Norman v. Florida 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 down the street the first time he carried outside his home with his new Florida concealed carry license.
Dash Cam Video of Arrest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qKeJ6jd2Ak
A St. Lucie County Judge denied all constitutional arguments to dismiss the case against Dale Norman. While the court made findings that the statute is overbroad and is facially vague, the court still issued a conviction on an “as applied” standard.
The County Court judge also did not fully consider the Second Amendment or the Right to Bear Arms under the Florida Constitution; denying those motions to dismiss the case because the question of the right to bear arms "is for someone above the level of this court."
The Second Amendment question is fairly straightforward; Florida courts have clearly found that the carrying of a concealed firearm is a privilege, subject even to being banned completely, not a right protected by the constitution. Florida appellate courts have held 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 Florida Legislature and Supreme Court have long recognized that there is a right to bear arms outside of the home. 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.
The County Court did, however, certify the constitutional questions directly to the 4th District Court of Appeals as questions of great public importance.
The DCA accepted jurisdiction and upheld the lower court's decision on the basis of deference to the Legislative Branch on Gun Control.
The case was appealed to the Florida Supreme Court where the court upheld the decision of the 4th District Court of Appeals by singling out the Right to Bear Arms protected by Art. I Sec. 8 of the Florida Constitution for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Declaration of Rights guarantees.
Norman v. Florida has now been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on Second Amendment grounds (see below).
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 Florida Carry.
Updates
Appeal to Florida 4th District Court of Appeal, Case 4D12-3525
Norman v. State, 159 So. 3d 205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
2/18/2015 - The 4th DCA ruled against Dale Norman:
"While the right to carry outside the home has been established by the highest court of the land, no decision interpreting the Second Amendment can be cited for the proposition that a state must allow for one form of carry over another. Because the Legislature has the right to enact laws regarding the manner in which arms can be borne, it is likewise permitted to forbid the carrying of arms in a particular place or manner which, in its collective judgment, is likely to lead to breaches of the peace, see Carlton v. State, 58 So. 486, 488-89 (Fla. 1912), provided a reasonable alternative manner of carry is provided."
Motion for Rehearing in the 4th DCA was denied.
The case was appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, Case number SC15-650.
Norman v. State, 215 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 2017)
3/2/2017 - FSC-OPINION:
"We hold that section 790.053 does not unconstitutionally infringe on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald, or the Florida Constitution's freestanding right to bear arms subject to the Legislature's authority to regulate the use and manner of doing so. Because section 790.053 regulates only one manner of bearing arms and does not impair the exercise of the fundamental right to bear arms, we approve the Fourth District's well-reasoned decision in Norman upholding the constitutionality of section 790.053 under intermediate scrutiny. It is so ordered."
Petition for Cert. filed with US Supreme Court - 7/10/2017. Case Number: 17-68
If you are unfamiliar with U.S. Supreme Court procedures, SCOTUSblog.com is an outstanding reference.
7/10/2017 Petition for writ of certiorari
"Florida law provides for licenses to carry handguns concealed, but prohibits carrying firearms openly. Petitioner, who had such license, was convicted of openly carrying a firearm on a public street. The majority of the Florida Supreme Court upheld the ban under intermediate scrutiny based on conjecture by counsel about why the legislature may have banned open carry.
The issue is whether a prohibition on peaceably and openly carrying a lawfully-owned handgun infringes on “the right of the people to . . . bear arms” protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. That issue also involves the extent to which a restriction on a constitutional right may be upheld, under a proper standard of review, on the basis of a post hoc argument of counsel with no foundation in the legislative or factual record."
Case History
Docket Overview: Lower Court Case Number: 2012-MM-000530-A
St. Lucie County Clerk of the County Court
Lower Court Filings:
06/08/2012 Motion to Dismiss - OC Ban Unconstitutionally Vague
06/08/2012 Motion to Dismiss - OC Ban Violates Second Amendment and Art. 1 Sec. 8 FL Constitution
06/08/2012 Motion to Dismiss - OB Ban Unconstitutionally Proscribes Action without Mens Rea
08/14/2012 Lower Court's Written Judgment and Sentence - Written Judgment and Sentence of 6/10/2014 nunc pro tunc to 8/14/2012
08/22/2012 Lower Court's Written Order on Motions to Dismiss - Certified constitutional questions directly to the Florida 4th District Court of Appeals as matters of great public importance.
