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.