Amicus Brief: Norman v. State of Florida

Everytown for Gun Safety filed this amicus brief in the Florida Supreme Court to demonstrate that Florida’s public-carry law – which permits concealed carry, but not open carry – does not violate the constitutional right to bear arms and is consistent with centuries of Anglo-American tradition.

Open PDF

In the Supreme Court of Florida __________________________________________________________________
CASE NO. SC15-650
__________________________________________________________________
DALE NORMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
_____________________________
ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT (NO. 4D12-3525)
____________________________
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY
IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
____________________________
GLENN BURHANS, JR.
(Fl. Bar No. 0605867)
STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER
ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A.
106 East College Avenue – Suite 720
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(850) 329-4850
[email protected]
DEEPAK GUPTA*
JONATHAN E. TAYLOR*
GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
1735 20th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 888-1741
[email protected]
*admitted pro hac vice
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
Everytown for Gun Safety
February 1, 2016
Filing # 37272476 E-Filed 02/01/2016 05:51:12 PM
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of authorities……………………………………………………………………………………..iv
Introduction and interest of amicus curiae ……………………………………………………… 1
Argument …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2
Florida’s law is a “longstanding” and constitutional regulation under Heller. … 2
A. “Longstanding” laws are deemed constitutional under Heller
because they are consistent with our “historical tradition.” …………….. 3
B. Florida’s law has a centuries-long pedigree in Anglo-American
history and is therefore “longstanding” and constitutional
under Heller. ……………………………………………………………………………. 4
1. English History …………………………………………………………………….. 4
Beginning in 1328, England broadly restricts public carry
in populated areas. …………………………………………………………… 4
In the 17th and 18th centuries, English authorities
interpret the Statute of Northampton to restrict public
carry in populated areas. …………………………………………………… 6
The law’s narrow exceptions confirm this general publiccarry
prohibition………………………………………………………………. 8
The Statute of Northampton’s public-carry restriction
remains fully in effect following the English Bill of
Rights of 1689……………………………………………………………….. 10
2. Founding-Era American History……………………………………………. 11
The colonies begin adopting England’s tradition of
regulating public carry. …………………………………………………… 11
Many States enact laws mirroring the Statute of
Northampton both before and after the Constitution’s
adoption………………………………………………………………………… 11
3. Early-19th-Century American History……………………………………. 14
Many States enact a variant of the Statute of
Northampton, allowing public carry with “reasonable
cause to fear an assault.”…………………………………………………. 14
ii
Taking a different approach, most southern States elect to
permit public carry, but only if the weapon is not
concealed………………………………………………………………………. 16
4. Mid-to-Late-19th-Century American History………………………….. 17
States continue to restrict public carry both before and
after the 14th Amendment’s ratification……………………………. 17
Beginning immediately after the 14th Amendment’s
ratification, many legislatures enact laws banning public
carry in populated areas. …………………………………………………. 19
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 20
Appendix of historical laws………………………………………………………………….. App. 1
English statutes and royal proclamations …………………………………………… App. 1
13 Edw. 1, 102 (1285)………………………………………………………………… App. 1
7 Edw. 2, 170 (1313)………………………………………………………………….. App. 2
Statute of Northampton, 2 Edw. 3, 258, ch. 3 (1328)………………………. App. 3
25 Edw. 3, 320, ch. 2, § 13 (1350) ……………………………………………….. App. 4
34 Edw. 3, 364, ch. 1 (1360) ……………………………………………………… App. 10
7 Ric. 2, 35, ch. 13 (1383)…………………………………………………………. App. 12
20 Ric. 2, 93, ch. 1 (1396)…………………………………………………………. App. 15
Calendar of the Close Rolls, Henry IV (Jan. 30, 1409)………………….. App. 17
Early American enactments of the Statute of Northampton………………… App. 19
1694 Mass. Laws 12, no. 6 ………………………………………………………… App. 19
1786 Va. Laws 33, ch. 21 ………………………………………………………….. App. 22
1792 N.C. Laws 60, ch. 3 ………………………………………………………….. App. 23
1795 Mass. Laws 436, ch. 2 ………………………………………………………. App. 27
1801 Tenn. Laws 710, § 6 …………………………………………………………. App. 28
1821 Me. Laws 285, ch. 76, § 1 …………………………………………………. App. 29
1852 Del. Laws 330, ch. 97, § 13……………………………………………….. App. 35
1859 N.M. Laws 94, § 2……………………………………………………………. App. 43
ii
Other colonial-era American laws…………………………………………………… App. 48
1686 N.J. Laws 289, ch. 9 …………………………………………………………. App. 48
American good-cause variants of the Statute of Northampton…………….. App. 50
1836 Mass. Laws 750, § 16……………………………………………………….. App. 50
1838 Wisc. Laws 381, § 16 ……………………………………………………….. App. 54
1841 Me. Laws 709, ch. 169, § 16 ……………………………………………… App. 55
1846 Mich. Laws 690, ch. 162, § 16 …………………………………………… App. 56
1847 Va. Laws 127, ch. 14, § 16 ………………………………………………… App. 59
1851 Minn. Laws 526, ch. 112, § 18…………………………………………… App. 62
1853 Or. Laws 218, ch. 16, § 17 ………………………………………………… App. 66
1861 Pa. Laws 248, 250, § 6 ……………………………………………………… App. 69
1870 W. Va. Laws 702, ch. 153, § 8 …………………………………………… App. 88
1871 Tex. Laws 1322, art. 6512 …………………………………………………. App. 91
1873 Minn. Laws. 1025, § 17…………………………………………………….. App. 94
1891 W. Va. Laws 915, ch. 148, § 7 …………………………………………… App. 95
Southern “lash and pistol” laws………………………………………………………. App. 97
