PDA

View Full Version : Open Carry in Florida


The Shadow
07-17-2011, 5:33 PM
It would seem that open carry encounters, like the one we saw in Upland, are still possible even in shall issue states.

zp0ef4v6Bp4

jb7706
07-17-2011, 5:40 PM
When was this filmed?

It sounds very much like the "blood in the streets" remarks prior to passing shall issue ccw.

The Shadow
07-17-2011, 5:58 PM
When was this filmed?

It sounds very much like the "blood in the streets" remarks prior to passing shall issue ccw.

It was posted yesterday, and yeah, it does sound like the same old "blood in the streets" fearmongering. Apparently, the good sheriff likes the revenue he gets from CCW, and open carry might put a damper on that.

CitaDeL
07-17-2011, 6:01 PM
It would seem that open carry encounters, like the one we saw in Upland, are still possible even in shall issue states.

zp0ef4v6Bp4

These reactions to open carriers only exist because police authorities and their command structure either cannot understand the documents and institutions that they swore oaths to uphold or willfully break such oaths as meaningless inside their personal belief system.

Rights are not granted to anyone- not by the police or sheriffs department, not by the state government, and certainly not by the Constitution of these United States. We have rights for the simple reason we exist. They are inherent and inalienable.

To say 'we support the second amendment without question' while at the same time reducing the ability to carry to a singular, narrowly restricted method is a line of self serving political bullsh*t. Any peace officer or CLEO who rattles off this claptrap has violated his oath and is not deserving of the public trust and should be recalled.

The belief that law enforcement is entitled to draw down on someone who has shown no aggressive behavior while openly armed also defies constitutional constraint. The man in the video has threatened in a public meeting that lawful open carriers would be deliberately placed in harms way by officers responding to a report of lawful activity...He is apparently not aware that officers across the nation do not all respond with a screaming siren and guns drawn to a report of armed citizens.

The only solution to maintain any harmony between peace officers and armed citizens is to hold them accountable to the limits of their consitutional duties.

dantodd
07-17-2011, 6:02 PM
Well, you know how guns are. Once they see light they just go berserk and start shooting up everything.

GaryV
07-17-2011, 6:35 PM
It was posted yesterday, and yeah, it does sound like the same old "blood in the streets" fearmongering. Apparently, the good sheriff likes the revenue he gets from CCW, and open carry might put a damper on that.

This was filmed a couple of months ago, when the legislature was considering a law that would have allowed open carry (the bill passed, but was amended so that open carry was removed). Sheriffs don't get any funds from CWLs in Florida. This was a purely anti-2A/Pro-LEO superiority move on their part.

ldsnet
07-17-2011, 6:39 PM
Florida is still a CCW only state. Even printing while CCW can cause problems with departments down there.

I hope they change the law soon.

yellowfin
07-17-2011, 6:56 PM
They did fix it already with the OC bill that got modified.

Patrick-2
07-18-2011, 5:44 AM
Florida law no longer allows LEOs to cite anyone for incidental exposure or printing. You cannot OC, but the definition of OC is now essentially brazenly displaying the gun. Taking off a jacket while getting into a car or having a polo shirt lift and show is no longer an issue.

The law has some teeth. I cannot remember all the details, but citizens can sue for damages if they are harassed for carrying.

But Florida laws are still more restrictive than Wisconsin's. Imagine that.

EDIT:

I hate working from memory. Here are some details:

- SB-234 modified the law to allow incidental exposure. It removed some words about "rude" and "careless" when it comes to display. Apparently these were the ticket for municipalities who wanted to go after gun carriers, because they could cite you for being "rude" in your display. The new definition essentially allows someone to "briefly and openly display" their firearm as long as it is not done in anger or in a threatening manner. An exception exists for defense.

- HB-45 was a big modification to the Florida preemption laws. Previous preemption laws had some little loopholes that municipalities liked to use. This new one removes those holes and makes it explicitly clear that only the state can legislate this matter. And it gets better: any citizen who is cited for violating a local rule that affects guns - in any form - can sue for attorney's fees, court costs and damages. But - in the unlikely event the city wins - they are barred from seeking any of the same. It is a lose-lose situation for the municipalities, as they are always going to wonder when the next citation will lead to a million-dollar case fought by the NRA. Even if they somehow prevailed in court, they would still be out the money used to fight the case. Small cities would get hammered.

Add the two together and basically you can OC in Florida for short periods. Anyone who cites you can be sued.

The NRA is waiting and watching. I read another story about some cities in Florida passing emergency legislation to create a rule that effectively says "no law, ordinance or policy of this city shall be construed in any way shape or form to preempt or counter any state law regarding any issue of firearms. In the event of a conflict, our law is a dead letter." One of the city attorneys from the story told his city council point-blank that without it (and a change in attitude), they could be wiped out by a single case.

Now I need to go find another reference...

jaq
07-18-2011, 6:18 AM
Florida law no longer allows LEOs to cite anyone for incidental exposure or printing. You cannot OC, but the definition of OC is now essentially brazenly displaying the gun. Taking off a jacket while getting into a car or having a polo shirt lift and show is no longer an issue.

The law has some teeth. I cannot remember all the details, but citizens can sue for damages if they are harassed for carrying.

But Florida laws are still more restrictive than Wisconsin's. Imagine that.

EDIT:

I hate working from memory. Here are some details:

- SB-234 modified the law to allow incidental exposure. It removed some words about "rude" and "careless" when it comes to display. Apparently these were the ticket for municipalities who wanted to go after gun carriers, because they could cite you for being "rude" in your display. The new definition essentially allows someone to "briefly and openly display" their firearm as long as it is not done in anger or in a threatening manner. An exception exists for defense.

- HB-45 was a big modification to the Florida preemption laws. Previous preemption laws had some little loopholes that municipalities liked to use. This new one removes those holes and makes it explicitly clear that only the state can legislate this matter. And it gets better: any citizen who is cited for violating a local rule that affects guns - in any form - can sue for attorney's fees, court costs and damages. But - in the unlikely event the city wins - they are barred from seeking any of the same. It is a lose-lose situation for the municipalities, as they are always going to wonder when the next citation will lead to a million-dollar case fought by the NRA. Even if they somehow prevailed in court, they would still be out the money used to fight the case. Small cities would get hammered.

Add the two together and basically you can OC in Florida for short periods. Anyone who cites you can be sued.

The NRA is waiting and watching. I read another story about some cities in Florida passing emergency legislation to create a rule that effectively says "no law, ordinance or policy of this city shall be construed in any way shape or form to preempt or counter any state law regarding any issue of firearms. In the event of a conflict, our law is a dead letter." One of the city attorneys from the story told his city council point-blank that without it (and a change in attitude), they could be wiped out by a single case.

Now I need to go find another reference...

Patrick, you rock. Thanks for your work on this matter.

GaryV
07-18-2011, 7:26 AM
- HB-45 was a big modification to the Florida preemption laws. Previous preemption laws had some little loopholes that municipalities liked to use. This new one removes those holes and makes it explicitly clear that only the state can legislate this matter. And it gets better: any citizen who is cited for violating a local rule that affects guns - in any form - can sue for attorney's fees, court costs and damages.

I liked it better before they amended this one - it had criminal penalties for any official who made or enforced a law that violated preemption. Of course, we all knew that wouldn't pass, but it sure would have been great to see.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-18-2011, 7:51 AM
The only solution to maintain any harmony between peace officers and armed citizens is to hold them accountable to the limits of their consitutional duties.


Yup.


Patrick, you rock. Thanks for your work on this matter.


Yes, he does.


The Raisuli