## Facts

- Dale Norman held a valid Florida concealed-carry license.
- Norman was observed carrying a handgun openly in a holster, fully exposed and not covered by his shirt.
- The State charged Norman with openly carrying a firearm in violation of Fla. Stat. § 790.053 (2012).
- The county court held a jury trial; Norman was found guilty.
- Post-trial, Norman moved to invalidate the statute on constitutional grounds; the court denied relief but certified questions of great public importance to the district court of appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether Florida’s statutory scheme prohibiting open carry while allowing licensed concealed carry violates the Second Amendment (and related state constitutional protections).
2. Whether statutory exceptions to the open-carry prohibition are affirmative defenses or elements the State must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the “brief and open display” exception is unconstitutionally vague, thereby invalidating the open-carry prohibition.

## Decision

- The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed Norman’s conviction.
- The court held Fla. Stat. § 790.053’s general prohibition on open carry is constitutional.
- The court held statutory exceptions to the open-carry prohibition operate as affirmative defenses, not elements of the offense.
- The court declined to decide the vagueness challenge to the “brief and open display” exception because Norman’s conduct did not implicate that exception.

## Legal Principles

- The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, but the right is subject to regulation and is not unlimited.
- A law regulating the manner of bearing arms (open vs. concealed), while leaving available a broad licensing path for public carry, may be evaluated under intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny.
- Under intermediate scrutiny, a prohibition on open carry may be upheld where it reasonably fits important governmental interests such as public safety and crime prevention, and where lawful public carry remains available through a non-discretionary licensing scheme for concealed carry.
- Statutory exceptions to a general criminal prohibition may be treated as affirmative defenses, placing on the defendant the burden to raise and establish the applicability of an exception, rather than requiring the State to negate exceptions as part of its case-in-chief.
- Courts may avoid deciding constitutional challenges to statutory language when the challenged provision is not applicable to the defendant’s conduct.

## Conclusion

Florida’s ban on openly carrying firearms was upheld as a permissible manner regulation consistent with the Second Amendment because Florida broadly permits licensed concealed carry, and the statute’s exceptions were treated as affirmative defenses; the court did not reach a vagueness challenge to an exception that did not apply to Norman’s openly and continuously displayed firearm.


Norman v. State, 159 So. 3d 205 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)