Interesting Call with Florida Carry, Inc.

[dakota.potts]

Last night I emailed Sean at Florida Carry, Inc. They're an organization trying to allow open carry in Florida as well as protecting peoples' gun rights. I believe they are the ones who took on the case of the veteran who had his guns (and bows) wrongly removed from him.

I told him I was turning 18 soon and looking for a way to carry. I mentioned my black powder hypothesis (as has been talked about in another thread here) or if he had any other advice for me.

He sent me an e-mail back asking me to call him so I did about 1PM.

He told me that he thought that I was absolutely right in my interpretation of the law about black powder carrying. There are no laws in Florida against it. He also told me that he could guarantee that I'd be arrested and tried and even though I'd probably get off once I could prove it, I would have an arrest record and people would probably go running to the legislature to ban antique firearms.

What he did say, however, was that they were in need of somebody 18 years old but not yet 21 who didn't have a method of legally carrying a firearm on their person. He said they could use a well vetted plaintiff or "poster child" to help them petition the courts for restoration of certain rights.

Needless to say, I am very happy to help support these rights. We've exchanged information so we will hopefully be in later talks when I do turn 18 and I would love to help them work on this.

Just thought I would share this story with all you people here

 

[Spats McGee]

Caveat: I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer, nor am I licensed in Florida. Take my advice as being worth exactly what you've paid for it (nada), and go see a lawyer licensed in Florida if you want real advice.

That said, be sure you know what risks you're undertaking before you sign on. If you're looking at a possible felony, then losing the case means losing your firearm rights, your voting rights, and a slew of possible other effects.

 

[dakota.potts]

Oh, let me be more clear in my speaking

I've dropped the black powder carry idea. They just need someone to help represent them as far as I know. NOT someone to get arrested and then try the case. My petitioning will be all legal.

 

[Spats McGee]

That sounds like a much better idea.

 

[I'vebeenduped]

Reading this was like a miniature thriller. I started out thinking, "Oh, man! This is bad." Then there was Spats talking the guy off from the ledge. Suddenly, there was no ledge! A real gripper for a few seconds!

 

[Tom Servo]

What he did say, however, was that they were in need of somebody 18 years old but not yet 21 who didn't have a method of legally carrying a firearm on their person.

It's worth pursuing, but the NRA lost a similar challenge in Texas last year. Has Florida Carry articulated a novel or different approach?

 

[dakota.potts]

He mentioned that case as well.

They are currently pursuing open carry. Their line of thinking is that since the Florida constitution guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms, that must be a constitutional and unregulated right. Since Concealed carry is regulated then it must follow that open carry is open without any licensure (all my words since I don't speak legal-ese) and therefore someone 18 years of age would be allowed to openly carry. I don't know if this is true but again they've put way more time in than I have. This is the part of our constitution that gives me pause "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."

He did say that he doesn't think that case is going to pass constitutional muster when it goes to the court of appeals but I don't know what the plan is if it does. They know much more than I. I can only guess as to my participation.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Similar cases have been to court in Ohio (early 2000s, which led to Ohio having a concealed carry law) and, I believe, Idaho. Al Norris is the guy who keeps reminding me of the name of the Idaho (?) case.

With that statutory language, it "should be" a slam dunk.

 

[press1280]

They have a case right now (Norman v. State) which will clarify if open carry should indeed be the "protected" form of carry in FL. An appeals court had ruled in 1989 that the CCW permit was a privilege, not a right.

 

[dakota.potts]

Yes, I believe the basis of the current case is that if Concealed Carry is a privilege, than Open Carry must be the right talked about in the constitution. That's my understanding anyways.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Aha! Found it all by myself (thanks to Mr. Norris. I was smart enough to have bookmarked the link he gave me. Problem was, I couldn't remember what I filed the bookmark under).

http://www.guncite.com/court/state/70p609.html

(Supreme Court of Idaho. Nov. 15, 1902.)