08/29/2012 Notice of Appeal
06/18/2014 Motion to Correct Judgment and Sentence issued 6/10/2014 nunc pro tunc to 8/14/2012
Docket Overview: Appellate Court Case Number: 4D12-3525
Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal Docket
Appellate Court Filings on Jurisdiction:
|
Date Docketed
|
Description
|
Date Due
|
Filed By
|
Notes
|
| 09/27/2012 |
Notice of Appeal Filed |
|
Ashley Minton , Appellant |
|
| 09/27/2012 |
Determination of Indigent Status |
|
|
|
| 10/05/2012 |
Order for brief memorandum on 9.160 case |
10/15/2012 |
|
**VACATED 12/04/12** |
| 10/15/2012 |
Notice of Appearance |
|
Eric J. Friday 797901, Appellant |
|
| 10/15/2012 |
Memorandum Brief |
|
Eric J. Friday 797901, Appellant |
|
| 10/22/2012 |
Motion To Compel |
|
Attorney General-W.P.B. AG01, Appellee |
(M) PRODUCTION OF AN APPENDIX |
| 10/22/2012 |
Motion for Extension of Time to File Response |
|
Attorney General-W.P.B. AG01, Appellee |
(M) TO MEMORANDUM BRIEF |
| 11/07/2012 |
State's First Motion To Dismiss |
|
Attorney General-W.P.B. AG01, Appellee |
|
| 12/04/2012 |
ORD-Vacated |
|
|
10/05/2012 ORDER |
| 12/04/2012 |
Order to Show Cause-Appeal Dismissal |
12/14/2012 |
|
10 DAYS |
| 12/17/2012 |
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE |
|
Eric J. Friday 797901, Appellant |
|
| 01/08/2013 |
ORD-Denying Aplee's Motion to Dismiss |
|
|
|
| 01/08/2013 |
ORD-Moot |
|
|
(APPELLEE'S 10/22/12 MOTION TO COMPEL, ETC.) |
| 01/10/2013 |
State's Motion for Clarification |
|
Attorney General-W.P.B. AG01, Appellee |
OF 12/4/12 AND 1/8/13 ORDERS |
| 01/24/2013 |
Miscellaneous Entry |
|
|
COPY OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND APPENDIX FILED IN SUPREME COURT. AE Attorney General-W.P.B. AG01 |
| 01/29/2013 |
ORD-Granting Clarification |
|
|
THIS COURT HAS ACCEPTED JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE, AND APPELLEE HAS NO FURTHER OBLIGATION TO ADDRESS THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE. |
| 01/31/2013 |
Court Reporter Acknowledgment Letter |
|
|
|
| 02/19/2013 |
Ack. Receipt from Supreme Court |
|
|
SC13-212 |
| 04/22/2013 |
Supreme Court Disposition |
|
|
SC13-212 DENIED |
|
Docket Overview: Florida Supreme Court Case Number: SC13-212
Florida Supreme Court Docket
Supreme Court Filings on Jurisdiction:
|
Date Docketed
|
Description
|
Date Due
|
Filed By
|
Notes
|
| 01/30/2013 |
State's Petition for Writ of Prohibition |
|
State Of Florida STATE BY: PT Cynthia Laine Comras 151319 Attorney General - W.P.B. |
|
| 02/07/2013 |
Motion to Strike or Dismiss Petition for Writ of Prohibition |
|
Dale Lee Norman BY: RS Eric J. Friday 797901 |
|
| 04/19/2013 |
Final Disposition - Writ Denied |
|
|
The petition for writ of prohibition is hereby denied because petitioner has failed to demonstrate that a lower court is attempting to act in excess of its jurisdiction. See Mandico v. Taos Constr., Inc., 605 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1992); English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977). Any motions or other requests for relief are hereby denied. |
|
Docket Overview: Appellate Court Case Number: 4D12-3525
Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal Docket
Appellate Court Filings on Merits:
|
Date Docketed
|
Description
|
Date Due
|
Filed By
|
Notes
|
| 03/06/2013 |
Received Records |
|
|
FOUR (4) VOLUMES (WITH CD-ROM) |
| 04/09/2013 |
Mot. for Extension of time to file Initial Brief |
|
Eric J. Friday 0797901, Appellant |
|
| 04/11/2013 |
Order Granting EOT for Initial Brief |
04/22/2013 |
|
ORDERED that appellant's motion filed April 9, 2013, for extension of time is granted, and appellant shall serve the initial brief on or before April 22, 2013. In addition, if the initial brief is not served within the time provided for in this order the above-styled case may be subject to dismissal or the court in its discretion may impose other sanctions. |
| 04/22/2013 |
Supreme Court Disposition |
|
|
SC13-212 DENIED |
| 04/22/2013 |
Initial Brief on Merits |
|
Eric J. Friday 0797901, Appellant |
|
|
05/17/2013
06/10/2013
07/19/2013
08/22/2013
|
Requests for Extension - Answer Brief |
10/09/2013 |
Florida Attorney General |
Extension 30 DAYS TO 06/21/13
Extension 30 DAYS TO 07/24/13
Extension 30 DAYS TO 08/23/13
Requested 60 DAYS - Objection Filed
Extension 30 DAYS TO 10/9/13*
* "... appellee shall serve the answer brief within thirty (30) days from the date of the entry of this order [9/9/2013].
