Shooting at home

WalkingWolf · Jan 3, 2013

Mixael said:
I went to the Florida Statues and Constitution website. I looked up the portion that was linked...and it DOES say that the state has preempted the whole of the firearms issue, to include ammo.....HOWEVER, the section previously posted does NOT cover firearm discharges, as that is another section...Look at Title XLVI, Chapter 790...and you find this..IF you look for something about discharging a firearm. (And this is just from a short 5 minute or less look at the published statues, not a long study):

I am not going to argue either way on this, but 790.33 does NOT discuss firearm discharges, while 790.15 DOES. Now, continue your discussion.

Thanks, the way you read it is the same way I do. I am done discussing it, as there is no sense in a back and forth with no end. My intent initially to the OP was to make sure they do not end up in some mess. To research the ordinances, and the location with regard to law, and public safety. IMO staying clear of the courts is much better than spending money trying to defend yourself in court. If indeed it is lawful where the OP is there are a number of ways of building good inexpensive backstops.

ADulay · Jan 3, 2013

im4Christ92 said:
Anyone have any input/insight around setting up a range in your backyard? 790.15 refers to "recklessly" or "negligently" discharging in a residential area or used as a dwelling.

As I read it...if I setup a range that is effectively backstopped and shoot in a safe manner...I don't need to drive 40 miles to shoot.

I'll just assume that everyone in this discussion has gone back to the original post to see what the original question was.

Federal land and "Indian" land were not part of the question, nor was "shooting on the street in downtown Miami".

Don't make this more difficult that it needs to be.

AD

notalawyer · Jan 3, 2013

WalkingWolf said:
Please stop the emotional rant, there is nothing in the preemption law about discharging firearms. While on the reservations you do have to follow tribal law, you obviously have no idea of what you speak. Noise ordinances have nothing to do whatsoever with firearm preemption, that is just outright stupid to think that it does. Not to mention that FMP can charge a person with illegal dumping of a hazardous material. The list is endless of what a person can be charged with. The preemption law has nothing to do with endangerment, dumping, and noise laws. Even the state clearly shows they do not a allow reckless discharge of a firearm. You have much more than reading comprehension issues.

AGAIN where in the preemption statute does it define discharge of a firearm?

"the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition, including the purchase, sale, transfer, taxation, manufacture, ownership, possession, storage, and transportation"

The field of regulation is clearly spelled out.

The field of regulation is clearly spelled out.

Yep, by the use of the word WHOLE!

The word WHOLE! What part of 'Whole' do you not understand?
The legislature put those 'included' items in there just to confuse folks that do not comprehend the word WHOLE!

Noise ordinances have nothing to do whatsoever with firearm preemption, that is just outright stupid to think that it does.

I never made any statements related to noise ordinances.

First it was CPS, now it's FMP? Who is that anyway? If you are referring to lead....that one is also covered by statute. 790.333, read it if you dare.

Even the state clearly shows they do not a allow reckless discharge of a firearm.

:banghead:
Which the legislature has exclusive authority to regulate. But we have been talking about the OP's question about safely shooting at his home, which is legal, notwithstanding any local laws to the contrary.

While on the reservations you do have to follow tribal law, you obviously have no idea of what you speak.

I'm far more versed on Florida law than you.

285.16 Civil and criminal jurisdiction; Indian reservation.—
(1) The State of Florida hereby assumes jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed by or against Indians or other persons within Indian reservations and over civil causes of actions between Indians or other persons or to which Indians or other persons are parties rising within Indian reservations.
(2) The civil and criminal laws of Florida shall obtain on all Indian reservations in this state and shall be enforced in the same manner as elsewhere throughout the state.

In Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978), the United States Supreme Court ruled:

. . . Indian tribes do not have inherent jurisdiction to try and to punish non-Indians. . .

WalkingWolf · Jan 3, 2013

notalawyer said:
Yep, by the use of the word WHOLE!

