“This isn’t a ban (on armed citizens). It’s just a ban on the method of carrying that the Legislature has determined protects public safety more than people walking around like they’re in the wild west. ” – Florida Supreme Court Justice Barbara Parente, quoted in Florida Supreme Court weighs allowing open carry of guns [via sun-sentinel.com]
Gee, her subtlety is so refreshing.
/sarc off
She says that now. But when the friggin cow rustlers come a’callin’ she’ll wish she had Virginian rather than a vagi…well you see where I’m going with this.
As a Virginian whose proud of my state where it’s easy to get a concealed carry permit, and you don’t need one to open carry . . . that woman is on her own. I’m sure not going to come to her rescue.
Congratulations. What an achievement. You’ve finally attained the apex of your life’s relevancy. Please click to return to The New Republic forum.
This is not a ban on free speech, which is ok as long as its concealed, perhaps online. It’s just a ban on the method of communicating thoughts and ideas, such as public protests with signs or handing out pamphlets with ideas that we don’t find appropriate.
This is exactly like a ban on free speech! Except you know with more potential for people to get shot.
This is nothing like free speech. Free speech CAN be limited when it deliberately invites violence. We limit free speech all the time. Conspiracy, terroristic threats, sedition, treason. Read a book!
“Conspiracy, terroristic threats, sedition, treason…” are not the same things as lawfully carrying a firearm with no intent to commit a crime.
Why should that type of speech be limited at all?
I clearly wasn’t talking about lawful carry I was talking about laws restricting firearms. Which are constitutional in the same way laws that restrict speech are lawful. Try reading Billy Bob
The people that wrote the Constitution were all traitors.
and ISIS soldiers are all freedom fighters!
Yes, I see where you clearly state you were talking about laws restricting firearms v. laws restricting carry, bud. Except, ya know, where you failed to use the word “laws,” “restricting,” or “firearm” once in your previous comment.
Yes, John Adams pushed through the Alien and Sedition Acts. Fortunately, he got dope slapped soon enough by Jefferson.
It’s just a ban on the method of communicating thoughts and ideas, such as public protests with signs or handing out pamphlets with ideas that the Legislature has determined protects public safety.
There, fixed that for you.
In all seriousness, your analogy is almost spot on. A law that criminalizes open carry is no different than a law that criminalizes openly visible “provocative” signs (e.g. signs with highly controversial subject matter) in the public square.
If you don’t intend to commit a crime, what’s the difference if you open or concealed carry?
“Oh jeez, I need a LTC in order to open or concealed carry, I better not rob this store with my gun…” said no criminal ever.
Criminals also tend to hide their weapons until ready to use them. They don’t go walking around with an OWB Holster. If they did, they’d be easier to spot.
They don’t really use holsters either.
Er… Dana, you want to rethink that one? Or are you inherently saying that someone with an OWB holster is obviously a criminal? How, if the criminal was carrying OWB, would you be able to spot them amongst other OWB carriers?
Believe it or not, it’s still possible to carry concealed with an OWB holster.
So how exactly does banning open carry protect the so-called public safety, that concealed carry somehow doesn’t threaten? What she means to say, but won’t because it sounds stupid when you say it out loud, is that she thinks the general public prefers to be ignorant, and likes to think that if you can’t see it, it doesn’t exist.
Welcome to the snowflake Generation
She sounds dumb enough when she references the tired, old rhetoric that it’d be the wild west all over again.
I’m from Arizona. We have open carry, have for a while now. It’s really quite tame here actually. No weekly gunfights in the streets or anything like that.
Actually, modern gun control laws come from the Reconstruction Era; Southern Democrats had created laws previously that limited gun and other weapon ownership for blacks, Mexicans, Jews, etc., but all those were thrown out after the Civil War. However, racist weapon control laws pred-date America.
The Klan doesn’t like their victims to be armed, you see. So after they couldn’t specifically target racial groups anymore, they just made it a blanket “public safety” issue.
Don’t forget that under authority of the Anti-Klan Act, President Grant had to again deploy the U.S. military to finally destroy the Klan, and pretty nearly completed the job.
Wow. I never thought I’d miss legal speak. That is terrible.
PLEASE consider putting the first paragraphs of each article back on the homepage!
But how can they rack up page clicks if they don’t force you to open the article to see if it’s worth reading?
Thank you! I thought I was the only one! I don’t know whether it’s just an oversight on their part, a miscalculation as to that feature’s utility, or a precise calculation to increase click-through traffic, but it’s annoying.
Not only that, but it’s counterproductive, as I find myself not bothering to click and read more often than not now, and instead just check out other sites. TTAG is essentially weaning some of its own readers off of reading TTAG. Strange business model.
I don’t begrudge you the page clicks, but it’s a delicate balancing act. I’m less likely to click when I don’t have your leads (which are generally very well written to help draw me in. ALSO, the photo / headline combo without the text can make your posts look too much like ads.
Agreed. I miss the leads.
>> PLEASE consider putting the first paragraphs of each article back on the homepage! <<
Seriously. This new design is a disaster; it feels like the whole site has been dumbed down. I have a hard time telling the difference between the articles, and those vulgar ads that run next to or below them.
That quote right there should disqualify her from ever holding any office of public trust….totally and permanently.
If she cannot muster the mental acuity to conclude that “the right to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed” means that an outright ban on open carry is a flagrant and impermissible constitutional violation, then I challenge not only her legal judgment, but her basic mental competency and even her fluency in the English language.
The crazy thing about the Florida law is how flexible the interpretation of “open carry” is. A few years ago, a Tennessee Titan was driving around Orlando when a police officer pulled him over. While talking with him, the officer said he saw a gun in the back seat of the player’s car. The player who had a CCL and was not a felon said it was concealed under clothing, the officer said he could see the “outline of the gun” in the back seat, which in his mind is illegally open carrying a firearm. Hard to remember but Florida is a purple state and sometimes laws like that remind us.
The Constitution guarantees the right to free speech. It does NOT say, until someone else HEARS what you are saying. Likewise, the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. It does NOT say, until someone else SEES that you are bearing arms. And 46 other states’ distinguished jurors agree with this interpretation of the Constitution.
I meant to say, above, “distinguished JURISTS.”
This is nothing like free speech. Free speech CAN be limited when it deliberately invites violence. We limit free speech all the time. Conspiracy, terroristic threats, sedition, treason. Read a book!
Sorry…you may need to be the one to read a book. There is no law against “sedition or treasonous” speech. You can type away on your keyboard all day long on how you thing the US Govt sucks and should be overthrown. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio. Same with conspiracy…..you can make up the craziest things you want to.
In terms of speech that invites violence….even that has a high hurdle… “unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.” Example would be someone in front of a crowd screaming to attack another person.
This could be compared to someone not CARRYING a pistol…but waving it around or pointing at it at someone threatening to shoot them. So in terms of carrying a gun the method of carrying shouldn’t be limited in anyway…..only they way it is used. BTW….brandishing or threatening with a gun is already illegal.
Well thank you for your astute legal analysis. Quick question, when two people enter into an agreement to commit a crime and one takes actions towards committing the crime, can’t they both be arrested for conspiracy to commit a crime? Also treason includes revealing secret information to a foreign state which can be accomplished through speech.
You may want to start with the dictionary if you’re looking for books to get into. Or maybe get that GRD you’ve been promising yourself you’d work on. Wow you’re so smart so very very smart. Not sure what law school you graduated from but I’m guessing you were a top student there. Law Review? Editor of the school journal? Were you like a Good Will Hunting type guy who started off as a janitor (and was fired for drooling too much while banging your sister?)
You have been repeatedly warned about using abusive language. If it happens again you will be banned.
Gotta admit, this site is a lot more entertaining with frequent visits from antis and other trolls. Zero capacity for rational debate; hurling ad hominems with the frequency of a triggered SJW. Yeah, this one will fade fast.
If you ban him, Uncle Mikey’s checks will stop coming and the coward will be sad.
Wow…someone points out where you are wrong and you go right to personally attacking them. How mature. You do know the first sign of someone losing an argument is when they resort to name calling don’t you?
But back to logic, reason, and facts. You didn’t say “criminal conspiracy”…you said just “conspiracy”…so if you don’t explain yourself in detail you can’t fault people for not understanding you. So concerning criminal conspiracy. You need more than just two people talking(speech). You actually also need an overt ACT in furtherance of the conspiracy. http://conspiracy.uslegal.com/elements-of-the-crime/ Two people saying, “You know….we should rob a bank” would not be enough to convict anybody. So going back to guns…..carrying isn’t illegal as just the act of carrying openly is not any evidence of committing violence against someone. Waving the gun around(overt ACT) is…as it shows INTENTION to commit a crime.
