Florida Concealed Carry banner

Florida Supreme Court sez a license = a right

7K views 43 replies 16 participants last post by  TitleIIToyLover 
#1 ·
#2 ·
That's why the legislature should change the law allowing either mode of carry. :popcorn
 
#3 ·
Well that is disappointing. I guess that the FLSC doesn't have any problem with requiring a license to exercise a fundamental constitutional right. Sad. Very sad.
 
#4 ·
It will be very interesting how FLSC will rule should the Bill before Congress to allow interstate carry. On a second note, How you gonna open carry interstate to Hawaii? Alaska? LOL
 
#8 ·
But would be moot if the law changed. Not sure if that's going to happen, though. Perhaps rvrctyrngr will chime in on the decision and also respond in the Legislative Actions thread on the thread's for the Open Carry Bills, which IIRC, are being debated in committee starting next week. :dunno
 
#10 ·
I speculate that this decision will have a chilling effect on the legislation. I believe that the legislators were under some pressure to pass an OC bill with some control, rather than have the court find any ban whatsoever on OC, unconstitutional. Now the court has ruled that the current statute is constitutional the pressure has gone away. NOT passing a OC bill this year will have no effect on the current statute.

I don't understand the level of scrutiny used by the court in reaching their opinion. The dissent lays a great foundation for appeal to SCOTUS. Charging a fee and requiring licensure for CC is the equivalent of a poll tax. You can't ban OC and then charge fee for CC.

Just my opinion of course.
 
#9 ·
I had such high hopes for this legislative session. Now that Norman is dead (unless there is a notion of appealing it to SCOTUS) our only hope now is the Legislature. Fingers crossed - but I'm not feeling lucky.
 
#11 ·
The fight isn't over. The issue is that Florida is unfortunately a "purple" state, by the so-called virtue of the area I live in, South Florida. While firearms enthusiasts are numerous down here, I've found that it's prudent to keep your opsec high when talking about guns in mixed company around here. There's usually more than a few yahoos who think gun control is a good idea.
 
#14 · (Edited)
Purple PB County story:

At the gym on Monday and one of three women working out in a group is wearing a coyote tan baseball hat. She turns and the front has a HK logo and there is a small pin of an AR on the brim. I have never spoken to her before but we have worked out at the same time several days a week for a year. My first words ever to her are "Nice hat and pin" and her face goes blank, her eyes look upward and then the face contorts like she had just smelled a bad fart. Gives me a half-assed smile and then walks away.

Today I am there and she walks in and comes straight over to me and apologizes for being rude. Observed that she's never had someone recognize what the HK was and no one apparently ever noted the pin. She acknowledged that she and her husband shoot and she just happened to grab whatever hat was handy Monday morning. She pointed out that her workout lady friends are not "gun people" and would not understand. I did not want to ask her about the pin so whatever.

This in PB Gardens.

BTW, she was wearing this hat this morning, a little more subtle.

 
#12 ·
Duplicate threads on this subject merged, keeping TitleIIToyLover's thread title used for his later thread than the thread started earlier today by guitargain.
 
#15 ·
#17 ·
Sucks for Norman and Floridians. I think the only place to settle this is by passing an Open Carry bill through the legislature. :popcorn
 
#25 · (Edited)
I have lost complete respect for the court system. Their twisted logic is a joke. For the courts, the constitution and the law no longer have meaning.

I no longer have confidence that our votes have meaning. Politicians say anything to get elected and then do nothing, or worse.
 
#27 ·
Yyyyyyyyyyup!

I've talked our folks about this on numerous occasions. We trudge on, but it gets harder and harder to gird the loins for another trip into the dragon's lair KNOWING you're fighting a foregone conclusion, and just hoping for one moment of intellectual honesty amongst the judiciary or legislature, as we got in Lainez v. UNF.

Hell, even kamikazes, if they survived, didn't want to go on a SECOND mission!
 
#31 ·
First post here so please cut me a little slack. Hope this isn't a hijack. This thread starts to ask questions I have asked my representatives.

