Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 97

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

  1. #51
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    403
    Quote Originally Posted by 2OLD2W8 View Post
    I would like to share this movie quote as it seems quite apropos regarding numerous comments, questions and statements posed by SC Justices Barbara J. Pariente, Peggy A. Quince and Jorge Labarga.

    You and your feelings. They just run you, don't they?
    Arguments here: http://wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/viewcase.php?eid=2364

    Quince and Labarga were clearly antis. Not sure about Pariente, she seemed to be all over the place but annoyed at the state's (non) justification for the OC ban. Canady sounded like he got it, Polston seemed to suggest OC w/permit. I think the 2 others (don't have the names handy) on the court didn't talk at all.

  2. #52
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
    Arguments here: http://wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/viewcase.php?eid=2364

    Quince and Labarga were clearly antis. Not sure about Pariente, she seemed to be all over the place but annoyed at the state's (non) justification for the OC ban. Canady sounded like he got it, Polston seemed to suggest OC w/permit. I think the 2 others (don't have the names handy) on the court didn't talk at all.
    yeah i think they are going to lean toward shall-issue for open/concealed carry

  3. #53
    Regular Member ADulay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Punta Gorda, Florida, USA
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    I didn't read them, so I don't have an opinion on that, but quite a few of their questions were idiotic - and showed little grasp of the subject at hand.
    This had the "deja vu" of the 4th DCA hearings we went to.

    AD
    NRA Life - AMA Life - ABATE Life
    Viet-Nam Helicopters Pilots Assn - Life
    IDPA, ICORE and USPSA carry gun shooter - Glock Armorer
    NRA Certified Instructor

  4. #54
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    2,991
    Quote Originally Posted by ADulay View Post
    This had the "deja vu" of the 4th DCA hearings we went to.

    AD
    With a deja vu result. Bring on the next open carry bill

    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.

  5. #55
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    403
    Quote Originally Posted by hammer6 View Post
    yeah i think they are going to lean toward shall-issue for open/concealed carry
    It's the perfect escape hatch for the court. Norman wins, the state likely won't appeal to SCOTUS, and the license just now would encompass both OC and CC. The OC case by Norman's counsel was much better than the state's case against it. The licensing issue is a bigger hurdle IMO.

  6. #56
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    2,991
    Quote Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
    It's the perfect escape hatch for the court. Norman wins, the state likely won't appeal to SCOTUS, and the license just now would encompass both OC and CC. The OC case by Norman's counsel was much better than the state's case against it. The licensing issue is a bigger hurdle IMO.
    Doubtful. You have a bunch of so called "progressives" who hate the right to bear arms, as expressed by the chief justice ("cameras don't kill people!"). So, they're looking for an out. That's the hurdle, they have to convince themselves that paying and waiting are ok when it comes to this particular fundamental constitutional right. Then they get to define "manner". Sure, banning open carry is a bit of a stretch but gives them enough cover. The ban stands.
    “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.

  7. #57
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    462

    Next step is SCOTUS

    Way back when the Florida Supreme Court decided to hear the appeal I remarked to one of my supporters that the FSC could duck the Second Amendment question in its entirety by issuing a decision which holds that the ban is unconstitutional under its state constitution. Having done so, it is not obligated to answer the Federal Second Amendment question.

    In light of today's oral arguments in Norman v. State, there is no danger in that happening. The Florida Supreme Court will either hold that there is no right to openly carry a firearm under the Second Amendment or that there is a right under the Second Amendment but Florida's ban survives "Intermediate Scrutiny."

    When the transcript is published I am pretty sure that it will show that Justice Pariente was the one driving the oral arguments. There was one point in particular where she tried to explain to the state's attorney that the state's attorney needed to say more than "policy choice" in order to survive intermediate scrutiny.

    This is not unusual. Justice Scalia tried to spoon feed Alan Gura his answers but unfortunately failed to persuade Gura to challenge the DC permit requirement.

