Another 39 day extension...
So, is it saying the State needs to respond by July 30th? What is the process of this challenge going forward towards getting the ban overturned?
Article I, Sec 8: 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.
This amendment is repugnant to its very intent. In one instance it says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, but then it immediately states the bearing of arms may be regulated by law. If a right is NOT to be infringed, then it is NOT to be regulated. Apparently someone didn't understand the meaning of "shall" and "infringed."
I had honestly never spent the time to study Florida's constitutional provision, but now that I have read it I find it rather appalling.
Who would've thought a state that strongly supports the right to keep and BEAR arms would have such a useless constitutional provision that "protects" the same?
The "manner" of bearing arms phrase is similiar to that of other states' constitutions, although it was typically to nullify concealed carry, not open carry. I believe it's vague enough that the FL Supreme Court could easily find that the state can ban OC while allowing for shall-issue CCW. They would probably have to strike down(or at least clarify) the 1989 appeals court ruling.
Bingo. If they hear the case at all, we'll have a ruling that says concealed carry is the right and that the privilege to carry concealed is our right. It's been many years but I still remember the scene in the novel 1984 when O'brien is asking Winston how many fingers he's holding up. That's what I expect when dealing with government courts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTFV9w4B0eg
For a comparison: Idaho state constitution:
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
Section 11. Right to keep and bear arms. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.
Idaho state Supreme Court Ruling on regulation of carry, "in re Brickley" 1902 : link here. http://www.guncite.com/court/state/70p609.html (Very short and sweet)
The fact of the matter is: Either everyone CCs without a license, or with a license that costs nothing, or you can OC without a license. One way or another, a "right" cannot be licensed, or it becomes a privilege. A no cost license would be more like a voter's registration, and probably would be permissible...Read the Idaho ruling.
For a comparison: Idaho state constitution:
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
Section 11. Right to keep and bear arms. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.
Idaho state Supreme Court Ruling on regulation of carry, "in re Brickley" 1902 : link here. http://www.guncite.com/court/state/70p609.html (Very short and sweet)
The fact of the matter is: Either everyone CCs without a license, or with a license that costs nothing, or you can OC without a license. One way or another, a "right" cannot be licensed, or it becomes a privilege. A no cost license would be more like a voter's registration, and probably would be permissible...Read the Idaho ruling.
you know, that ruling also means there are no "off-limits" places in idaho.
Still see private property as remaining private - the constitution being restrictive on the government.
you know that i know that....but you were just putting that for clarification, right?
i meant law-ordered off-limits places. like, all the places listed in florida can't be listed in idaho. except the SCOTUS ordered off-limits places....
The state's dishonest response is due tonight. Does anyone know anything about time frames on this court's decision? I know the UNF lawsuit is taking years.
What's the excuse this time? The dog ate my brief?Actually the state got another 30 day extension. It is now due Aug 23rd
We dont say I'm wearing short or pant, so think maybe that should be the plural form tooWhat's the excuse this time? The dog ate my brief?
I was going for the legal side of things, so the singular is quite correct.We dont say I'm wearing short or pant, so think maybe that should be the plural form too
Obviously the court is going to be in the state's corner. Obviously this is an unreasonable amount of time. What's to keep the court from giving extensions forever?