I have family in the area or Florida where this happened and one of them sent me this video I have watched the whole thing and it is very good. There are some good points that the defense attorney is making like open constitutional carry is a right and that CCW is a privilege. A lot of other good points brought up comparing 1st Amendment and the 2nd Amendment. I like the part where he says criminals don't carry arms openly. The defense attorney also cites many other 2A cases we could get many talking points and ideas for planned 2A open forums or debates. One of the judges asks the states attorney about how if the person carrying is exercising their right and who cares what others think. The states attorney is a dingbat liberal... The judges are good and ask good questions stumping her badly. It isn't the best video in quality and it's kinda Florida specific I do think it could be helpful to us. This is a good website that ties in with the case, https://www.floridacarry.org/litigation/21-flcourts/70-norman-v-state here is a FB page also https://m.facebook.com/FlOpenCarry/posts/684400508281800

Should we go after the state legislature to follow the US and Hawaiian constitutions and allow constitutional open carry by amending hrs 134, before we try and go after HPD for denying  CCW permits?

I plan on reading the Florida statutes to see how they look. For ideas on how to advance our position.

Thank you for sharing.  I like the argument.

Cert petition filed:

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Dale-Lee-Norman-v.-Florida-Open-Carry-Cert-Petition-Filed-July-10-2017.pdf

Charles Nichols' column today outlining what he sees as the problems with the Norman cert petition:

http://newsblaze.com/business/legal/can-we-save-our-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms_82563/

Can we Save Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

[Excerpt]:

It seems we can’t save our right to keep and bear arms, if the Second Amendment lawyers have their way.

Two weeks to the day after the United States Supreme Court denied the concealed carry appeal in Peruta v. California (formerly Peruta v. San Diego) an Open Carry case out of Florida filed its cert petition. That case is Dale Lee Norman v. State of Florida.

The decision by the Florida State Supreme Court is a perfect candidate for Supreme Court review.

Unfortunately, Norman’s lawyers fumbled their cert petition.

Supreme Court justices Ginsburg and Kagan have explained in public, in on-the-record interviews, what is required of a cert petition in order for it to be considered as a candidate for being granted so that the justices may decide the case on the merits.

Justice Ginsburg expressed bewilderment at the number of lawyers who file cert petitions which do not conform to US Supreme Court Rule 10.

Most people think that the role of the Supreme Court is to correct errors made by the lower courts. That is a natural enough assumption, but it is wrong. After all, a party which loses in the trial court files an appeal and argues that the lower court made mistakes.

But the US Supreme Court justices don’t see that as their role. They see their role as resolving what they call “splits” between the Federal Circuit courts of appeals and state courts of last resort on questions of Federal law.

That is why I hate tbe whole legal system bullshit.  They use language that no one else speaks, make everything overly complicated, and even if you are right, and everyone knows you are right, you can lose because of one tiny technicality.

That is why I hate tbe whole legal system bullshit.  They use language that no one else speaks, make everything overly complicated, and even if you are right, and everyone knows you are right, you can lose because of one tiny technicality.

Just like the constitution.  It was written for a normal person to comprehend, not be analyzed and defined by lawyers.  Hence why the "shall not be infringed" was added.  If our founding fathers knew this is the BS we would run into, the 2a would be 50 pages long instead of 3 lines.  And it would say stuff about laser/ray guns and cool future stuff we don't even have yet.

SCOTUS extended the deadline for the Florida response to Norman from September 11 until October 11. Norman is still scheduled for the "long conference" of September 25. Since lawyers typically file their paperwork on the final day allowed I suppose that means that Norman will be relisted for at least the first conference or two until Florida submits their response (as requested by SCOTUS after Florida asked for a waiver to NOT file a response). (There are conferences scheduled for October 6, 13, and 27.) In other words: more delays.

I understand how lawsuits "take time". But in this case, re the right to bear arms, having lived my entire adult life in a California no issue county and the no issue state of Hawaii I will have lived my entire life in the Untied States of America without once ever having been lawfully able to exercise my supposedly natural, pre-existing unalienable civil right to bear arms outside my home for self defense in my states of residence. I mean, come on! 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-68.html

Jul 10 2017   Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 14, 2017)
Jul 26 2017   Waiver of right of respondent Florida to respond filed.
Aug 09 2017   DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/25/2017.
Aug 11 2017   Response Requested. (Due September 11, 2017)
Sep 01 2017   Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 11, 2017.

Charles Nichols (Nichols v Brown) just posted an article re the SCOTUS cases that have applied for cert that are Second Amendment related, including the Norman case of this thread.

http://newsblaze.com/business/legal/supreme-court-long-conference-on-september-25-2017_84716/

Supreme Court Long Conference on September 25, 2017

[The section dealing with Norman follows]

As an advocate of Open Carry and as someone who has been in Federal court these past six years fighting to overturn California’s Open Carry bans the cert petition of most interest to me is Dale Lee Norman v. State of Florida.

Contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court does not believe its job is to correct the mistakes of the lower courts and clearly says so in Rule 10 of its published rules available on its official website free for everyone, including attorneys who write cert petitions, to read.

The justices of the Supreme Court view their primary role as one of resolving “splits.” A split occurs when two Federal circuits or state court of last resort decide a Federal question and come to a different conclusion.

Norman v. State is a case challenging Florida’s Open Carry ban and was a perfect candidate for Supreme Court review. The decision of the Florida Supreme Court created splits with every Federal circuit and state court of last resort. The decision also presents an important question which is a plus but rarely the reason SCOTUS grants a cert petition. Finally, the decision was a slap in the face to the Supreme Court. Sadly, that happens a lot in every area of the law.

Of the hundreds of thousands of court cases decided every year, only 8,000 or so will ever go on to file a cert petition with the Supreme Court and only one out of every hundred of those cert petitions will be granted by SCOTUS.

In short, the probability of a judge’s decision being overturned by the Supreme Court is the judicial equivalent of the probability of being hit by lightning. Slim to none, and without the unpleasant consequences. Given those odds, and lack of consequences if reversed, lower court judges feel free to thumb their noses at the High Court.

Unfortunately, Norman’s cert petition, despite of all the Rule 10 splits the decision created, did not even use the word “split.”

Norman’s cert petition was on the “dead list” of cert petitions which would have been automatically denied but was saved from certain death when an unknown justice asked that a brief in opposition be filed.

We will have to wait a bit longer to learn its fate.