Florida Supreme Court rules on "Open Carry"
- Thread starter hdwhit
- Start date
-
- Tags
- open carry
- Status
Kleanbore beat me to it. But I'll point out that it appears you don't understand what "citation to authority" means.
In discussion of the law, when one is asked to cite authorities his proper response is reference to:
A profile of Eugene Volokh is not legal authority supporting your contention.
Here endith the lesson.
Last edited:
gun_with_a_view
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2014
- Messages
- 471
I respectfully submit that Eugene Volokh is a qualified authority when it comes to constitutional law.
But, let's try this:
<<<Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man>>>
Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes And Punishments, trans. by Henry Palolucci (New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1963), 87-88.
<<<As recently as 1950, the Illinois Supreme Court suggested that a concealed weapon statute that was not narrowly “aimed at persons of criminal instincts, and for the prevention of crime” might be a violation of the Second Amendment>>>
People v. Liss, 406 Ill. 419, 94 N.E.2d 320, 322, 323 (1950).
http://www.claytoncramer.com/books/concealed.pdf
Obviously you didn't understand what I wrote. A call to cite authority is not asking for the name of a person who might know something about the subject.
Phooey!
- Neither of the foregoing are "authority" as defined, i. e., ... statutes, precedents, judicial decisions, and text-books of the law,..." nor are they "articles in well regarded, academic journals."
- There's no indication that the Clayton Cramer "book" was even published. Nor did you tell us where in that "book" the segment you quoted may be found. Such information is a necessary element of a citation. Among other things we should not be required to read the entire book you linked to to verify that it does in fact say what you claim.
- Demonstrate that the foregoing quotes even relate to, let alone support, your original claim set out in post 22:Indeed, how is that comment of yours even responsive to the question I asked, and which you quote in your inapposite response?
Making a claim and supporting that claim with argument supported by citation to authority involves more than just tossing around quotations.
He may be. But how might that support anything that you have contended?
gun_with_a_view
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2014
- Messages
- 471
Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes And Punishments, trans. by Henry Palolucci (New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1963), 87-88[/QUOTE]
People v. Liss, 406 Ill. 419, 94 N.E.2d 320, 322, 323 (1950).
These are not cites? That's news to me.
Kleanbore, you might find this link informative, especially pages 580-586. I regret that I am unable to find the post by E. Volokh I noted earlier. However the below document contains many of the cites he referred to. :
https://journals.law.stanford.edu/s...2006/06/cornell_17_stan._l._poly_rev._571.pdf
And for your leisure reading: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/056e/84b88e86420a66d58e9e4bd79c810d9ef88f.pdf
People v. Liss, 406 Ill. 419, 94 N.E.2d 320, 322, 323 (1950).
These are not cites? That's news to me.
Kleanbore, you might find this link informative, especially pages 580-586. I regret that I am unable to find the post by E. Volokh I noted earlier. However the below document contains many of the cites he referred to. :
https://journals.law.stanford.edu/s...2006/06/cornell_17_stan._l._poly_rev._571.pdf
And for your leisure reading: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/056e/84b88e86420a66d58e9e4bd79c810d9ef88f.pdf
Beccaria's 18th Century book on penology is not an authority as defined (see post 27).
And you don't cite Liss. You quote Cramer's reference to Liss together with Cramer telling us something he thinks Liss says.
Phooey!
- Exactly what are we supposed to find informative on those pages in Saul Connell's article on "The Early American Origins of the Gun Control Debate:....", and exactly how does anything on those pages support your original claim set out in post 22:
- What post by E. Volokh? Your only reference to him here was to post a link to his profile on the UCLA website.
Last edited:
gun_with_a_view
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2014
- Messages
- 471
No, it appears a posted remark by me referencing E. Volokh has gone amiss.
Reconstructing from memory, Volokh noted that concealed weapons prohibitions in early American law were intended primarily to keep them out of the hands of minorities, brigands, vagrants, criminals and others deemed undesirable. Today, cases of the era are bad law for the redaction of later-day concealed statutes which deal with only self-defense.
