Florida Supreme Court Upholds Open Carry Ban

Send to Kindle

The Springfield Armory 9mm Range Officer shoots as good as it looks. Read full review!

The Florida Supreme Court upheld last week the state’s ban on openly carrying firearms, according to the Associated Press.

The court ruled in a 4-2 decision that the law is constitutional and does not impede a citizen’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The controversy began when Dale Norman – a concealed carry holder – was arrested by Fort Pierce police in 2012 because his gun was visible as he walked down a sidewalk. He was convicted of a misdemeanor, appealed the conviction, and followed the appeal process all the way to the Florida Supreme Court.

The court reasoned that because the ban on open carry regulates “only one manner of bearing arms,” it “does not impair the exercise of the fundamental right to bear arms.” In other words, because Florida residents generally have easy access to concealed carry permits, banning open carry does not significantly limit their right Second Amendment rights.

But the court went further.

While they agreed that the Second Amendment includes the right to bear arms outside the home, they saw open carry as working against “the stated government purpose of public safety and reducing gun violence.”

Open carry diminishes public safety because hypothetical criminals are more likely to target individuals with guns. According to the court, “deranged persons and criminals would be less likely to gain control of firearms in public because concealed firearms — as opposed to openly carried firearms — could not be viewed by ordinary sight.”

So, in this imaginary scenario, a would-be criminal sees a person with a firearm, intentionally targets that person, and seizes control of their firearm. For this reason the ban on open carry serves an “important government interest” and is therefore not subject to strict scrutiny under the Heller decision.

There’s just one problem. Couldn’t that hypothetical scenario just as easily run in the opposite direction? Wouldn’t a criminal be more likely to avoid a person with a firearm?

As Eugene Volokh writes for the Washington Post, “one should have either empirical studies or at least an inherently plausible theory” when determining whether a law serves or detracts from an important government interest.

The Florida Supreme Court’s theory is anything but plausible. No one knows precisely how a criminal would react to a person with an openly carried firearm, but the Florida Supreme Court doesn’t know either. They do not cite any empirical studies to back up their claims, and the counterargument – that a criminal would run away at the sight of a firearm – is just as plausible.

{ 129 comments… add one }
  • Tony Holtgreven March 24, 2017, 3:34 am

    OK so its done. what can we do now? There must be a next step to over ride these idiots. Who do take this too now. All these so called wise judges dont need to worry cause they are surronded by ARMED men. Its my experience people dont care until they themselves are in a situation, then they get the point!!!

  • Pete March 22, 2017, 4:44 pm

    If that’s their only argument against, then why not allow open carry with the stipulation they have to use a level 2 or level 3 holster? Problem solved.

  • mykee March 17, 2017, 10:19 pm

    We, the people, are sick and tired of these “judges” making all these decisions for us. What do we have to do to “fix” this problem? It’s not right that 4 people get to decide what the whole state of Florida and for that matter the country has to do. 3 judges decided to let illegals, many of whom mean us harm, to keep coming into OUR country. These judges do not OWN this country but they decide what we all have to live with, like it or not! The laws need to change so we can vote these judges in OR out. How can we inform our Government to let us vote for these idiots? Please let me know if anyone can tell me.

  • Adam Colorado March 16, 2017, 5:12 pm

    Police carry for their protection not ours, we carry for our protection. Police open carry because some people do not respect the badge but most all people respect the gun. Aren’t we supposed to use verbal commands are’t we supposed to declare that we are armed and will deadly force in an attempt to deescalate a situation before it comes down to killing! I guess Florida’s Judicial system wants everyone to go full out gorilla style and ambush each other. Having a permit to carry and not being allowed to open carry makes absolutely no sense, I read their reasoning, these judges must not want open carry in Florida, period!

  • Mort Leith March 16, 2017, 9:27 am

    THIS is what happens when a Southern State gets over-run by liberal Yankees….

  • Barry March 12, 2017, 7:48 pm

    An easy way to prove the Courts insane theory is false is calculate the number of Police Officers attacked to the number of civilians every year. I’m sure you’ll find the common sense answer is it’s easier for a criminal to attack an unarmed person than it would be an armed one. The real danger to civilians is the over abundance of brain dead judges out there.

  • elgavilansegoviano March 12, 2017, 4:02 pm

    ….Witch ever way you look at it, it is gun control,…… The people should be allowed to carry ANY which way they see fit to them to carry!!,…Now, all this Judges that voted for this anti 2nd amendment decision, should be BOOTED OUT of office ASAP!!,…..Period!!,…….

  • Randy Marsh March 12, 2017, 1:36 pm

    In the state of Kentucky you ARE NOT ALLOWED to Carry concealed. If you carry a hand gun it must be visible or if it’s covered up another person must be able to tell if they are carrying. I don’t hear a lot of mass shooting or gun violence going on there. Just saying

  • James March 11, 2017, 1:55 pm

    Since open carry is now banned in Florida, if one does not have a concealed carry permit, aren’t they now in effect banned from exercising their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms? Basically the 2nd Amendment has been destroyed there because in order to legally bear arms, one must apply for a concealed carry permit. Am I missing something? Is their some other means of bearing arms that I am not aware of that does not include open carry or concealed carry?

    • Sam P March 14, 2017, 4:50 pm

      Not necessarily., While I agree they should be allowed to carry out if they want to. Florida does reciprocate laws of concealed carry with other states. Like GA, SC, NC, VA, AL just to name a few. So if you had a CCW license in those states you could carry concealed in FL.

  • Mark Are March 11, 2017, 8:16 am

    Just another attempt to establish a pre crime mentality…Liberty is an absolute

    As John Locke (the man who our founding fathers went to in his writings) said, “men are naturally in “a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature.” The natural right to liberty is absolute within a natural limit: the law of nature. What is this law? The law of nature is reason, which “teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”

    Thus, a state of absolute liberty “is not a state of license.” People exercising their right to liberty do not have an unqualified right to do whatever they wish, regardless of the consequences. There is a clear and unambiguous limit to even what a person in an absolute state of liberty may do. He may do anything that he wishes as long as he does not harm another in aggression, which he absolutely may not do. So does carrying a firearm in the open cause anyone HARM? If not, then their can be no “crime”.

    Therefore, it is just more judges acting as politicians talking gibberish when we hear arguments for more or less liberty or balancing liberty with security. Liberty does not conflict with any proper functions of government. When there is conflict between government and liberty, it is always government that’s wrong. Most importantly, as our founding document clearly states and reason demands, liberty is an unalienable right. It is for no one to limit, regulate, or balance with anything. The minute that any limit on human action is put in place beyond “the bounds of the law of nature,” liberty has ceased to exist. One is either free or not free. You cannot enslave someone a little.

    Once liberty is properly understood, there are a few conclusions that one can draw about the purpose of government. First, government cannot at the same time secure the right to liberty and prevent crime. The minute government acts before a crime has been committed, it has destroyed liberty. Since they have committed no aggression, those restrained by a government crime prevention policy should be free to do whatever they choose, but are not.

    To preserve liberty, government may only prosecute and punish crimes after they are committed, except in those rare instances when a law enforcement officer happens to be at the scene of a crime as it is taking place. Even military action is something our founders understood was only justified when a state of war already existed, which I wrote about in more detail in an article last year. That is why they granted Congress the power to declare war. To declare something presupposes it already exists.

    An understandable first reaction to this idea is that in order to be free we must offer ourselves up as sitting ducks to criminals and foreign armies, only justified in responding after the damage has been done. This is refuted by the second conclusion one must draw from understanding liberty: that each individual has not only a right but a responsibility to defend himself. While this may sound frightening, it isn’t. This is really the only choice you have, whether you live in a free society or not. In all but the rarest of cases, the government simply is not there at the moment you are attacked. You must defend yourself the best that you can and try to survive. Only afterwards can the law come to your aid. This is why liberty and the right to bear arms are inseparable from one another.

    In addition to destroying your liberty, crime prevention will always fail. A just law is one that prohibits aggression, like the law against murder. Once an aggressor has decided to violate this just and natural law, he is certainly not going to be dissuaded by some societal rule of conduct attempting to prevent him from having the opportunity to commit the real crime. He will simply break that law, too, as do so many murderers when they use illegal firearms to commit their crimes. Only the innocent are punished by attempts to prevent crime. They either follow the unjust law and surrender their liberty or are unjustly punished while committing no aggression.

