluteness of rights extends to those mentioned elsewhere - the 1st Amendment was handy and convenient.

You got something against Mayans? Bet you also have something against Santariaists and worshipers of Kali, to name just two. The point being that the argument of the 2A right being absolute falls on its face if those other enumerated rights are not absolute as well.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

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.

Click to expand...

Limited to everyone? Pretty sure it's illegal to kill anyone with very limited and generally highly scrutinized exceptions.

I'm also fairly positive that OC4Me does not advocate a right to be negligent and/malicious in the use of firearms resulting in the injury or death of another.

Thusly your argument is a strawman and not worth the time of day. But I'll play your little game.

It's widely accepted that your rights end where the rights of others begins. So regardless of how restricted or otherwise your rights to firearms may be, they stop short of you using it to injure or kill another in cold blood.

Further, your argument that certain rights are treated in certain ways has no bearing on a philosophical discussion. The discussion isn't what is, but what should be. Your inability to differentiate between is and should demonstrates to me that you are incapable of thinking for yourself.

So even if it was only illegal to kill certain folk, it still would have no bearing on this discussion. At least not until OC4Me's stance onthat subject was brought to light. Which was not the case, as you jumped the gun.

There was no "gotcha."

Finally someone mentioned the tired old cliche that it's illegal to shout fire in a theater. This is not true, it is only illegal to incite behavior likely to cause damage or injury.

"OC for ME" and "OC4me" are two individually different posters....just so there is no confusion ;-)

Jack House said:

Further, your argument that certain rights are treated in certain ways has no bearing on a philosophical discussion. The discussion isn't what is, but what should be. Your inability to differentiate between is and should...

Click to expand...

That's been his "thing" for a while now. I just ignore it, now.

There can be regulation of the right to bear arms, but when those regulations swallow the right and become merely a privilege that one must pay for or satisfy subjective criteria to qualify for, it constitutes a denial of rights without due process.

skidmark said:

I keep reading that the right in the 2nd Amendment is an absolute right that may not be infringed in any manner. Just checking to see if the absoluteness of rights extends to those mentioned elsewhere - the 1st Amendment was handy and convenient.

You got something against Mayans? Bet you also have something against Santariaists and worshipers of Kali, to name just two. The point being that the argument of the 2A right being absolute falls on its face if those other enumerated rights are not absolute as well.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

I agree, all the rights I claim are absolute. As long as I don't violate one of the rights you claim as absolute we are good...no?

OC4me said:

"OC for ME" and "OC4me" are two individually different posters....just so there is no confusion ;-)

Click to expand...

I certainly hope so.

StogieC said:

There can be regulation of the right to bear arms, but when those regulations swallow the right and become merely a privilege that one must pay for or satisfy subjective criteria to qualify for, it constitutes a denial of rights without due process.

Click to expand...

The criminalization of the peaceful exercise of a right is a infringement. Thus, a permit, being a "affirmative defense," is a infringement. Judges are not expected these days, apparently, to realize that.

StogieC said:

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

Click to expand...

Let's dissect this:

"While the right to carry outside the home has been established by the highest court of the land,

Click to expand...

True.

no decision interpreting the Second Amendment can be cited for the proposition that a state must allow for one form of carry over another.

Click to expand...

On June 28, 2010, the Court in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010) held that the Second Amendment was incorporated. This means that the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits State and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

As the Second Amendment itself prohibits any infringement against the right to keep and bear arms, it applies to Florida the same as it does everywhere, namely, that neither Florida nor any entity anywhere in the U.S. may infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. More exactly, it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Because the Legislature has the right to enact laws regarding the manner in which arms can be borne,

Click to expand...

WRONG.

...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,

Click to expand...

WRONG.

see Carlton v. State, 58 So. 486, 488-89 (Fla. 1912), provided a reasonable alternative manner of carry is provided."

Click to expand...

Both OC and CC are "reasonable manner of carry." Just because an alternative manner of carry is "reasonable" in no way invalidates the manner of carry in question.

The Second Amendment ABSOLUTELY FORBIDS ANY INFRINGEMENT on the right to keep and bear arms.

THE JUDGE IS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

skidmark said:

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.

Click to expand...

