Norman v. State (FL)

[Luger_carbine]

http://www.floridacarry.org/litigation

From the Florida Carry site:

Norman v. State (FL) is the case of a law abiding concealed carry licensee who was arrested and prosecuted in Fort Pierce, FL for violating Florida nearly complete ban on Open Carry after his otherwise lawfully carried handgun unknowingly became unconcealed while walking.

Info on the case form article at Ammoland

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/04/fl-s...#axzz2RI8POuqS

It is Florida Carry’s position that since the Third District Court of Appeals found a concealed carry license to be a privilege and not a right in Crane v. Department of State, 547 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 3DCA 1989), and it is wholly unlawful to carry a firearm without a concealed carry license (except for the limited situations in §790.25(3) Florida Statutes), then it must follow that unlicensed open carry must be the right protected under the Constitution of Florida and the United States.

[csmsss]

Very, very interesting case. First, one might think that the defendant's temporary, unintentional and presumably unknowing open display of his previously concealed firearm would have been covered by the exception in the statute and that a prosecutor acting in good faith would not have filed charges - but so this one did.

Which brings me to a second point - it is easy to paint states into "good" and "bad" labels with respect to their treatment of firearms owners, but this case proves the line is far more blurry than that. Even in Florida, which I think most of us would agree is in general a very gun-friendly state with fairly reasonable laws, all it takes is one lapse in judgement, however momentary, married to a perhaps overly-zealous prosecutor, to turn your life upside down.

[csmsss]

One other thing:

The County Court judge also did not fully consider the Second Amendment or FL Art.1 Sec. 8 question; denying that motion to dismiss the case because the question of the right to bear arms "is for someone above the level of this court."

It appears that the county judge is denying his authority to rule on matters of law. Seriously? What Cracker Jack box did this guy get his judgeship out of?

[JimDandy]

The one with the NFL logo, because he punted?

Though to be fair, I remember some of the same language in the SAFE act judicial action.. that some challenges were above that level of court, and had to be decided at a higher level or some such because of a precedent already set.

[csmsss]

Though to be fair, I remember some of the same language in the SAFE act judicial action.. that some challenges were above that level of court, and had to be decided at a higher level or some such because of a precedent already set.

I can't deny this is a possibility, though I find it unlikely - first, based on the unusualness (if that be a word) of this case and legal argument, there probably aren't applicable precedents controlling it, but also based on the flippancy and, frankly, unprofessional language of the judge's order. It certainly smells like that punting analogy you used.

[Luger_carbine]

Although the court found Mr. Norman guilty as there was no evidence that the firearm had been concealed before he was arrested or that it could have been due to his manner of dress

I don't think this is a case of a gun-hating prosecutor. But the guilt or innocence of Mr. Norman is secondary to the interesting legal question that the case gives rise to.

I think the OC argument hangs on a technicality because previous law has stated that CC in Florida is a privledge

Maybe CA10 will end up calling CCW a right since Florida is there already.

I can't help but wonder how this jives with Peterson.

[press1280]

Very interesting, if they're able to get to the core rights question. This is apparently going to be in a different FL district than the 1989 case that said the CCW permit was a privilege. I guess the same rules apply in FL-appeals court splits get you to the high court.
It would be great to have the FL court weigh in on the scope of the 2A giving us more bites of the apple.

[Aguila Blanca]

Older cases, in Ohio and Idaho (?), have hinged on this same argument. In both cases the courts ruled that bearing arms is a right, so if the legislature wishes to limit and license concealed carry, then ipso facto open carry must be legal without any license or permit.

[dakota.potts]

Finally a case relevant to my state.

As I remember, a law was passed in Florida that a "brief, nonthreatening" glance of a concealed weapon is not illegal.

Should be very interesting. A 21 year old in Florida can already get a concealed carry license, carry a handgun in a car (with one barrier such as a lid or even a snap on a holster), and carry a long gun anywhere in the car, even in plain view. If this ruled that open carry were a constitutional right (especially of long guns), we would be able to carry any weapon just about anywhere outside the house (gun free zones exempt). Not that I'm that hopeful but a very interesting case. Also, open carry in Florida is legal while doing or travelling between the following activities: Shooting at a range, hunting, fishing, or camping.

[Luger_carbine]

Whoops, if it goes above the Florida courts, it would be CA11 not CA10.

My bad.

[press1280]

If it goes to the FL supreme court it can be appealed to SCOTUS if there's a federal issue(2A and not FL's RKBA constitutional amendment).

[hermannr]

Idaho is "in re Brickley" (1902) http://www.guncite.com/court/state/70p609.html

Interestingly, OK constitution is worded almost exactly the same as Idaho's, Though OK came to the opposite conclusion. (in the 20's)

[Al Norris]

press1280's opinion is correct.

Should this reach the Florida Supreme Court and that Court opines on a federal question, then it may be appealed to the SCOTUS. If however, the FL Court only opines upon the FL analog RKBA, then there is no federal question to appeal.

We saw this back in 2001, with a Utah State case that was ultimately decided by the Utah Supreme Court on US 4A grounds (BRIGHAM CITY v. STUART, No. 20021004., February 18, 2005 - UT Supreme Court | FindLaw, 2005). This was appealed to the SCOTUS and decided in 2006. Here the SCOTUS overturned the State Court (BRIGHAM CITY v. STUART (No. 05-502) 2006).

Here, even thought the Utah 4A analog was held to have better protection for individuals inside their homes, both the trial court, Appeals Court and the State Supreme Court held that an exigent circumstances was not in force, allowing Brigham City police to invoke a warrantless entry and arrest, based upon not the Utah analog, but the US 4A.

Had the arguments been based solely upon the Utah rights, then the Utah Supreme Court would have had the final word.

From my reading, this case is based upon both RKBA analogs and could result in an appeal to the SCOTUS. Since this is essentially a criminal case, I won't attempt to guess a probable outcome.

[JimDandy]

Had the arguments been based solely upon the Utah rights, then the Utah Supreme Court would have had the final word.

Isn't that up to the people filing the complaint? And don't most lawyers throw the kitchen sink and see what sticks? So even if it's raised and dismissed, it could theoretically be appealed to SCOTUS for improperly dismissing a federal claim?

[csmsss]

Isn't that up to the people filing the complaint?

In theory, yes. In actuality, it's pretty much up to whoever is paying the attorney(s). I'm not familiar with the case, so this is entirely speculative, but I'm guessing that a national 2A group funded the defense and most likely shaped trial and/or appellate strategy.

And don't most lawyers throw the kitchen sink and see what sticks? So even if it's raised and dismissed, it could theoretically be appealed to SCOTUS for improperly dismissing a federal claim?

I'm not exactly sure what the question here is. If I'm reading Al's analysis correctly, he's saying that since the Utah supreme court based its ruling on what SCOTUS later determined to be a faulty reading of 4A, that the Supremes were free to overturn. Had the case been argued and ruled by the state courts on a reading of Utah's state constitution, then there would have been no federal question for SCOTUS to rule upon and the Utah supreme court ruling would have stood.

[JimDandy]

I'm not exactly sure what the question here is.

That generally speaking, without referencing any specific case, the lawyers draft a complaint to hit as many issues as they can, to maximize their avenues of victory and appeal?

[csmsss]

That generally speaking, without referencing any specific case, the lawyers draft a complaint to hit as many issues as they can, to maximize their avenues of victory and appeal?

Gotcha - except if they had ESP and knew they would prevail in Utah Supreme Court on a federal claim but lose at SCOTUS on the same claim, they might not have raised the federal claim but instead argued solely on the claim against Utah's constitution. Of course, that would be of very limited value to a third party pursuing a nationwide agenda (not blaming them, just stating the obvious), so if that is who was funding the defense, it's understandable why they were arguing on federal grounds.

[press1280]

http://199.242.69.70/pls/ds/ds_docke...&psSearchType=

ORDERED sua sponte that jurisdiction is hereby relinquished to the trial court for the purpose of rendering a written judgment and sentence in accordance with its oral pronouncement of August 14, 2012; further ORDERED that the trial court shall file with this court said written judgment and sentence within thirty (30) days from the date of this order.

Been over a year since the last post but the trial judge certified questions to the FL appeals court, the state tried to get the FL Supremes to stop it(which they refused to do), the appeals court then dispensed with oral arguments and then put the above statement out last week.
I don't know if they're basically saying, go ahead setence Norman or they're telling the trial court to just make a ruling on the case, which wasn't done first time around. They have a month to make a ruling.

[dogrunner]

The appeals court is directing the lower court to rule on the consitutional question raised at trial............the lower court essentially ruled that such a question was "above it's pay grade".

Read the filings and casework on Florida Carry......utterly disgraceful tap dancing on the part of the Florida Atty Gnl's office delaying tactics.