The word WHOLE! What part of 'Whole' do you not understand?
The legislature put those 'included' items in there just to confuse folks that do not comprehend the word WHOLE!

I never made any statements related to noise ordinances.

First it was CPS, now it's FMP? Who is that anyway? If you are referring to lead....that one is also covered by statute. 790.333, read it if you dare.

:banghead:
Which the legislature has exclusive authority to regulate. But we have been talking about the OP's question about safely shooting at his home, which is legal, notwithstanding any local laws to the contrary.

I'm far more versed on Florida law than you.

To clarify because you are non Indian does not mean you cannot be charged on tribal land, you will either be prosecuted by the federal government or the state government in some cases when the victim is non Indian and the aggressor is non Indian. You or any other criminal is not exempt from prosecution because they are on federal land. And the tribal law can and will arrest you and turn you over to federal authority. You do not seem to understand law even if you read it.

In Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978), the United States Supreme Court ruled:

Discharging a firearm has nothing to do with the whole of possession, and transportation. Law are what they say not what you want them to say. State laws do not supersede federal law. Please go to the nearest reservation and show your arse, see what happens. This is my last post on this because you see only what you want, and are trying to post another into submission. It no longer has anything to do with the OP but your hurt feelings. Get over it.

WalkingWolf · Jan 3, 2013

notalawyer said:
Yep, by the use of the word WHOLE!

The word WHOLE! What part of 'Whole' do you not understand?
The legislature put those 'included' items in there just to confuse folks that do not comprehend the word WHOLE!

I never made any statements related to noise ordinances.

First it was CPS, now it's FMP? Who is that anyway? If you are referring to lead....that one is also covered by statute. 790.333, read it if you dare.

:banghead:
Which the legislature has exclusive authority to regulate. But we have been talking about the OP's question about safely shooting at his home, which is legal, notwithstanding any local laws to the contrary.

I'm far more versed on Florida law than you.

In Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978), the United States Supreme Court ruled:

"the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition, including the purchase, sale, transfer, taxation, manufacture, ownership, possession, storage, and transportation thereof"

Discharging a firearm has nothing to do with the whole of possession, and transportation. Law are what they say not what you want them to say. State laws do not supersede federal law. Please go to the nearest reservation and show your arse, see what happens. This is my last post on this because you see only what you want, and are trying to post another into submission. It no longer has anything to do with the OP but your hurt feelings. Get over it.

You are not exempt from prosecution on tribal lands, that is bullshitt. A person who breaks the law on federal tribal land will be prosecuted in the appropriate court, federal, state, or tribal. Non Indians are not exempt from the law anywhere.

http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/jurisdiction.htm

I am done now, feel free to keep rambling your bovine scatology.

MagiK_SacK · Jan 3, 2013

WalkingWolf said:
Please stop the emotional rant, there is nothing in the preemption law about discharging firearms. While on the reservations you do have to follow tribal law, you obviously have no idea of what you speak. Noise ordinances have nothing to do whatsoever with firearm preemption, that is just outright stupid to think that it does. Not to mention that FMP can charge a person with illegal dumping of a hazardous material. The list is endless of what a person can be charged with. The preemption law has nothing to do with endangerment, dumping, and noise laws. Even the state clearly shows they do not a allow reckless discharge of a firearm. You have much more than reading comprehension issues.

AGAIN where in the preemption statute does it define discharge of a firearm?

"the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition, including the purchase, sale, transfer, taxation, manufacture, ownership, possession, storage, and transportation"

The field of regulation is clearly spelled out.

I'm sorry to say this WW but it would appear that notalawer is correct in this matter. (not addressing the reservation side of the discussion, but rather just the discharge of a firearm in city limits). I can't find any laws against it.

