## Facts

- Florida law made it a second-degree misdemeanor to openly carry a firearm in public, subject to specified exceptions, while generally allowing public carry only if the firearm was concealed and the person held a concealed-carry license.
- Dale Lee Norman had a Florida license to carry a concealed firearm.
- Norman was stopped on a public sidewalk in Fort Pierce while carrying a handgun holstered at his hip and visible (not covered by clothing).
- The State charged Norman with openly carrying a weapon in violation of Florida’s open-carry prohibition.
- Norman moved to dismiss, arguing the open-carry ban violated the Second Amendment and the Florida Constitution’s right-to-bear-arms provision and that strict scrutiny should apply.
- The trial court denied the motion; a jury convicted Norman.
- The trial court certified constitutional questions to the district court, which upheld the statute using intermediate scrutiny; the Florida Supreme Court accepted review.

## Issues

1. Whether Florida’s prohibition on openly carrying a firearm in public violates the Second Amendment when the state generally permits licensed concealed carry.
2. Whether the prohibition violates the Florida Constitution’s right-to-bear-arms provision, given the Legislature’s authority to regulate the manner of bearing arms.
3. What level of constitutional scrutiny applies to a ban on open carry that leaves licensed concealed carry broadly available.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the decision upholding the open-carry prohibition and left Norman’s conviction intact.
- The court held the statute did not violate the Second Amendment because it regulated the manner of public carry rather than imposing a complete ban on carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home.
- The court held the statute did not violate the Florida Constitution because the state constitutional provision permits legislative regulation of the manner of bearing arms.
- The court applied intermediate scrutiny, concluding the restriction was substantially related to the State’s important interest in public safety and public order.
- The court relied on the existence of a “shall-issue” concealed-carry licensing system that allows eligible individuals to carry handguns in public in a concealed manner.

## Legal Principles

- A prohibition on open carry may be treated as a regulation of the manner of bearing arms, not a destruction of the right, when the jurisdiction generally allows public carry through an accessible concealed-carry licensing regime.
- When a law burdens but does not eliminate the ability of law-abiding persons to carry firearms for self-defense outside the home, intermediate scrutiny may apply rather than strict scrutiny.
- Under intermediate scrutiny, the government must show the regulation is substantially related to an important governmental objective; public safety and public order qualify as important objectives in firearms regulation.
- A state constitutional right-to-bear-arms provision may expressly permit legislative regulation of the manner of bearing arms, supporting limits on open carry that preserve other avenues for lawful carry.

## Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court upheld Florida’s open-carry ban as a permissible manner regulation under intermediate scrutiny, emphasizing that broad “shall-issue” concealed-carry licensing preserves meaningful public self-defense while advancing the State’s public-safety objectives.


Norman v. State, 215 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 2017)