The FSC says very clearly that our Representatives may regulate "the manner of bearing arms." The case at the heart of this discussion confirms that fact. Not saying it's "right" but it is what it is.

I have read the FSC many times and can not find anywhere that We the People give authority our Representatives to regulate the "where" of bearing arms. So how are any of the Statutes restricting where we may carry arms Constitutional?
 
#32 ·
The Florida Constitution probably should have used the common legal phrase "Time, Place, and/or Manner" but I think if you look up the word "manner" you would find that it is all encompassing. I speculate that the courts would find it all inclusive.

Now the question is, in as much as the U.S. Constitution's second amendment has been clarified an individual right by Heller and incorporated via the 14 amendment against the several states by McDonald I think SCOTUS would find Florida's 790.053 void. The case is sitting there if anyone can fund it. See Norman v. State.
 
#33 ·
From the Webster's 1728 dictionary:

MAN'NER, noun [Latin manus, the hand.]
1. Form; method; way of performing or executing.
2. Custom; habitual practice.
3. Sort; kind.
4. Certain degree or measure.
5. Mien; cast of look; mode.
6. Peculiar way or carriage; distinct mode.
7. Way; mode; of things.
8. Way of service or worship.
9. In painting, the particular habit of a painter in managing colors, lights and shades.

For the life of me, I can't find any definition of MANNER that encompasses any semblance to any definition of WHERE.

WHERE, adverb
1. At which place or places.
2. At or in what place.
3. At the place in which.
4. Whither; to what place, or from what place.

Our Legislature can not pass laws on subjects that our Constitution does not give them authority to do. If "Time, Place, and/or Manner" were given to the law makers, do you really think they would let us carry ANYWHERE?

I have asked the same State Reprehensive, my State Senator and Greg Stuebe. Contacted Stuebe as he has been very active in pushing these things.

Thanks for the reply.
 
#36 · (Edited)
Again, Norman v. state is sitting there waiting for someone to fund the legal fees required to appeal to SCOTUS.

The legislative approach would be cheaper, but we see how well that worked this year.

Florida is done. We have been overrun by those from the northeast that wanted warmer weather but didn't want to give up their liberal ways and the Cubans who fled communism but want to change the State that took them in.
 
#34 ·
"Constitutional" is an elusive thing. Regardless of what the words on the piece of paper say, what ends up being "constitutional" (or more importantly "unconstitutional") often ends up coming down to the opinion of 9 unelected, Ivy League educated, people in black dresses.

In Heller SCOTUS says nothing therein should cast doubt on longstanding restrictions including upon the carrying of concealed weapons or carrying arms into "sensitive places". That one "permission" alone strongly hints at a finding of "constitutional" regarding a lot of our carry restrictions in Florida.

That said, we need to keep an eye on Peruta. If SCOTUS grants certiorari in Peruta then its outcome might either: a) signal how they would rule on something like Norman, b) foreclose the Norman argument entirely.

If SCOTUS were to say that if California wants to prohibit open carry then they must allow unlicensed concealed carry, then that would leave the avenue of attack on Norman open. If however they said that as long as California's concealed carry licensing scheme were made "shall issue" it would satisfy the constitutional right to bear an operable firearm in public for the purposes of lawful self defense, then it would preclude Norman. And the worst possible case, if they said "Peruta is categorically wrong and California law is good as is" - then we're all living on borrowed time - and the carry freedom we enjoy today will probably last only so long as the Dems don't take over the state.
 
#43 ·
Well I had an interesting telephone conversation this afternoon with my new Representative McClain. I sat on the telephone for an hour with his aid on Monday. I pointed out the wording of "ARITICLE 1, SECTION 8, (a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law." I then made it clear that I needed an answer as to where they have any authority to regulate the "where" of FS 790. We hung up and my phone rung 15 minutes later. "I found where they can regulate the manner of carrying..." and pointed out exactly what we had gone over before. I explained again that what he found did not give them power over "where." "Oh, I see."

McClain called today. He agreed that beyond the "manner" of bearing arms, they have no Constitutional authority to regulate the "where" of firearms. So on face value he seems to understand the question. Now it will be interesting to see what he does.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top