The only thing remotely close is the 790.15 Discharging firearm in public or on residential property.—
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) or subsection (3), any person who knowingly discharges a firearm in any public place or on the right-of-way of any paved public road, highway, or street, who knowingly discharges any firearm over the right-of-way of any paved public road, highway, or street or over any occupied premises, or who recklessly or negligently discharges a firearm outdoors on any property used primarily as the site of a dwelling as defined in s. 776.013 or zoned exclusively for residential use commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. This section does not apply to a person lawfully defending life or property or performing official duties requiring the discharge of a firearm or to a person discharging a firearm on public roads or properties expressly approved for hunting by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or Florida Forest Service.
(2) Any occupant of any vehicle who knowingly and willfully discharges any firearm from the vehicle within 1,000 feet of any person commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) Any driver or owner of any vehicle, whether or not the owner of the vehicle is occupying the vehicle, who knowingly directs any other person to discharge any firearm from the vehicle commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

The only cites I have are two news articles that would highly suggest that the discharge of a firearm on your property is preempted by the state, and is only punishable if done in a reckless or negligent manner.

http://cmfmedia.org/2011/10/new-gun-law/

"The following are some of the ordinances in Seminole County that have been repealed as a result of the new gun law.

Oviedo – prohibit the discharge of firearm in city limits.
Winter Springs – prohibit firing a gun on city street of public grounds
Sanford – prohibiting firing a gun in city park.
Seminole County – prohibiting firearms in county parks, landfills or discharge of firearm within 500ft of residence"

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...0120630_1_gun-ordinances-gun-rights-local-gun

"The changes have forced some law-enforcement agencies to treat gunfire complaints differently, short of actual injuries or property damage. Earlier this year, Eustis police could do nothing when residents complained about hunters shooting ducks near their lakefront homes. When confronted by police, the shooters showed copies of the law."

The law that both articles are refering to as far as I can tell is the FL preemption law.

notalawyer · Jan 3, 2013

WalkingWolf said:
Discharging a firearm has nothing to do with the whole of possession, and transportation. Law are what they say not what you want them to say. State laws do not supersede federal law. Please go to the nearest reservation and show your arse, see what happens. This is my last post on this because you see only what you want, and are trying to post another into submission. It no longer has anything to do with the OP but your hurt feelings. Get over it.

My only desire is to correct your misinformation, which I have, by posting applicable state statutes and with regard to the Indian reservation issue, US Supreme Court ruling.

Law are what they say not what you want them to say.

Correct, and in this case the Florida Legislature has occupied the WHOLE field of firearm regulation, that is clear. Every aspect thereof, to the exclusion of all local ordinances, administrative rules and regulations, and local and/or state officials desires, wishes, wants, etc.

Please go to the nearest reservation and show your arse, see what happens.

Well, I don't show my 'arse' in public, but if I did and it was a violation of state law/county ordinance, the Tribal police would be within their authority (due to an inter-local agreement with the State and County) to arrest me and transport me to the county jail for prosecution by either the County or State Attorney. If otherwise it offended their sensibilities or some Tribal law, their only recourse is to require that I leave their property.

notalawyer · Jan 3, 2013

MagiK_SacK said:
I'm sorry to say this WW but it would appear that notalawer is correct in this matter. (not addressing the reservation side of the discussion, but rather just the discharge of a firearm in city limits). I can't find any laws against it.
[snip]

The law that both articles are refering to as far as I can tell is the FL preemption law.

I love the media! The only change to the preemption law since it was passed over 20 years ago is that it now carries with it criminal and civil penalties for any individual (LEO, mayor, county commissioner, etc, or any other representative of government) for violating it. The media mistakenly takes this as it's a new law...nope some law just now with teeth.:banana:

I'm sorry to say this. . .

Why are you sorry to confirm what a law actually says?

notalawyer · Jan 3, 2013

WalkingWolf said:
"the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition, including the purchase, sale, transfer, taxation, manufacture, ownership, possession, storage, and transportation thereof"

Discharging a firearm has nothing to do with the whole of possession, and transportation. Law are what they say not what you want them to say. State laws do not supersede federal law. Please go to the nearest reservation and show your arse, see what happens. This is my last post on this because you see only what you want, and are trying to post another into submission. It no longer has anything to do with the OP but your hurt feelings. Get over it.