1854 Ala. Laws 588, § 3272………………………………………………………. App. 97
1861 Ga. Laws 859, § 4413……………………………………………………… App. 101
Post-Civil-War enactments of Northampton-style laws……………………. App. 102
1869 N.M. Laws 312, § 1………………………………………………………… App. 102
1870 S.C. Laws 403, no. 288, § 4……………………………………………… App. 105
1871 Tenn. Laws 81, ch. 90, § 1 ………………………………………………. App. 108
1875 Wyo. Laws 352, ch. 52, § 1……………………………………………… App. 109
1881 Ark. Laws 490, ch. 53, § 1907 …………………………………………. App. 110
1889 Ariz. Laws 16, ch. 13, § 1………………………………………………… App. 111
1889 Idaho Laws 23, § 1 …………………………………………………………. App. 112
1901 Mich. Laws 687, § 8……………………………………………………….. App. 113
1909 Tex. Laws 105 ……………………………………………………………….. App. 115
iii
American municipal ordinances……………………………………………………. App. 116
Nebraska City, Neb., Ordinance no. 7 (1872)…………………………….. App. 116
Nashville, Tenn., Ordinance ch. 108 (1873) ………………………………. App. 117
Los Angeles, Cal., Ordinance nos. 35-36 (1878) ………………………… App. 119
Salina, Kan., Ordinance no. 268 (1879)…………………………………….. App. 120
La Crosse, Wis., Ordinance no. 14, § 15 (1880) ………………………… App. 121
Syracuse, N.Y., Ordinances ch. 27 (1885) …………………………………. App. 122
Dallas, Tex., Ordinance (1887) ………………………………………………… App. 123
Checotah, Okla., Ordinance no. 11 (1890)…………………………………. App. 124
New Haven, Conn., Ordinances § 192 (1890)…………………………….. App. 125
Rawlins, Wyo., Rev. Ordinances art. 7 (1893)……………………………. App. 126
Wichita, Kan., Ordinance no. 1641 (1899) ………………………………… App. 128
McKinney, Tex., Ordinance no. 20 (1899) ………………………………… App. 130
San Antonio, Tex., Ordinance ch. 10 (1899)………………………………. App. 131
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Chune v. Piott,
80 Eng. Rep. 1161 (K.B. 1615) …………………………………………………………………. 6
District of Columbia v. Heller,
554 U.S. 570 (2008)…………………………………………………………………. 2, 3, 4, 6, 10
Fyock v. Sunnyvale,
779 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2015) …………………………………………………………………….. 3
Heller v. District of Columbia,
670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011)……………………………………………………………… 2, 4
Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco,
746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014) …………………………………………………………………….. 3
King v. Hutchinson,
168 Eng. Rep. 273 (1784)……………………………………………………………………….. 12
McDonald v. City of Chicago,
561 U.S. 742 (2010)……………………………………………………………………………….. 17
National Rifle Association of America, Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives,
700 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 2012) …………………………………………………………………….. 4
Payton v. New York,
445 U.S. 573 (1980)…………………………………………………………………………………. 6
Rex v. Sir John Knight,
90 Eng. Rep. 330 (K.B. 1686) …………………………………………………………………… 9
Semayne’s Case,
77 Eng. Rep. 194 (K.B. 1603) …………………………………………………………………… 8
Sir John Knight’s Case,
87 Eng. Rep. 75 (K.B. 1686) …………………………………………………………………….. 9
State v. Barnett,
34 W. Va. 74 (1890) ………………………………………………………………………………. 18
v
United States v. Marzzarella,
614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) ……………………………………………………………………….. 3
United States v. Skoien,
614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) …………………………………………………………………….. 3
American statutes
1686 N.J. Laws 289, ch. 9 ………………………………………………………………………….. 11
1694 Mass. Laws 12, no. 6. ………………………………………………………………………… 12
1786 Va. Laws 33, ch. 21 …………………………………………………………………………… 13
1792 N.C. Laws 60, ch. 3 …………………………………………………………………………… 13
1795 Mass. Laws 436, ch. 2 ……………………………………………………………………….. 12
1801 Tenn. Laws 710, § 6 ………………………………………………………………………….. 13
1821 Me. Laws 285, ch. 76, § 1…………………………………………………………………… 13
1836 Mass. Laws 750, § 16 …………………………………………………………………… 14, 15
1838 Wisc. Laws 381, § 16 ………………………………………………………………………… 15
1841 Me. Laws 709, ch. 169, § 16……………………………………………………………….. 15
1846 Mich. Laws 690, ch. 162, § 16 ……………………………………………………………. 15
1847 Va. Laws 127, ch. 14, § 16 ……………………………………………………………. 15, 16
1851 Minn. Laws 526, ch. 112, § 18 ……………………………………………………………. 15
1852 Del. Laws 330, ch. 97, § 13 ………………………………………………………………… 13
1853 Or. Laws 218, ch. 16, § 17………………………………………………………………….. 15
1854 Ala. Laws 588, § 3272……………………………………………………………………….. 16
1859 N.M. Laws 94, § 2 …………………………………………………………………………….. 18
1861 Ga. Laws 859, § 4413 ………………………………………………………………………… 16
1869 N.M. Laws 312, § 1 …………………………………………………………………………… 19
1870 S.C. Laws 403, no. 288, § 4………………………………………………………………… 16
vi
1870 W. Va. Laws 702, ch. 153, § 8 ……………………………………………………………. 18
1871 Tenn. Laws 81, ch. 90, § 1………………………………………………………………….. 17
1871 Tex. Laws 1322, art. 6512 ………………………………………………………………….. 19
1873 Minn. Laws. 1025, § 17 ……………………………………………………………………… 16
1875 Wyo. Laws 352, ch. 52, § 1 ………………………………………………………………… 19
1881 Ark. Laws 490, ch. 53, § 1907…………………………………………………………….. 17
1889 Ariz. Laws 16, ch. 13, § 1…………………………………………………………………… 19
1889 Idaho Laws 23, § 1…………………………………………………………………………….. 19
1891 W. Va. Laws 915, ch. 148, § 7 ……………………………………………………………. 18
1901 Mich. Laws 687, § 8 ………………………………………………………………………….. 19
1909 Tex. Laws 105 ………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
American municipal ordinances
Checotah, Okla., Ordinance no. 11 (1890)……………………………………………………. 20
Dallas, Tex., Ordinance (1887)……………………………………………………………………. 20
La Crosse, Wis., Ordinance no. 14 (1880) ……………………………………………………. 20
Los Angeles, Cal., Ordinance nos. 35-36 (1878) …………………………………………… 20
McKinney, Tex., Ordinance no. 20 (1899)……………………………………………………. 20
Nashville, Tenn., Ordinance ch. 108 (1873)………………………………………………….. 20
Nebraska City, Neb., Ordinance no. 7 (1872) ……………………………………………….. 20
New Haven, Conn., Ordinances § 192 (1890)……………………………………………….. 20
Rawlins, Wyo., Rev. Ordinances art. 7 (1893)………………………………………………. 20
Salina, Kan., Ordinance no. 268 (1879) ……………………………………………………….. 20
San Antonio, Tex., Ordinance ch. 10 (1899)…………………………………………………. 20