In so many words, that is what Volokh held on The Volokh Conspiracy prior to it's incorporation into The Washington Post. The cites of Volokh on this matter are in the treatises I posted earlier.
I will continue searching for a link to his holding.
I can see every post deleted from this thread, and I don't see that any of yours have been deleted from this thread.
But your memory doesn't count
Exactly where, and what do they say? We don't have to go searching an entire article or book for something you say is there. You need to tell us (1) exactly where what you're relying on can be found; (2) what it says; and (3) why it supports your contention.
There are two reasons why there will be no open carry in Florida anytime soon:
An unwarranted concern on the part of lawmakers that it might have an adverse effect on tourism, the state’s number one industry.
Florida lawmakers have no desire to deal with the thorny issue of carrying firearms – open or concealed carry – on private property.
Indeed, Florida’s ‘parking lot’ provision caused much conflict between concealed carry advocates and defenders of the rights of private property owners while it was being implemented.
Current proposed legislation to make liable private property owners who prohibit firearms on their property is likewise perceived as an attack on private property rights by some.
An unwarranted concern on the part of lawmakers that it might have an adverse effect on tourism, the state’s number one industry.
Florida lawmakers have no desire to deal with the thorny issue of carrying firearms – open or concealed carry – on private property.
Indeed, Florida’s ‘parking lot’ provision caused much conflict between concealed carry advocates and defenders of the rights of private property owners while it was being implemented.
Current proposed legislation to make liable private property owners who prohibit firearms on their property is likewise perceived as an attack on private property rights by some.
gun_with_a_view
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2014
- Messages
- 471
I regret I am unable to locate the quotation of Eugene Volokh referenced last week, so to make the argument from scratch we start with a passage from the Heller case (2008):
For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884).
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 55 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO
Held: Scalia seems to have confused decisions of nineteenth century courts endorsing prohibitions on the carry of concealed weapons as somehow supporting legal concealed carry. Those early cases are bad law today, as they acted to ban concealed weapons, whereas now the emphasis is on the carry of concealed weapons.
Some case history & other from the era:
<<<This law became absolutely necessary to counteract a vicious state of society, growing out of the habit of carrying concealed weapons, and to prevent bloodshed and assassinations committed upon unsuspecting persons.>>>
State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 52 Am. Dec. 599 (1850).]
<<<On Wearing Concealed Arms We, the Grand Jury for the city of Richmond, at August Court, 1820, do not believe it to be inconsistent with our duty to animadvert upon any practice which, in our opinion, may be attended with consequences dangerous to the peace and good order of society. We consider the practice of carrying arms secreted, in cases where no personal attack can reasonably be apprehended, to be infinitely more reprehensible than even the act of stabbing, if committed during a sudden affray, in the heat of passion, where the party was not previously armed for the purpose. We conceive that it manifests a hostile, and if the expression may be allowed, a piratical disposition against the human race — that is derogatory from that open, manly, and chivalrous character, which it should be the pride of our countrymen to maintain unimpaired — and that its fatal effects have been too frequently felt and deplored, not to require the serious animadversions of the community. Unanimously adopted. >>> http://volokh.com/posts/1228953400.shtml
<<<to prevent persons...from wearing concealed arms>>> http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary/rkbadecisions/Bliss1822.pdf
<<<The plaintiff in error was convicted in the Giles circuit court, for wearing a bowie knife concealed under his clothes, under the act of 1837-8, ch. 137, sec. 2, which provides, "That if any person shall wear any bowie knife, or Arkansas tooth-pick, or other knife or weapon, that shall in form, shape or size resemble a bowie knife or Arkansas tooth-pick, under his clothes, or keep the same concealed about his person, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in a sum not less than two hundred dollars, and shall be imprisoned in the county jail, not less than three months and not more than six months...The legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing, or keeping weapons>>>
Aymmette v. Tenn (2 Hump) 154 (1840)
For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884).