    This inevitable failure leads to the most ominous aspect of government’s misguided attempt at crime prevention: its equally inevitable expansion. With each new failure, the preventative measures must be increased in intensity to prevent further failure. The actions of all must be more and more limited until all opportunity to commit a crime is eliminated, which is impossible even under martial law. So, it is a steady march onward, with a police state the only logical end. Each new failure in the war on drugs or the war on terror takes us another step down that road.

    Life in a state of liberty is not perfect. It makes no guarantees, other than the opportunity to pursue your happiness. You may prosper or you may be poor. You may be safe or you may come to harm. Chance will certainly have some effect on your life. We all deal with unexpected circumstances we cannot control, both good and bad. But liberty gives you the ability to act upon those things in life you can control, in the way you believe will be best for you and those you care about. Without liberty, you can control nothing and it is only a fool who believes any government can guarantee he will never be poor or never come to any harm. There is only one thing that life without liberty does guarantee: you will never truly be able to pursue your happiness. Robbed of that, why live at all? ~Tom Mullen – “Liberty is an Absolute”

    • JUAN RAMIREZ March 11, 2017, 4:26 pm

      In Texas you can carry openly with your license but why give away the element of surprise? In any way, the person who is carrying openly is the one taking the risk. Let them decide when or if they want to carry openly and do not invent more obstacles to limit their rights, that’s liberal B.S. as usual.
      On the other hand, bad guys are discouraged when they see a police officer and they will also be discouraged when they see an unknown armed person, I have little doubt this will happen (criminals try to act when there are no witnesses, now it is easy to conclude what will happen if the witness is armed let’s say with a beautiful .45…

    • mike March 14, 2017, 6:25 am

      vig·i·lan·te
      /ˌvijəˈlan(t)ē/
      noun
      noun: vigilante; plural noun: vigilantes
      a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community WITHOUT LEGAL AUTHORITY, (Emphasis MINE), typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate
      Mark,
      ALL you say is TRUE and SPOT ON HOWEVER, you miss the main point. See how “They” have changed the meaning of the definition of “Vigilante”? There IS NO BETTER form of LAW ENFORCEMENT and JUSTICE on Earth than the Vigilante System of GOOD, RIGHTEOUS, GOD-FEARING, “ARMED” Citizens HANDLING THEIR OWN BUSINESS!!! And there is NO BIGGER FEAR of Governments and Monarchy’s THROUGHOUT HISTORY then that people would realize that FACT!!! If “They” can CONTROL the MEANS AND CIRCUMSTANCES of “ALLOWABLE” Self-Defense, then, and ONLY then, they control people and society! THIS is the MAIN THRUST OF ALL GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTS TO JEALOUSLY GUARD “THEIR RIGHT” to be YOUR “PROTECTOR”!!! Even though THAT is the BIGGEST JOKE AS YOU SO APTLY POINTED OUT—“They” are RARELY THERE AT THE MOMENT YOU NEED THEM!!! I could launch into a LONG Treatise on the subject but you get what I’m saying. It would take maybe 6 Months to 1Year to “Flesh Out” and there would be casualties on BOTH SIDES but, in the end, crime statistics would drop through the floor. There would still be crime because there will ALWAYS be “Criminals” but they would be ALOT more “Manageable”!!

  • Carl Skelonis March 11, 2017, 7:50 am

    Since law enforcement open carry, there should be data available as to how many instances criminals took firearms from officers. Just sayin.

    • JUAN RAMIREZ March 11, 2017, 4:34 pm

      In one famous case it didn’t go very well for the guy who tried to do it…

    • Dwane March 13, 2017, 5:49 pm

      Carl – I\’m sure there is! Judges brain dead. Just like 18th circuit in Brevard County, FL stating Jury Nullification doesn\’t fly in his court!

  • Tango India Mike March 11, 2017, 3:21 am

    I have a CCW permit and I do both concealed and open carry. I have my reasons for when I open carry, and those reasons don’t have to be explained by me nor appreciated by others. It is my right, and for reasons, none of which are associated with ego problems or insecurities, it is my decision. I have stood behind police officers in fast food joints and realized how easy it would be to draw their weapon. I know how the retention works and what it takes to release it. The same could be said for when I open carry. I’m well aware that someone could “go for” my gun. I use a holster that has a retention strap with plastic buckles. Both sides of the buckle must be squeezed at the same time to release it. This can be tricky for someone who is trying to “snatch” the gun. Plus it would give me a heads up to fight off the attempt. When I open carry, I am well aware of my gun at all times and constantly observing my surroundings. I see people looking alternately at me and my gun. I make eye contact with everyone in proximity to me. Eye contact says, “I’m aware of you”. I do it subtly, but it works. People know that you are alert and give you your space. This works even if you aren’t carrying a gun. If I am in a checkout line, or fast food line, I walk up, stop, turn and look at everyone in proximity, especially behind me. I do so with a smile as if I’m saying hi, so it is non-threatening. I do my business with the clerk, but I never stop moving, subtly stepping a little to the left or right, or turning my body or hips enough that my gun never seems like an easy grab. If I have to stand still for more than a few seconds, I smile again at the person next to me or behind me. It reminds them that I am not complacent. I know this sounds like a lot of work, but I incorporate the movements and eye contact very subtly to seem natural and nonthreatening while conveying my awareness of everything around me. If I am standing in an aisle, focusing on products, I’ll hook my thumb in my pocket which naturally causes my arm to lay across my gun, protecting it from an easy grab. Every time I see movement with my peripheral vision, or someone new enters the aisle, I glance and make subtle and momentary eye contact. To be honest, I behave this way even when I conceal carry, simply because I believe very strongly in situational awareness. Maybe this stems from my brief time in a war zone, but I watch my own six, 24/7. Just last night, I was walking my dog, well past midnight, on the sidewalk along a 4 lane highway where the speed limit is 45 MPH. There were periods of no traffic, so when I noticed a single car coming toward me was slowing down, and just after it passed me, it stopped completely right there in the road. I had a bad feeling something was up. I turned around to keep an eye on the car and the occupants and to let them know I was aware of them. I made my turn so that my gun side was toward them where they could see it on my hip. Just to be sure they could see it, I raised my right hand up to casually scratch my head, which left my entire right side visible, including my gun. I was in high alert because there was no earthly reason for this car to just stop on a 4 lane highway and I seemed to be the only logical explanation. Within a couple of seconds of exposing my right side and making my gun very visible, the car suddenly took off. Was it because they saw my gun? I’ll never know. If I had been concealed carrying, they may have taken it farther. I could not be certain how many people were in the car. I have no idea if one person or five were armed and considering something nepharious. Several bad guys with guns may not feel threatened by one guy with a gun, but seeing it from a distance may have registered in their brains, it only takes one round to kill me and if he is open carrying on the street after midnight, he isn’t afraid to use it. Those of you who think open carry is for John Wayne wannabes, you must perceive yourself as some super sleuth who cannot be surprised, overpowered, or separated from your gun. There are no guarantees, no matter how you choose to carry. I choose to open and conceal carry as I see fit, with no excuses, explanations, or apologies to anyone. It’s my right.

    • JRHD6670 March 11, 2017, 12:35 pm

      TIM…it is your ‘right’, but please consider that with such rights come certain other responsibilities and considerations.

      I was raised with firearms and trained with firearms both at home and military. I, too, have a CCP, but I don’t believe it is the best judgement to open carry in crowded public areas . My reasoning is that by using the ‘walk in another’s shoes’ mentality, I find my blood pressure rising whenever I see someone (other than LE) ‘open carrying’ in my proximity…and, I’m trained. Relatively few individuals -including CCW holders- have the equivalent of your training, thus are more than likely incapable of protecting/securing that sidearm. Also, you mentioned LE and how accessible their sidearms can be at any given moment. I don’t believe that WE should be adding to the stress of an already STRESSED society. Open carrying while walking at night/early morning in the dark in a solitary environment may be less intimidating to others. However, I too have had vehicles slow/stop near me, but I do the stop, face, and hold ground approach until they decide to move on…without me having to show a weapon. ‘Usually’ those who may potentially do you harm are interested in ‘easy’ marks; certainly not someone who is intent on ‘returning the favor’. Situational awareness is KEY, but too many folks are CLUELESS. So, forget the ear buds and stow the phone where it’s easily accessible.