In addition, appellee is notified that the failure to serve the brief within the time provided herein may foreclose appellee's right to file a brief or otherwise participate in this appeal."
|
| 10/09/2013 |
State's Answer Brief |
|
Attorney General - W.P.B., Appellee |
|
| 10/28/2013 |
Appellant's Reply Brief |
11/04/2013 |
Eric J. Friday 0797901, Appellant |
|
| 01/02/2014 |
Appellant's Notice of Supplemental Authority |
|
Eric J. Friday 0797901, Appellant |
Florida Carry v. UNF, en banc (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) and Art I Sec. 2 FL Constitution |
| 03/03/2014 |
Oral Argument Declined
Withdrawn 08/12/2014 |
|
Eric J. Friday 0797901, Appellant |
BY ORDER OF THE COURT: After reviewing the briefs, the court, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.320, has dispensed with oral argument. The case will be submitted to a conference by a panel of the court. |
| 05/13/2014 |
Jurisdiction Relinquished
Case Submitted for Written Version of Lower Court Ruling. |
06/12/2014 |
|
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. |
| 06/12/2014 |
Notice of Written Judgment and Sentence by (Lower) Trial Court |
|
Hon. Cliff Barnes |
JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE
THIS CAUSE having come before this Court upon trial by jury, the jury having found Defendant guilty, the Court hereby WITHHOLDS JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION and assesses a fine of $300.00 plus court costs of $223.00, cost of investigation of $25.00 and $50.00 cost of prosecution. DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of June, 2014, at Fort Pierce, St. Lucie County, Florida, nunc pro tunc (retroactive) to August 14,2012. |
| 06/17/2014 |
Second Motion to Dismiss |
|
Attorney General - W.P.B. AG01, Appellee |
|
| 06/18/2014 |
Response to Second Motion to Dismiss |
|
Eric J. Friday 0797901, Appellant |
|
| 07/09/2014 |
Motion to Withdraw the Second Motion to Dismiss |
|
Carolyn Snurkowski - Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Appellee |
|
| 07/21/2014 |
Order on Motion to Withdraw |
|
|
ORDERED that the appellee's amended motion filed July 9, 2014, to withdraw appellee's second motion to dismiss appeal for lack of jurisdiction hereby granted; further, ORDERED that appellee's second motion to dismiss appeal for lack of jurisdiction filed June 17, 2014, is hereby determined to be moot. |
| 08/12/2014 |
Order Dispensing With Oral Argument Withdrawn |
|
|
ORDERED that this court's March 3, 2014, order dispensing with oral argument is hereby withdrawn. |
| 08/12/2014 |
Order Setting Oral Argument |
11/06/2014 |
|
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
Oral Argument scheduled for October 8, 2014 has been canceled.
This case is now set for Oral Argument for Thursday, November 6, 2014, at 10:00 A.M., 20 minutes per side |
| 11/03/2014 |
Appellant's Notice of Supplemental Authority |
|
Eric J. Friday 0797901, Appellant |
Following Heller's methodology leads to an embrace of open carry and a rejection of both a strong public safety-oriented limitation on the right to carry and the alternative outlet theory.
