|Case||Primary Issue Description||Status|
|Pretzer v. Swearingen (FDLE)||Class Acton Case - Since March of 2018 FDLE has refused to comply with the background check data correction time limits or issue the conditional nonapproval and conditional approval numbers that are required by state law. Instead, FDLE illegally started using a new “Decision Pending” status to indefinitely suspend the right to keep arms of tens of thousands of Floridians.||Ongoing|
|Caranna v. Swearingen (FDLE)||Class Acton Case - Florida CWFL holders and law enforcement officers are exempt from all FDLE pre-purchase background check fees. FDLE has no authority to tax these firearm transfers but is doing so anyway.||Ongoing|
|Florida Carry v. Miami Beach||Illegal gunpoint arrest/detention of peaceful openly carrying fishermen at a Florida Carry event.||Ongoing|
|Guedes v. BATFE||Federal Bump Stock Ban Challenge||Ongoing|
|Florida Carry v. Thrasher (FSU II)||FSU enacted new regulations prohibition ammunition while the FSU I case was ongoing.||Ongoing|
|Florida Carry v. Broward County||1) Preemption and constitutional challenge of county's ordinances regulating firearm sales, possession, carry, and use. Filed 2014, Won 2020
2) County Appealed
|1) Victory - Order declaring ordinances invalid and awarding damages.
2) On appeal
|Case||Primary Issue Description||Status|
|Bretherick v. State, 170 So. 3d 766 (Fla. 2015)
See: Love v. State, 286 So. 3d 177, 180 (Fla. 2019)
|Florida Carry Amicus to Florida Supreme Court on Burden of Proof in Defensive Immunity Hearings.||Law Changed - The state now bears the burden of proof in pre-tiral immunity hearings.|
|Florida Carry v. UF, 180 So. 3d 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)||Preemption and constitutional challenge of university's policies regulating firearms possession in private vehicles and in the home. Filed Jan 10th, 2014||Regulation Changed as to vehicles, Home based challenge needs to be based on an as applied challenge.|
|Norman v. State, 215 So. 3d 18, 21 (Fla. 2017)||Restoration of Open Carry as protected activity under the Right to Bear Arms.||Court recognized right to carry in public.
Lost as applied to Mr. Norman's unconcealed carry of a handgun.
|Florida Carry v. Thrasher, 248 So. 3d 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (FSU I)||Preemption challenge to Florida State University firearms and weapons regulations including prohibiting firearms in private vehicles. Filed Sep 8th, 2015||Regulation Changed|
|Freeman v. Tampa, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164281 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 8, 2015)||Defense of civil rights of Florida Carry members for multiple violations by Tampa and its agents.||Victory - Qualified Immunity Denied. Case settled.|
|Florida Carry & SAF v. Tallahassee, 212 So. 3d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)||Preemption and constitutional challenge of city's ordinances regulating firearm possession and use in public. Filed May 2nd, 2014||City conceeded that the ordinence is not enforced and is void.|
|A.B. v. Daytona Beach||
1)Police refuse to return firearms seized during illegal search of Veteran's home.
|1) Victory - Order for return of property issued 8/13/2013
2) Victory - City violated Preemption
3) Victory - Counter-Claim Denied 8/13/2013
4) Victory - 5th DCA awarded MORE attorney's fees. 10/02/2020
|Florida Carry v. City of Leesburg||Preemption of City's ordinance regulating firearms despite state law.||Ordinance Repealed after case was filed.|
|Florida Carry v. St. Petersburg College||Preemption and constitutional challenge of college's policies regulating firearms possession in private vehicles and non-lethal electronic defensive weapons on campus. Filed Mar 3rd, 2014||Victory - Policies changed. Case settled.|
|Florida Carry v. Eastern FL State||Preemption and constitutional challenge of college's policies regulating firearms possession in private vehicles. Filed Feb 3rd, 2014||Victory - Policies changed four days after case filed. Case settled.
|Florida Carry v. UNF, 133 So.3d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (En Banc)||Preemption of university's policy regulating firearms possession in private vehicles and threat of criminal enforcement despite state law.||Victory - Univ. regulation of firearms violates preemption and RKBA.|
|Mackey v. State, 124 So. 3d 176 (Fla. 2013)
See: Kilburn v. State, 297 So. 3d 671, 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)
|Amicus to Florida Supreme Court arguing that concealed carry with a license can not be assumed to be a crime.||Victory - Carry alone is not cause for a Terry Stop.
Law Changed in 2015 to make concealed carry licensure an element of the crime of unlicensed concealed carry.
|Mississippi v. Smith, 123 So. 3d 920 (Miss. 2013)||Amicus to Mississippi Supreme Court arguing that Open Carry is protected by both State and U.S. Constitutions||Victory - in Mississippi Supreme Court|
|State v. Mora||Law-Abiding gun owner and concealed carry licensee prosecuted for brief accidental exposure of handgun.||Victory - Case Dismissed With Prejudice|
Florida Carry is involved in multiple cases in order to protect the self-defense, arms, personal property, sporting, privacy, and association rights of Floridians. Attorneys should refer also to our free Legal Services Section for assistance on current cases.
The Florida Attorney General’s position is that anyone carrying a gun should always be presumed to be committing a felony; and apparently, everyone is carrying…
"[A]n overwhelming majority of Floridians are not licensed to carry concealed weapons. As of August 31, 2012, the number of concealed weapon or firearm permits issued in Florida is 971,263. Where Florida had an estimated population of 19,057,542 in 2011, the percentage of the population that is licensed to carry a concealed weapon is only five percent (5%). Given the small percentage of the population that is licensed to carry a concealed firearm, the overwhelming majority of firearms, or 95%, are not licensed to be concealed. Thus, an officer’s suspicion that a firearm is not licensed would be reasonable because, in any given case, there would be, statistically speaking, a 95% likelihood of illegality."
State’s Brief on the Merits, Mackey v. State SC12-573 (Fla 2012) (internal citations omitted, emphasis added)
Obviously, this cannot go without answer. ”What will be our reply?!” you ask…
"It has been said that figures lie and liars figure. This statement has never been more appropriate than in response to the State’s contention that 95% of firearms in Florida are not licensed to be concealed. (State’s brief Pg. 20). Such a statement requires ignoring basic rules of statistics, ignoring the lack of available data, ignoring the fact that there is no requirement to license individual guns in the state (doing so is a felony, See Sec. 790.335, Fla. Stat.), and ignoring the fact that some people own multiple guns.
The State’s argument is that because only 5% of the population of Florida, holds a CWFL there is a 95% likelihood that a person with a firearm is committing a crime. Such a statement relies on several assumptions that are easily dismissed as common sense. In order for the State’s argument to be valid, one would first have to ignore all visitors to our state from the 35 states with reciprocity. One would also have to ignore all of the circumstances where no license is required to possess a firearm.Furthermore, the State’s argument also assumes that every man, woman and minor child is carrying a firearm at all times. Only by ignoring these statistical values and making a ridiculous assumption, could the State validate its absurd statistical argument that 95% of persons carrying firearms are doing so illegally."
Amicus Curiae Florida Carry, inc.’s Brief in Support of Appellant, Mackey v. State SC12-573 (Fla 2012) (emphasis added)
Our Attorney General says that not only do police and prosecutors have reasonable suspicion to frisk you any time you carry in FL, but that carrying also gives probable cause to search and arrest!
"Thus, the crime of carrying a concealed weapon is complete upon proof that the defendant knowingly carried a firearm that was concealed from the ordinary sight of another person. Accordingly, as held by the Third District, knowledge of the absence of a concealed weapons permit is not required in order for an officer to conduct an investigatory stop.
[P]ossession of a firearm did not amount merely reasonable suspicion, but to probable cause. See, e.g., State v. Navarro, 464 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (holding that a police officer’s observation of a bulge under the clothing of an individual, which the officer in his training and experience determined to be “the outline of a firearm[,] amounted to probable cause to believe that the individual was carrying a concealed weapon, justifying not merely a pat-down, but a search”)."
State’s Brief on the Merits, Mackey v. State SC12-573 (Fla 2012) (emphasis added)
Our answer… Shall not be Infringed!
"The rights of Floridians to keep and bear arms are well recognized in the U.S. and Florida Constitutions as well as in Florida general law. To allow detentions and arrests based solely on a person’s possession of a firearm without more, and then to require a person to prove through an affirmative defense that their possession of the firearm was lawful would swallow whole the right. As inconvenient as it might be, the need for enforcement of firearms laws preventing carrying by the unlawful and unskilled, must sometimes give way to the God-given right of the people to both lawfully keep and bear arms, and be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The state’s position can be summed up that in order for a citizen to exercise their right under the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I Sec. 8 of the Florida Constitution, the citizen must give up their rights under the Fourth Amendment, to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. According to the Attorney General, persons in possession of a firearm should be presumed to be committing a crime, and should be required to prove before a court of law that their conduct is in fact lawful. Should the Court find in the State’s favor in this case, this would be the first time in American jurisprudence that the exercise of a fundamental individual right has required the abdication of another fundamental right."
Amicus Curiae Florida Carry, inc.’s Brief in Support of Appellant, Mackey v. State SC12-573 (Fla 2012) (emphasis added)
But AG Bondi’s office says:
"The Florida concealed weapon or firearm license application requires an applicant to read and become knowledgeable of the provisions of Chapter 790, Florida Statutes and includes a copy of the statutes in that chapter in the application.
see also State v. Williams, 794 N.W.2d 867, 876 (Minn. 2011) (Page, J., concurring) (“[I]t is likely to come as a shock to all those people who have obtained a permit to carry, hold, or possess a pistol in a public place that by carrying, holding, or possessing the permitted pistol in a public place they subject themselves to arrest.” … )."
State’s Brief on the Merits, Mackey v. State SC12-573 (Fla 2012) (emphasis added)
Our Amicus Brief has was filed with the FL Supreme Court.
In 2013 the Florida Supreme Court ruled that concealed carry licensure was an affirmative defense to the crime of concealed carry.
In 2014 Florida Carry authored an amendment and subsequently and helped to pass SB 290 in 2015. The 2015 law changes the concealed carry statute to make concealed carry licensure an element of the crime of unlicensed concealed carry. http://laws.flrules.org/2015/44
Docket Overview: FL Supreme Court Case Number: SC12-573
Florida Supreme Court Docket
|03/20/2012||NOTICE-DISCRETIONARY JURIS (DIRECT CONFLICT)||PT Anthony Mackey B08859 BY: PT Michael T. Davis 63374|
|03/27/2012||JURIS INITIAL BRIEF||PT Anthony Mackey B08859 BY: PT Michael T. Davis 63374||O&5 W/APPENDIX & E-MAIL|
|03/28/2012||No Fee - Insolvent|
|04/16/2012||JURIS ANSWER BRIEF||RS State Of Florida STATE BY: RS Shayne R. Burnham 85757||O&5 & E-MAIL|
|06/27/2012||ORDER-JURIS ACCEPT/BRIEF SCHED (OA LATER DATE)||The Court accepts jurisdiction of this case. Oral argument will be set by separate order. Counsel for the parties will be notified of the oral argument date approximately sixty days prior to oral argument. Petitioner's initial brief on the merits shall be served on or before July 23, 2012; respondent's answer brief on the merits shall be served twenty days after service of petitioner's initial brief on the merits; and petitioner's reply brief on the merits shall be served twenty days after service of respondent's answer brief on the merits. Please file an original and seven copies of all briefs. he Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal shall file the original record which shall be properly indexed and paginated on or before August 27, 2012. The record shall include the briefs filed in the district court separately indexed.|
|07/20/2012||MOTION-EXT OF TIME (INITIAL BRIEF-MERITS)||PT Anthony Mackey B08859 BY: PT Michael T. Davis 63374|
|08/06/2012||ORDER-EXT OF TIME GR (INITIAL BRIEF-MERITS)||Petitioner's motion for extension of time is granted and petitioner is allowed to and including August 13, 2012, in which to serve the initial brief on the merits. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME WILL BE GRANTED TO PETITIONER FOR THE FILING OF THE INITIAL BRIEF ON THE MERITS. All other times will be extended accordingly. Per this Court's Administrative Order In Re: Mandatory Submission of Electronic Copies of Documents, AOSC04-84, dated September 13, 2004, counsel are directed to transmit a copy of all briefs in an electronic format as required by the provisions of that order.|
|08/14/2012||INITIAL BRIEF-MERITS||PT Anthony Mackey B08859 BY: PT Michael T. Davis 63374||O&8 & EMAIL|
|09/04/2012||MOTION-EXT OF TIME (ANSWER BRIEF-MERITS)||RS State Of Florida STATE BY: RS Shayne R. Burnham 85757|
|09/13/2012||MOTION-AMICUS CURIAE||MP Florida Carry, Inc. BY: MP Eric J. Friday 797901||AS INTERESTED PARTY|
|09/25/2012||ORDER-EXT OF TIME GR (ANSWER BRIEF-MERITS)||Respondent's motion for extension of time is granted and respondent is allowed to and including October 4, 2012, in which to serve the answer brief on the merits. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME WILL BE GRANTED TO RESPONDENT FOR THE FILING OF THE ANSWER BRIEF ON THE MERITS. All other times will be extended accordingly. Per this Court's Administrative Order In Re: Mandatory Submission of Electronic Copies of Documents, AOSC04-84, dated September 13, 2004, counsel are directed to transmit a copy of all briefs in an electronic format as required by the provisions of that order.|
|10/02/2012||ORDER-AMICUS CURIAE GR||The motion for leave to file brief as amicus curiae filed by Florida Carry, Inc., is hereby granted and they are allowed to file brief. The brief by the above referenced amicus curiae shall be served pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.370(c). Per this Court's Administrative Order In Re: Mandatory Submission of Electronic Copies of Documents, AOSC04-84, dated September 13, 2004, counsel are directed to transmit a copy of all briefs in an electronic format as required by the provisions of that order.|
|10/08/2012||AMICUS CURIAE INITIAL BRIEF-MERITS||MP Florida Carry, Inc. BY: MP Eric J. Friday 797901||O&7 (NOT E-MAILED)|
|10/08/2012||ANSWER BRIEF-MERITS||RS State Of Florida STATE BY: RS Shayne R. Burnham 85757||O&7 **STRICKEN** SEE ORDER DATED 10/23/2012|
|10/16/2012||MOTION-BRIEF AMENDMENT||RS State Of Florida STATE BY: RS Shayne R. Burnham 85757||FILED AS "UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AND SUBSTITUTE AMENDED BRIEF OF RESPONDENT ON THE MERITS - (0&7)|
|10/16/2012||ANSWER AMD BRIEF-MERITS||RS State Of Florida STATE BY: RS Shayne R. Burnham 85757||O&7|
|10/23/2012||ORDER-BRIEF AMENDMENT GR||Respondent's unopposed motion for leave to withdraw and substitute amended brief of respondent on the merits is granted and said amended brief was filed with this Court on October 16, 2012. Respondent's brief on the merits filed with this Court on October 8, 2012, is hereby stricken.|
|11/06/2012||REPLY BRIEF-MERITS||PT Anthony Mackey B08859 BY: PT Michael T. Davis 63374||O&7|
|12/18/2012||RECORD/TRANSCRIPT||Hon. Mary Cay Blanks, Clerk D3 BY: Hon. Mary Cay Blanks, Clerk D3||CONSISTING OF 1 VOL. CC PAPERS; 2 VOLS OF RECORD; & 1 VOL SUPPL RECORD|
|12/19/2012||ORDER-OA SCHED (PREV ACCEPTED)||Order Amended to show oral argument time is at 10:00 A.M. The Court previously accepted jurisdiction. The Court will hear oral argument at 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, April 10, 2013. A maximum of twenty minutes to the side is allowed for the argument, but counsel is expected to use only so much of that time as is necessary. NO CONTINUANCES WILL BE GRANTED EXCEPT UPON A SHOWING OF EXTREME HARDSHIP.|
|12/19/2012||ORAL ARGUMENT CALENDAR|
|12/26/2012||NOTICE-SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY||PT Anthony Mackey B08859 BY: PT Michael T. Davis 63374||O&1 (12/27/12: REQ'D 6 COPIES) - 6 COPIES REC'D 12/28/12|
|04/10/2013||ORAL ARGUMENT HELD|
... [W]e hold that the trial court properly denied Mackey’s motion to suppress, albeit for different reasons than those articulated by the Third District below.
In light of the foregoing, we approve the holding—but not the reasoning—of the Third District Court of Appeal that the Terry stop of Mackey was valid under the United States and Florida Constitutions. We further approve the conclusion of the Third District that licensure is an affirmative defense to the crime of carrying a concealed weapon. See § 790.01, Fla. Stat. (2013). The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered
Leesburg FL (March 14th, 2012) As was reported in December, the City of Leesburg has decided to stick by its anti-gun laws in direct defiance of state law and their own city charter.
Leesburg City Manager Jay Evans has flatly refused our requests that the city repeal its firearm ordinances, in compliance with state preemption of firearms law.
City Manager Evans stated that:
"Any action taken in the future regarding the existence of these laws in our Code of Ordinances will be done at the discretion, pleasure, and timing of the Leesburg City Commission."
The City of Leesburg, and its manager, have remained openly defiant for months. Abiding by state law is not optional and our members demand that we have compliance.
On behalf of our members, and pursuant to our organization's mission, Florida Carry, Inc. has filed a complaint with the Florida circuit court in Lake County to demand that they follow the law.
Florida Carry is not being "over-zealous with the rhetoric" as City Manager Evans has said.
Florida Carry Executive Director Sean Caranna put it very clearly:
"This isn't rhetoric, this is the law, and we are done waiting for the city to obey it. We demand compliance now."
Motivated by the filing of this lawsuit by Florida Carry, the Leesburg City Commission repealed their illegal anti-gun ordinance .
Lake County Clerk of the Circuit Court
03/19/2012 PLAINTIFF'S (original) COMPLAINT
08/19/2013 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
09/19/2013 DEFT'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
09/18/2014 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE FOR TRIAL
10/17/2014 DEFTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
10/17/2014 DEFTS' AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
10/21/2014 NOTICE OF HEARING SET FOR JANUARY 27, 2015 AT 9:00 AM
12/30/2014 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
12/30/2014 PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Florida Carry WINS Case On University Parking Lot Gun Bans
On October 3rd, 2011 Florida Carry, Inc. filed a lawsuit against the University of North Florida (UNF), seeking a permanent injunction to stop the university from enforcing its unlawful ban on firearms and other defensive weapons. We also asked for a court order to repeal their unlawful regulations and remove all preempted signs/publications. Since 1987 the Florida Legislature has preempted firearms law and issued statewide licenses to carry for self-defense. Since 1985 it has been legal for adults to securely store firearms in their cars, even without a state license, on college campuses.
Florida Carry filed this case on behalf of Florida Gun Owners and our members. One such member, Alexandria Lainez, is a single mother who has received extensive training in firearms and self-defense to be prepared to protect herself and her young child should that horrible need arise. Alexandria is a full time student at UNF and worries that she has to choose between her family's safety and her education on a daily basis while attending college.
On November 11th, 2011 we filed for a Temporary Injunction to protect students' Right to Bear Arms in their own vehicles, as recognized under Florida law, while the case is pending. After months of waiting for a ruling, we notified the court that this issue should be treated as a priority case. Florida Circuit Court Judge Lawrence P. Haddock immediately issued an order that was published April 4th, 2012. He simply signed the defense's suggested draft order denying the injunction and then dismissing the case.
Judge Haddock’s woefully under-considered ruling effectively held that Florida colleges, universities, and private corporations that run all manner of “Schools” have the authority to create a felony “Defense Free, Anti-Gun Zone” at will, without legislative oversight or accountability.
The Legislature made it legal to have a securely encased firearm safely stored in a private vehicle parked on campus. Despite this clear statutory language, the court today ruled that, it then gave all schools the authority opt-out of the statute’s provisions to make what the Legislature had declared legal a third degree felony.
The relevant statute says:
A person shall not possess any firearm, … or other weapon … on the property of any school… ; however, a person may carry a firearm:
In a vehicle pursuant to s. 790.25(5); except that school districts may adopt written and published policies that waive the exception in this subparagraph for purposes of student and campus parking privileges.
Since the statute does provide a definition of “school district” or “refer to the Florida Constitution” Judge Haddock refused to interpret “school district” to mean “school district” as it is defined in the Florida Constitution or even as it is commonly understood by other courts or the people.
After deciding that the Florida Constitution is an insufficient source for a legal definition, Judge Haddock then ignored US Supreme Court precedent and looked to Senate Floor Debate between a few legislators discussing part of a law which passed 11 years earlier; legislation that the cited legislators did not even take part in.
In fact, the Florida Legislature refused to pass a provision in 1997 that would have had the same effect that Judge Haddock’s ruling did today. Instead, the legislature’s 1997’s K-12 School Violence Bill limited the ability to create a felony for possessing a securely encased handgun in your car to the publicly elected officials of School Districts. That entire 1997 bill, HB 1039, was passed to establish “Zero Tolerance” laws that only impacted K-12 Schools.
Judges, attorneys, legislators, and the people of Florida know very well that it would be an unconstitutional grant of authority to allow non-elected bureaucrats and company owners to create a felony. That’s exactly what Judge Haddock has now ruled that all schools in Florida can do. Even private “schools” run by for-profit corporations would be able to create a felony by just publishing a waiver to Florida law.
“It’s outrageous!” Said Sean Caranna, Executive Director of Florida Carry, Inc. “In his haste, Judge Haddock has thrown out the clear legislative intent written in to Florida’s statutes and substituted his own idea of what he thinks the legislature must have meant based on a debate by a few legislators. Floor debate that happened over a decade after the law actually passed! This flies in the face of the Firearms Preemption Enforceability laws we passed just last year.”
No judge has the authority to take few moments of Floor Debate and use them to replace and ignore clear statutory language, the legislature’s expressed (written) intent, and even provisions of the Florida Constitution. We look forward to our appeal of this monstrously unprecedented example of judicial activism.
Just the day before the Florida ruling, the Kentucky Supreme Court overturned an eerily similar decision. The Kentucky ruling was based on laws that were based on, and are almost identical to, Florida’s gun laws. The right to securely store a handgun in vehicles parked in student parking has been upheld in Kentucky using many of the same arguments we have put forth.
Early on April 26th 2012, before the Kentucky decision was even known, we notified the lower court that we are appealing this case to the First District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee. Decisions of the DCA are binding throughout the state and we will now move to resolve over 15 years of widespread abuse by Florida colleges and universities of the right to bear arms.
12/10/2013 Update - Lower Court decision reversed, Florida Carry, Inc. v. University of North Florida, 133 So.3d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)(En Banc). 1DCA En Banc Decision - Florida Carry Win!!!
Docket Overview: Lower Court Case Number: 2011-CA-08012
Duval County Clerk of the Circuit Court
Lower Court Filings:
10/03/2011 Plaintiffs' Original Complaint
11/10/2011 Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Injunction
12/15/2011 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
01/04/2012 Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
01/25/2012 Defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss
01/27/2012 Defendants' Memo of Law Opposing Temporary Injunction
03/21/2012 Plaintiffs' Notice of Priority Case & Motion for Ruling
03/22/2012 Order Denying Temp. Injunction
03/26/2012 Plaintiffs' Memo of Law Opposing Motion to Dismiss
04/03/2012 Final Order Granting Motion to Dismiss
04/26/2012 Plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal
Docket Overview: Appellate Court Case Number: 1D12-2174
Florida First District Court of Appeal Docket
Appellate Court Filings:
04/27/2012 Plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal
07/10/2012 Record on Appeal
08/31/2012 Florida Carry's Initial Appellate Brief
11/02/2012 UNF's Answer Brief
12/07/2012 Florida Carry's Reply Brief
03/19/2013 Oral Arguments (Video)
04/12/2013 Florida Carry's Supplemental Brief
04/12/2013 UNF's Supplemental Brief
12/10/2013 1DCA En Banc Decision - Florida Carry Win!!!
Florida Carry, Inc. v. University of North Florida, 133 So.3d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)(En Banc)