Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 76 to 97 of 97

Thread: Florida Supreme Court will hear challenge to Florida open carry ban

  1. #76
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,162
    Quote Originally Posted by randian View Post
    The Peruta ruling won't help because CA9's next trick will be to uphold CA's OC ban as a public safety exception. You will have no right to any mode of carry outside your home in their jurisdiction. They will write bear out of the 2A.
    i don't agree. the 9th circuit in their ruling hinted that if they would have come against the open carry ban, they would have won the case. but, based on years and years of historical context...i mean, they went back to like the 1500's....concealed carry is not protected by the second amendment, it may be licensed, banned, regulated, etc. but open carry is protected under the second amendment.

  2. #77
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,162
    Quote Originally Posted by StogieC View Post
    The state concedes that there is a right to carry outside the home and the FL Supreme Court will rule, just as the 4th DCA did, that there is a RIGHT to carry outside the home. No matter what could conceivably happen, we win something substantial.

    If the court rules that the Open Carry Ban is constitutional because law abiding people have a RIGHT to the "alternative outlet" of a license, we win. But, the Open Carry Ban stands and Dale Norman still has to pay his fine (I'll pay it for him). In that case, law abiding people have a RIGHT to the concealed carry license rather than just the privilege of a license that we have now. More litigation will ensue to challenge many restrictive provisions of the license and more lobbying will happen to legalize licensed open carry. This "alternative outlet" thorey is what the 9th Cir. just rejected en banc in Peruta.

    If the court rules that the Open Carry Ban is unconstitutional because the state did not meet its burden to show the legislative intent and/or any efficacy toward the purported public safety interest, we win. In that case, banning OC is unconstitutional... at least as applied to licensees and perhaps as applied to all law abiding people.
    If it is only as applied to licensees, then all law abiding people have a RIGHT to the license rather than the privilege of a license that we have now. In that case, more litigation will ensue to challenge many restrictive provisions of the license.
    If it is as applied to all law abiding people, banning Open Carry is unconstitutional but the concealed carry license continues to be a supplemental privilege. More lobbying will ensue to protect the unlicensed right to carry openly.

    If the court rules that the Open Carry Ban is unconstitutional because of a violation of substantive due process, we win. In that case, banning Open Carry is unconstitutional but the concealed carry license continues to be a supplemental privilege. More lobbying will ensue to protect the unlicensed right to carry openly.

    There is a lot of nuance to what the court may or may not rule and it is ALL conjecture at this point, but it is pretty clear that we are all going to get something positive out of this case.


    makes sense.

  3. #78
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,504
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    What we have learned over many years of court cases, judges do not always rule on what is right and constitutional they often rule on emotion and on what they think the way things should be according to them.
    Or put in terms we all recognize = legislating from the bench.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #79
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463

    Notice of Supplemental Authority to Peruta v. San Diego en banc

    Well, a strange thing happened yesterday. Florida filed a notice of supplemental authority to the en banc Peruta v. San Diego decision but did not say anything in its notice as to why Peruta is helpful to the states case.

    I hope that Norman's attorney likewise files a notice, only this time explaining why the decision is helpful to his case.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  5. #80
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    Well, a strange thing happened yesterday. Florida filed a notice of supplemental authority to the en banc Peruta v. San Diego decision but did not say anything in its notice as to why Peruta is helpful to the states case.

    I hope that Norman's attorney likewise files a notice, only this time explaining why the decision is helpful to his case.
    The state's actions throughout this case have led me to believe they may be intentionally trying to throw the case. But the FL courts thus far haven't been complying.

  6. #81
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by hammer6 View Post
    i don't agree. the 9th circuit in their ruling hinted that if they would have come against the open carry ban, they would have won the case. but, based on years and years of historical context...i mean, they went back to like the 1500's....concealed carry is not protected by the second amendment, it may be licensed, banned, regulated, etc. but open carry is protected under the second amendment.
    Perhaps, but still having a hard time believing these CA9 judges are going to make a positive ruling for meaningful OC. I have images in my head of Lucy, Charlie Brown and the football.

  7. #82
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,001
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    Well, a strange thing happened yesterday. Florida filed a notice of supplemental authority to the en banc Peruta v. San Diego decision but did not say anything in its notice as to why Peruta is helpful to the states case.

    I hope that Norman's attorney likewise files a notice, only this time explaining why the decision is helpful to his case.
    I don't get it. If it's not irrelevant to the case, doesn't it hurt the state's position that our right is the licensed privilege to carry the gun hidden only?