Yale Law Rev. - Jonathan Meltzer, Open Carry for All: Heller and Our Nineteenth-Century Second Amendment, 123 Yale L.J. 1486(2014) (2014). |
| 11/06/2014 |
Oral Argument Video |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7haFzE7HAM |
| 01/09/2015 |
Appellant's Notice of Supplemental Authority |
|
Eric J. Friday 0797901, Appellant |
Central to narrow tailoring is the fit between the government's objective and its means. A regulation flunks narrow tailoring by being "overbroad" if "[the proffered] interests could be achieved by narrower ordinances that burde[n] [the right] to a far lesser degree." ... The Fourth Circuit noted last year that "no circuit has accepted an overbreadth challenge in the Second Amendment context," but what it meant, in context, was that "[a] person to whom a statute properly applies can't obtain relief based on arguments that a differently situated person might present." Overbreadth, however, can and must be considered as part of strict scrutiny's narrow-tailoring requirement.
Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Dep’t. 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23929 (6th Cir. 2014) |
| 02/18/2015 |
4th DCA Order |
|
|
While the right to carry outside the home has been established by the highest court of the land, no decision interpreting the Second Amendment can be cited for the proposition that a state must allow for one form of carry over another. Because the Legislature has the right to enact laws regarding the manner in which arms can be borne, it is likewise permitted to forbid the carrying of arms in a particular place or manner which, in its collective judgment, is likely to lead to breaches of the peace, see Carlton v. State, 58 So. 486, 488-89 (Fla. 1912), provided a reasonable alternative manner of carry is provided. |
| 03/03/2015 |
Motion for Rehearing / Rehearing En Banc |
03/10/2015 |
Eric J. Friday 0797901, Appellant |
AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR REHEARING OR REHEARING EN BANC |
| 03/30/2015 |
Motion for Rehearing / Rehearing En Banc - Denied |
|
4th DCA |
|
|
Docket Overview: Florida Supreme Court Case Number: SC15-650
Florida Supreme Court Docket
Notable FL Supreme Court Filings:
|
Date Docketed
|
Description
|
Date Due
|
Filed By
|
Notes
|
| 04/13/2015 |
Jurisdiction Initial Brief |
|
PT Dale Lee Norman BY:
PT Eric J. Friday 797901 |
|
| 05/01/2015 |
State's Jurisdiction Answer Brief |
05/08/2015 |
RS State Of Florida BY:
RS Consiglia Terenzio 656879 |
|
| 10/06/2015 |
FL Supreme Court Order Accepting Jurisdiction |
|
|
The Court accepts jurisdiction of this case as to the notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction filed pursuant to Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution (i.e., expressly declares valid a state statute and expressly construes a provision of the state or federal constitution). Petitioner's initial brief on the merits shall be served on or before October 26, 2015; respondent's answer brief on the merits shall be served twenty days after service of petitioner's initial brief on the merits; and petitioner's reply brief on the merits shall be served twenty days after service of respondent's answer brief on the merits. The Clerk of the Fourth District Court of Appeal shall file the record which shall be properly indexed and paginated on or before December 7, 2015. The Clerk may provide the record in the format as currently maintained at the district court, either paper or electronic.
ORDER-EXT OF TIME GR (INITIAL BRIEF-MERITS) to 11/25/2015
|
| 11/25/2015 |
Initial Brief on Merits |
11/25/2015 |
PT Dale Lee Norman BY:
PT Eric J. Friday 797901 |
|
| 12/07/2015 |
MISSISSIPPI CARRY, INC'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF |
|
DA1 Mississippi Carry, Inc. BY: MP M. Reed Martz |
The Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief filed in the above cause by Mississippi Carry, Inc. on behalf of petitioner is hereby denied. |
| 12/17/2015 |
State's Motion for Extension (Answer Brief - Merits) |
|
RS State Of Florida BY:
Attorney General Bondi -
RS Heidi Lynn Bettendorf |
ORDER-EXT OF TIME GRANTED (ANSWER BRIEF-MERITS) to 1/20/2016 |
| 01/15/2015 |
EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF |
|
MR Everytown For Gun Safety BY: MR Glenn Thomas Burhans, Jr. 605867 |
The Motion of Everytown for Gun Safety for Leave to File a Brief as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent filed by Everytown for Gun Safety is hereby granted and they are allowed to file brief only in support of respondent. |
| 01/20/2016 |
State's Answer Brief on Merits |
01/20/2016 |
RS State Of Florida BY: RS Attorney General Bondi |
|
| 02/01/2016 |
Everytown Amicus |
|
MR Everytown For Gun Safety BY: MR Glenn Thomas Burhans, Jr. 605867 |
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT |
| 02/09/2016 |
Petitioner's Motion for Extension (Reply Brief - Merits) |
|
PT Dale Lee Norman BY:
PT Eric J. Friday 797901 |
ORDER-EXT OF TIME GRANTED (REPLY BRIEF-MERITS) to 3/10/2016 |
| 03/10/2016 |
Reply Brief on Merits |
03/10/2016 |
PT Dale Lee Norman BY:
PT Eric J. Friday 797901 |
|
| 04/18/2016 |
NRA Amicus |
|
MP National Rifle Association BY:
MP Jason Brent Gonzalez 146854 |
National Rifle Association's Motion to Accept Amicus Brief is hereby granted and amicus curiae's initial brief on the merits was filed with this Court on April 18, 2016. |
| 06/08/2016 |
ORAL ARGUMENT HELD |
|
|
|
| 03/02/2017 |
ORDER - DISP-APPROVED |
|
|
FSC-OPINION: We hold that section 790.053 does not unconstitutionally infringe on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald, or the Florida Constitution's freestanding right to bear arms subject to the Legislature's authority to regulate the use and manner of doing so. Because section 790.053 regulates only one manner of bearing arms and does not impair the exercise of the fundamental right to bear arms, we approve the Fourth District's well-reasoned decision in Norman upholding the constitutionality of section 790.053 under intermediate scrutiny. It is so ordered. |
| 04/13/2017 |
ORDER - MOTION FOR REHEARING DENIED |
|
|
Petitioner's Amended Motion for Rehearing, Reconsideration and Clarification is hereby denied. |
|
Docket Overview: United States Supreme Court Case Number: 17-68
United States Supreme Court Docket
(Docketed 07/13/2017)
Notable US Supreme Court Filings:
|
Date Docketed
|
Description
|
Date Due
|
Filed By
|
Notes
|
Filed: 07/10/2017
|
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
&
Appendix to Petition for Cert. |
07/12/2017 |
Dale Lee Norman
BY: Attorneys for Petitioner, Stephen P. Halbrook & Eric J. Friday |
Florida law provides for licenses to carry handguns concealed, but prohibits carrying firearms openly. Petitioner, who had such license, was convicted of openly carrying a firearm on a public street. The majority of the Florida Supreme Court upheld the ban under intermediate scrutiny based on conjecture by counsel about why the legislature may have banned open carry.
The issue is whether a prohibition on peaceably and openly carrying a lawfully-owned handgun infringes on “the right of the people to . . . bear arms” protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. That issue also involves the extent to which a restriction on a constitutional right may be upheld, under a proper standard of review, on the basis of a post hoc argument of counsel with no foundation in the legislative or factual record. |
| 07/26/2017 |
Waiver of Right of Respondent Florida to Respond (unless requested by the court) Filed. |
08/14/2017 |
State of Florida
BY: Celia A. Terenzio for Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi |
|
| 08/09/2017 |
Distributed for Conference of 09/25/2017 |
|
U.S. Supreme Court |
|
| 08/11/2017 |
Response Requested. |
|
U.S. Supreme Court |
Response due September 11, 2017 extended to October 11, 2017. |
| 08/30/2017 |
Request to extend time to file response to October 11, 2017 |
|
State of Florida
BY: Amit Agarwal
for Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi
|
|
| 10/11/1017 |
Brief in Opposition (BIO) to Petition for Cert. |
09/11/2017
10/11/2017 |
State of Florida
BY: Amit Agarwal
for Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi |
Either Florida’s open-carry prohibition passes constitutional muster because the burden on the right to bear arms is minimal (as Respondent argued and the court concluded below), or no judicial scrutiny should be applied at all because Florida’s shall-issue concealed-carry system fully protects the right, and the regulation on the manner of carry is not an infringement (perhaps qualifying as one of Heller’s presumptively valid “longstanding” regulations). |
| 10/24/2017 |
Reply Breif (to BIO) |
10/25/2017 |
Dale Lee Norman
BY: Attorneys for Petitioner, Stephen P. Halbrook & Eric J. Friday |
Florida is an outlier state in banning the open bearing of all firearms. As with other jurisdictions with gun laws that are outside the norm, that is all the more reason for this Court’s review. The decision below upholding the ban conflicts with this Court’s precedents on the Second Amendment as well as with state court precedents, including nineteenth-century decisions relied on in this Court’s precedents. |
| 11/01/2017 |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/21/2017. |
|
U.S. Supreme Court |
|
| 11/27/2017 |
Certiorari Denied |
|
U.S. Supreme Court |
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. |
|
