Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Next National Firearms Law Seminar set for Phoenix, May 2009 | Main | HELLER WIN! »

FLA court delays challenge to parking lot self defense

Posted by David Hardy · 25 June 2008 08:36 PM

Story here. Florida enacted a requirement that employers allow CCW permittees to leave firearms in a locked car in their parking lots, the Chamber of Commerce filed a challenge, and the judge ruled that he had some other, more serious matters, to attend to, come back in July.

The mystery to me is: it's a federal suit. Where's the federal issue? The only thing the story discusses is a claim that, since it only applies to businesses that have at least one CCW licensed employee, it's somehow hard to determine whether you are covered, that makes it "irrational" and thus unconstitutional. As the saying goes, I hope they didn't take that case on a contingency.

Hat tip to reader Jack Anderson.

· State legislation

5 Comments | Leave a comment

Gene Hoffman | June 25, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply

I think that there is an OSHA pre-emption claim by the businesses and hence the attempt to put it into Federal Court. The funny thing is that that may be a bad place to have it in 24 hours...

-Gene

dad29 | June 26, 2008 7:12 AM | Reply

I, too, think the judge wanted to see the Heller opinion so that he could proceed based on the language therein.

K-Romulus | June 26, 2008 7:24 AM | Reply

I think they are going for the "OSHA conflict" argument to claim federal jurisdiction.

Assman | June 26, 2008 8:18 AM | Reply

This just in: according to SCOTUSBlog, Heller has been affirmed in a 5-4 decision. Opinion not posted yet.

Only one majority opinion, written by Scalia as suspected, and two dissenting. Breyer, Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg dissented.

I have to say that I'm shocked it wasn't a 6-3 or even 7-2 in favor of the individual right, with differing concurrences about the scope of the Amendment.

Anonymous | June 26, 2008 8:30 AM | Reply

Opinion here (PDF).

Leave a comment