Florida Carry

Litigation

Active Cases
Case Primary Issue Description Status
Florida Carry v. Thrasher, FSU, et al Preemption challenge to Florida State University firearms and weapons regulations including prohibiting firearms in private vehicles. Filed Sep 8th, 2015 Pending Emergency Motion for Injunction
Freeman & Florida Carry v. City of Tampa, et al Defense of civil rights of Florida Carry members for multiple violations by Tampa and its agents. Victory - Qualified Immunity Denied. Case settled.
GeorgiaCarry.Org v. US Army Corps of Engineers Florida Carry Amicus to 11th Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to strike down Corps of Eng. Gun Ban - Filed Nov 12th, 2014 Remanded to lower court.
Florida Carry & SAF v. City of Tallahassee Preemption and constitutional challenge of city's ordinances regulating firearm possession and use in public. Filed May 2nd, 2014 Pending Written Order
Florida Carry v. Broward County Preemption and constitutional challenge of county's ordinances regulating firearm sales, possession and use. Filed May 2nd, 2014 Pending Hearing
Florida Carry v. UF Preemption and constitutional challenge of university's policies regulating firearms possession in private vehicles and in the home. Filed Jan 10th, 2014 Pending Written Order
Norman v. State Restoration of Open Carry as protected activity under the Right to Bear Arms. Pending Appeal to US Supreme Court
Florida Carry v. City of Daytona Beach

1)Police refuse to return firearms seized during illegal search of Veteran's home.
2) Preemption of City's policy depriving gun owner of firearms without due process.
3) City Counter Suit seeking authority to retain property without due process.

1) Victory - Order for return of property issued 8/13/2013
2) Victory - City violated Preemption
3) Victory - Counter-Claim Denied 8/13/2013
Florida Carry v. City of Leesburg Preemption of City's ordinance regulating firearms despite state law. 1) on Appeal to 5th DCA.
2) Victory - Ordinance Repealed after case was filed.

 

Completed Cases
Case  Primary Issue Description Status
Bretherick v. State Florida Carry Amicus to Florida Supreme Court on Burden of Proof in Defensive Immunity Hearings. Those who use self-defense are treated as "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" by being required to bear the burden of proof at immunity hearings.
Our Amicus raised a constitutional issue that was not used in the lower court that the court of appeal noted but did not rule on due to procedural issues.
Florida Carry v. St. Petersburg College Preemption and constitutional challenge of college's policies regulating firearms possession in private vehicles and non-lethal electronic defensive weapons on campus. Filed Mar 3rd, 2014 Victory - Policies changed. Case settled.
Florida Carry v. Eastern FL State Preemption and constitutional challenge of college's policies regulating firearms possession in private vehicles. Filed Feb 3rd, 2014 Victory - Policies changed four days after case filed. Case settled.
Florida Carry v. UNF, 133 So.3d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (En Banc) Preemption of university's policy regulating firearms possession in private vehicles and threat of criminal enforcement despite state law. Victory - Univ. regulation of firearms violates preemption and RKBA.
Mackey v. State, 124 So. 3d 176 (Fla. 2013) Amicus to Florida Supreme Court arguing that concealed carry with a license can not be assumed to be a crime. Victory - Carry alone is not cause for a Terry Stop. Law Changed in 2015 to make concealed carry licensure an element of the crime of unlicensed concealed carry.
State (MS) v. Smith, 123 So. 3d 920 (Miss. 2013) Amicus to Mississippi Supreme Court arguing that Open Carry is protected by both State and U.S. Constitutions Victory - in Mississippi Supreme Court
State v. Mora Law-Abiding gun owner and concealed carry licensee prosecuted for brief accidental exposure of handgun. Victory - Case Dismissed With Prejudice

 Florida Carry is involved in multiple cases in order to protect the self-defense, arms, personal property, sporting, privacy, and association rights of Floridians.  Attorneys should refer also to our free Legal Services Section for assistance on current cases.


 

Florida Carry sues Eastern Florida State College for illegal ban on guns and other defensive weapons in cars

 

On Thursday January 30th there was an apparent self-defense incident in the parking lot at the Palm Bay campus of Eastern Florida State College. While we won't be commenting on the incident until all relevant facts are known, something very troubling has come to light as a result.

In December the 1st District Court of Appeal sided with Florida Carry in our lawsuit against the University of North Florida. This case ruled that college policies prohibiting the lawful possession of firearms and other arms in private vehicles on campus are preempted by both statute and by the Florida Constitution. In short, colleges with such policies are breaking the law and violating the rights of students, employees, and campus visitors.

Also on Thursday, Eastern Florida State issued a press release that states, in relevant part:

The incident comes following a Florida appeals court ruling last week that struck down a University of North Florida policy that banned keeping firearms in cars on campus.

Some Florida universities have since changed their policies to allow guns in cars on campus, but Eastern Florida State College has kept its ban in place pending a final court rehearing of the UNF case.