      There comes a point in time where we ALL lose some ‘edge’. It becomes physically and mentally impossible to be 100% at the ready 24/7. Additionally, it’s exhausting. So, these are my thoughts, and I write this not to be critical of your approach. It’s about more than just us, and perception means a lot.

      • Tim March 12, 2017, 12:21 am

        I get what you’re saying. I do want to be clear that I did not flash my gun. It was already visible. I did face the perps and held my ground, but I did so in a casual but vigilant manner. Raising my hand to scratch my head was a very subtle move so my arm was not blocking the view of my gun. Whoever was in that car decided to move on. I can’t be sure they were up to no good, but there was no obvious reason for them to stop 30 feet from me. I can’t be sure they saw my gun, but just in case, I made it easy to see. I can’t be sure they left because I was armed, nor because I turned to face them, but they DID move on. No matter how someone carries, it is not a fool proof safety mechanism. On the rare occasions that I open carry, I am extremely vigilant about protecting my gun. When concealed carrying, I have realized that I have to be just as vigilant, because I have found my gun unintentionally exposed. It’s easy to assume that all is good while concealed carrying. People get complacent. I’m retired military and a former corrections officer. I suppose my senses are more keen than the average person. In my opinion, personal safety is a 24/7 job.

    • JUAN RAMIREZ March 11, 2017, 5:22 pm

      I agree with you, it’s your right and once the guys get off the car the situation is escalated, they are committed because none of them wants to be the “coward” of the group. Even if there was a single guy it’s better that he left.

  • dstudie March 10, 2017, 8:21 pm

    The Florida Supreme Court are traitors. They are infringing upon the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. They do not have the legal authority under the Constitution to make the judgement that they have made, therefore the ruling in null and void. It’s time the citizens stood up to these criminals who call themselves judges.

  • Sly March 10, 2017, 6:39 pm

    All the conversations center around the person being targeted by a nut or criminal. I would like to know how you would distinguish between a lawful open carry and a nut case looking to to kill people. Right now if your open carry I know you mean harm.

    • Mark Are March 10, 2017, 9:03 pm

      You “know”? You “KNOW” you mean harm? HOW? Are you a pre cog from the pre crime unit? I think that is still science fiction Sly.

      • Sly March 11, 2017, 11:43 am

        To say that’s sifi is blind to to the fact that people do walk into a McDonald’s and open fire. How do you determine who’s who? Right now if that nut enters a micky d with an exposed firearm I know he has bad intentions and can take action . Despite John lockes admonition we live in dangerous times . This is not the polite society of even 80 years ago. There are kooks on both sides , you may be reaching for your wallet on your firearm side and someone may misconstrue that as you reaching for a weapon. This isn’t la la land any more. Libs love to live in there ivory towers . You seem caught up in the Know. How about getting caught up in Reality

        • Mark Are March 11, 2017, 6:25 pm

          Yes, walking into McDonalds and opening fire is such a common occurrence. How many times have we heard of that over the last 20 years? Oh, that’s right…ONCE. Reality and knowing work hand in hand. Apparently your idea of “reality” is based more in movies and science fiction then real life. If I carried a pistol exposed into Mc Donalds, hopefully some crazed individual that thinks like you doesn’t start a gunfight with me “just because he “KNOWS” I have “bad intentions” (there we are with that magical ability to read minds again). Talk about living in an unreal world…go look in the mirror. I would be concerned if someone walked into a McDonalds with a gun in their hand. NOT in a holster strapped to their waste. I bet LOTS of people walk into McDonalds in Arizona with pistols strapped on. So PLEASE, stay out of Arizona McDonalds. People with your knee jerk mentality scare the hell out of me.

    • Joe Ellison March 12, 2017, 3:34 pm

      Who is ever heard of a criminal trying to take a gun from a human that is carring one and when in a state when a criminal knows people carry, how likely are they to commit a crime? I can in Idaho and in Alaska because we can open and conceal carry there is very liitle crimes at all! That because the criminal dosen’t know what that human has!!! They don’t know but look in the left states where the criminal knows no one os allowed to carry everyone is screwed. It is a ploy to keep taking away guns and giving us resrtictions. This is an abridgement of liberty due to money. Please put on your concealed liences UCC 1-308 so that way the corrupt govenrment cannot say it is a contractual obligation to have the liences so they sue the people to imprison them nand control them so people need the corupt goverment to take care of them. If the human people cannot own anything then they need the someone to control them.

    • Ruppert Jenkkins March 13, 2017, 2:25 am

      “Mean harm”? How do you know that? Are you a f’in mind reader? More likely it’s a person who wants to carry a firearm legally, but prefers open carry solely because it’s more comfortable.
      Thing is, a person OPEN carrying is almost never going to be a criminal. Criminals, by their very nature, want to keep the fact that they are criminals secret, so the very LAST think they’re going to do is simply walk around casually with a handgun on their hip.

    • Dwane March 13, 2017, 6:04 pm

      Sly- Been watching many Lethal Weapon movies? A perp will not wear a weapon on his hip and walk in a store. The perp will be carrying it in his hands or it will be concealed.

  • Michael Meeker March 10, 2017, 5:51 pm

    We need to remove all of the justices in our State that are against our right to bear arms with being infringed. I is difficult to HIDE and Carry a standard pistol especially in Florida’s heat. It just shows how far we have to go still. Just imagine if Hillary would have won. They would be kicking in doors already. Our States judges are pathetic ant-gun people and are a plague upon us. President TRUMP Please put a stop to the insanity and give us back our Natural Born Rights to protect ourselves. Constitutional Carry for all allowed to own guns.

    • Arturo March 10, 2017, 1:29 pm

      The ruling is improper and unjust for one reason; Police Officers have open carry and how many nut cases and criminals do they encounter trying to obtain their weapon, probably close to zero UNLESS an altercation is already taking place with an individual with criminal intent.

      • Mushraeddur March 10, 2017, 10:53 pm

        I agree! I was also thinking that forcing one to carry concealed only could discriminate against those who suffer from a disability. If one has limited use of one hand for example, she could more readily defend herself with open carry (she wouldn’t have to try to pull up her shirt to access the firearm for example). From what I have read, I do not recall anything in the Constitution saying the right to bear arms shall not be infringed as long as said arms are concealed. Just my 2 cents, which with the way we are being taxed is a mere fraction of 2 actual cents.

    • Mark Are March 10, 2017, 9:07 pm

      Boy talk about contradictions…Natural Born Rights vs “constitutional carry”? For all “allowed” to own guns? Just proving how the government school system messes up folks ability to think logically.
      You HAVE natural born rights. You have a NATURAL BORN RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY! Under NATURAL BORN RIGHTS EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO OWN A GUN. PERIOD. If they do something WRONG with it that’s another issue. There is no such thing as “constitutional” carry. There is a NATURAL BORN RIGHT TO CARRY. The constitution is a PROHIBITION on those in “power” telling them not to INFRINGE on NATURAL BORN RIGHTS. I hope that helps.

  • Don Richardson March 10, 2017, 3:53 pm

    So, how does this affect hunters? Do you have to keep your shotgun in your pocket?

    • Gary R. Anderson March 10, 2017, 11:18 am

      As a “hypothetical” criminal with a propensity for quickly becoming an addition to the Hummus of Florida, I target every police officer I see, because of their easily available gun. BTW: is that a Glock in your pocket, or you happy to see me?

      • JUAN RAMIREZ March 11, 2017, 5:35 pm

        OK, You’re gay, no problem but if you are suicidal… get help!

    • Damon Burch March 10, 2017, 11:00 pm

      I’m pretty darn certain in Florida it is legal to open carry if you are hiking, hunting, fishing or camping. I would have to look up the statute to be able to quote it though.

      • Mark Are March 11, 2017, 8:45 pm

        If that is true, tell them you are hiking in the shopping mall. Geezzz…moral relativism is so wonderful.