BEARING ARMS--CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS.

1. The act of the territorial legislature approved February 4, 1889, which prohibits private persons from carrying deadly weapons within the limits or confines of any city, town, or village in Idaho, contravenes the provisions of the second amendment to the federal constitution and the provisions of section 11, art. 1, of the constitution of Idaho, and is void.

2. While it is undoubtedly within the power of the legislature to prohibit the carrying of concealed deadly weapons, and such regulation is a proper exercise of police power, yet the legislature does not possess the power to prohibit the carrying of firearms, as the right to do so is guarantied to the citizen both by our federal and state constitutions.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

 

[press1280]

What we've seen from the Federal Courts is they're taking this way too literally and saying in every case that concealed carry isn't protected, even if that state has banned open carry. Let's hope that'll change with Woollard, since MD's handgun permit doesn't specify concealed or open.

 

[Al Norris]

Aguila, we known each other long enough for you to just use my first name. But thanks for the honorific.

The case name is. In re Brickey, and may be cited as, In re Brickey, 8 Idaho 597, 70 P. 609, 101 Am. St. Rep. 215, 1 Ann. Cas. 55 (1902).

 

[dakota.potts]

So what does that mean? they could regulate the carrying of a concealed dagger or such but not a firearm?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

No, it means that the legislature can "regulate" the carry of deadly weapons (including firearms), but they cannot prohibit carry. They could NOT say "Thou shalt not carry firearms within city limits."

"Regulating" the mode of carry means they COULD say "No concealed carry." But they could not say "No carry." So, if the legislature wanted to ban concealed carry, or require a license or permit for concealed carry, because of the language in the state's constitution OPEN carry had to be allowed with no license or permit.

The Ohio case in the early part of this century was based on the same logic. Both were state court cases, not Federal. Since Florida's state constitution contains similar language (according to your quotation), the same logic should apply.

 

[dakota.potts]

I think that same logic would apply. I was worried about the quotation saying that they could regulate the manner of carry, but if that Ohio law contained very similar wording I think it would make a strong case. I think using the case precedent that concealed carry is a privilege (not a right) in conjunction would make a pretty solid case for legalizing open carry.

If that's the case, it looks like I'll be open carrying until I'm 21. If the law even makes it through the court in time (joke)

 

[Crazy88Fingers]

Yes, I believe the basis of the current case is that if Concealed Carry is a privilege, than Open Carry must be the right talked about in the constitution. That's my understanding anyways.

But our CCW system in Florida is shall issue. Meaning anyone who isn't a prohibited person can acquire a permit to carry.

That being the case, is concealed carry still considered a privilege?

 

[dakota.potts]

I was quoting this from above:

"They have a case right now (Norman v. State) which will clarify if open carry should indeed be the "protected" form of carry in FL. An appeals court had ruled in 1989 that the CCW permit was a privilege, not a right. "

When I went looking, it coincidentally lead me right to the Florida Carry page

http://www.floridacarry.org/litigation/21-statecourt/70-norman-v-state

There's a bunch of court proceedings under that but I don't know how to read those yet.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

But our CCW system in Florida is shall issue. Meaning anyone who isn't a prohibited person can acquire a permit to carry.

That being the case, is concealed carry still considered a privilege?

Obviously, yes. If you cannot [legally] do something without first paying a fee and obtaining a permission slip (a license or a permit) from the government, it is a privilege, not a right.

 

[dakota.potts]

I joined the group "Florida Open Carry" on Facebook which I believe to be a direct venture of Florida Carry, Inc. The same guys moderate the group at least. It has over 4,000 members which is really amazing for a Facebook group (different from a page). There really is support for this issue in my state. They seem to have a lot of confidence in Norman V. State and although there were some procedural issues, Sean has stated he expects the case to be resolved in 2014. It seems like an eternity to wait until then but waiting on court cases always feels like that for me.