    Maybe it's the dissent the state likes? Doesn't do them any good either.
    Last edited by 77zach; 06-11-2016 at 09:17 PM.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  8. #83
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,001
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    Well, a strange thing happened yesterday. Florida filed a notice of supplemental authority to the en banc Peruta v. San Diego decision but did not say anything in its notice as to why Peruta is helpful to the states case.

    I hope that Norman's attorney likewise files a notice, only this time explaining why the decision is helpful to his case.
    It's being hypothesized on another forum that the state didn't even read Peruta. The more I think about it, it's probably true. What this means is that if/when the FLSC rules that the OC ban is constitutional, our Judiciary is no better than Congo's or Eritrea's. The state will have argued against itself and the kourt will have proved its utter illegitimacy. If the legislature wants us to insert a gun into our butt hole, it's ok because the legislature passed an anti gun law.

    I'm done, wake me up when the shooting starts.

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  9. #84
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Quote Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
    The state's actions throughout this case have led me to believe they may be intentionally trying to throw the case. But the FL courts thus far haven't been complying.
    They're happy with even the most absurd argument. At least 3 of the so-called "justices" on the FLSC would listen to you reading out of the phone book for 18 hours, and call it a sound argument for growing waffles on the moon. Which, of course, means that guns are bad. And potato. Don't forget potato. Their song and dance has become precisely this absurd, and putting a believable facade on it is damn near impossible. Fortunately, no one is paying any attention tot he man behind the curtain, so the emperor behind the curtain can dance naked and Huxley's masses will never notice that they've actually begged to be Orwell's...

    Seems like generating chaos... So much word spaghetti that there's no way to follow the dis-logic, then conclude flatly that RKBA doesn't exist. Bye now.

    Like a shell game with a million cups, and the prize was never on the table to begin with...
    Last edited by ixtow; 06-12-2016 at 06:53 PM.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  10. #85
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    I'm done, wake me up when the shooting starts.
    Sh!t, I've been there for 15 years... These cowards will never use it, therefore they will lose it.

    The latest subtlties make it seem to me that they want to hand this hot potato off to SCOTUS, but want 9 sitting there first...
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  11. #86
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    It's being hypothesized on another forum that the state didn't even read Peruta. The more I think about it, it's probably true. What this means is that if/when the FLSC rules that the OC ban is constitutional, our Judiciary is no better than Congo's or Eritrea's. The state will have argued against itself and the kourt will have proved its utter illegitimacy. If the legislature wants us to insert a gun into our butt hole, it's ok because the legislature passed an anti gun law.

    I'm done, wake me up when the shooting starts.

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
    The one thing to consider though is a Norman win on the OC ban (licensing issue will be tossed IMO) under the FL Constitution is basically appeal proof. Just depends if these guys are willing to create a split and open them up to SCOTUS review to preserve the OC ban.

  12. #87
    Regular Member 2OLD2W8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Black Waters
    Posts
    151
    SNIP
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    I'm done, wake me up when the shooting starts.
    By the time you clear your head, most of the prized targets will be gone according to lore
    “We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.” Ayn Rand

    "free people ought...to be armed." In so doing we grasp the larger lesson that the ability to defend ourselves is part and parcel to our freedom. George Washington , January 7, 1790

  13. #88
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,001
    Quote Originally Posted by StogieC View Post
    The state concedes that there is a right to carry outside the home and the FL Supreme Court will rule, just as the 4th DCA did, that there is a RIGHT to carry outside the home. No matter what could conceivably happen, we win something substantial.

    If the court rules that the Open Carry Ban is constitutional because law abiding people have a RIGHT to the "alternative outlet" of a license, we win. But, the Open Carry Ban stands and Dale Norman still has to pay his fine (I'll pay it for him). In that case, law abiding people have a RIGHT to the concealed carry license rather than just the privilege of a license that we have now. More litigation will ensue to challenge many restrictive provisions of the license and more lobbying will happen to legalize licensed open carry. This "alternative outlet" thorey is what the 9th Cir. just rejected en banc in Peruta.

    If the court rules that the Open Carry Ban is unconstitutional because the state did not meet its burden to show the legislative intent and/or any efficacy toward the purported public safety interest, we win. In that case, banning OC is unconstitutional... at least as applied to licensees and perhaps as applied to all law abiding people.
    If it is only as applied to licensees, then all law abiding people have a RIGHT to the license rather than the privilege of a license that we have now. In that case, more litigation will ensue to challenge many restrictive provisions of the license.
    If it is as applied to all law abiding people, banning Open Carry is unconstitutional but the concealed carry license continues to be a supplemental privilege. More lobbying will ensue to protect the unlicensed right to carry openly.