    Needless to say that if the Florida Supreme Court decides to uphold the Open Carry ban under intermediate scrutiny then it will fabricate the "narrow tailoring," compelling government interest and evidence not argued or submitted in the case to date.

    But who knows? The FSC could simply do as the lower appellate court did and hold that if states can ban concealed carry pursuant to Heller then states can ban Open Carry (contrary to Heller).

    Edit: Here is an article just published which expresses some of my views on what transpired during the oral arguments.
    Last edited by California Right To Carry; 06-08-2016 at 11:15 PM.
    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

  8. #58
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    2,991
    I don't know about all of that. One thing is for sure, the fact that we're even asking gunvermin for our rights back is an ill omen. In the words of Jurassic Park, " I hate being right all the time"

    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. #59
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,151
    wait- so does the 9th circuit ruling today help us out? they said concealed carry is not a right.

    "We hold that the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public. This holding resolves the Second Amendment question presented in this case. It also necessarily resolves, adversely to Plaintiffs, their derivative claims of prior restraint, equal protection, privileges and immunities, and due process. In light of our holding, we need not, and do not, answer the question of whether or to what degree the Second Amendment might or might not protect a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms openly in public."

    https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws...ca88f672855b13

  10. #60
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    2,991
    Quote Originally Posted by hammer6 View Post
    wait- so does the 9th circuit ruling today help us out? they said concealed carry is not a right.

    "We hold that the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public. This holding resolves the Second Amendment question presented in this case. It also necessarily resolves, adversely to Plaintiffs, their derivative claims of prior restraint, equal protection, privileges and immunities, and due process. In light of our holding, we need not, and do not, answer the question of whether or to what degree the Second Amendment might or might not protect a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms openly in public."

    https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws...ca88f672855b13
    The Fl SC is not bound by what the 9th circuit says but SCOTUS has already said concealed carry is not a right.
    “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.

  11. #61
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    The Fl SC is not bound by what the 9th circuit says but SCOTUS has already said concealed carry is not a right.
    okay so what then?

  12. #62
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    2,991
    Quote Originally Posted by hammer6 View Post
    okay so what then?
    See above. IMO, Wait 6 months for them to say a right and a privilege are the same thing and to make a fiction where the ban is just a regulation of the manner of bearing arms, upholding 790.053 as constitutional, without reference to the SCOTUS since that court has always just assumed OC is the right without explicitly ruling on it. P=.95

    Alternatively, they could say 790.053 is unconstitutional or just unconstitutional in the case of a license holder like Dale Norman. P=.05.

    See you in 6 months or more. Hopefully this won't derail a legislative fix.
    Quote Originally Posted by hammer6 View Post
    okay so what then?

    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.

  13. #63
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    See above. IMO, Wait 6 months for them to say a right and a privilege are the same thing and to make a fiction where the ban is just a regulation of the manner of bearing arms, upholding 790.053 as constitutional, without reference to the SCOTUS since that court has always just assumed OC is the right without explicitly ruling on it. P=.95

    Alternatively, they could say 790.053 is unconstitutional or just unconstitutional in the case of a license holder like Dale Norman. P=.05.

    See you in 6 months or more. Hopefully this won't derail a legislative fix.



    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


    okay so i'm reading the california decision...based on their explanation, i'm inclined to think that they may rule based on nun v state (georgia)....basically, since florida is "shall issue", it's okay to ban open carry. the 9th circuit is using that same logic to heavily restrict concealed carry, even though open carry is not legal. it seems to look like they are paving the way for an open carry challenge in california. This is what they said about that case: "However, because the indictment failed to allege that the defendant had carried his pistol in a concealed manner, the court dismissed it."
    Last edited by hammer6; 06-09-2016 at 09:03 PM. Reason: typo

  14. #64
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,151
    has anyone read the 9th circuit decision yet? great stuff in there.