  • Robert March 10, 2017, 3:19 pm

    I live in Florida and often drive to North Carolina

    The first stop I make in Georgia my gun is carried open

    The good people of both states allow and accept open carry,
    Many people make small chat, is that a Glock (no), what kind of gun is that? Many story’s shared ,
    great fellowship/comradery experiences , etc etc,

    It feels very liberating to exercise such an awesome freedom, to bad so many will never know that.

    IMO you are either for firearms or against them,

    JPFO take a better stance than many of the posters on here:
    No Compromise Against Gun Control!

    http://jpfo.org/articles-assd/no-compromise.htm

    • deanbob March 10, 2017, 11:49 am

      10-4. It is odd that so many just don’t understand basic English when it comes to the Constitution. The last 4 words of the second amendment are “shall not be infringed.” Webster defines infringed as:

      “transitive verb. : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed — U.S. Constitution amend. II; especially : to violate a holder’s rights under (a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade name)

    • Qhorse13 March 10, 2017, 7:16 pm

      Tennessee is an open carry state. I personally don’t like open carry. Because I don’t want to be targeted by a criminal that sees me as a threat first before he does his thug thing. I don’t want him knowing im about to pop his ass

      • Mark Are March 10, 2017, 9:09 pm

        So if the criminal sticks his gun in your face, you’re that fast to “pop his ass”. Yea, right.

  • srsquidizen March 10, 2017, 3:07 pm

    If voices in his head tell a psychopath he must shoot everyone in the room, then he would logically start with the one openly carrying. But then psychos are not always logical. That’s the only way open carry could be a detriment. Otherwise it’s just a choice. It does not endanger people but it does make some who are afraid of their own shadow uncomfortable. If a particular locality votes ban it because they’re a spineless bunch of nervous nellies I guess that’s democracy. But don’t dress it up in the ridiculous guise of “public safety.”

    • deanbob March 10, 2017, 11:52 am

      As the author says/infers, the courts need fact/factual information that demonstrate some kind of proof to back up their assumption(s).

    • Tom Joad March 10, 2017, 11:49 pm

      I was just thinking the same thing about people who feel the need to carry a gun out in the open to feel safe. I came to GunsAmerica because I was thinking about getting a firearm, just for target shooting out here in the sticks, but I don’t think I want to be part of all this radical hype. Do any of you think that owning a gun makes you a patriot? Do any of you really know the history of the second ammendment, or whether they were talking about an individual’s right, or a state’s right as opposed to the federal government’s right? Here, educate yourselves: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf

  • Larry March 10, 2017, 3:05 pm

    My question always goes back to why anyone would want to open carry when they can conceal carry? I’ve carried both ways for nearly 50 years. When I did not have to open carry (while in uniform) I always chose to conceal carry. That way the criminal(s) did not know for sure if I was armed. When openly armed, you’re the first one they take out, usually before you are even aware there is a problem.
    Keep the element of surprise, my friends. Conceal carry at all times.

    • Andy March 10, 2017, 11:04 am

      Where I live we have a large number of people open carry for to reasons one young guy wants to show off makes him feel like he is something, second reason is they’re to lazy and stupid to attend the concealed carry class and learn the laws. The laws they think they already know. ” they learned them from their drinking buddies “.

    • KimberproSS March 10, 2017, 11:20 am

      My issue with the ruling is being arrested for open carry unintentionally. Define open carry. They implied in this article that this case was based on an individual who was cancel carrying and his firearm was visible while he walked down the street. So if I am concealed, happen to stop in the bathroom and when leaving, my jacket, shirt, etc. happened to hang up on my handle or hammer and left the firearm exposed I am arrested and charged. That is BS, but the convicted has no recourse. Common sense should prevail, but that is all based upon the attitude of everyone involved when confronted. And if the police officer has an agenda, regardless of the attitude of the offender, he is still charged. Or what if the firearm is printing on the shirt and a bad attitude officer sees it, is that open carry? It is BS because the charge can be filed and has to be fought in court. The cost then is a factor that has to be considered when leaving the house even concealed.

      • deanbob March 10, 2017, 11:57 am

        And even if the defendant who took his case to the Fla Supreme Court was a lawyer, he still incurred some serious expenses. If he was not (and the case was not pro bono), wow. I am just glad the case has brought much needed attention and conversation to this subject.

    • Briley March 10, 2017, 12:40 pm

      In my opinion open carry is stupid and is seldom done except while hunting or as a form of protest, which I think is counter productive in the greater court of public opinion. That said, open carry must be allowed in law or, as happened in Florida, a legally carried gun becoming exposed, even through accident, is cause enough for the most cops to arrest you and for anti-gun DA’s to make life miserable. If a state has concealed carry then it must also allow open carry or have exceptions for the accidental exposure of a legally carried firearm.

  • Medic March 10, 2017, 3:02 pm

    Although I do not completely agree with the court’s decision, I would however be against open carry as it deprives one of element of surprise as well as places additional burden or responsibility upon carrier of their firearm.
    A hardened criminal would not be deterred by the sight of firearm on someone’s hip, which would be a mistake to assume that he/she would.

    Interestingly enough Florida has a law on the books that permits someone to openly carry a firearm if that person is en route to hunt or fish, or coming back from such activity.
    This man could have had a fishing pole with him and he would not be cited or charged with misdemeanor.

    • BR549 March 10, 2017, 10:18 am

      Well, right off the bat, I’d say that the Florida Supreme Court’s leftard interpretation is unconstitutional. Using that logic, the courts could then decide that it was OK to carry a firearm as long as the ammunition was stored in a different pocket away from the weapon. In the case of Mr. Norman, how he chose to bear his weapon WAS definitely being infringed.

    • Raleigh Thomas March 10, 2017, 5:06 pm

      I was going to post the same thing, as most people are not aware of this provision in State Law. And for that reason I ALWAYS have fishing gear in my truck, and a range bag with ‘eyes and ears’, targets, etc.

  • TomC March 10, 2017, 2:56 pm

    Maybe the FL Supreme Court justices flunked their Logic course in college. Using this line of thinking, police should carry concealed and maybe even be in plain clothes. There are plenty of folks in NC who open carry and I think they are intimidating to criminals, not targets. Although there are varying degrees of competence of OC people,
    99% are quite aware of their responsibilities. I know of one OC guy who is ex-Special Forces and he is definitely not a threat to public safety and ain’t gonna give up his gun to some ying-yang.

  • Mike Watkins March 10, 2017, 2:41 pm

    I’m inclined to agree with the court on this one. I do believe there are criminals who might attempt to catch an open-carrier unaware and relieve him of his firearm. Which IS a public safety problem. No, sorry, can’t cite instances of it happening but think it will sooner or later. Any of you lily-White open carry advocates want to go boldly walking around Compton, CA with a piece on your hip? Maybe you’ll get lucky.

    Like the court decision says, this still allows one to pack, just out of sight.

    And I’ll catch it from some of you here, but I’ve come to believe there is an element of bullying in some open carry advocates’ attitudes: “so it scares some pussy gun-haters, who cares!”

    But do what you want. I do.

  • Chuck March 10, 2017, 2:32 pm

    Now, I see the court is not only wrong most of the time, we find out that they are mind readers as well. They can read the future. This should prove to be most helpful.

  • Lee March 10, 2017, 2:04 pm

    I have a few questions. 1- What FL Statute permits one to “Open Carry” when going & coming from hunting or fishing? I’d like to read it. 2- More importantly, how fast can we get rid of these judges on the FL Supreme Court? What procedures must we take to make it happen? Especially since we have Trump in office. I’m not so sure about our Governor???

  • JG Smerda March 10, 2017, 2:02 pm

    Open carry is the safest carry. For those individuals who complain about gun size and accessibility, look for a Galco rig, also known as a Jackass rig – google it! Looks like FL is going the way of Kalifornia and CT when it comes to guns. A judge should never be able to remove or modify RIGHTS granted by the Constitution, end of story. Also, if I were in FL, I’d open carry a shotgun or rifle everywhere, let’s see how the ‘judge’ would want me to conceal that!

