-
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.
The Florida 4th DCA ruled today against the right to carry openly in the Norman case
- Thread starter StogieC
- Start date
back to the topic at hand, if his constitutional right to bear arms wasn't infringed because he could obtain a CCW, is the CCW permit free then or something? cause if a cost is involved it is prohibitive in a financial aspect. even if it is $1 you are revoking the rights of Americans to be armed until they pay some demented financial restitution, and as a result it is no longer a right but a privilege.
It was not found unconstitutional. Congress passed the voting rights act and made charging a poll tax illegal.
Jack House
Regular Member
Ya know, I could be wrong. But. I could have sworn this forum was dedicated to a proactive group of people working to change the laws to what they believe said laws should be.
Maybe I'm just crazy.
That question was already answered for you.
All rights are absolute, the yelling fire in a crowded theater is however irresponsible, and the charges are for any financial restitution on behalf of the patrons, and any medical damages incurred from being trampled.
they didn't say you couldn't yell it, just that you will be charged the financial cost associated with doing it.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Correct, they don't cut people's tongue out to prevent a slim chance of a criminal act. They would not even do that if the person had a history of yelling fire in a theater to incite a riot. They most likely would put them in prison. Which is exactly how the second amendment should be interpreted. Punish the criminals, NOT the law abiding, plus we know for a fact that gun control does not work.
True, gun control does NOT work, look at DC, Chicago, and California. ( and if you remove DC, Chicago, and LA I believe from the statistics we are 4th from the bottom for gun related homicide IE we have a very low rate per citizen without those plagues on earth)
which is why I'm currently rolling my eyes and cursing all these politicians and judges saying " the right is not without limitation" Yes actually it is, it is when it is misused that a criminal action occurs and charges are to be pressed.
rightwinglibertarian
Regular Member
what kind of insane foolishness is this?
"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.....
It doesnt need a decision, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Simple as that. This judge is guilty of perverting the course of justice by making an unconstitutional ruling. Actually is that a felony in FL?
"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.....
It doesnt need a decision, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Simple as that. This judge is guilty of perverting the course of justice by making an unconstitutional ruling. Actually is that a felony in FL?
Superlite27
Regular Member
Just throwing feces at the wall to see what sticks....
Since this judge ruled that the 2A applies to Florida and that carry outside the home is protected under the constitution, and Florida must only provide the means, but is free to regulate the manner ...
Wouldn't it be possible to reference this case should, lets say, someone be arrested for carrying concealed without a permit?
The judge ruled against openly carrying, but stated in his recorded decision that the state must allow the means.
I realize that the permit process is considered "the means", however, the question I am getting at by forcing the issue is
What means does the state provide a person without a permit?
The judge just ruled the state must provide the means.
If a person were to be arrested for concealing, this judge just ruled he is well within his constitutional rights. You know....since the state MUST afford him the means.
Since this judge ruled that the 2A applies to Florida and that carry outside the home is protected under the constitution, and Florida must only provide the means, but is free to regulate the manner ...
Wouldn't it be possible to reference this case should, lets say, someone be arrested for carrying concealed without a permit?
The judge ruled against openly carrying, but stated in his recorded decision that the state must allow the means.
I realize that the permit process is considered "the means", however, the question I am getting at by forcing the issue is
What means does the state provide a person without a permit?
The judge just ruled the state must provide the means.
If a person were to be arrested for concealing, this judge just ruled he is well within his constitutional rights. You know....since the state MUST afford him the means.
77zach
Regular Member
Privileges are now the new rights. This is especially true, and openly admitted with 2 amendment cases. If Norman were openly carrying a long gun or if Norman was wheelchair bound and couldn't deploy a concealed weapon there may have been a SMALL chance at getting some portion of the OC ban declared unconstitutional.
Being anti gun is sort of a religion for judges at this level. They always give legislatures the most deference possible too.