Actually, practicing your religion while removing the rights of others without consent isn't exactly a practice of a right it is the institution of a theocracy in violation of our core laws.

and if you are selecting sacrifices, then you can't say those selected actually wanted to be sacrificed necessarily unless they sign a waiver form. and have a clear bill of mental health prior to signing it. ( this would be a CYA part in legality)

and violating others rights isn't really allowed in the constitution, in fact we fought a war in 1776-1782 to stop it. if by you exercising your right ( like the monarchy did) you tread upon the rights of others, then you are in essence a tyrant.

Ezek said:

Actually, practicing your religion while removing the rights of others without consent isn't exactly a practice of a right it is the institution of a theocracy in violation of our core laws.

and if you are selecting sacrifices, then you can't say those selected actually wanted to be sacrificed necessarily unless they sign a waiver form. and have a clear bill of mental health prior to signing it. ( this would be a CYA part in legality)

and violating others rights isn't really allowed in the constitution, in fact we fought a war in 1776-1782 to stop it. if by you exercising your right ( like the monarchy did) you tread upon the rights of others, then you are in essence a tyrant.

Click to expand...

So if I, as a practicing and dues-paid Mayan, sacrifice another practicing and dues-paying Mayan it still violates some existential right? Seems you are imposing conditions on the practice of the Mayan religion, or did I misunderstand something?

In closing, just for grins and giggls, let me remind you that the Constitution imposes restrictions on what the Congress (and the several States thaks to the 14th Amendment) may not do. Not being the Congress or one of the several States, the Constitution has no control over me. (Yes, certain federal and state laws criminalize certain behaviors, but darned few of them are treated as Constitutional violations unless I am an agent of the government.)

Jack House said:

.... But I'll play your little game.

....

Further, your argument that certain rights are treated in certain ways has no bearing on a philosophical discussion. The discussion isn't what is, but what should be. Your inability to differentiate between is and should demonstrates to me that you are incapable of thinking for yourself.

....

Click to expand...

At last I see! You are all caught up in a dream sequence of how the world should be, at least according to your version of "should".

But if in that dream the 2A rights are absolute then why should the other rights not also be absolute?

stay safe.

I don't think that there were any Mayans volunteering to be sacrificed.

rickyII said:

I don't think that there were any Mayans volunteering to be sacrificed.

Click to expand...

First hand knowledge or Hollywood based?


And there were not 300 Spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae willing to sacrifice themselves for their beliefs.

It just a myth w/o any substance. :banghead:

skidmark said:

So if I, as a practicing and dues-paid Mayan, sacrifice another practicing and dues-paying Mayan it still violates some existential right? Seems you are imposing conditions on the practice of the Mayan religion, or did I misunderstand something?

In closing, just for grins and giggls, let me remind you that the Constitution imposes restrictions on what the Congress (and the several States thaks to the 14th Amendment) may not do. Not being the Congress or one of the several States, the Constitution has no control over me. (Yes, certain federal and state laws criminalize certain behaviors, but darned few of them are treated as Constitutional violations unless I am an agent of the government.)



At last I see! You are all caught up in a dream sequence of how the world should be, at least according to your version of "should".

But if in that dream the 2A rights are absolute then why should the other rights not also be absolute?

stay safe.

Click to expand...

i'm saying if you where to practice it, you would need notarized waiver forms for every participant. if you can't prove every "sacrificial offering" was doing so willingly, your in deep ****. if you and your mayan buddies truly want to practice it, who am I to stand in the way of the offering of Darwin awards? Please I beg of you to do so with vigor, to cleanse the gene pool.

so long as they do it willingly and not under duress. if you force them to sign the notary that is tyrannical. similar to organized crime forcing innocent civilians to give away their belongings. and eventually that leads to a small revolution or insurgence.

Rights cannot infringe on others. If a Mayan voluntarily wants to be sacrificed it isn't infringing upon rights. Maybe your senses of right and wrong. Yet that isn't issue of absolute rights now.

We're not going to let them get away with pulling the still beating heart out of the second amendment.

StogieC said:

We're not going to let them get away with pulling the still beating heart out of the second amendment.

Click to expand...

Best quote of the day !!!