  • SG March 10, 2017, 1:45 pm

    There are so many unqualified and untrained people carrying guns that would be so vulnerable if they open carried snatching guns would become a new crime category like burglary. I think there ended up being about 25 snatched in 2016 but don’t hold me to that. Many people carry autos unchambered

  • Dustin Eward March 10, 2017, 12:46 pm

    We expected this absurdity.

    It is not merely a finding based on a hypothetical. It is a hypothetical that can exist only in a vacuum devoid of the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

    It is neo-soviet snowflake thinking at it’s finest. Let nothing get int he way of the narrative. If facts oppose the narrative, pretend they don’t exist.

    An ounce of prevention is worth 9 rounds of cure. Concealment, by definition, prevents nothing.

    If you don’t need “the element of surprise” if you prevent the matter from happening in the first place. Concealed Carriers either aren’t thinking, or they get off on sneaking about waiting to whip it out pretending to be James Bond.

    I’d rather advertise that I’m a hard target than be forced to reveal it in a sudden and ugly situation and then proceed to discharge said firearm in a public place…

    Open Carry = Prevention

    How many times have you heard of a Concealed Carrier whipping it out and letting bullets fly in public?

    And how many times for an Open Carrier?

    Exactly. Prevention.

    • Jim March 10, 2017, 11:13 am

      WELL SAID…..EXCELLANT EXAMPLE…

    • DG March 10, 2017, 1:21 pm

      Well, It’s strange that it would make criminals go after and attack Law Abiding Citizens open carrying a firearm. It doesn’t happen in all the other States that allow it. So what is wrong with the criminals in Florida to make them want to do this there?

      Open Carry is a good deterrence for criminal action. Yes, it might make you the first target if a group of armed criminals go in somewhere to shoot up a place, but most the time if a criminal see’s a firearm on someone, they go commit their crime somewhere else.

      (It’s the same reasoning the Feds came up with the NFA and added suppressors/silencers in 1936, People “might” poach on government land, so we should out law the ownership of an item). Doesn’t stop one criminal from breaking the law!

      • BR549 March 10, 2017, 10:22 am

        The interesting about someone else open-carrying is that it puts a criminal’s focus on that person, while the concealed carry people in the area are all busy lining up their red-dots on the perp’s head. Just sayin’.

    • Joe March 10, 2017, 2:01 pm

      Liberals at Work, When a Thief wants to Rob your Home and he here’s or see’s a Dog Barking he moves to another house, a Criminal is a Criminal and will always take the easy way apposed to the hard way. If he see’s a gun he will move on to the next easy target all the time, The Studies of Criminals in Prison have all stated this as fact. Who are these Liberals trying to fool?

      • SG March 10, 2017, 6:49 pm

        Dogs are a great deterrent. If a thief knows you have something he wants he will prepare for a dog encounter. I saw that a few times during my LEO career days. Especially after everyone started getting pit bulls.

  • Briley March 10, 2017, 12:32 pm

    If you want empirical data, look to Washington State. We have had both open and concealed carry (shall issue) for decades and there has never been, to my knowledge, an instance of a person open carrying being accosted for their gun. Washington State used to be a great and freedom loving state until the moronic duo of Gov Inslee and A.G. Ferguson brought the Californian ethos to those state government offices after being reelected this past year. I guess they think reelection meant they are OK to pursue government tyranny, promoting an “assault weapon” and magazine ban which, if not for very active gun owners and a conservative leaning senate and house, would have become law. Most people are not aware that Washington State, like the rest of the country, including California and Oregon, is ruled by a very few populous counties and a growing population of civically challenged individual, mostly minorities and liberally-educated /indoctrinate millennials, which live in these counties. If these states had an electoral election system we would not be run by freedom-hating, history-ignorant liberals and real liberty would prevail. Just saying.

  • walt March 10, 2017, 12:18 pm

    my wife open carry 23-7 Iv watched guys stalk follow her in public but the look on there faces, and the abrupt abought face! when there eyes find the revolver is priceless-there are exceptions to every rule, but even a hungry bear wont take on a wolverreen, crooks look 4 easy targets

  • William March 10, 2017, 11:48 am

    What part do people not understand? The 2nd amendment states very clearly that you have the right to bear arms. I live in Louisiana and we can carry openly, most people don’t, but we still have the right to. Our forefathers carried openly and if you think about it, that’s why where here.

  • Gene March 10, 2017, 11:44 am

    The passing of ‘open carry’ in Texas gave a lot of relief to licensed carriers. The liberals where touting that it would look like the wild west , blah blah blah. In reality I have yet to see anyone walking down the streets of Houston displaying a side arm. So what did it accomplish ?
    It afforded great relief from the paranoia of ‘concealed’ carry in that one does not have to worry about someone getting a glimpse or noticing the ‘printing’ of a side arm. No one ever touted this benefit but it is one helluva benefit of open carry

  • drugdoc March 10, 2017, 11:44 am

    If we apply the court’s logic to law enforcement there would be no marked cars and no uniformed officers. If they can get you to ask the wrong question it doesn’t matter what the answer is.

  • skipNclair March 10, 2017, 11:38 am

    Again judges prove just like many ordinary people that by confusion and mumbo jumbo they can deny people the right to do as the 2nd amendment says. Like all the amendments they are clearly written so that even a dumb 6th grader would have no problem understanding them. But throw in some bozo wishing to appear he is a deep thinking, with a degree on the wall and a title of superior and out goes all logic, and in comes mumbo jumbo, confusion and you are so suppose to believe your a fool for not agreeing or understanding it, and what they just did or said is over your head. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The key word though all are important is infringed, the argument or debate should end swiftly when even the above mentioned type of people that appear to be idiots, or those with an agenda or cowards learn the meaning of that word. Anyone that wishes to deny another that right regardless of their personal feelings about guns should be considered a traitor and shot or hung.

  • Steve Harmon March 10, 2017, 11:30 am

    Hmm, guess all leo’s must now not wear uniforms and carry concealed, right? The court’s reasoning applies here as well, imo.

  • Martee March 10, 2017, 11:05 am

    Unstated in the decision is that open carry might have a negative impact on Florida tourism, something that figures big (along with retirees) into Florida’s economy. Whether that would be the effect, guess we won’t find out anytime soon. As a Florida resident/retiree with a Florida concealed carry license, I’m not devastated by the ruling as I wouldn’t open carry if it were permitted. I prefer stealth mode. But it’d certainly be nice if I wouldn’t be subject to arrest and/or fines and/or loss of my ccl if my firearm accidentally displays or is printing. Open carry would probably do away with that, which I find attractive. If Florida ever went constitutional carry, it would really surprise the heck out of me, as the price tag of acquiring a Florida concealed carry license, not to mention renewal cost, must generate millions of dollars for Florida, something I doubt legislators are eager to do away with anytime soon.

  • Kalashnikov Dude March 10, 2017, 10:58 am

    Great! Law, based on what the average psychopath would do. What else will these tyrants think of next to eradicate our US Constitution and Bill Of Rights? These constitutional criminals need to be held accountable. If the government protects them, and upholds this lunacy, then the people need to hold them all acountable. This is not acceptable.

  • Martee One March 10, 2017, 10:41 am

    Unstated in the decision is that open carry might have a negative impact on Florida tourism, something that figures big into Florida’s economy. Whether that would be the effect, guess we won’t find out anytime soon. As a Florida resident with a Florida concealed carry license, I’m not devastated by the ruling as I wouldn’t open carry if it were permitted. I prefer stealth mode. But it’d certainly be nice if I wouldn’t be subject to arrest and/or fines and/or loss of my ccl if my firearm accidentally displays or is printing. Open carry would probably do away with that, which I find attractive. If Florida ever went constitutional carry, it would really surprise the heck out of me, as the price tag of acquiring a Florida concealed carry license, not to mention renewal cost, must generate millions of dollars for Florida, something I doubt legislators are eager to do away with anytime soon.

  • Capn Stefano March 10, 2017, 10:33 am

    I guess infringed doesn’t mean what the Founders thought it meant…

    4 tyrants/traitors in black robes

  • Ted Miller March 10, 2017, 10:33 am

    I walked into a restaurant the other day and the guy in front of me had a 1911 on his hip. I could have drawn it from his holster easier than him.
    Open carry, in addition to the “shoot me first” problem, does not lend itself well to weapon retention. Just because you can does not mean you should. Be humble and don’t broadcast that you are a badass, gun toting MF. Be safe my friends.