Syracuse, N.Y., Ordinances ch. 27 (1885) ……………………………………………………. 20
Wichita, Kan., Ordinance no. 1641 (1899)……………………………………………………. 20
vii
English statutes and royal proclamations
Statute of Northampton, 2 Edw. 3, 258, ch. 3 (1328)……………………………………….. 4
25 Edw. 3, 320, ch. 2, § 13 (1351)…………………………………………………………………. 5
34 Edw. 3, 364, ch. 1 (1360)……………………………………………………………………….. 14
7 Ric. 2, 35, ch. 13 (1383) ……………………………………………………………………………. 4
20 Ric. 2, 93, ch. 1 (1396) ……………………………………………………………………………. 4
Calendar of the Close Rolls, Henry IV (Jan. 30, 1409)…………………………………… 10
English Bill of Rights of 1689, 1 W. & M. st. 2. c. 2 ……………………………………… 10
Books and articles
Joel Prentiss Bishop, Commentaries on the Law of Statutory Crimes
(1873)…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12
William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1769) ………… 6, 8, 10
Joseph Blocher, Firearm Localism, 123 Yale L.J. 82 (2013)…………………………… 20
John Bond, A Compleat Guide for Justices of the Peace (1707)………………………. 12
John Carpenter & Richard Whitington, Liber Albus: The White Book of
the City of London (1419) (1861 reprint)…………………………………………………… 10
Patrick J. Charles, The Faces of the Second Amendment Outside the
Home, 60 Clev. St. L. Rev. 1 (2012) ……………………………………………… 4, 5, 9, 12
Patrick J. Charles, The Statute of Northampton by the Late Eighteenth
Century, 41 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1695 (2012) ……………………………………………….. 6
Edward Coke, The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England
(1817 reprint)………………………………………………………………………………………. 6, 8
Saul Cornell, The Right to Carry Firearms Outside of the Home, 39
Fordham Urb. L.J. 1695 (2012)……………………………………………………………….. 15
Clayton E. Cramer, Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic
(1999)……………………………………………………………………………………………… 16, 17
John A. Dunlap, The New York Justice (1815)………………………………………………. 13
viii
James Ewing, A Treatise on the Office & Duty of a Justice of the Peace
(1805)…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 14
Robert Gardiner, The Compleat Constable (1692)…………………………………………. 11
Matthew Hale, History of the Pleas of the Crown (1800)…………………………………. 8
Elisha Hammond, A Practical Treatise; Or an Abridgement of the Law
Appertaining to the Office of Justice of the Peace (1841)……………………………. 15
William Hawkins, A Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown (1721)…………………… 9, 12
John Haywood, A Manual of the Laws of North-Carolina (1814)……………………. 13
John Haywood, The Duty & Authority of Justices of the Peace, in the
State of Tennessee (1810) ……………………………………………………………………….. 13
John Haywood, The Duty and Office of Justices of the Peace, and of
Sheriffs, Coronoers, Constables (1800)…………………………………………………….. 13
Gilbert Hutcheson, Treatise on the Offices of Justice of Peace (1806)……………….. 7
Joseph Keble, An Assistance to the Justices of the Peace, for the Easier
Performance of Their Duty (1683) …………………………………………………………….. 7
William Lambarde, The Duties of Constables, Borsholders, Tythingmen,
and Such Other Low and Lay Ministers of the Peace (1602)…………………………. 7
Aaron Leaming & Jacob Spicer, Grants, Concessions & Original
Constitutions (1881) ………………………………………………………………………………. 13
Jonathan Meltzer, Open Carry for All, 123 Yale L.J. 1486 (2014)…………………… 11
John M. Niles, The Connecticut Civil Officer: In Three Parts (1833)………………. 13
North Riding Record Society, Quarter Sessions Records (1884) ………………………. 7
Frederick Law Olmsted, A Journey in the Back Country (1860) ……………………… 17
Horace V. Redfield, Homicide, North and South (1880) ………………………………… 17
Eric M. Ruben & Saul A. Cornell, Firearm Regionalism and Public
Carry: Placing Southern Antebellum Case Law in Context, 125 Yale
L.J. Forum 121 (Sept. 25, 2015)………………………………………………………………. 16
William Oldnall Russell, A Treatise on Crimes & Misdemeanors (1826)……… 9, 12
ix
Francis Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States
(1846)…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 14
Adam Winkler, Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in
America (2011) ……………………………………………………………………………………… 20
1
INTRODUCTION AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
Everytown for Gun Safety is the nation’s largest gun-violence-prevention
organization. It files this brief to provide the Court with historical materials that
bear on the question whether Florida’s public-carry law—which permits concealed
carry, but not open carry—comports with the constitutional right to bear arms.
1
In answering yes, the court below reached the right result. But in doing so, it
incorrectly subjected the law to heightened scrutiny and relied on the now-vacated
decision in Peruta v. San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2014). Peruta was
premised on a mistaken, incomplete understanding of history, and overlooked a
seven-century Anglo-American tradition of restrictions on public carry.
This brief provides an account of that tradition. For centuries, English law
broadly prohibited anyone from carrying a dangerous weapon in public, beginning
with the Statute of Northampton in 1328, and continuing after the English Bill of
Rights of 1689. This tradition took hold in America in the 17th and 18th centuries,
when several colonies enacted similar restrictions. And it continued into the 19th
century, when many States and municipalities broadly prohibited public carry,
while many others allowed public carry only by those with a good reason to fear
injury. Altogether, by the end of the 19th century, nearly 20 States and many cities
had enacted laws broadly prohibiting public carry, illustrating “how the Second
1 An appendix of historical gun laws accompanies this brief.
2
Amendment was interpreted from immediately after its ratification through the end
of the 19th century.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 605 (2008).