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 55 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO
Held: Scalia seems to have confused decisions of nineteenth century courts endorsing prohibitions on the carry of concealed weapons as somehow supporting legal concealed carry. Those early cases are bad law today, as they acted to ban concealed weapons, whereas now the emphasis is on the carry of concealed weapons.
Some case history & other from the era:
<<<This law became absolutely necessary to counteract a vicious state of society, growing out of the habit of carrying concealed weapons, and to prevent bloodshed and assassinations committed upon unsuspecting persons.>>>
State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 52 Am. Dec. 599 (1850).]
<<<On Wearing Concealed Arms We, the Grand Jury for the city of Richmond, at August Court, 1820, do not believe it to be inconsistent with our duty to animadvert upon any practice which, in our opinion, may be attended with consequences dangerous to the peace and good order of society. We consider the practice of carrying arms secreted, in cases where no personal attack can reasonably be apprehended, to be infinitely more reprehensible than even the act of stabbing, if committed during a sudden affray, in the heat of passion, where the party was not previously armed for the purpose. We conceive that it manifests a hostile, and if the expression may be allowed, a piratical disposition against the human race — that is derogatory from that open, manly, and chivalrous character, which it should be the pride of our countrymen to maintain unimpaired — and that its fatal effects have been too frequently felt and deplored, not to require the serious animadversions of the community. Unanimously adopted. >>> http://volokh.com/posts/1228953400.shtml
<<<to prevent persons...from wearing concealed arms>>> http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary/rkbadecisions/Bliss1822.pdf
<<<The plaintiff in error was convicted in the Giles circuit court, for wearing a bowie knife concealed under his clothes, under the act of 1837-8, ch. 137, sec. 2, which provides, "That if any person shall wear any bowie knife, or Arkansas tooth-pick, or other knife or weapon, that shall in form, shape or size resemble a bowie knife or Arkansas tooth-pick, under his clothes, or keep the same concealed about his person, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in a sum not less than two hundred dollars, and shall be imprisoned in the county jail, not less than three months and not more than six months...The legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing, or keeping weapons>>>
Aymmette v. Tenn (2 Hump) 154 (1840)
What kind of gibberish is this? "Prohibitions on the carrying of concealed weapons somehow support legal concealed carry"? How on earth do you come up with that? What is that supposed to mean?
And you have the temerity to accuse Justice Scalia of being confused? You really don't have a clue, do you. You don't understand what the Court was saying or why the Court was citing cases like Chandler and Nunn? So I guess I'm going to have to tell you why.
Chandler and Nunn were cited with several other cases to demonstrate that 19th Century courts found the rights protected by the Second Amendment to be personal rights but subject to regulation or restriction. And indeed, that's what the Court told us in Heller (554 U.S. 570, at 626, emphasis added):
As the Court also wrote in Heller (611 -- 613, emphasis added, footnotes omitted):
Of course not. The Court said, explicitly, that all those cases, including Nunn and Chandler, were cited to show that (Heller, at 611):
Why does that make those cases "bad law"? Why would the current, apparent societal preference for concealed carry make cases supporting the banning (or, a fortiori , regulating) concealed carry of firearms when open carry is freely allowed make those cases irrelevant or inapplicable?
Those cases might well have limited precedential value. But so what. The Court in Heller was not citing them as precedent, i. e., controlling the outcome in Heller. The Court was citing those cases as part of its analysis of the history of RKBA jurisprudence and to show how historically the courts of our nation had viewed the Second Amendment, viz., (Heller, at 611):
And as part of historical overview the Court cites some cases which are clearly inapplicable today: Aldridge and Waters, both of which sustain laws prohibiting Blacks from possessing guns.
