Thursday, December 03, 2015

Florida Supreme Court to Hear Constitutional Challenge to Open Carry Ban

The Florida Supreme Court has decided to hear the open carry case of Norman v. State, which challenges the constitutionality of the  ban on open carry in Florida.  It may or may not be a coincidence that the court decision was published on 6 October, a day after a bill to allow open carry passed the Florida House Criminal Justice sub-committee.  Here is a link to the Supreme Court's acceptance of the Norman v. State (Florida) case.

On the legislative side, the bill passed the committee 8-4.  From the
The state representative who filed the bill, Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach, called the right to bear arms one "granted not by government but by God."
The initial brief to the court was filed a week ago on November 25th, 2015.  Here is the summation of the arguments.  From the INITIAL BRIEF - MERITS(PDF):
Florida’s ban on the open carrying of firearms, is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as Article I, Sec. 8 of the Florida Constitution, Declaration of Rights. The current ban was passed as an ill-conceived emergency measure, without committee hearings, public comment, or time for deliberations.
The brief goes on for 46 densely argued pages.

The Florida Constitution allows for regulation of the manner of bearing arms.  From the Florida Constitution, Article I, 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.
Prior to 1987, Florida allowed for unlicensed open carry, while highly restricting concealed carry.  It was the lobbying of Janet Reno, that created the open carry ban in the same year that the legislature passed a "shall issue" concealed carry law.

The state has not submitted its reply to the initial brief on the merits.  The local press has some coverage of the issues.  From
As for the Supreme Court case, Friday argued in the brief that the "Open Carry Ban severely restricts the right to bear arms."

The brief goes on to cite similar state cases from Georgia and Tennessee, where open carry laws were found unconstitutional. It goes on to explain that laws governing concealed weapon permits are also unconstitutional, equating the right to carrying a gun as the same right that protects the publication of pornography.

"Mr. Norman's arrest and prosecution were unconstitutional from beginning to end," Friday wrote in the brief. "The gunpoint detention of Mr. Norman, a lawfully armed person, clearly shows that the current interpretation of firearms law is suspect and dangerous."
 This is a very interesting case.  While it is quite strong on the merits, we have seen judges who are quite willing to ignore logic and fact in order to reach the conclusions that they favor.  I cannot predict what will happen in this case, but it is interesting that the Supreme Court decided to hear it.  It will likely take months for the court to reach a decision.

 ©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch


Wireless.Phil said...

Akron, Ohio
Outrage over open carry of a rifle, that is our law, but now the people who don't know the law, want to change it.

Not happening!

I don't use Facebook, so I can not comment.

Outrage ensues over man carrying weapon in downtown Akron
By Theresa Cottom
Beacon Journal staff writer

Wireless.Phil said...

Hopefully this is a better URL for the Akron, Ohio open carry outrage.

Anonymous said...

I really wish people would understand just what actual authority judges have. they do not get an opinion to enforce the law. their duty is to enforce what is actually written, not how they would like the law to read. Any judge that does not enforce exactly what is written violates his oath of office and should resign or be impeached and removed from the bench. So called activist judges are in fact criminally violating their oath.