No, OC will not be won in the kourts. As I said before the case was filed, unless you're asking for a permission slip in the context of a complete ban, you need not waste your time.
Exhibit: Mississippi passed a law that explicitly said a holstered pistol is not concealed. A monkey on the bench blocks the law! The MS SC, faced with a crisis, could not ignore the plain meaning, which is just their constitution restated and let the law take effect.
since9
Campaign Veteran
Yes it is:
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." - Article 1, Section 2
Article 2 discusses the much longer details of electing the President.
PUBs
The "law" in this ruling was made by a judge appointed by a governor. The judge is not elected by or answerable to the people (yeah, I know that the judge may be reaffirmed in an election, but when was the last time you heard of a judge being unelected).
Where I come from, we refer to this phenomena as "PUBs" -- Powerful Unelected Bureaucrats. Other examples of PUBs are documented in many of this forums' posts -- e.g., the folks at ATF making rules about ammo and the Sig brace, the FDIC making rules restricting loans to gun businesses, the local undersheriff deciding whether you should or should be granted a CHP, the cop on the beat who decides whether that open carry is brandishing, the prosecutor in NJ who enforces its draconian gun registration laws, the folks in NY who take away guns because you are admitted to the hospital for insomnia treatment, etc, etc.
Generally, PUBs enjoy sovereign immunity, which means they are not liable for the actions they take in office. Generally, government enjoys an unlimited legal war chest to defend the actions of PUBs. The "laws" made by PUBs last longer and reach farther than any statute. Changing a PUB "law" is grossly expensive, and infeasible for the average citizen.
It is really important to understand how PUBs are appointed and retained in office and engage in that political appointment process.
The "law" in this ruling was made by a judge appointed by a governor. The judge is not elected by or answerable to the people (yeah, I know that the judge may be reaffirmed in an election, but when was the last time you heard of a judge being unelected).
Where I come from, we refer to this phenomena as "PUBs" -- Powerful Unelected Bureaucrats. Other examples of PUBs are documented in many of this forums' posts -- e.g., the folks at ATF making rules about ammo and the Sig brace, the FDIC making rules restricting loans to gun businesses, the local undersheriff deciding whether you should or should be granted a CHP, the cop on the beat who decides whether that open carry is brandishing, the prosecutor in NJ who enforces its draconian gun registration laws, the folks in NY who take away guns because you are admitted to the hospital for insomnia treatment, etc, etc.
Generally, PUBs enjoy sovereign immunity, which means they are not liable for the actions they take in office. Generally, government enjoys an unlimited legal war chest to defend the actions of PUBs. The "laws" made by PUBs last longer and reach farther than any statute. Changing a PUB "law" is grossly expensive, and infeasible for the average citizen.
It is really important to understand how PUBs are appointed and retained in office and engage in that political appointment process.
I also like the argument where people say driving a car is a privelage, not a right, when technically.. yes it is a right.
Every person has the right to freely travel the streets and roads. I can't remember exactly where it is stated and will try to find it. but yeah, you get the idea.
I would agree that the right to travel is protected, but see the means as being the question.
Travel by foot = good to go.
Travel by hired conveyance = reasonable.
Travel by personal car/truck, boat, airplane, or rocket ship = maybe not so simple. If I can't afford the vehicle, will one be provided for me?
OC for ME
Regular Member
....Yugo....
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Rights are unlimited, until they infringe on someone else. I see no sense or reason in a state changing a human invention into a privilege rather than being a right. They could claim the same thing about our computers and start regulating our online use by their reasoning.........oh wait.......
It is good when the elevator hits the top floor.
I intentionally left off any emoticon in my post above and was not stating my conclusion in the subordinate clause "but see the means as being the question." The point was to get others to think, to see the problem(s).
since9
Campaign Veteran
You have the right to keep and bear arms. If you can't afford arms, will one one be provided for you?
In a [strike]perfect[/strike] good world, yes.
I have done as much more than once. Used to buy Star mod BM just to give away.