You are not exempt from prosecution on tribal lands, that is bullshitt. A person who breaks the law on federal tribal land will be prosecuted in the appropriate court, federal, state, or tribal. Non Indians are not exempt from the law anywhere.

http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/jurisdiction.htm

I am done now, feel free to keep rambling your bovine scatology.

From you link....go do some research, you might lean something (or more likely, be unable to comprehend what you are reading).

* Please note that this general criminal jurisdiction chart does not apply to jurisdiction where Public Law 280, 18 U.S.C. 1162, or other relevant federal statutes, have conferred jurisdiction upon the state.

This is my last post on this

Then why do I see another one?

MagiK_SacK · Jan 3, 2013

notalawyer said:
I love the media! The only change to the preemption law since it was passed over 20 years ago is that it now carries with it criminal and civil penalties for any individual (LEO, mayor, county commissioner, etc, or any other representative of government) for violating it. The media mistakenly takes this as it's a new law...nope some law just now with teeth.:banana:

I think that is what they were trying to point out. The second article says it better than the first quoting the potential fines that localities could face for not complying.

notalawyer said:
Why are you sorry to confirm what a law actually says?

I'm more sorry for him because you were rather abrasive trying to make your point. Not to say he didn't get short either but you didn't have to be a rude about it, lol. I got a good chuckle out of it though, thanks for the entertainment.

notalawyer · Jan 3, 2013

MagiK_SacK said:
I think that is what they were trying to point out. The second article says it better than the first quoting the potential fines that localities could face for not complying.

I'm more sorry for him because you were rather abrasive trying to make your point. Not to say he didn't get short either but you didn't have to be a rude about it, lol. I got a good chuckle out of it though, thanks for the entertainment.

My one, and only, objectionable personality trait: I have little patience for folks that post glaringly incorrect information and stick to their opinions when faced with overwhelming evidence (or common English language usage) to the contrary. And sometimes a little abrasive is required to get through a thick skull, err, material.

MagiK_SacK · Jan 3, 2013

notalawyer said:
My one, and only, objectionable personality trait: I have little patience for folks that post glaringly incorrect information and stick to their opinions when faced with overwhelming evidence (or common English language usage) to the contrary. And sometimes a little abrasive is required to get through a thick skull, err, material.

I have the same problem but am starting to learn that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Yes sometimes some abrasive exchanges are necessary. I'm just saying that rather than debating the wording of the law the discussion could have been over a lot quicker if you just showed him things like the articles that I shared.

I'm not here to tell you what to do though, just my two cents. Like I said I enjoyed reading the exchange.

To the OP, it sounds as if you should be safe so long as you are not being negligent or reckless. Keep in mind two very important things though. One I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Two, there are a lot of "what ifs" that are possible if there is no case law concerning what is to be considered negligent or reckless. Especially if you live in a more residential area. For those two reasons I would highly suggest consulting with a lawyer. I don't know about you but I would rather verify any information like this with a lawyer to be 100% certain that I am covered.

rvrctyrngr · Jan 3, 2013

notalawyer said:
I love the media! The only change to the preemption law since it was passed over 20 years ago is that it now carries with it criminal and civil penalties for any individual (LEO, mayor, county commissioner, etc, or any other representative of government) for violating it. The media mistakenly takes this as it's a new law...nope some law just now with teeth.:banana:

Why are you sorry to confirm what a law actually says?

You are absolutely WRONG on this subject, notalawyer!

The preemption statute only carries civil penalties. The criminal provisions were stripped. :lol:

On the rest of it, you are, of course, absolutely correct...but you knew that.

notalawyer · Jan 3, 2013

rvrctyrngr said:
You are absolutely WRONG on this subject, notalawyer!

