OC in Florida while at work

MistaBond said:

I am trying to get some clarification or details on permitted open carry while at work. I am a real estate broker and always carry a concealed weapon while going to look at foreclosure units (lets just say people aren't too happy to get kicked out of their homes and always take it out on the listing agents).

Does being allowed to open carry while at work limit me to the confines of my office, or does it extend to the viewing / showing of real estate properties?

Typically I dislike open carry in general as I am a believer in the element of surprise and feel that an exposed weapon can quickly escalate a situation, however in certain situation I feel that open carry would allow me to safely get my job done.

Click to expand...

MistaBond said:

thanks,

What about just my physical office. Typically I carry concealed if using a belt holster, however when wearing a suit and shoulder holster I am ok to take off my suit jacket while inside my own office without having to worry about possibly police repercussions?

Click to expand...

2OLD2W8 said:

Are you the sole proprietor/COO of the brokerage firm or are you an employee?

Click to expand...

notalawyer said:

Not relevant to the legalities involved.

Click to expand...

2OLD2W8 said:

The relevance of my post was a response to OP's follow up question regarding open carry at his physical office..

Business owners (sole proprietors,COO's) can legally open carry at their place of business..Employees can not unless the owner authorizes the activity.

Click to expand...

Employees can not unless the owner authorizes the activity.

Click to expand...

Finally, the [State of Florida] claims that one is protected from criminal responsibility under these circumstances only if he obtains the permission of his employer to carry a concealed gun. There is no statutory authority for such a requirement and we have no power to create one ourselves.

Click to expand...

2OLD2W8 said:

In State v. Commons, 592 So. 2d 317 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 3rd Dist. 1991 they are referring to concealed carry, yes?

The OP's questions pertain to open carry....

Click to expand...

The provisions of ss. 790.053 and 790.06 do not apply in the following instances, and, despite such sections, it is lawful for the following persons to own, possess, and lawfully use firearms and other weapons, ammunition, and supplies for lawful purposes:
. . .

Click to expand...

notalawyer said:

You're missing the fact that the statute, 790.25(3), that legalizes concealed carry without a CWFL, is the same statute that legalizes open carry in those situations.

Click to expand...

2OLD2W8 said:

Are you referring to this part of the statute?

 A person possessing arms at his or her home or place of business;

Click to expand...

notalawyer said:

Yes, those sub-sections identify the locations and situations where folks 18 and over may openly carry a firearm in spite of the general prohibition contained in 790.053 and also carry a concealed firearm without a CWFL regardless of the prohibition on carrying concealed firearms contained in 790.01 and the requirement to have a license as required in 790.06.

Click to expand...

2OLD2W8 said:

I may be wrong about my comprehension of sub-section " A person possessing arms at his or her home or place of business;"

My take??.......

The "person" in sub-section reads as...... "at his or her (possessive use of a pronoun) home or place of business"... Meaning: said person owns/possesses his or her place of business. It does not state place of employment.

Granted, in some instances the "person" could also be an employee as well as an owner, but I can not in good conscience substitute the word employee for "person" or the word employment in lieu of "business" in sub-section .

Do you comprehend sub-section to mean.....
An employee possessing arms at his or her home or place of employment;" or

A person possessing arms at his or her home or place of employment;"



So my conclusion based on my interpretation of the current wording in sub-section is... Employees of a business are not authorized by law to open carry unless the business owner approves of said activity.... The only exception to this would be if, the employee is also the owner of said business.

P.S.

I will never be so presumptuous as to state that you are incorrect......
Regards............

Click to expand...

I may be wrong

Click to expand...

The appellate court rejected the State's claim that subsection (3) was confined to a place of business owned by the defendant himself or that the defendant was protected from criminal responsibility under the circumstances only if he had permission from his employer to carry a concealed firearm. The Third District noted that no such requirement existed in the statute and that the court lacked the authority to engraft such requirement onto the statute.

Click to expand...

We agree with our sister court in Commons that the "place of business" language of subsection (3) is simple and straight-forward. Courts must give statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning and cannot add words which were not placed there by the Legislature. When a statute is clear and unambiguous, courts will not look behind the statute's plain language for legislative intent or resort to rules of statutory construction to ascertain such intent. Alternatively, in considering criminal statutes, the rule of lenity contained in section 775.021(1), Florida Statutes, requires that any ambiguity or situation in which statutory language is susceptible to differing constructions must be resolved in favor of the person charged with an offense.

We are bound by the clear wording of the statute. The defendant's conduct fell within the ambit of the exemption contained in subsection 790.25(3) and accordingly, the motion to dismiss should have been granted. We reverse and remand for entry of an order of discharge.

Click to expand...

I will never be so presumptuous as to state that you are incorrect......

Click to expand...

notalawyer said:

That's probably wise as it is almost never the case. :lol:

Click to expand...

2OLD2W8 said:

It must be really difficult for you to find head wear that fits.....:lol:

Would you be so kind as to provide links for your cites.... Too many cases with the same names from different states...

It's not that I don't trust you.....I don't trust anyone!

Click to expand...

It must be really difficult for you to find head wear that fits

Click to expand...

Would you be so kind as to provide links for your cites.... Too many cases with the same names from different states...

Click to expand...

willow140 said:

Im trying to understand this so here goes.

If I own a gas station in Florida and hire a cashier then they are allowed to carry a gun to work
on my property without my permission?

Is that what I am understanding? Just curious.

thank you

Click to expand...

QUOTE=ixtow;2005194]It would have to be concealed, so, how would you know? Permission or otherwise?

To be more direct...

The State's pseudo-permission slip to carry a hidden, ineffective gun for which it will still arrest and imprison said carrier with said pseudo-permission slip does not trump your right to tell anyone, even your employee, to GTFO of your property.

"Here's your carry permit, we're going to arrest you anyway. Oh, BTW, get out of the Gas Staition, the owner is a communist practicing tax-and-gouge faux-capitalism."

Does this even make sense anymore?

Click to expand...

It would have to be concealed

Click to expand...