Such a robust historical pedigree is not necessary to satisfy the Second
Amendment, but it is sufficient to do so. Whatever the Amendment’s precise
contours, there can be no doubt that a law that is much more permissive of public
carry than dozens of American laws from the founding era through the 19th
century is consistent with “historical tradition,” id. at 627, and thus constitutional.
ARGUMENT
FLORIDA’S LAW IS A “LONGSTANDING” AND CONSTITUTIONAL REGULATION
UNDER HELLER.
The question in this case is not whether the Second Amendment, which the
Supreme Court held in Heller protects “the right of law-abiding, responsible
citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home,” id. at 635, has any application
outside the home. Rather, it is whether Florida’s public-carry regime is consistent
with the Second Amendment’s protections.
To answer that question, courts have adopted “a two-step approach,” first
asking whether the law “impinges upon a right protected by the Second
Amendment,” and then determining, “if it does,” whether the law “passes muster
under the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny.” See, e.g., Heller v. District
of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244, 1252 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Heller II). Although Florida’s
law would easily satisfy the appropriate level of scrutiny, this brief shows that the
3
analysis should not get that far: This law survives at step one.
A. “Longstanding” laws are deemed constitutional under Heller because
they are consistent with our “historical tradition.”
One way to determine whether a law burdens the Second Amendment right
is to assess the law based on a “historical understanding of the scope of the right,”
Heller, 554 U.S. at 625, and consider whether the law is one of the “prohibitions
that have been historically unprotected,” Jackson v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco,
746 F.3d 953, 960 (9th Cir. 2014). Heller identified several “examples” of such
regulations, including “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the
mentally ill” and “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial
sale of arms,” which are “presum[ed]” not to violate the right because of their
historical acceptance as consistent with its protections. 554 U.S. at 626–27 & n.26.
Such “longstanding” laws, the Supreme Court explained, are treated as traditionbased
“exceptions” by virtue of their “historical justifications.” Id. at 635; see also
Fyock v. Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991, 997 (9th Cir. 2015) (“longstanding prohibitions”
are “traditionally understood to be outside the scope of the Second Amendment”);
United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85, 91 (3d Cir. 2010) (“longstanding
limitations are exceptions to the right to bear arms” under Heller).
So what does it mean to be “longstanding” under Heller? It does not require
that a law “mirror limits that were on the books in 1791.” United States v. Skoien,
614 F.3d 638, 641 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc). To the contrary, laws may qualify as
4
longstanding even if they “cannot boast a precise founding-era analogue,” NRA v.
BATF, 700 F.3d 185, 196 (5th Cir. 2012)—as was the case with “the early 20th
century” regulations deemed longstanding in Heller, Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1253.
But, as we now show, the law in this case is no 20th-century creation; it embodies
a tradition of regulation stretching back seven centuries—and is in fact far more
permissive of public carry than those historical regulations.
B. Florida’s law has a centuries-long pedigree in Anglo-American history
and is therefore “longstanding” and constitutional under Heller.
1. English History
Beginning in 1328, England broadly restricts public carry in populated
areas. The Anglo-American tradition of broadly restricting public carry stretches
back to at least 1328, when England enacted the Statute of Northampton, providing
that “no Man great nor small” shall “go nor ride armed by night nor by day, in
Fairs, Markets, nor in the presence of the Justices or other Ministers, nor in no part
elsewhere.” 2 Edw. 3, 258, ch. 3 (1328) (emphasis added). Shortly thereafter, King
Edward III directed sheriffs and bailiffs to arrest “all those whom [they] shall find
going armed.” Charles, The Faces of the Second Amendment Outside the Home, 60
Clev. St. L. Rev. 1, 13–14 (2012). His successors did so as well. Id. at 16–25.
Over the ensuing decades, England repeatedly reenacted the Statute of
Northampton’s public-carry restriction. See, e.g., 7 Ric. 2, 35, ch. 13 (1383); 20
Ric. 2, 93, ch. 1 (1396). Because this restriction carried misdemeanor penalties,
5
violators were usually required to forfeit their weapons and pay a fine. Id. A
separate law went further, outlawing “rid[ing] armed covertly or secretly with Men
of Arms against any other.” 25 Edw. 3, 320, ch. 2, § 13 (1351). This law had
heavier penalties, id., because it regulated threatening behavior rather than simply
carrying weapons in public, the conduct prohibited by the Statute of Northampton.
By the 16th century, firearms had become increasingly accessible in England,
and the possibility that they would be carried in public had become increasingly
threatening to public safety. To guard against this threat, Queen Elizabeth I in 1579
called for robust enforcement of the Statute of Northampton’s prohibition on
carrying “Daggers, Pistols, and such like, not only in Cities and Towns, [but] in all
parts of the Realm in common high[ways], whereby her Majesty’s good quiet
people, desirous to live in [a] peaceable manner, are in fear and danger of their
lives.” Charles, Faces, 60 Clev. St. L. Rev. at 21 (spelling modernized). The
carrying of “such offensive weapons” (like “Handguns”), she elaborated, and “the
frequent shooting [of] them in and near Cities, Towns corporate, [and] the Suburbs
thereof where [the] great multitude of people do live, reside, and trav[el],” had
caused “great danger” and “many harms [to] ensue.” Id. at 22 (spelling
modernized). Fifteen years later, she reaffirmed that publicly carrying pistols and
daggers—whether “secretly” or in the “open”—was “to the terrour of all people
professing to travel and live peaceably.” Id.
6
In the 17th and 18th centuries, English authorities interpret the Statute of
Northampton to restrict public carry in populated areas. This understanding of
the law—as broadly prohibiting carrying guns in populated public places—
continued into the 17th and 18th centuries. See generally Charles, The Statute of
Northampton by the Late Eighteenth Century, 41 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1695 (2012).
In 1644, for example, Lord Coke—“widely recognized by the American colonists
as the greatest authority of his time on the laws of England,” Payton v. New York,
445 U.S. 573, 593–94 (1980)—described the Statute of Northampton as making it
unlawful “to goe nor ride armed by night nor by day . . . in any place whatsoever.”