The preemption statute only carries civil penalties. The criminal provisions were stripped. :lol:

On the rest of it, you are, of course, absolutely correct...but you knew that.

:lol:

ixtow · Jan 6, 2013

shastadude17 said:
I've had LE called on me for shooting on private property. LEO politely told us the neighbor asked if we would stop, but we didn't have to. I say go for it.

About 20 years ago I was shooting ye olde registered full-auto 30 carbine with my dad and some of his friends. FHP dropped in after being called and emptied a few magazines with us...

Notguilty · Jun 16, 2013

790.15 Discharging firearm in public or on residential property.—
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) or subsection (3), any person who
knowingly discharges a firearm in any public place or on the right-of-way of
any paved public road, highway, or street, who or whosoever knowingly
discharges any firearm over the right-of-way of any paved public road,
highway, or street or over any occupied premises, or who recklessly or
negligently discharges a firearm outdoors on any property used primarily as
the site of a dwelling as defined in s. 776.013 or zoned exclusively for
residential use commits is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree,
punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. This section does not apply
to a person lawfully defending life or property or performing official duties
requiring the discharge of a firearm or to a person discharging a firearm on
public roads or properties expressly approved for hunting by the Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission or Division of Forestry.

Sorry to bump old thread. This added part in 2012 is what has me confused and would like further clarification. The or zoned as residential part, does this mean let's say backyard shooting is illegal or is this only if conducted recklessly or negligently making it in addition to the site of a dwelling. Talking about Brevard country Melbourne/Palm Bay area since is appears their county ordinances on discharging of firearms were removed.

notalawyer · Jun 16, 2013

Notguilty said:
790.15 Discharging firearm in public or on residential property.—
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) or subsection (3), any person who
knowingly discharges a firearm in any public place or on the right-of-way of
any paved public road, highway, or street, who or whosoever knowingly
discharges any firearm over the right-of-way of any paved public road,
highway, or street or over any occupied premises, or who recklessly or
negligently discharges a firearm outdoors on any property used primarily as
the site of a dwelling as defined in s. 776.013 or zoned exclusively for
residential use commits is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree,
punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. This section does not apply
to a person lawfully defending life or property or performing official duties
requiring the discharge of a firearm or to a person discharging a firearm on
public roads or properties expressly approved for hunting by the Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission or Division of Forestry.

Sorry to bump old thread. This added part in 2012 is what has me confused and would like further clarification. The or zoned as residential part, does this mean let's say backyard shooting is illegal or is this only if conducted recklessly or negligently making it in addition to the site of a dwelling. Talking about Brevard country Melbourne/Palm Bay area since is appears their county ordinances on discharging of firearms were removed.

Shooting in your backyard is only illegal if done recklessly or negligently.

Talking about Brevard country Melbourne/Palm Bay area since is appears their county ordinances on discharging of firearms were removed.

This applies everywhere in the state. Localities are not permitted to regulate firearms/ammunition in any manner including discharge.

Notguilty · Jun 16, 2013

notalawyer said:
Shooting in your backyard is only illegal if done recklessly or negligently.

This applies everywhere in the state. Localities are not permitted to regulate firearms/ammunition in any manner incl;uding discharge.

Thanks, I appreciate the insight.

Notguilty · Jun 16, 2013

notalawyer said:
Shooting in your backyard is only illegal if done recklessly or negligently.

This applies everywhere in the state. Localities are not permitted to regulate firearms/ammunition in any manner incl;uding discharge.

Now could counties still get you on noise or for pounding lead into the ground?

notalawyer · Jun 16, 2013

Notguilty said:
Now could counties still get you on noise or for pounding lead into the ground?

Now could counties still get you on noise

Possible, but unlikely.

pounding lead into the ground?

No, this is also preempted by state law.

Shooting at home

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

New member

Regular Member

New member

New member

Regular Member