Eastern Florida State College policy prohibits weapons anywhere on its four campuses, with the following stated in the college's governing policy manual and in the Student Code of Conduct:

"Students may not possess weapons while on college property (law enforcement officers excluded.) Weapons are defined as firearms, knives, explosives, flammable materials or any other items that may cause bodily injury or damage to property."

To be clear, there is no rehearing or appeal on the merits of the decision pending in any court. There is a pending motion for reconsideration of the court's award of attorney's fees but that has no bearing whatsoever on the finality of the 1st DCA order. The court's order is final and binding statewide and Eastern Florida State is clearly breaking the law.

On Monday February 3rd, 2014 Florida Carry, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Eastern Florida State College (EFSC), seeking a permanent injunction to protect the rights it members who are students, faculty, and the campus visitors from the college's illegal and unconstitutional regulations prohibiting defensive firearms and weapons on all college property. Since 1987 the Florida Legislature has preempted firearms law and issued state-wide licenses to carry for self-defense. In December Florida Carry won a similar case against the University of North Florida (UNF). In Florida Carry v. UNF the First District Court of Appeal ruled that "The legislature’s primacy in firearms regulation derives directly from the Florida Constitution... Indeed, the legislature has reserved for itself the whole field of firearms regulation in section 790.33(1)..." No public college or university has any authority to prevent students and the public from having a functional firearm in places that are constitutionally protected or permitted under state law. Eastern Florida State has willfully and intentionally refused to comply with the court's ruling. In short, colleges with such policies are breaking the law and violating the rights of students, employees, and campus visitors. Florida Carry will not sit idly by and watch the civil rights of Floridians be violated.


Docket Overview: Lower Court Case Number: 05-2014-CA-014025
Brevard County Clerk of the Circuit Court


Lower Court Filings: 

2/3/2014 Plaintiffs' Complaint
4/30/2014 All EFSC regulations changed - Settlement Reached.

Share

Florida Carry files lawsuit against St. Petersburg College for illegal gun and defensive weapons regulations

 

On Friday, February 28th, 2014 Florida Carry received a member complaint that St. Petersburg College was still refusing to allow students and employees to lawfully store firearms in their personal vehicles while parked on campus despite a widely reported December 2013 ruling of the Florida 1st District Court of Appeal.  Our Campus Policy Director contacted the college and was also told that firearms could not be stored in student's cars on campus. Such illegal policies adversely affect the rights of many of our members, and others, who attend the St. Petersburg College and live in the local community.

 

In December the 1st District Court of Appeal sided with Florida Carry in our lawsuit against the University of North Florida. The court ruled that college policies prohibiting the otherwise lawful possession of firearms, and other arms, on campus are preempted by both statute and by the Florida Constitution. In Florida Carry v. UNF the First District Court of Appeal ruled that "The legislature’s primacy in firearms regulation derives directly from the Florida Constitution... Indeed, the legislature has reserved for itself the whole field of firearms regulation in section 790.33(1)..." No public college or university has any authority to prevent students and the public from having a functional firearm in places that are constitutionally protected or permitted under state law. In short, colleges with such policies are breaking the law and violating the rights of students, employees, and campus visitors.

 

On December 23, 2013 Florida Carry issued a warning to public colleges and universities statewide.
"Any Florida public college or university that fails to notify all students and the public that prohibitive policies regarding the storage of firearms, or other defensive arms, in the personal vehicles of its students and visitors are void and unenforceable by the first day of Spring semester classes will be subject to being sued by Florida Carry for violations of 790.33 Florida Statutes and/or Article I, Section 8 of the Florida Constitution."

 

On Monday March 3rd, 2014 Florida Carry, Inc. filed a lawsuit against St. Petersburg College, it's board of trustees, president, and the campus security official enforcing the college's illegal firearm and non-lethal electronic defensive weapons policies.  This is the fourth Florida College or University that Florida Carry has been forced to file a case against for refusing to follow state law.  Florida Carry will not sit idly by and watch the civil rights of Floridians be violated.


Docket Overview: Lower Court Case Number: 14-001735-CI
Pinellas County Clerk of the Circuit Court


Lower Court Filings: 

3/3/2014 Plaintiffs' Complaint

Share

On May 22nd, 2013 Florida Carry, Inc. filed an action in court to stop Daytona Beach’s illegal practice of refusing to return firearms to people, including veterans, who were Baker Acted but found to be no danger to themselves or others. For too long, many jurisdictions throughout Florida have refused to follow the law. In 2009 the Florida Attorney General made clear in an official opinion that the continued detention of firearms or other property after a person was released, without being found to be a danger to themselves or others, was prohibited by Florida law. Despite the clear instruction from the Attorney General and the legal prohibition on creating their own firearms rules that has been in place since 1987; these individuals and agencies who have sworn an oath to uphold the law, have instead continually violated the law and the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Florida gun owners. It is time to hold these jurisdictions responsible and require that these people in authority follow the laws they swore an oath to uphold and enforce.