    • Gary R. Anderson March 10, 2017, 11:33 am

      HEY! I WAS THAT GUY! I didn’t notice you because my food was getting cold. You see, I carry that nickel 45cal. 1911 replica BB on my hip JUST FOR NUTS LIKE YOU, and wait for just that opportunity to get my snubby 9mm out from my belly holster. That would give me every right to protect my belongings. –You see, I am a faith based guy, and I say “Hide it under a bushel, NO!–I’m gonna let it shine!

      • GOD March 10, 2017, 4:53 pm

        “I’m gonna let it shine!”

        Well done thy good and faithful servant.

    • Steve Harmon March 10, 2017, 11:34 am

      So police should not open carry? If so, it stands to reason they should not advertise my wearing uniforms either, right? Common sense is lacking here.

  • Mister Ronald March 10, 2017, 10:21 am

    All we need is a law to protect a person if his gun is accidentally exposed.The way it is now, A person can be arrested if the gun is exposed in any way.
    Full open carry would be nice but it would make you a target for someone to jump you and grab your gun.It has happened.
    Plus, it makes none gun owners freak out when they see a gun and there are plenty of these cream puff idiots in America.
    You do know that if someone sees your gun and calls the police, The Police officer is obliged to arrest you because your gun is “NOT” concealed. This is stupid if you have a permit but it is the way it is right now.

    • Brandon Salyer March 10, 2017, 11:51 am

      That’s my thinking as well. I live in Kentucky, we’ve always had Constitutional Open Carry and only adopted the concealed carry option AFTER Florida lead the way into this most noble experiment. I can’t fathom that printing, even mildly, can garner a brandishing conviction. I understand Concealed Means Concealed, but outside the vacuum of that Nest of Vipers commonly called a Judicial Chamber real life happens.

    • JoeUSooner March 10, 2017, 12:04 pm

      Oklahoma experienced that exact problem, and for several years our courts were absolutely overwhelmed with cases involving accidental exposure of concealed weapons. The backlog problem got so bad that the legislature acted to allow open carry (but ONLY by persons with a concealed-carry license!). Not sure of the exact logic there… but at least the courts’ overcrowding problem was solved, and licensees are now spared from nonsensical prosecution.

  • Gerald March 10, 2017, 10:19 am

    Sad that Gunsamerica edits the comments of Americans.

  • Gerald March 10, 2017, 10:13 am

    Liberal Judges are gonna liberal.

    The Judges that came to this decision show their bias by thinking they know better than the citizen on how to act and behave.

    These people need to be removed from office. They can decide for themselves only.

    The Republican Florida Legislature is the biggest problem facing the Florida citizen regarding freedom. They have been for years behind anti gun regulations and preventing pro gun bills from passing. They play round robin with who does the dirty work of killing bills when they are brought up.

    This year it was three people doing the work of killing legislation aimed at returning the second amendment freedoms to Florida. Republican Senator Anitere Flores, the Florida Senate’s President Pro Tempore. She’s the second most powerful Senator under the Senate President, Republican Joe Negron. The other is Republican Senator Rene Garcia.

    These people area cancer on the state of Florida and the freedoms of everyone. They are no different than people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham are on a national level. The NRA endorses these people year after year. Marion Hammer of the NRA has endorsed these people.

    These judges need to be removed as well as others who play this game each year. Its a lot like Lucy pulling the football from Charlie Brown. Each year the legislators say they will respect and serve with regards to the second amendment and then in back room deals, they will kill the bills.

    Dishonest.

    If you don’t like freedoms like open carry or campus carry, then don’t do it. Don’t decide for someone else. There are a lot of people posting in this thread that don’t like and are afraid of freedom. I don’t mind it, just don’t tread on me.

  • Greg March 10, 2017, 10:00 am

    I guess police better stop carrying their weapons openly then, since obviously they are more prone to being attacked by a criminal. The court’s argument is completely invalid. That said, I have a CCW permit and do believe we should have the right to openly carry, however, I do not think it is generally a good idea to do so. This is because uninformed and paranoid people tend to think that doing so is a criminal offense and are likely to call 911 and report it as an armed criminal in a public place. This in turn gets cops to show up with their weapons drawn expecting an armed conflict. We have seen before how this sometimes results in an innocent person being shot and severely wounded or killed. I greatly prefer concealed carry because then nobody, neither criminal nor ignorant bystander, knows you are armed.

  • Chris Baker March 10, 2017, 9:46 am

    “only one manner of bearing arms,” it “does not impair the exercise of the fundamental right to bear arms.”

    What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard for people to understand? It certainly infringes on the right to carry (bear) arms if they can tell you HOW you can bear your arms.

    • Capn Stefano March 10, 2017, 10:35 am

      Camel’s nose is firmly entrenched within the tent, he wants the entire tent

  • Ram6 March 10, 2017, 9:32 am

    I, for one, would never open carry. I don’t want anyone knowing I’m armed. As for the reasoning that a criminal would attack an open carry individual just to gain control of the firearm, I find that nonsense. The court cites no evidence for that opinion other than their belief. I just think open carry unnecessarily alarms non-armed law abiding citizens and possibly urges them to contact law enforcement to report such an incident. I do believe that a criminal attempting an armed assault on a business would target the open carry individual first to eliminate a threat, but that’s just my belief. Finally I think whether you carry openly or concealed they state should have no say in it. The 2nd amendment doesn’t discriminate and neither should the government.

  • AL-G March 10, 2017, 9:22 am

    I’m a gun-guy but open carry is not the way to go!
    Imagine an old man wearing a gun (Open Carry) on his hip and he’s standing in line at a Wal-Mart or even a McDonald’s.
    Now imagine some “Ghetto” punk standing behind, him reaching forward to take the old man’s gun! He either uses the gun to rob the place, shoot someone or he just wants to steal the weapon (Because he cannot buy one legally)… I’m glad that law did not pass!

    • Capn Stefano March 10, 2017, 3:35 pm

      That’s not your decision. I don;t open carry but fully support those who do. And that old guy may be a martial arts instructor with weapon retention training, like me

      Again, the 2nd Amendment means you don’t get to tell me how I can Bear Arms, OR what types of Arms I can own

  • VA mtn MAN March 10, 2017, 9:12 am

    OK, back to concealed for now. Besides, open carry deprives the armed citizen of that priceless expression on the face of an assailant just prior to his (her) consciousness exiting the back of his (her) skull because he (she) assumed you were unarmed.

    • Somerset Frisby March 10, 2017, 4:30 pm

      Good point. Open carry for non-police citizens is a moronic practice. I conceal carry and have permits for two side X side states. Anyone who is not a law enforcement officer and open carries is a complete jackass who wears openly only to intimidate and furthers the Chicken Little lunacy of leftist gun-haters. I agree with the FL court’s reasoning that a person open-carrying would be the first target of a nutjob out to do damage to people. The fool open-carrying could also be the catalyst to set off one of those nutjobs. A non-law enforcement person open-carrying is probably a bully and no doubt has the mind set to intimidate those around him, or her. I heartily agree with VA mtn MAN; the element of surprise for a perpetrator is a great tactic.

      • Mack March 10, 2017, 3:23 pm

        Soooo Mr. Frisbee, in your corner of the gun universe, its a bad idea for all who are NOT in law enforcement to open-carry. Does your ill-conceived logic also apply to SECURITY GUARDS, ARMORED TRUCK DRIVERS, PROCESS SERVERS, PRIVATE DETECTIVES, & BODY GUARDS, as well? Not all of these people are in Law Enforcement or “nut-jobs”, as you would suggest. What about the otherwise law-abiding CCW permit holder who accidentally flashes or “prints” his/her weapon, only to be seen by a bed-wetter like yourself? Would your snobbish opinion be to lock them up?

  • Mark Severino March 10, 2017, 9:11 am

    the “High and Mighty” decide the Definition of words, Again?! 30yrs in law enforcement tells me Coward Criminals WOULD NOT specifically target someone openly carrying a gun, but instead a weaker, unarmed subject. the operated word being ‘coward’!
    these Arrogant, pin head judges ALL carry guns so why shouldnt the rest of law abiding citizens anyway they want?

  • Mark Are March 10, 2017, 8:57 am

    Sounds like the Florida “supreme” court is a bunch of supreme idiots. Apparently they don’t understand the words…SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. But that isn’t news, is it? Let’s just add that to this list…And I bet concealed carry permits are free in Florida, right? Yea, sure. So grovel at their feet and PAY for your so called right to bear arms at THEIR discretion. Heck and the guy arrested didn’t even intend to carry openly. What happened to INTENT. And who was damaged by his so called infraction?
    The NEW Second Amendment of the amended US Bill of Rights… (sorry, we no longer follow “proper procedure” for amending these pain in the ass listed rights)
    A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed EXCEPT:
    You are buying the firearms for yourself.
    EXCEPT: you are under indictment or information for a felony for which the judge could imprison you for more then one year.
    EXCEPT: you have been convicted of a felony or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more then one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation.
    EXCEPT: you are a fugitive from “justice”
    EXCEPT: you are an “unlawful” user of or addicted to marijuana or any depressant,stimulant, narcotic drug or any other controlled substance.
    EXCEPT: you have ever been “adjudicated” mentally defective or you have ever been committed to a mental institution.
    EXCEPT: you were dishonorably discharged from the armed forces.
    EXCEPT: you are subject to a restraining order restraining you from harassing, stalking or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner.
    EXCEPT: you have been convicted in a court of a MISDEMEANOR crime of domestic violence.
    EXCEPT: you have ever renounced your “United States” citizenship
    EXCEPT: you are an illegal alien
    EXCEPT: the firearm fires more then one round with the pull of the trigger
    EXCEPT: the firearms doesn’t have a vertical grip attached if it is a pistol
    EXCEPT: the barrel on a shotgun is not shorter then 18″
    EXCEPT: for sound suppressors
    EXCEPT: the rifle has a barrel no shorter then 16″. (It used to be 18″, but we accidentally sold some 16″ carbines to the public so we had to fix this and so we shortened the length to 16″ to cover our screw up.)
    EXCEPT: if it is a pistol there is no shoulder stock attached.
    EXCEPT: carrying it out in the open in Florida and some other man made so called “states”.
    EXCEPT EXCEPT EXCEPT…stay tuned for updated version. We the psychopaths who own you have now concluded that this new 2nd amendment is in force and effect and that you have no rights guaranteed by ANYTHING UNLESS you are in the “big club” which of course you are NOT. So screw your rights. We are in control of your television set, your phone, your computer, your air, your water and especially your pretend rights. Oh, and by the way, just in case you are wondering…we have ENFORCERS for this who are willing to shoot your children in the back, your wife in the head, burn down your church with 17 children inside just in case you think we are kidding.
    One other thing…none of these exceptions apply to us. We are allowed to have whatever we want to kill you and maim you any time we want for whatever excuse we want. Just take a look at some of the wonderful things WE get to have by looking up Dillon Aero on YouTube.

  • Ed Fickey March 10, 2017, 8:57 am

    Inadvertent exposure of a concealed carry firearm should not have been prosecuted. Open carry has two obvious effects – one is to point out that someone is armed, the other is to – in the case of any who would take it this way – challenge someone. If I am in a bank and bank robbers come in quietly, and they look around before deciding to unleash their assault – reckon they may look to see if anyone is carrying and unleash there first (or put that in ANY other situation, maybe target is the right word). Logical enough. Without a piece hanging on your belt in full view, what threat are you to anyone other than your ugly mug?
    Tuck them away, unless you are on a range/hunting, or on the job (blue), no need. What is the perplexing issue that concerns you? Do you need a big diesel pick-up with fat tires and a loud muffler too? Hair plugs? Really mean looking tattoos?

  • Daniel March 10, 2017, 8:44 am

    You certainly don’t see criminals targeting plainclothes police who are open carrying….the reasoning used in the decision is BOGUS

  • Jack Brazzon March 10, 2017, 7:57 am

    Open carry has been in Ohio for 150 yrs. plus. I think it is a great deterrent to crime , when a person see ‘s the weapon makes them think twice. If they do attack Ohio has a limited stand your ground law which states you must retreat to your home but if you are cornered or pinned down you can use deadly force. There for a criminal tring to get your weapon is an immint danger to your life and again deadly force can be used. Just sayin.

  • T.R. Trundy March 10, 2017, 7:21 am

    The several comments that note that police openly carry and yet are not attacked hold no water. Police are highly and continuously trained, including specifically in maintaining control of their sidearm. Many (most?) uniformed LEO’s are equipped with holsters that are designed to preclude a quick snatch of the firearm by another individual. And any criminal assault against a uniformed officer is more aggressively responded to by fellow officers than a similar assault against a regular citizen. Criminals may not be the brightest bunch, but they know these facts.

    • Doctor Moebius March 10, 2017, 9:31 am

      Unfortunately, T.R., too many cops have displayed power control issues, resulting in the murder of innocent victims (and given most are black suggests a racial component). Cops are just people – so ALL people should be able to carry cops, since you can’t trust them any more than regular people.

    • Mark Are March 10, 2017, 2:07 pm

      LOL! That is such BS. I’ve watched the training of numerous police in numerous locations and frankly most of the gun owners I know are better trained and can shoot a lot better then the police. That is one reason the police quite frequently gang up on the perp and shoot him with multiple guns multiple times. Because they are soooo well trained. What a joke. If I went on a rampage most of the police departments within 100 miles would be easy targets and everyone working for them could be taken out in 60 seconds. Seriously, they are NOT trained worth a crap.

      • Doctor Moebius March 10, 2017, 2:36 pm

        Ignore previous post – has typo

        Unfortunately, T.R., too many cops have displayed power control issues, resulting in the murder of innocent victims (and given most are black suggests a racial component). Cops are just people – so ALL people should be able to carry guns, since you can’t trust them any more than you can regular people.

  • Victor March 10, 2017, 7:20 am

    OK, Can’t that same Theory stand for POLICE? I mean they carry their guns in a Holster so ALL Can see they have a gun. It would be Just as easy for a Criminal to take their gun by sneaking up behind them and taking it out of the holster. Maybe it should be ILLEGAL for Cops to OPEN CARRY as well. As for the Argument that Cops are TRAINED, well most concealed carry people are ALSO Trained, most are EX-Military anyway, as I am. The Florida Supreme Court needs a Good Beat Down by the Law Makers or Governor Scott

    • James March 10, 2017, 9:11 am

      Victor, you are a dumb ass.

      • Mark Are March 10, 2017, 9:12 pm

        Why? What is good for WE THE PEOPLE should be good for our so called PUBLIC SERVANTS. I think that Victor has a point and your ad hominid attack on him just proves how much you fit the description of what you called him.

  • Paul March 10, 2017, 7:19 am

    There are many different scenarios that could be imagined such as those already proposed by commenters here. Whenever a person chooses to strap on a firearm, he/she encumbers him/herself with serious, serious responsibilities. You are now responsible to know the law as it applies to a seemingly infinite number of possible life-threatening scenarios which could face you, and YOU must make split-second decisions as to if and when you are legally justified in using a weapon, and or deadly force. This is a very challenging task for policemen who are trained and expected to handle these kinds of situations daily, let alone a citizen who would rarely encounter a “shoot-don’t’ shoot” scenario in the course of an average day. The reality is, a bad shooting will ruin the rest of your life;not to mention the civil litigation which is likely to arise , even if you’re found “not guilty” of a crime, such as 2nd Degree Murder. When I consider how many people have CCW’s, it makes me happy. It’s a large undercover police force. But I sometimes wonder how many gun-toters truly know what they SHOULD know before making the decision to start packing heat. Former LEO…….offered for your sober consideration.

    • Spooky March 10, 2017, 9:54 am

      Well said, choosing to carry is a responsibility that shouldn’t be taken lightly. There are serious consequences for using deadly force. The main issue in Florida (I live here and have a CCW) is if you inadvertently expose your weapon you can be arrested and charged. Good carrying practices should prevent this but sometime it happens. It’s not like most of us walk around in coats or vests to conceal beneath, too damn hot for that.

    • Mark Are March 10, 2017, 9:34 pm

      Boy, you sure make it sound complicated. Let’s see…if someone puts your or someone else in danger using deadly force, you can defend yourself or someone else. See? How simple it is? there are police go through a complete career without ever un-holstering a weapon. I’ve gone 62 years and pulled a gun on someone who ran up to my car where I was unable to get away and threatened to do bodily harm…he backed off. One other time when I was trapped at a stop light and four men tried to strong arm rob me and they backed off when the one that opened up my door was told I was going to blow his guts out if he didn’t tell his buddies to close my other door…most situations can be dealt with by using COMMON SENSE.

  • Pummalo March 10, 2017, 7:00 am

    Prime example of courts legislating from the bench open carry, concealed carry no difference according to the Constitution it says the “right shall not be infringed” period how and when is not any courts privilege to decide!

    • David Siemens March 10, 2017, 7:28 am

      I have the somewhat unusual experience of a primary residence in Florida, and a family residence in Arizona where I spend substantial time each year. In Florida, only Concealed Carry is permitted and I hold a CCW permit. In Arizona, Open Carry is the law of the land. From a personal standpoint, I prefer to carry concealed even when in Arizona. However, I know of no instance where an Arizona bad guy specifically targeted an open carry civilian in an attempt to relieve him/her of their gun. It may have happened, but it isn’t very common. And, there is no way of knowing how many crimes were reconsidered when the bad guy saw a good guy with a gun. I DO KNOW of a Walmart doofus in Florida who THOUGHT he saw a gun concealed on a shopper, and attacked said shopper in an attempt to wrestle it away from the lawful CCW-holder. Doesn’t happen every day, but it does happen.

  • JADWIN JIM March 10, 2017, 6:22 am

    LET ME BETTER UNDERSTAND THIS. CONCEALED CARRY PREVENTS A LARGE NUMBER OF CRIMES AND ONE OF THE REASON IS THE CROOK NEVER KNOWS WHO IS ARMED AND WHO IS NOT, YET ON THE OTHER HAND A VISIBLE WEAPON INCREASES CRIME BECAUSE THE CROOKS TARGET THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT OPEN CARRY? REALLY!!!!!! THAT DECISION IS RETARDED.

    • Mark Are March 11, 2017, 8:08 am

      Well….what can you expect? Retarded “justices” = retarded decisions.

  • Jim Land March 10, 2017, 6:03 am

    “Open carry diminishes public safety because hypothetical criminals are more likely to target individuals with guns. According to the court, “deranged persons and criminals would be less likely to gain control of firearms in public because concealed firearms — as opposed to openly carried firearms — could not be viewed by ordinary sight.”
    if this true A deranged persons and criminals would Target Police after all they are Human like you & me.

  • Gus Oliver March 10, 2017, 5:58 am

    I carried concealed for years and would never think of open carry. A lot of the people I see that open carry do it to make them look important. We had one real weirdo come in our real estate office with his pistol on his hip along with his sword and trying to create trouble with our tenant. The thought of him with a gun or sword is very disturbing. Furthermore, if armed robbers walk in a bank and see someone with a visiable firearm, a firefight is highly probable which could endanger a lot of people. If it is left concealed, the gun owner can decide if it is necessary to shoot and if so, when to shoot. Surprise is on his side. I just do not see a need to open carry.

    • jorge garcia March 10, 2017, 6:53 am

      I Totally agree, once you open carry you loose the most important item in your survival arsenal, the element of surprise, open carry just makes sense for law enforcement because they are in harms way the minute they walk out in public, and have the need for one less step if the need for a weapon arises, unfortunately for our guys in blue, the pussy laws that have tied their hands in regards to defending themselves have made them nothing less than moving targets, why would you, not being a cop want to be in that position? IMHO, I have carried a weapon since I was 25 years old, am 62 now and have only needed it once, and even then, I did not need to fire, so I think my opinion is worth thinking about.

    • Gary March 10, 2017, 7:10 am

      The decision by the Florida Supreme Court to up hold the ban on open carry is flawed. They say open carry is not a smart thing to do. What would be smart is having the the highest Court in Florida use there intelligence to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. All the rules,regulations and laws to date have NOT stopped CRIMINALS from having a gun. Not one laws on the books has ever stopped a criminal from having a gun or having access to a gun. So Florida Supreme Court if you guys are so smart figure out how to do that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and allow the law-abiding citizen to carry their gun the way they feel they would like to.

    • Robert March 10, 2017, 7:15 am

      “open carry do it to make them look important.”

      Same reason you open post online?

      Thanks for your support of my rights, nice to know because you decide OC is not for you nobody else deserves the right.

      Divided we fall

  • CountryLogic March 10, 2017, 5:51 am

    I guess thats why you hear about criminals attacking police departments because there are a lot of weapons there.

  • Mark March 10, 2017, 5:41 am

    If that’s the logic the judges use then ALL police officers will have to carry concealed as the criminals could see their guns and wrestle them for it public safety will be diminished. I assume we will see police only carrying concealed from this point forward.

  • John E. March 10, 2017, 5:26 am

    Even if open carry were legal, my thoughts on the subject mirror the courts. I find it easy to believe that any criminal intent on mass murder in a public venue would be more likely to first target sources of resistance, (i.e. somebody openly carrying a weapon), than to run away. We’ve all seen how brazen and bold some of these thugs can be, such as attacking armed police officers. Advertising to the bad guys that I’m armed possibly places a target on my own head and that’s a decision I doubt I’d ever make.

    • Gary March 10, 2017, 7:20 am

      But on the other side of the coin if a large amount of people would open carry the CRIMINALS might be deterred they can’t take out everybody. I live in a rural area of Ohio in a small town I open carry all the time and have for some time and have never had a problem to date. Just remember it’s not a gun problem it’s a people problem. I don’t care what laws you have on the books if someone has the intention of hurting other people that they’re going to do so.

  • Jim Raynor March 10, 2017, 4:13 am

    How does this logic apply to the police? Don’t they open carry? By this logic criminals would be actively targeting police to obtain their weapons for decades. How many recorded instances has there been if this happening?

    • Eric March 10, 2017, 6:13 am

      Exactly

    • James Tanner March 10, 2017, 11:58 am

      If you ever watch the news you would know that this has happened an many occasions. Most criminals do not attack police to obtain their firearm simply because they already have a gun, and also because they know that police are trained in the effective use of that firearm, and they have a small army available as backup.
      If you have a shooter that is intent on mass murder, or armed robbery, and he sees that you are wearing a firearm in plain sight he is going to take you out even before you realize his intent. Wake up!

  • BUURGA March 10, 2017, 2:50 am

    This court decision is the poster child for tortured ‘reasoning’.

  • Will Drider March 8, 2017, 12:15 am

    OC Banned in Fl? False. It is allowed but restricted. Florida Statute 790.25 (3) Lawful uses: You can OC to/from the Range, when hunting, fishing, camping, gun shows to name a few.

    Dear Judges, What other Constitutional Right do you have to pay (costs for training to meet State Standard, background check, and CC Permit fees) the Government before you can exercise that Right? Open is carry allowed in Florida at no cost when you are involved in the activites listed in FS 790.25(3). We are further allowed to have loaded firearms in a private conveyance vehicle/boat/plane without cost or a CC Permit. So why are citizens 2ARights infringed when involved in other activities where a CC Permit would bec required?

    Hopefully, the FL Bill on OC will pass this yearn and this bullshit and abuse of power will end.

  • Chuck Roast March 7, 2017, 7:07 pm

    The Justices finding in law that a hypothetical scenario is grounds to violate the 2nd Amendment is about as asinine as the Supreme Court finding there is an actual Constitutional right to destroy a human life based on the preposterous claim that they felt that the “penumbras” of the Constitution emanated such an act as being a right granted ONLY TO WOMEN, by God.
    Impeachment of such oath violators is the only answer.

  • Rollin Shultz March 7, 2017, 5:13 pm

    The example of criminals avoiding burglarizing homes with exterior lights on would be similar enough to do.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend