Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

SCOTUS Ignores Words Of Second Amendment – Allows Open Carry Ban To Stand

Written by:

Published on: December 1, 2017

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. – Second Amendment to the US Constitution

On Monday, the US Supreme Court refused to deal with a real Constitutional issue, the right to keep and bear arms.

The State of Florida has unlawfully written a “law” that bans people from keeping and bearing arms in public by open carry and one man, who merely exercised that God-given right is facing the heavy hand of government bureaucrats and pretended legislation against those rights.

The Palm Beach Post reports:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to take up a challenge to a Florida law that bars people from openly carrying firearms in public, ending a case that started nearly six years ago when a man was arrested in St. Lucie County.

The U.S. Supreme Court, as is common, did not explain its reasons for declining to hear the case. But the move effectively let stand a Florida Supreme Court ruling in March that said the open-carry ban did not violate the constitutional right to bear arms.

The plaintiff in the case, Dale Norman, was arrested in February 2012 in Fort Pierce as he openly carried a gun in a holster. Norman, who had a concealed-weapons license, was found guilty of a second-degree misdemeanor, with a judge imposing a $300 fine and court costs, according to court documents.

Backed by the Second Amendment group Florida Carry, Norman challenged the constitutionality of the state’s longstanding ban on openly carrying weapons. But the state’s 4th District Court of Appeal and the Florida Supreme Court ruled against Norman, leading him to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. Norman’s attorneys filed a petition with the US Supreme Court in the matter stating, “The Second Amendment provides in part that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.’ This guarantees not only the right to ‘keep’ arms, such as in one’s house, but also to ‘bear arms,’ which simply means to carry arms without reference to a specific place. When the Framers intended that a provision of the Bill of Rights related to a house, they said so.”

Now, clearly the word “right” is used in the Second Amendment and rights come from our Creator, according to the Declaration of Independence, not the state.

Yet, the state attorneys wrote that people can only keep and bear arms in public in a concealed fashion and only if they have permission from the state.

“This (U.S. Supreme) Court has never held that the Second Amendment protects a right to openly carry firearms in public, and the reasoning set forth in pertinent case law supports the proposition that states fully accommodate the right to bear arms when they make available to responsible, law-abiding citizens some meaningful form of public carry,” the state’s brief said. “That is precisely what Florida has done here. Thus, Florida’s law is valid under any arguably applicable analytical framework.”

This is the problem when those actually dealing with law are trained only in case law and not constitutional law.  They base their arguments on flawed rulings over the course of history rather than arguing from original intent and the exact words used in the Constitution.

Where in the Second Amendment does it say anything about people just having a right to keep and bear arms in their homes?  Where does it say what kind of arms one may keep and bear?  Where does it state government may make law to regulate or restrict the keeping and bearing of said arms (ie. concealed carry permits, banning open carry, etc.)?


This is why the attorneys attempting to argue whether or not open carry is constitutional never, ever, never, ever… did I say never?… argue from the Constitution nor the founding fathers.

These attorneys, through their ignorance, are just as guilty of criminal activity as anyone else who violates the law, maybe more so as they do it in the name of the people for dishonest gain, but not in order to protect the rights of the people.

Shame on the Supreme Court for not hearing Norman’s case!

Become an insider!

Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.

Don't forget to like on Facebook and Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of

Trending on The Sons of Liberty Media

Newsletter SignupStay up to date on the latest news: Sign up for the Sons of Liberty newsletter!

Stay up to date on the latest news: Sign up for the Sons of Liberty newsletter!