Coke, The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England 160 (1817 reprint).
One century later, Blackstone—“the preeminent authority on English law for
the founding generation,” Heller, 554 U.S. at 593–94—described the statute
similarly: “The offence of riding or going armed with dangerous or unusual
weapons is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the
land; and is particularly prohibited by the statute of Northampton.” 4 Blackstone,
Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–49 (1769). In other words, because
carrying a dangerous weapon (such as a firearm) in populated public places
naturally terrified the people, it was a crime against the peace—even if
unaccompanied by a threat, violence, or any additional breach of the peace. See
Chune v. Piott, 80 Eng. Rep. 1161, 1162 (K.B. 1615) (“Without all question, the
7
sheriffe hath power to commit . . . if contrary to the Statute of Northampton, he
sees any one to carry weapons in the high-way, in terrorem populi Regis; he ought
to take him, and arrest him, notwithstanding he doth not break the peace.”).
To carry out the Statute of Northampton’s prohibition, British constables,
magistrates, and justices of the peace were instructed to “Arrest all such persons as
they shall find to carry Daggers or Pistols” publicly. Keble, An Assistance to the
Justices of the Peace, for the Easier Performance of Their Duty 224 (1683). This
mandate was unmistakably broad: “[I]f any person whatsoever . . . shall be so bold
as to go or ride Armed, by night or by day, in Fairs, Markets, or any other
places . . . then any Constable . . . may take such Armor from him for the Kings use,
and may also commit him to the Gaol.” Id.2
Heeding this instruction, one court issued an arrest warrant for a man who
committed “outragious misdemeanours” by going “armed” with “pistolls[] and
other offensive weapons.” Rex v. Harwood, Quarter Sessions at Malton (Oct. 4-5,
1608), reprinted in North Riding Record Society, Quarter Sessions Records 132
(1884). Another sentenced a man to prison because he “went armed under his
garments,” even though he had not threatened anyone and had done so only to
2 See also Lambarde, The Duties of Constables, Borsholders, Tythingmen,
and Such Other Low and Lay Ministers of the Peace 13–14 (1602); 1 Hutcheson,
Treatise on the Offices of Justice of Peace app. I at xlviii (1806) (“A constable
shall arrest any person, not being in his Highness service, who shall be found
wearing naugbuts, or guns, or pistols, of any sort.”).
8
“safeguard . . . his life” after another man had “menaced him.” Coke, Institutes 161.
And a jury convicted a man “for going Armed with a Cutlass Contrary to the
Statute,” for which he was sentenced to two years in prison plus fines. Middlesex
Sessions: Justices’ Working Documents (1751), available at http://bit.ly/1U8OhO7.
The law’s narrow exceptions confirm this general public-carry prohibition.
In addition to its focus on populated public places, the Statute of Northampton was
understood to contain limited exceptions. One important exception was that the
prohibition did not apply inside the home, in keeping with principles of selfdefense
law, which imposed a broad duty to retreat while in public but conferred a
strong right to self-defense at home. Blackstone, 4 Commentaries 185. As Lord
Coke explained, using force at home “is by construction excepted out of this
act[,] . . . for a man’s house is his castle.” Institutes 162. “But [a man] cannot
assemble force,” Coke continued—including by carrying firearms—even “though
he [may] be extremely threatened, to go with him to Church, or market, or any
other place, but that is prohibited by this act.” Id.3 William Hawkins likewise
explained that “a man cannot excuse the wearing [of] such armour in public, by
alleging that such a one threatened him, and he wears it for [his] safety,” but he
3 See also 1 Hale, History of the Pleas of the Crown 547 (1800) (noting that
armed self-defense was permitted at home, but not during “travel, or a journey,”
because of “special protection” accorded “home and dwelling”); Semayne’s Case,
77 Eng. Rep. 194, 195 (K.B. 1603) (“[E]very one may assemble his friends and
neighbors to defend his house against violence: but he cannot assemble them to go
with him to the market, or elsewhere for his safeguard against violence.”).
9
may assemble force “in his own House, against those who threaten to do him any
Violence therein, because a Man’s House is as his Castle.” 1 Hawkins, A Treatise
of the Pleas of the Crown 489, 516 (1721) (1824 reprint); 1 Russell, A Treatise on
Crimes & Misdemeanors 589 (1826) (same in American edition).
4
There were two other important exceptions to the public-carry prohibition: a
narrow (unwritten) exception permitting high-ranking nobles to wear fashionable
swords and walk in public with armed servants, and a narrow (written) exception
for the King’s officers. See Hawkins, Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown 489, 798
(explaining that noblemen were in “no danger of offending against this statute” by
wearing “weapons of fashion, as swords, &c., or privy coats of mail,” or by
“having their usual number of attendants with them for their ornament or defence,”
for that would not “terrify the people”).5
4 A contrary rule—permitting armed self-defense in populated areas, even
though it terrified the public—would have suggested that “the King were not able
or willing to protect his subjects.” Sir John Knight’s Case, 87 Eng. Rep. 75, 76
(K.B. 1686). Hence, the castle doctrine was confined to the home. Tucker,
Blackstone’s Commentaries 225. 5 See also Russell, Treatise on Crimes & Misdemeanors 588–89 (same);
Charles, Faces, 60 Clev. St. L. Rev. at 26 n.123 (citing 18th-century legal
dictionary’s distinction between “go[ing] or rid[ing] armed” and nobleman
“wear[ing] common Armour”); Rex v. Sir John Knight, 90 Eng. Rep. 330 (K.B.
1686) (noting a “general connivance” for “gentlemen” to carry arms in this way,
but declining to dismiss indictment for “walk[ing] about the streets armed with
guns” against a defendant who was later acquitted because he was a King’s
officer); Sir John Knight’s Case, 87 Eng. Rep. at 76 (acquittal); see Charles, Faces,
60 Clev. St. L. Rev. at 28–30 (discussing Sir John Knight’s Case).
10
Putting these exceptions together, “no one” could “carry arms, by day or by
night, except the vadlets of the great lord of the land, carrying the swords of their
masters in their presence, and the serjeants-at-arms [of the royal family],” as well
as those responsible for “saving and maintaining the peace.” Carpenter &
Whitington, Liber Albus: The White Book of the City of London 335 (1419).
6
The Statute of Northampton’s public-carry restriction remains fully in
effect following the English Bill of Rights of 1689. In the late 17th century,
William and Mary enshrined the right to have arms in the Declaration of Rights,
later codified in the English Bill of Rights in 1689. This right—which “has long
been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment,” Heller, 554
U.S. at 593—ensured that subjects “may have arms for their defence suitable to
their conditions, and as allowed by law.” 1 W. & M. st. 2. ch. 2. As Blackstone
later wrote, this right was considered “a public allowance, under due restrictions[,]
of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of
society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.” 1
Blackstone, Commentaries 144. One such “due restriction” was the Statute of
Northampton, which remained in effect after the right to bear arms was codified in
1689. See 4 Blackstone, Commentaries 148–49; Gardiner, The Compleat
6 A 1409 royal order confirms the narrow exception allowing noblemen to
carry swords. It “forb[ade] any man of whatsoever estate or condition to go armed
within [London] and [its] suburbs, or any except lords, knights and esquires with a
sword.” 3 Calendar of the Close Rolls, Henry IV 485 (Jan. 30, 1409).
11
Constable 18 (1692); Middlesex Sessions (reporting conviction under law in 1751).
2. Founding-Era American History
The colonies begin adopting England’s tradition of regulating public carry.
Around the time that the English Bill of Rights was adopted, America began its
own public-carry regulation. The first step was a 1686 New Jersey law that sought
to prevent the “great fear and quarrels” induced by “several persons wearing
swords, daggers, pistols,” and “other unusual or unlawful weapons.” 1686 N.J.
Laws 289, 289–90, ch. 9. To combat this “great abuse,” the law provided that no
person “shall presume privately to wear any pocket pistol” or “other unusual or
unlawful weapons,” and “no planter shall ride or go armed with sword, pistol, or
dagger,” except for “strangers[] travelling” through. Id. This was only the start of a
long history of regulation “limiting gun use for public safety reasons”—especially
public carry in populated areas. Meltzer, Open Carry for All, 123 Yale L.J. 1486,
1523 (2014). As against this history, “there are no examples from the Founding era
of anyone espousing the concept of a general right to carry.” Id.
Many States enact laws mirroring the Statute of Northampton both before
and after the Constitution’s adoption. Eight years after New Jersey’s law,
Massachusetts enacted its own version of the Statute of Northampton, authorizing
justices of the peace to arrest anyone who “shall ride or go armed Offensively
before any of Their Majesties Justices, or other Their Officers or Ministers doing
12
their Office, or elsewhere.” 1694 Mass. Laws 12, no. 6.
By using the word “offensively,” Massachusetts ensured that this prohibition
applied only to “offensive weapons,” as it had in England—not all arms. Constable
oaths of the 18th century described this law with similar language. See Charles,
Faces, 60 Clev. St. L. Rev. at 34 n.178. One treatise, for example, explained that
“[a] person going or riding with offensive Arms may be arrested.” Bond, A
Compleat Guide for Justices of the Peace 181 (1707). Thus, under the law, a
person could publicly carry a hatchet or horsewhip, but not a pistol. See Hawkins,
Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown 665 (explaining that hatchets and horsewhips
were not “offensive weapons,” while “guns, pistols, daggers, and instruments of
war” were); King v. Hutchinson, 168 Eng. Rep. 273, 274 (1784) (explaining that
firearms are offensive weapons).
7
One century later, Massachusetts reenacted its law, this time as a State. 1795
Mass. Laws 436, ch. 2. Because the prohibition had been on the books for so long,
it was “well known to be an offence against law to ride or go with . . . firelocks, or
other dangerous weapons,” as one newspaper later reported, so it “[could not] be
doubted that the vigilant police officers” would arrest violators. Charles, Faces, 60
Clev. St. L. Rev. at 33 n.176 (quoting The Salem Gazette, June 2, 1818, at 4).
Following Massachusetts’s lead, additional States enacted similar laws,
7 American treatises said the same. See Bishop, Commentaries on the Law of
Statutory Crimes 214 (1873); Russell, Treatise on Crimes & Misdemeanors 124.
13
including founding-era statutes in Virginia and North Carolina, and later
enactments in States ranging from Maine to Tennessee. See, e.g., 1786 Va. Laws
33, ch. 21; 1792 N.C. Laws 60, 61, ch. 3; 1801 Tenn. Laws 710, § 6; 1821 Me.
Laws 285, ch. 76, § 1; 1852 Del. Laws 330, 333, ch. 97, § 13. And still other States
incorporated the Statute of Northampton through their common law.
8
To ensure that these laws were enforced, the constables, magistrates, and
justices of the peace in these jurisdictions were required to “arrest all such persons
as in your sight shall ride or go armed.” Haywood, A Manual of the Laws of NorthCarolina
pt. 2 at 40 (1814) (N.C. constable oath). That was because, as constables
were informed, “riding or going armed with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a
crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land, and is
prohibited by statute.” Haywood, The Duty and Office of Justices of the Peace, and
of Sheriffs, Coronoers, Constables 10 (1800); see also Haywood, The Duty &
Authority of Justices of the Peace, in the State of Tennessee 176 (1810).
As with the English statute, prosecution under these laws did not require a
8 See, e.g., A Bill for the Office of Coroner and Constable (Mar. 1, 1682),
reprinted in Grants, Concessions & Original Constitutions 251 (N.J. constable
oath) (“I will endeavour to arrest all such persons, as in my presence, shall ride or
go arm’d offensively.”); Niles, The Connecticut Civil Officer 154 (1833)
(explaining that it was a crime to “go armed offensively,” even without threatening
conduct); Dunlap, The New York Justice 8 (1815); Vermont Telegraph, Feb. 7,
1838 (observing that “[t]he laws of New England” provided a self-defense right “to
individuals, but forb[ade] their going armed for the purpose”). Northampton also
applied in Maryland. Md. Const. of 1776, art. III, § 1.
14
“threat[] [to] any person in particular” or “any particular act of violence.” Ewing, A
Treatise on the Office & Duty of a Justice of the Peace 546 (1805). Nor did these
laws have a self-defense exception: No one could “excuse the wearing [of] such
armor in public, by alleging that such a one threatened him.” Wharton, A Treatise
on the Criminal Law of the United States 527–28 (1846).
3. Early-19th-Century American History
Many States enact a variant of the Statute of Northampton, allowing
public carry with “reasonable cause to fear an assault.” In 1836, Massachusetts
amended its public-carry prohibition to provide a narrow exception for those
having “reasonable cause to fear an assault or other injury, or violence to his
person, or to his family or property.” 1836 Mass. Laws 748, 750, ch. 134, § 16.
Absent such “reasonable cause,” no person could “go armed with a dirk, dagger,
sword, pistol, or other offensive and dangerous weapon.” Id. Those who did so
could be punished by being made to pay sureties for violating the statute, id.; if
they did not do so, they could be imprisoned. See id. at 749.
9
Although the legislature chose to trigger these penalties using a citizencomplaint
mechanism (allowing “any person having reasonable cause to fear an
injury, or breach of the peace” to file a complaint, id. at 750, § 16), the law was
9 Sureties were a form of criminal punishment, akin to a bond. See, e.g.,
Punishments, The Proceedings of the Old Bailey, London’s Central Criminal Court,
1674 to 1913, http://bit.ly/1ED5tC2; 34 Edw. 3, 364, ch. 1 (1360).
15
understood to restrict carrying a firearm in public without good cause. This was so
even when the firearm was not used in any threatening or violent manner: The
legislature placed the restriction in a section entitled “Persons who go armed may
be required to find sureties for the peace,” and expressly cited the State’s previous
enactment of the Statute of Northampton. Id. And elsewhere in the same statute the
legislature separately punished “any person [who] threatened to commit an offence
against the person or property of another.” Id. at 749, § 2. Thus, as one judge
explained in a grand jury charge appearing in the contemporary press in 1837,
there was little doubt at the time that “no person may go armed with a dirk, dagger,
sword, pistol, or other offensive and dangerous weapon, without reasonable cause
to apprehend an assault or violence to his person, family, or property.” Cornell,
The Right to Carry Firearms Outside of the Home, 39 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1695,
1720 & n.134 (2012); see Hammond, A Practical Treatise; Or an Abridgement of
the Law Appertaining to the Office of Justice of the Peace 184–86 (1841).
Within a few decades, many States (all but one outside the slaveholding
South) had adopted nearly identical laws.10 Most copied the Massachusetts law
verbatim—enforcing the public-carry prohibition through a citizen-complaint
provision and permitting a narrow self-defense exception. See, e.g., 1851 Minn.
10 See, e.g., 1838 Wisc. Laws 381, § 16; 1841 Me. Laws 709, ch. 169, § 16;
1846 Mich. Laws 690, 692, ch. 162, § 16; 1847 Va. Laws 127, 129, ch. 14, § 16;
1851 Minn. Laws 526, 528, ch. 112, § 18; 1853 Or. Laws 218, 220, ch. 16, § 17;
1861 Pa. Laws 248, 250, § 6.
16
Laws at 527–28, §§ 2, 17, 18 (section entitled “Persons carrying offensive weapons,
how punished”); 1873 Minn. Laws. 1025, § 17 (same after 14th Amendment’s
ratification). At least one State (Virginia) used slightly different language. 1847 Va.
Laws at 129, § 16 (“If any person shall go armed with any offensive or dangerous
weapon, without reasonable cause to fear an assault or other injury, or violence to
his person, or to his family or property, he may be required to find sureties for
keeping the peace.”). Semantic differences aside, these laws were understood to do
the same thing: broadly restrict public carry, while establishing a limited exception
for those with a particular need for self-defense.11
Taking a different approach, most southern States elect to permit public
carry, but only if the weapon is not concealed. In contrast to the Northampton
model and its good-cause variant, most—but not all—States in the slaveholding
South were more permissive of public carry. They generally allowed white citizens
to carry firearms in public so long as the weapons were not concealed. See, e.g.,
1854 Ala. Laws 588, § 3272; 1861 Ga. Laws 859, § 4413; see generally Cramer,
Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic (1999).
12
11 See Ruben & Cornell, Firearm Regionalism and Public Carry: Placing
Southern Antebellum Case Law in Context, 125 Yale L.J. Forum 121 (Sept. 25,
2015), at 131 n.58, http://bit.ly/1RiqHwv (citing prosecution of a Massachusetts
man for publicly carrying a gun without reasonable cause to fear injury).
12 Not all southern States were so permissive. South Carolina enacted a
Northampton-style law in 1870. 1870 S.C. Laws 403, no. 288, § 4. Tennessee
made it illegal for “any person to publicly or privately carry a . . . pocket pistol or
17
It is perhaps unsurprising that this more permissive regional model emerged
in the South given the widespread concerns about slave rebellions and dramatically
higher levels of interpersonal violence there. Frederick Law Olmsted, for example,
“attributed the need to keep slaves in submission as the reason that ‘every white
stripling in the South may carry a dirk-knife in his pocket, and play with a revolver
before he has learned to swim.’” Id. at 21 (quoting Olmsted, A Journey in the Back
Country 447 (1860)); cf. McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 844 (2010)
(Thomas, J., concurring) (“[I]t is difficult to overstate the extent to which fear of a
slave uprising gripped slaveholders and dictated the acts of Southern legislatures.”).
And historians agree that “the South was substantially more violent than the North.”
Cramer, Concealed Weapon Laws 18. One southern social scientist, who was “the
first person to explore the issue of Southern violence in depth,” undertook an
exhaustive study of homicide rates in the 19th century and concluded that the rate
in southern states was 18 times the rate in New England, and was “greater than any
country on earth the population of which is rated as civilized.” Redfield, Homicide,
North and South vii, 10, 13 (1880) (2000 reprint).
4. Mid-to-Late-19th-Century American History
States continue to restrict public carry both before and after the 14th

revolver other than an army pistol.” 1871 Tenn. Laws 81, ch. 90, § 1. And
Arkansas did similarly, while permitting “carrying any weapon when upon a
journey, or upon [one’s] own premises.” 1881 Ark. Laws 490, ch. 53, § 1907.
