Info on the case form article at AmmolandNorman v. State (FL) 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.
It is Florida Carry’s position that since the Third District Court of Appeals found a concealed carry license to be a privilege and not a right in Crane v. Department of State, 547 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 3DCA 1989), and it is wholly unlawful to carry a firearm without a concealed carry license (except for the limited situations in §790.25(3) Florida Statutes), then it must follow that unlicensed open carry must be the right protected under the Constitution of Florida and the United States.
It appears that the county judge is denying his authority to rule on matters of law. Seriously? What Cracker Jack box did this guy get his judgeship out of?The County Court judge also did not fully consider the Second Amendment or FL Art.1 Sec. 8 question; denying that motion to dismiss the case because the question of the right to bear arms "is for someone above the level of this court."
I can't deny this is a possibility, though I find it unlikely - first, based on the unusualness (if that be a word) of this case and legal argument, there probably aren't applicable precedents controlling it, but also based on the flippancy and, frankly, unprofessional language of the judge's order. It certainly smells like that punting analogy you used.Though to be fair, I remember some of the same language in the SAFE act judicial action.. that some challenges were above that level of court, and had to be decided at a higher level or some such because of a precedent already set.
Although the court found Mr. Norman guilty as there was no evidence that the firearm had been concealed before he was arrested or that it could have been due to his manner of dress
Had the arguments been based solely upon the Utah rights, then the Utah Supreme Court would have had the final word.
In theory, yes. In actuality, it's pretty much up to whoever is paying the attorney(s). I'm not familiar with the case, so this is entirely speculative, but I'm guessing that a national 2A group funded the defense and most likely shaped trial and/or appellate strategy.Isn't that up to the people filing the complaint?
I'm not exactly sure what the question here is. If I'm reading Al's analysis correctly, he's saying that since the Utah supreme court based its ruling on what SCOTUS later determined to be a faulty reading of 4A, that the Supremes were free to overturn. Had the case been argued and ruled by the state courts on a reading of Utah's state constitution, then there would have been no federal question for SCOTUS to rule upon and the Utah supreme court ruling would have stood.And don't most lawyers throw the kitchen sink and see what sticks? So even if it's raised and dismissed, it could theoretically be appealed to SCOTUS for improperly dismissing a federal claim?
I'm not exactly sure what the question here is.
Gotcha - except if they had ESP and knew they would prevail in Utah Supreme Court on a federal claim but lose at SCOTUS on the same claim, they might not have raised the federal claim but instead argued solely on the claim against Utah's constitution. Of course, that would be of very limited value to a third party pursuing a nationwide agenda (not blaming them, just stating the obvious), so if that is who was funding the defense, it's understandable why they were arguing on federal grounds.That generally speaking, without referencing any specific case, the lawyers draft a complaint to hit as many issues as they can, to maximize their avenues of victory and appeal?