Now let’s move on to treason. Again…you didn’t explain yourself in detail. You just said treason which can mean treasonous speech. Purely treasonous SPEECH..”I think we should overthrow the US Govt. I think the US Govt is bad and illegitimate” is not illegal. Speaking secrets to a foreign government isn’t giving ones opinions….it is an overt ACT of passing on secret information that can directly do harm.
So back to the gun analogy…that ACT is leading to direct harm much like waving a gun around and threatening someone.
So yes…..purely SPEAKING words in ways that can be shown to directly threaten/harm people is punished. But we don’t STOP people with a blanket law that they can’t speak until what they are saying has been vetted by some govt official via a license, background check, etc…we don’t STOP all speech to make sure the speaking of those words isn’t threatening.
And that is the argument being made…that we shouldn’t just put have a blanket law that prevents people carrying openly or concealed…either by making open carry illegal or licensing concealed carry. We should only have laws that punish behavior of people carrying weapons that does direct harm(brandishing, etc)
Btw….it’s GED…nor GRD
If the manner in which speech can be used can be regulated that’s regulating free speech. So, therefore the legislature should be able to regulate the manner in which one bears arms. After all it’s not infringement anymore than stopping someone from communicating the security details of a bank to a criminal in exchange for a share of the loot (conspiracy) is infringement.
“After all it’s not infringement anymore than stopping someone from communicating the security details of a bank to a criminal in exchange for a share of the loot (conspiracy) is infringement.”
It’s illegal to rob a bank. It’s not illegal to talk about a certain bank’s security layout, in public or private, in exhaustive detail.
What sort of point are you trying to make?
Read the post again, learn English then respond. I described the elements of a conspiracy in which one persons only act was speech.
You’re still not making any coherent point.
It is the act that is the crime. Not the speech.
The government can tell you how you can or can’t USE your speech, in very limited ways.
It can’t tell you how you’re allowed to own or possess it, or where you can take it.
Very well said.
There was a crooked woman
That had a crooked mind.
She used her crooked finger
To make her point just fine.
“Freedom of Speech”, oh HA!
That’s just something we say.
It’s something just for statists
But for you, No Way!
Wild West?!
What a cognitively challenged female dog.
(Is THAT flaming?)
“This isn’t a ban (on homosexual citizens). It’s just a ban on the method of displaying affection that the Legislature has determined protects public sensibilities more than people walking around like they’re in a free country.”
Different topic, similar opinion/restriction. Except that the general society would have shit a canary over this one..
Interesting that the “law” is so mutable depending on the opinion of the person administering it. I’m glad physics isn’t this way, well, except when it is ’cause your boss is an imbecile.
No bias whatsoever revealed in that quote. Nope….no, sir.
Why is the word “infringed”, so very complicated for them to look up?
People in Florida should revolt and do something about that judge old west style. Shouldn’t have let women on the court in the first place.
WTF? I didn’t say that. Wonderful, now we have trolls hijacking the usernames of long-time readers. I knew this would happen eventually with my luck, dammit.
Hey admin, how about doing something here!
Once again, the above reply was not authored by me, the multi-year TTAG regular. Robert, please look into this. Gonna lay low for a while. Ladies and gents, consider my familiar username and anything I say under it from here onward totally compromised.
We are working on it.
The word you are looking for is Disqus.
Isn’t ID “verification” one of the purposes of Gravatar? It links an image to your email address, and when you post that shows up. If someone else posts as CarlosT but it’s missing the Rodney McKay photo, then it’s somebody else. If somebody posts as Ralph, but it’s missing the comedy/drama masks with the rifle, it’s an imposter.
Right? Can someone please delete this junk? It’s so annoying.
How about we ban her from opening her mouth.
If constitutional concealed carry was law of the land, they may have a point, and reinforced by Heller and Brown precedents, it’s not unreasonable to require a license for open carry if concealed carry is readily available, and it’s not unreasonable to require a license for concealed carry if constitutional open carry is available.
But currently in Florida the only option for any carry outside the home is to first ASK PERMISSION OF THE GOVERNMENT. As established with certain clarity, it’s not a right if you need permission.
Tell me what other rights must I first secure the approval of the ruling class in order to practice outside my home?
If the manner in which speech can be used can be regulated that’s regulating free speech. So, therefore the legislature should be able to regulate the manner in which one bears arms. After all it’s not infringement anymore than stopping someone from communicating the security details of a bank to a criminal in exchange for a share of the loot (conspiracy) is infringement.