    If the court rules that the Open Carry Ban is unconstitutional because of a violation of substantive due process, we win. In that case, banning Open Carry is unconstitutional but the concealed carry license continues to be a supplemental privilege. More lobbying will ensue to protect the unlicensed right to carry openly.

    There is a lot of nuance to what the court may or may not rule and it is ALL conjecture at this point, but it is pretty clear that we are all going to get something positive out of this case.
    Sorry, I just don't see the first result as a win. They're not going to rule on specific criteria of the license or say it has to be shall issue. I think it'll be a wash in practice.

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  14. #89
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    What we have learned over many years of court cases, judges do not always rule on what is right and constitutional they often rule on emotion and on what they think the way things should be according to them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Or put in terms we all recognize = legislating from the bench.
    A.K.A. Just plain makin' sh!t up...
    Last edited by ixtow; 06-13-2016 at 06:31 PM.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  15. #90
    Regular Member 2OLD2W8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Black Waters
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by ixtow View Post
    A.K.A. Just plain makin' sh!t up...
    I love me some good fiction!!!
    “We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.” Ayn Rand

    "free people ought...to be armed." In so doing we grasp the larger lesson that the ability to defend ourselves is part and parcel to our freedom. George Washington , January 7, 1790

  16. #91
    Regular Member Mas49.56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    309
    Are they going to give a verdict this year or next?

  17. #92
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by Mas49.56 View Post
    Are they going to give a verdict this year or next?
    Norman's attorney thinks so, but it very well could be next year. I do not think the court has a deadline.

  18. #93
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
    Norman's attorney thinks so, but it very well could be next year. I do not think the court has a deadline.
    Probably busy reading the Federal appellate tea leaves aka waiting to see who gets elected President.

  19. #94
    Regular Member 2OLD2W8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Black Waters
    Posts
    151
    I called the clerk for the Florida Supreme Court and inquired about the time frame for court decisions. According to her; there are no time constraints on a decision.
    Maybe they are going to wait us OFWGs out.
    Last edited by 2OLD2W8; 09-16-2016 at 12:59 PM.
    “We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.” Ayn Rand

    "free people ought...to be armed." In so doing we grasp the larger lesson that the ability to defend ourselves is part and parcel to our freedom. George Washington , January 7, 1790

  20. #95
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,504
    Quote Originally Posted by 2OLD2W8 View Post
    I called the clerk for the Florida Supreme Court and inquired about the time frame for court decisions. According to her; there are no time constraints on a decision.
    Maybe they are going to wait us OFWGs out.
    The Ol' Pharts Club is well practiced in waiting - plenty of prior experience.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  21. #96
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,001
    Quote Originally Posted by 2OLD2W8 View Post
    I called the clerk for the Florida Supreme Court and inquired about the time frame for court decisions. According to her; there are no time constraints on a decision.
    Maybe they are going to wait us OFWGs out.
    I hope it's before the next legislative session. The opinion will be awful and treasonous, but the question is just how bad will it be? Hopefully, bad enough to push relatively pro gun law makers to push a licensed OC/ strict scrutiny bill all the way through.
    Last edited by 77zach; 09-16-2016 at 10:25 PM.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  22. #97
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,504
    Quote Originally Posted by 2OLD2W8 View Post
    I called the clerk for the Florida Supreme Court and inquired about the time frame for court decisions. According to her; there are no time constraints on a decision.
    Maybe they are going to wait us OFWGs out.
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    I hope it's before the next legislative session. The opinion will be awful and treasonous, but the question is just how bad will it be? Hopefully, bad enough to push relatively pro gun law makers to push a licensed OC/ strict scrutiny bill all the way through.
    Quote Originally Posted by DeSchaine View Post
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/03...-by-judge.html

    No, you judicial hack. The burden of proof is wholly and only on the state to prove criminality in ANY case. Read Coffin v. United States!

    Throw this quack off the bench. If this is allowed to go any further, you're going to see an avalanche of similar cases in any state that has similar laws. The families of all the criminals that have been killed by their intended victims in self defense are going to go after these laws, using this as a stepping stone, then after the intended victims. And there are enough moronic judges in this country like Hirsch that would allow the BS to go forward.
    --Mod note-- moved from General Discussion.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •