Posted on 08/15/2012 10:53:40 AM PDT by marktwain
Ft. Pierce, FL --(Ammoland.com)- Today, St. Lucie County Judge Cliff Barnes denied all constitutional arguments to dismiss the case against Dale Norman, without written order.
State v. Norman 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.
The denials were based, in part, on the courts findings that the statute is facially overbroad and is facially vague, but was not necessarily improper “as applied” in this case. This turns the standard of statutory review on its head by applying it in reverse.
The judge also did not fully consider the Second Amendment or FL Art.1 Sec. 8 question; denying it because the question of the right to bear arms “is for someone above the level of this court.”
The prosecution, having already been notified of our intent to appeal, took the unusual tactic of stipulating to the court that withholding adjudication and a just imposing a fine would suit the State’s interest after the Judge explained his grounds for dismissal of the constitutional challenges.
The Second Amendment question is fairly straightforward; Florida courts have clearly acknowledged that the carrying of a concealed firearm is a privilege subject to even being banned completely, not a right protected by the constitution. Florida appealet courts have found that the “Retroactive application of (new Florida Statutes), is not unconstitutional because a license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm is a privilege and not a vested right.” Crane v. Department of State, 547 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 1989).
The “privilege of a license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm” recognized In Crane cannot replace, or substitute for, the fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. and Florida Constitutions. Florida courts have long held that there is a right to bear arms outside of the home.
The written order for Dale Norman’s case is pending. We are asking the judge to certify the constitutional questions directly to the Florida 3rd District Court of Appeals as matters of great public importance.
Florida Carry is providing for the continued defense of Dale Norman and seeks to clarify what the right to bear arms is in Florida. Please help us win this fight for your RIGHT to Bear Arms by Joining or Donating.
We cannot continue our work statewide without your support, Please Join Florida Carry or Donate today!
About: Florida Carry, Inc. is a non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots organization dedicated to advancing the fundamental rights of all Floridians to keep and bear arms for self-defense as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I Section 8 of the Florida Constitution. Florida Carry stands only to represent our supporters, members, and the over 7-million gun owners of Florida. We are not beholden to any national organization’s agenda that may compromise that mission.
Florida Carry works tirelessly toward striking down ill-conceived gun control laws that have been proven to provide safe havens to criminals and be deadly to law-abiding citizens.
The idea of leaving interpretation of the Constitution to the courts has proven disastrous.
Activist, anti-Second Amendment judge?
I agree
For those out-of-staters ...
The election on Tuesday, yesterday, had a lot of judges on the ballot. So this clown waits until after the votes are cast to show his true anti-American colors.
hat surprise anyone? The Courts and cops now work hand in glove.Particularily on Second Amendean issues. Any law abiding citizen, particularily a gun owner, who believes that as long as they do not violate the law, that the cops are on their side are only deluding themselves.That ship long ago sailed.
Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.
Supreme Law of the Land.
Privilege and Immunities...
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
So simple even a caveman should have no problem with it.
That means this “judge” is knowingly acting outside their authority. Impeach them and try them for violation of USC Title 18 Section 242. Deprivation of Civil Rights under Color of Law.
No. I don't care if "Speciesist" isn't a real word... :-p
More to the point, defendants have the right to have jurors examine just about any question they think is relevant, with the provisos that (1) the prosecution may put reasonable time constraints on the defendants' arguments and witnesses, but (2) if the prosecution imposes a time constraint and cuts off a defendant, the defendant has the right to argue that the prosecutor was really cutting him off not to save time, but to prevent the defense from making its case. If a defendant tries to spend hours or days on issues that the jury feels are just wasting time, a jury may welcome the prosecutor's cutting off of the defendant's case. On the other hand, if the defendant is presenting material the jury is finding interesting when the prosecutor cuts him off, the jury might decide to acquit on that basis even if, had it been allowed to hear everything, it would have found the defense arguments to be slightly short of convincing.
To put it another way, if knowledge of some truthful information would cause a jury to acquit, that information is not "irrelevant", even if the juror's acquittal would be for reasons the prosecutor or judge might not like.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.