• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

OC in Florida while at work

N

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
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...

Legally, yes.
Openly or concealed, handgun or long gun. CWFL or not.
Of course there is nothing from preventing you from firing them for doing so. Or telling them not to and firing them for ignoring your instructions.
 
Last edited:
N

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
2OLD2W8 said:
It would have to be concealed
Click to expand...

That's in line with my thoughts also....
Click to expand...

Why do you refuse to accept the clear, unambiguous language contained in 790.25(3) and over 40 years of case law that states otherwise? :eek:

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...

790.053 is the statute making open carry unlawful.

790.06 is the statute requiring a license to carry a concealed firearm.
 
Last edited:
2OLD2W8

2OLD2W8

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
138
Location
Black Waters
notalawyer said:
Just speaking the truth. I don't normally offer opinions on topics unless I have done the research and can provide citations.

Well, we are discussing Florida law here so that might narrow your search down a little. But I'll help you out.

Peoples v. State, 287 So. 2d 63 - Fla: Supreme Court 1973
State v. Commons, 592 So. 2d 317 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 3rd Dist. 1991
Brook v. State, 999 So. 2d 1093 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 5th Dist. 2009
Collins v. State, 475 So. 2d 968 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 1985
Moses v. State, 413 So. 2d 845 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 3rd Dist. 1982
State v. Little, Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2013
Click to expand...

Thank you for the cites...........In regards to my interpretation of the statute language "a person at his/her place of business" I was wrong and stand corrected. Thank you for the enlightenment.

However the issue of an employee engaged in open carry at work has not been addressed in the cites, the judge's opinions regarding the possession of a firearm seemed to only address concealed firearms. I didn't see any reference to the open carry of a firearm by an employee. Might it be due to the defendants being arrested and charged with possession of a concealed firearm. The issue of open carry was not in front of the court?
 
N

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
2OLD2W8 said:
Thank you for the cites...........In regards to my interpretation of the statute language "a person at his/her place of business" I was wrong and stand corrected. Thank you for the enlightenment.

However the issue of an employee engaged in open carry at work has not been addressed in the cites, the judge's opinions regarding the possession of a firearm seemed to only address concealed firearms. I didn't see any reference to the open carry of a firearm by an employee. Might it be due to the defendants being arrested and charged with possession of a concealed firearm. The issue of open carry was not in front of the court?
Click to expand...

Thank you for the enlightenment.
Click to expand...
My pleasure.

Correct, the issue of open carry was not before the court, but the statute they addressed, 790.25(3), applies equally to concealed carry without a CWFL, as it does open carry. Why would there be any legal justification to consider one aspect of the statute differently than the other?

Let me ask you about carrying a firearm while hunting/fishing/camping. Does the law distinguish between open carry and concealed carry without a CWFL? No. Are both lawful, Yes.
How about going to the range? Can one participate in and IDPA match (concealed firearms) just as equally as one can participate in a USPSA match (open carry)? Yes.
 
2OLD2W8

2OLD2W8

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
138
Location
Black Waters
The courts are saying this is a State constitutional right? I can see how a private business can skirt the issue but how can a government entity that you are employed by prevent or bar you from carrying a firearm if it is legal to do so? Are they not an entity which is part of the "State"? Would this not be a civil rights violation?
 
N

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
2OLD2W8 said:
The courts are saying this is a State constitutional right? I can see how a private business can skirt the issue but how can a government entity that you are employed by prevent or bar you from carrying a firearm if it is legal to do so? Are they not an entity which is part of the "State"? Would this not be a civil rights violation?
Click to expand...

:eek: Where is that 'reaching into left field' icon at :eek:

What in the world are you talking about? We are having a discussion about the criminal legality of carrying firearms at work. Not about employment policy.:banghead:
 
2OLD2W8

2OLD2W8

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
138
Location
Black Waters
notalawyer said:
:eek: Where is that 'reaching into left field' icon at :eek:

What in the world are you talking about? We are having a discussion about the criminal legality of carrying firearms at work. Not about employment policy.:banghead:
Click to expand...


Sorry, posted in error , a response to wrong person/:uhoh:

Disregard
 
2OLD2W8

2OLD2W8

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
138
Location
Black Waters
notalawyer said:
My pleasure.

Correct, the issue of open carry was not before the court, but the statute they addressed, 790.25(3), applies equally to concealed carry without a CWFL, as it does open carry. Why would there be any legal justification to consider one aspect of the statute differently than the other?

Let me ask you about carrying a firearm while hunting/fishing/camping. Does the law distinguish between open carry and concealed carry without a CWFL? No. Are both lawful, Yes.
How about going to the range? Can one participate in and IDPA match (concealed firearms) just as equally as one can participate in a USPSA match (open carry)? Yes.
Click to expand...

Good questions, I agree..I guess my bias toward perceived private property rights has skewed my thought process, and this new knowledge has also opened my eyes to a different but related avenue of questions as well. Maybe we can discuss those at a later date......

If the statute applies equally to both methods of carry why would the court not go one step further and reach into the related aspect of open carry and settle the whole issue with an all encompassing decision pertaining to all carry methods of firearms? Are the answers by the courts/judges limited by some legal rule, a self imposed personal limit or just happenstance .... Some decisions are short and sweet some seem to be long winded and reach into many related and possible aspects.
 
N

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
2OLD2W8 said:
Good questions, I agree..I guess my bias toward perceived private property rights has skewed my thought process, and this new knowledge has also opened my eyes to a different but related avenue of questions as well. Maybe we can discuss those at a later date......

If the statute applies equally to both methods of carry why would the court not go one step further and reach into the related aspect of open carry and settle the whole issue with an all encompassing decision pertaining to all carry methods of firearms? Are the answers by the courts/judges limited by some legal rule, a self imposed personal limit or just happenstance .... Some decisions are short and sweet some seem to be long winded and reach into many related and possible aspects.
Click to expand...

Because the court can only address issues brought before it on appeal - The facts of these cases dealt with Concealed Carry, not Open Carry. Most likely due to the fact that Concealed Carry without a license is a Felony and Open Carry is only a misdemeanor. Not to mention that addressing Open Carry in these situations is unnecessary as the black letter law is very clear on the topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top