|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
FL: Florida Supreme Court Takes On Open-Carry Case
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Judge Mark Klingensmith knew the stakes when he wrote the Fourth District Court of Appeal decision issued Feb. 18, 2015, in Norman's case.
The Fourth District was entering a "vast terra incognita of Second Amendment jurisprudence to answer a question of first impression, specifically whether the Second Amendment forbids the state of Florida from prohibiting the open carry of firearms while permitting the concealed carry of weapons under a licensing scheme," he wrote.
The court found no constitutional impediment to affirming Norman's misdemeanor conviction. Allowing individuals to have concealed weapons permits preserves the state regulation, Klingensmith concluded. |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(5/21/2016)
|
| That's it? One sentence? |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