Okay..since this discussion is about the legality of carrying guns I’ll keep the analogy/discussion to that. This case is if the State has the right to regulate the MANNER in which a handgun is carried. The MANNER of free speech isn’t regulated. Just like the MANNER of carrying/possessing handguns shouldn’t be. You don’t need a LICENSE to says things in public or private. There isn’t a blanket restriction(ie..you aren’t allowed to speak at all or you aren’t allowed to speak without a license from the govt, etc) on you speaking in public(Open carry) or private(concealed carry). It’s ONLY when your speech directly harms a person that it can be punished/limited. Just like just carrying a handgun shouldn’t be punished/made illegal…only behavior with that gun that threatens/harms people.
So let’s circle all this back to this whole 2nd Amendment thing…. “keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”…regulation, etc.
I know of no gun owners who would view the use of a firearms to illegally harm or threaten someone as being protected under the 2nd Amendment. I know of no gun owners who view laws against using a gun to murder or rob someone as infringing on their rights. Why? Because those laws aren’t limiting their legal right to own or carry a gun…but the use of those guns to harm people.
So in terms of the question “Does the government have the right to regulate guns considering the 2nd Amendment?” Yes…..but only the illegal use of those guns that directly harm people(murder, robbery, threatening, etc).
BUT those aren’t the regulations that Democrats, anti-gun people, or the judges on this Court want. They feel they can regulate ANYTHING to do with guns….which isn’t true. And why the whole argument “Well we regulate all rights like the first so we can do it with guns” doesn’t hold up.
Well said.
*slow clap*
Only if the manner in which they are used is illegal. So no gun owner would oppose a law that restricts loading a gun or discharging it? That’s the problem with analogy huh? Also the government does regulate and license people to speak on the airwaves. So, you know you’re wrong there too. Now, if we’re ignoring Supreme Court precedents and looking only at the plain language of the 2A it would seem that the legislature can absolutely regulate every part of a firearm so long as it doesn’t infringe on keeping and bearing arms. You’ll note the 2A doesn’t define arms. Therefore a law that says you can keep only those arms which do not fire projectiles, would fit a strict interpretation.
It doesn’t have to define arms — the law assumes always, that words mean what they meant to the people who passed a law (in this case, wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights).
Someone who lives in Florida help me out here… what I’m getting here is that in Florida you can own a gun but you can’t carry one in any capacity without a license?
That’s pretty much it. Now, our weapon in car rules are pretty good. In the console or glovebox or anywhere in a snapped holster.
So your car carry is the same thing as NM or CO… but we don’t need a license to OC out here.
I guess your Supreme Court and legislature missed that whole “…keep and bear arms… part of the 2A. That sucks.
as long as you are a resident of florida, you can have a weapon in your vehicle (extension of the home) you are also allowed to carry at your place of business. ( open or concealed, your call) 790,.25.2N and we do have a limited form of open carry. 790.25.2h states you’re allowed to open carry while engaged in and going to and from fishing, hunting, camping, or any organized shooting event (gun range) I think it’s Jacksonville that once a year, everybody goes fishing on the pier and open carries.
Problem we have down here is most of the people I interact with are fine with CC, once they get their permit, they cease to fight for the rest of their rights. Me, after all the weight I lost fighting cancer, it’s real difficult to conceal without printing like crazy, so I’d like the option. Good thing about my area is, LE don’t really care if you print as long as it’s covered.
FYI, It’s not illegal to print in Floriduh…
Damn it! I’ve GOT to move to the “wild west”.
She probably thinks that policemen are some kind of cowboys.
Labarga and Canady are up for retention this year, so be sure to vote “no” on them if you live in Florida.
Polston also is, but this article (nor any of the others on the same subject) don’t say anything about his position.
It would an overcool ruling if the court make florida an unlicensed open carry state and piss the anti gun miguel de la portilla in that but i see the chances for that not realy realistic.
The reality is white communistic anti guner miguel de la portilla nothing go befor you replace them !
Open carry and Campus carry passed in the Florida state house, but the RINO Miquel Diaz de Portilla, republican from Miami in the senate refused to let it come up for a vote there
It will be brought up again next year
Florida is shall issue, so getting a concealed permit is easy
She’s right, but only by 1%. Sure, displaying in public might make it “easier” for someone to perform a gun grab, etc. But that’s not wide enough a margin that I think she needs to be giving her opinion. Texas has been doing fine with open carry.
What a maroon! The lonely pike need search no further.
Comments are closed.