    "In the years after the adoption of the Second Amendment and before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the state courts that considered the question nearly universally concluded that laws forbidding concealed weapons were consistent with both the Second Amendment and their state constitutions."

  15. #65
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    462

    Thumbs up Guess who is the last one standing in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

    Given that Beck screwed up his appeal in Young v. Hawaii (asking the court to compel the writing of a new law, among other things) that leaves my California Open Carry lawsuit as the last one standing in the 9th Circuit.

    I read that the NRA is going to file its own Open Carry lawsuit. I suspect that the NRA/CRPA is going to fail to mention that it is impossible for them to get ahead of my appeal. Appeals are heard in the order in which they are filed and my appeal will be fully briefed long before the NRA could get a decision, even if it opened with a motion for a preliminary injunction.

    Today's Peruta decision was a boon for the Florida Open Carry case now pending a decision by the FSC. If the FSC holds that Florida can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry then it would create another SCOTUS Rule 10 split, this time with the 9th Circuit.
    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

  16. #66
    Campaign Veteran StogieC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    746
    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.

  17. #67
    Campaign Veteran StogieC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    746
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    Given that Beck screwed up his appeal in Young v. Hawaii (asking the court to compel the writing of a new law, among other things) that leaves my California Open Carry lawsuit as the last one standing in the 9th Circuit.

    I read that the NRA is going to file its own Open Carry lawsuit. I suspect that the NRA/CRPA is going to fail to mention that it is impossible for them to get ahead of my appeal. Appeals are heard in the order in which they are filed and my appeal will be fully briefed long before the NRA could get a decision, even if it opened with a motion for a preliminary injunction.

    Today's Peruta decision was a boon for the Florida Open Carry case now pending a decision by the FSC. If the FSC holds that Florida can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry then it would create another SCOTUS Rule 10 split, this time with the 9th Circuit.

    You NEED to hire a qualified appellate attorney.

  18. #68
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by StogieC View Post
    You NEED to hire a qualified appellate attorney.
    And whom would you suggest? Hopefully none of the qualified appellate attorneys who have argued in one case after another that Open Carry can be banned?
    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

  19. #69
    Campaign Veteran StogieC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    746
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    And whom would you suggest? Hopefully none of the qualified appellate attorneys who have argued in one case after another that Open Carry can be banned?
    I'll get back to you with some names.

  20. #70
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by StogieC View Post
    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.
    "You" might win but the Second Amendment would lose.

    Unlike you, and a few others here, I support the Second Amendment right to bear arms which has always been a right to openly carry arms and has never been a right to carry concealed.
    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

  21. #71
    Campaign Veteran StogieC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    746
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    "You" might win but the Second Amendment would lose.

    Unlike you, and a few others here, I support the Second Amendment right to bear arms which has always been a right to openly carry arms and has never been a right to carry concealed.
    I agree that the "alternative outlet" thorey is wrong. But it is undeniable that even that is more than we have now.
    Last edited by StogieC; 06-09-2016 at 10:48 PM.

  22. #72
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    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.
    This is all predicated upon the notion that logic and reason are involved.

    When we heard three of the justices openly promoting nonsense propaganda, do you really think logic and reason are in play? These people are not impartial, educated, etc. They care for nothing but pushing a flagrant leftist agenda. The law is irrelevant. Rights are irrelevant. Logic is irrelevant. Facts are irrelevant.

    They can just give you the finger. The law has nothing to do with it. They have ultimate power to do whatever the hell they want with no consequences. Word salad is just a cover story.

    If you don't go away on command, they'll just make your kids disappear. That's how it's done in Floriduh.

    Conjecture it is. But even there, it's not even reasonable conjecture. We know what these freaks are.
    Last edited by ixtow; 06-10-2016 at 02:17 AM.
    "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.

  23. #73
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    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.

  24. #74
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    2,991
    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.
    Absolutely

    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.

  25. #75
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,055
    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.
    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.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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