Florida Carry is standing up for the RIGHT to bear arms

Florida courts have clearly acknowledged that the carrying of a concealed firearm in Florida is a privilege not a right.

The Florida 3rd District Court of Appeals found that:  “[R]etroactive application of section 790.06(2)(k), Florida Statutes, is not unconstitutional because a license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm is a privilege and not a vested right. See Mayo v. Market Fruit Co. of Sanford, 40 So.2d 555 (Fla. 1949).” Crane v. Department of State, 547 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 1989).

The “privilege of a license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm recognized In Crane cannot replace, or substitute for, the fundamental right guaranteed by the Second Amendment or Article I Section 8 of the Florida Constitution.

Florida’s open carry ban is precisely the scenario that the Alabama Supreme Court warned against and the United States Supreme Court used as its justification for overturning the DC handgun ban.

“But the court say that it is a matter which will not admit of legislative regulation, and in order to test the correctness of its opinion, supposes one Legislature to prohibit the bearing arms secretly, and a subsequent Legislature to enact a law against bearing them openly; and then asks the question, whether the first, or last enactment would be unconstitutional. Under the provision of our constitution, we incline to the opinion that the Legislature cannot inhibit the citizen from bearing arms openly, because it authorizes him to bear them for the purposes of defending himself and the State, and it is only when carried openly, that they can be efficiently used for defence.” State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616-617 (1840).

It would be nonsensical for the United States Supreme Court to have found such persuasive support for its Heller and McDonald positions in Nunn v. State, Andrews v. State, State v. Reid, and State v. Chandler yet still reject the result of all of these cases that bans on open carry are unconstitutional.

The NRA’s position?

In 2011 it was that Open Carry is long overdue in Florida…

In 2012, the NRA says that only Unintentional Open Carry needs to be legal for people who have the state issued license to carry concealed

For all the good that the NRA does, and they do A LOT of good, for some reason the NRA still refuses to stand up for the RIGHT to Bear Arms.  Protecting those of us privileged enough to be able to afford the <poll tax> license and attend a formal training session is now their only stated goal.  It’s a noble goal, but there is a fundamental right that continues to be denied.

Florida Carry is supporting the constitutional challenge to Florida’s overly broad, vague, and facially unconstitutional ban on unconcealed carry.  

St. Lucie County Judge Cliff Barnes will issue his ruling on motions to dismiss State v. Norman on the afternoon of Tuesday, August 14th. This is the case of a concealed carry license holder who’s gun became accidently unconcealed while walking in Ft. Pierce, FL in Feb., 2012.

This is the first case in the 25 year history of the open carry ban where a state prosecutor has chosen to not offer any form of deal.  Because Dale did a poor job of hiding his gun, the prosecutor is trying to put Dale Norman in jail for doing something that would have been legal for him to do in 43 states.  Something that was legal in Florida until 1987.

Regardless of result at the County Court level, the case will be appealed by either side.  

I testified in this case about the history of Florida’s open carry ban, the legislative history of the changes made to these laws, the racist roots of Florida’s carry licensing programs, and the relevant court cases dating back to 1893, and the unconstitutional nature of the general ban on the Right to Bear Arms in Florida.

Florida Carry needs your help to strike down the Open Carry Ban and defend Dale Norman.  A decision that we will make sure stands to clarify and strengthen the right to bear arms outside the home. We will not rest until we are sure that no responsible, skilled, and law-abiding person is ever denied by law the fundamental right to bear arms for self-defense.

This entry was posted in Guns, The Hay Hoe Files. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Florida Carry is standing up for the RIGHT to bear arms

  1. sage says:

    Utah does not require a permit to Open Carry.

    Utah allows unlicensed open carry of a firearm that is at least 2 actions from firing. For example, a semi-auto may have a full mag but the chamber must be empty. Permit holder may open carry as well, but their firearms may be fully loaded.

  2. Robert says:

    The second amendment written buy our forefathers was done so for a reason. Which some folks would like it to die and go away, especially the criminals that intend to do harm. Ever day we see where some home was invaded with the result of a family being killed or in able to work ever again from the injuries. I support the right to open carry because if you’re a criminal your not going to let some one know that your armed and if you’re a felon your not going to chance being stopped buy the law enforcement. At least if I looked around a room and saw openly armed people I would feel safer if some nut job came in and tried to kill everyone in the room. And you can bet if he knew he would be meet with resistance that he would look elsewhere. Look around you every day lately a licensed armed person is stopping a crime in the process of happening. Carrying a gun either concealed or open is a big responsibility because one day you might be called upon to draw and shoot living with the end results. Their fore it should be a personal decision to do so. There are never enough law enforcement around when you need them and their never will be.

  3. Rich says:

    The map is inaccurate though. Open Carry is not prohibited by any law in NY. The NY penal code that refers to pistol licenses (section 400) makes no mention of whether they have to be open of concealed. The NYC law specifically states concealed though.

    No one has ever thought to challenge this legally of course (because NY has the fuck you, fuck the law, this is new york) but Gura mentioned it in his Appeal of the Kalsky v. Cacece lawsuit. Hopefully it will come to light and all of NY, not just bumblefuck upstate will be granted their constitutional, fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

  4. Sean Caranna says:

    Rich, can you get me the statutory references?

    • Rich says:



      Section 400 makes NO mention whatsoever on how a firearm is to be carried (concealed or open)


      Section 265 deals with criminal possession of a weapon – a charge of which any valid NYS pistol license holder is exempt from because they are licences. Further – no mention of open vs. concealed.

      There is a law against something called “menacing” (120.14 )


      “He or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person
      in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death
      by displaying a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or what appears to
      be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm;”

      This has been the justification for no one ever attempting to open carry in NY. However that is the only true mention of “displaying” a firearm in the entirety of the NYS penal code.

      In Alan Gura’s appeal for the Kachalsky v. Cacace case he examined this point in depth, including how there is no legal provision preventing the open carrying of rifles, shotguns, or handguns.


      • Rich says:

        265.20(a)(3) allows an exemption for anyone with license from criminal possession of a weapon. Still further makes no mention on how it is carried/possessed.

      • Sean Caranna says:

        The appeal you linked to is only the “notice of appeal” along with the lower court’s challenged ruling and order. It is NOT the SAF’s brief. It is in fact, what the SAF says is, an incorrect and unconstitutional ruling.

        The handgun license issued under § 400.00 (2)(f) requires concealment. § 265.20 Exemptions provide an affirmative defense only when carrying in accordance with the provision of the license issued under § 400.00. Carrying unconcealed would be carrying outside of those provisions therefore the affirmative defense would fail.

        The map is accurate, or at least it will be on Nov. 1st when Oklahoma’s new law goes in to effect.

        • Rich says:

          Wow. Something must have changed recently because there was never any mention of “concealed” in the penal code the last time I looked at it.

          My apologies.

          Also, the SAF thing I linked to should have been a 60 page scathing ‘notice of appeal’ (first two or three pages) and ‘opinion and order’ (the rest) I’m reading it right now.

        • Rich says:

          I do still stand by my overall statement, there is no law on the books in NY (aside from that “menacing” in the 2nd thing that explicitly prohibits open carrying of long arms in NY.

          I will yield that you are correct about being outside of the provisions of the 400(2)(f) license though.

        • Rich says:


          Here’s an interesting article/examination on that whole “menacing” thing

Comments are closed.