18
Amendment’s ratification. As America entered the second half of the 19th century,
additional jurisdictions began enacting laws broadly restricting public carry, often
subject to limited self-defense exceptions. Before the Civil War, New Mexico
passed An Act Prohibiting The Carrying Of Weapons, Concealed Or Otherwise,
making it unlawful for “any person [to] carry about his person, either concealed or
otherwise, any deadly weapon,” and requiring repeat offenders to serve a jail term
“of not less than three months.” 1859 N.M. Laws 94, § 2.
After the Civil War, several other States enacted similar prohibitions
notwithstanding the recent passage of the 14th Amendment. West Virginia and
Texas enacted laws that broadly prohibited public carry without good cause. West
Virginia’s law made clear that “[i]f any person go armed with a deadly or
dangerous weapon, without reasonable cause to fear violence to his person, family,
or property, he may be required to give a recognizance.” 1870 W. Va. Laws 702,
703, ch. 153, § 8.
13 Courts construed this self-defense exception narrowly to
require specific evidence of a concrete, serious threat. See, e.g., State v. Barnett, 34
W. Va. 74 (1890). Texas’s law contained a similarly circumscribed exception,
barring anyone not acting in “lawful defense of the state” (“as a militiaman” or
13 A later version reaffirmed the law’s breadth by clarifying that it didn’t
“prevent any person from keeping or carrying about his dwelling house or
premises, any such revolver or other pistol, or from carrying the same from the
place of purchase to his dwelling house, or from his dwelling house to any place
where repairing is done, to have it repaired and back again.” 1891 W. Va. Laws
915, 915–16, ch. 148, § 7. Violators could be fined or jailed. Id.
19
“policeman”) from “carrying on or about his person … any pistol” without
“reasonable grounds for fearing an unlawful attack on his person” that was
“immediate and pressing.” 1871 Tex. Laws 1322, art. 6512.
Beginning immediately after the 14th Amendment’s ratification, many
legislatures enact laws banning public carry in populated areas. Starting with
New Mexico in 1869, many legislatures enacted Northampton-style prohibitions
on public carry in cities and other populated areas. New Mexico made it “unlawful
for any person to carry deadly weapons, either concealed or otherwise, on or about
their persons within any of the settlements of this Territory,” while providing a
narrow self-defense exception. 1869 N.M. Laws 312, Deadly Weapons Act of 1869,
§ 1. Violators could serve up to 50 days in jail. Id. § 3. Wyoming prohibited
carrying firearms “concealed or openly” “within the limits of any city, town or
village.” 1875 Wyo. Laws 352, ch. 52, § 1. Idaho made it unlawful “to carry,
exhibit or flourish any … pistol, gun or other-deadly weapons, within the limits or
confines of any city, town or village or in any public assembly.” 1889 Idaho Laws
23, § 1. Arizona banned “any person within any settlement, town, village or city
within this Territory” from “carry[ing] on or about his person, saddle, or in his
saddlebags, any pistol.” 1889 Ariz. Laws 16, ch. 13, § 1. And, at the turn of the
century, Texas and Michigan granted cities the power to “prohibit and restrain the
carrying of pistols.” 1909 Tex. Laws 105; see 1901 Mich. Laws 687, § 8.
20
By this time, many cities had imposed such public-carry bans for decades.
14
“A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas, in 1873,” for example, “would have seen
signs declaring, ‘LEAVE YOUR REVOLVERS AT POLICE HEADQUARTERS, AND GET A
CHECK.’” Winkler, Gunfight 165 (2011). Dodge City was no different. A sign read:
“THE CARRYING OF FIREARMS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.” Id. Even in Tombstone,
Arizona, people “could not lawfully bring their firearms past city limits. In fact, the
famed shootout at Tombstone’s O.K. Corral was sparked in part by Wyatt Earp
pistol-whipping Tom McLaury for violating Tombstone’s gun control laws.”
Blocher, Firearm Localism, 123 Yale L.J. 82, 84 (2013).
* * *
Florida law gives any qualified person the right, upon demand, to carry a
concealed firearm in public. Given the seven-century Anglo-American tradition of
restrictions on the public carry of firearms, Florida’s law does not even implicate
the Second Amendment—let alone violate it.
CONCLUSION
This Court should affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
14 See, e.g., Nebraska City, Neb., Ordinance no. 7 (1872); Nashville, Tenn.,
Ordinance ch. 108 (1873); Los Angeles, Cal., Ordinance nos. 35–36 (1878); Salina,
Kan., Ordinance no. 268 (1879); La Crosse, Wis., Ordinance no. 14, § 15 (1880);
Syracuse, N.Y., Ordinances ch. 27 (1885); Dallas, Tex., Ordinance (1887); New
Haven, Conn., Ordinances § 192 (1890); Checotah, Okla., Ordinance no. 11
(1890); Rawlins, Wyo., Ordinances art. 7 (1893); Wichita, Kan., Ordinance no.
1641 (1899); McKinney, Tex., Ordinance no. 20 (1899); San Antonio, Tex.,
Ordinance ch. 10 (1899).
21
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Glenn Burhans, Jr.
GLENN BURHANS, JR.
(Fl. Bar No. 0605867)
STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER
ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A.
106 East College Avenue – Suite 720
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(850) 329-4850
[email protected]
DEEPAK GUPTA*
JONATHAN E. TAYLOR*
GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
1735 20th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 888-1741
[email protected]
*admitted pro hac vice
February 1, 2016 Counsel for Amicus Curiae
Everytown for Gun Safety
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 1, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing
Brief of Amicus Curiae Everytown for Gun Safety in Support of Respondent with
the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Florida using the Florida Courts e-Filing Portal.
All participants will be served through the Portal.
/s/ Glenn Burhans, Jr,
Glenn Burhans, Jr.
CERTIFICATE OF FONT COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that the size and style of type used in this brief is 14-point
Times New Roman, in compliance with Fla. R. App. 9.210(a)(2).
/s/ Glenn Burhans, Jr,
Glenn Burhans, Jr.