Justice Scalia was not confused, but you appear to be hopelessly confused and confounded.
gun_with_a_view
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2014
- Messages
- 471
In Heller (554 U.S. 570, at 626), Scalia used the 19th century cases to justify the regulation of concealed carry (illegal for the most part). But as the relevant statues at the time were enacted almost solely to prohibit the carry of concealed weapons by certain classes of persons, they are of little dispositive value today, beyond the fact they were found to be constitutional in mandating where weapons could not be born, i.e., concealed.
The above is a Spartan condensation of an opinion blogged on the Volokh Conspiracy, probably predating Heller, perhaps to be found in the amicus briefs for Heller. I will try to sort that when time permits. In the meantime, the lost post that probably started this skirmish is nowhere to be found, and for that I apologize for the ensuing confusion. Going forward, I will keep a tighter rein on the keyboard.
The above is a Spartan condensation of an opinion blogged on the Volokh Conspiracy, probably predating Heller, perhaps to be found in the amicus briefs for Heller. I will try to sort that when time permits. In the meantime, the lost post that probably started this skirmish is nowhere to be found, and for that I apologize for the ensuing confusion. Going forward, I will keep a tighter rein on the keyboard.
Hogwash.
Heller had nothing whatsoever to do with justifying regulation of concealed carry. Heller was about the District of Columbia laws regulating possession of handguns in the home. That was the issue being litigated in Heller. The Court had no reason to try to justify the regulation of concealed carry nor was it trying to justify the regulation of concealed carry. In Heller the Court had absolutely no interest in concealed carry. It was not an issue.
The references to Chandler and Nunn, together with reference to several other 19th Century cases regulating firearms in other ways, were for the purpose of showing that historically 19th Century courts had viewed the RKBA (1) as a personal right unconnected with service in a militia; and (2) subject to regulations, thus supporting the core holding of Heller. The Court indeed explicitly told us that as demonstrated by my quotes, above, from the Scalia opinion.
What a disgraceful attempt to legitimize your preposterous notions by making this vague reference to Volokh. What a cheap, rhetorical trick.
Phil1979
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2017
- Messages
- 1
You do frame the issue quite well.
However, there is a way to embarrass lawmakers that only give us lip service, but who do not restore our rights. Under current Florida law, you can carry your holstered pistol out in the open, as long as the pistol itself is covered. Pistol-shaped holsters with lids are great for this. Google P38 holsters. You can find them on Amazon. I bought one and will wear it openly in Florida if open carry fails again at the hands of RINOs.
Also Google "Glock sock" - a covering with a graphic of a pistol printed on it.
People can protest by wearing these on public property where you can't be trespassed merely for being armed. Wear them at publicly owned parks, libraries, zoos, theaters, etc. And at festivals and fairs on public property.
Spare mag carriers are also legal to be openly carried.
This will show people the stupidity of the open carry ban. Folks know we carry. Why do we have to hide the exercise of our rights? Is there any other Constitutional Right that is treated this way, especially one that "shall not be infringed"?
Janet Reno is dead, and her legacy of orchestrating the open carry ban in 1987 should also die.
However, there is a way to embarrass lawmakers that only give us lip service, but who do not restore our rights. Under current Florida law, you can carry your holstered pistol out in the open, as long as the pistol itself is covered. Pistol-shaped holsters with lids are great for this. Google P38 holsters. You can find them on Amazon. I bought one and will wear it openly in Florida if open carry fails again at the hands of RINOs.
Also Google "Glock sock" - a covering with a graphic of a pistol printed on it.
People can protest by wearing these on public property where you can't be trespassed merely for being armed. Wear them at publicly owned parks, libraries, zoos, theaters, etc. And at festivals and fairs on public property.
Spare mag carriers are also legal to be openly carried.
This will show people the stupidity of the open carry ban. Folks know we carry. Why do we have to hide the exercise of our rights? Is there any other Constitutional Right that is treated this way, especially one that "shall not be infringed"?
Janet Reno is dead, and her legacy of orchestrating the open carry ban in 1987 should also die.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