 

As Florida Carry Executive Director Sean Caranna previously reported, an honorably discharged combat vet. called a veteran’s assistance hotline for someone to talk to after drinking too much. Instead of finding the sympathetic and understanding ear of a fellow vet, the VA hotline worker got the police to come out and take this man, who has risked his life in the defense of our country during multiple combat tours, from his home and submit him for mental evaluation. After he was taken in to custody and separated from his firearms, the police officers searched his home without a warrant or any exigent circumstance and illegally seized $20,000 worth of his firearms, bows, arrows, ammo, first aid, and protective equipment. Including the Japanese Arisaka Rifle that his Grandfather brought back from WWII and the medical shears that this patriot used to cut two fellow Infantrymen from a HMMWV during an IED attack.

 

One talk with a qualified mental health professional was all it took to determine that the combat vet was never a threat to himself or anyone else. Now the police department refuses to give this man, who has stood watch for our defense, his property back despite numerous previous court decisions and instructions from the Florida Attorney General that all instruct that his property, including firearms, should be immediately returned.

 

The Legislature and Governor have made it clear that due process protections must be honored if a person's right to keep arms are to be curtailed.  The City of Daytona Beach acted without authority, and despite the constitutional guarantee of the due process of law, to seize personal property and continues to deprive A.B. of his constitutionally protected arms despite the legislature's clear preemption of firearms policy/law and hundreds of years of court precedent governing the taking of personal property by a government entity.

 

This problem has been found statewide and Florida Carry got involved in this case to protect the rights of all Floridians. The denial of personal property rights without just cause and the denial of the right to keep arms without due process of law must end now.  


Docket Overview:

Case Number 2013-31317-CICI

5/22/2013 - Complaint: Complaint_A.B_and_FL_Carry_v_Daytona
6/12/2013 - Answer Brief: Daytona's Answer and Counter-Claim
6/28/2013 - Motion to Strike: FL Carry's Motion to Strike affirmative Defenses
6/28/2013 - Answer to Counter-Claim: Plaintiffs answer to Counterclaim Daytona
8/13/2013 - Order of Replevin Granted - Firearms Returned (Damaged)
8/13/2013 - City's Counter-Claim: Denied as Moot


Share

When Hueris Mora came to us, we did what we always do when contacted by someone who is facing gun carry charges. We set about researching the charges and circumstances of the incident. Florida Carry only gets involved in these cases when good people face unjust charges because they choose to lawfully carry defensive arms.

 

In his case, it was immediately apparent that continuing prosecution by the office of Katherine Fernandez Rundle, Miami-Dade State Attorney, was unjust at best. Our consulting attorneys statewide were in unanimous concurrence that prosecution of this case, despite the clear language of 790.053, was completely baseless.

 

The car he was riding in the back seat of was stopped and everyone ordered out. As he got out, Hueris raised his hands and told the officer "I have a concealed carry license, and I have a gun on me."  This is exactly what law enforcement asks that law-abiding concealed carriers do when stopped by police.

 

When he raised his hands above his head, his shirt rode up exposing his properly holstered handgun. The gun was only exposed because he raised his hands to surrender to the officer and inform him that he was armed.  He was arrested and prosecuted months after SB234 was passed clarifying that "brief" exposure is not illegal. The officer and State Attorney used that subjective "briefly exposed" language and the requirement that a licensee be "carrying a firearm in a concealed manner" in to justify the arrest and prosecution.

 

The Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office must have also known that they were in an untenable position because they quickly agreed to take the possibility of jail time off the table. Removing the possibility of imprisonment was not an olive branch offered in the interest of justice, it was in fact a Trojan Horse. This underhanded move was their only way to keep prosecuting the case because it had the calculated effect of taking away Mr. Mora's public defender. Once the Assistant State Attorney prosecuting the case had effectively maneuvered to deprive Mr. Mora of legal counsel, an offer was made. An offer so common in Florida that it is considered the standard plea deal... "You can retake the concealed course to get your license to carry back but kiss your gun goodbye."

 

Hueris knew he was getting the shaft despite having done nothing wrong, so he did what nobody before in Florida (that we know of) had done. He didn't sign the deal. This was a brave decision despite having no legal help at that time.

 

Florida Carry has consulting attorneys who do countless hours of pro bono work behalf of our members. Unfortunately, at that time we did not have a criminal defense attorney in Mr. Mora's area. That's when we reached out to Jesus "Jojo" Rodriguez. He didn't blink. Pro bono defense of a truly worthy young man who needs our help? "Absolutely!" was Jojo's immediate response. Our other attorneys and legal interns rallied together to provide support and Mr. Rodriguez, Florida Carry's newest consulting attorney, drove this case home. The charge of violating Florida's Open Carry Ban was dismissed with prejudice at trial. We finally won this fight that deprived Mr. Mora of his handgun for nearly six months.  Unfortunately the baseless criminal arrest record will follow him for life unless he is able to afford to have in expunged in five years.

Share

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.
Share
Cron Job Starts