I'm trying to make an effort to understand senate bill 0517
Firearms; Provides that person in compliance with terms of concealed carry license may openly carry handgun notwithstanding specified provisions; allows Division of Licensing of DACS to take fingerprints from concealed carry license applicants; provides that person may not openly carry handgun or carry concealed weapon or firearm into specified locations; provides that concealed carry licensees shall not be prohibited from carrying or storing firearm in vehicle for lawful purposes, etc
Effective Date: upon becoming a law
Last Action: 5/3/2011 House - Laid on Table, companion bill(s) passed, see CS/CS/SB 234 (Ch. 2011-145) -HJ 1101
Location: Laid on Table
The highlight sort of explains it....
Anyway...part of that bill was the attempt to get licensed Open Carry in Florida in 2011. Due to legally questionable lobbying on part of the Florida Sheriff's Association and behind-the-scenes lobbying by the Florida Retail Federation coupled with the NRA's utter lack of cojones (they saw the writing on the wall and bailed, instead of simply pulling the bill to - to prevent it from being bastardized) scuttled it. What it did give us (and of course the NRA claims this as a win :banana
was the introduction of an undefined term: "Brief"
790.053 Open carrying of weapons.—
(1) Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device. It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.
Underlined text is what was added to the existing law.
Please note, that before this change, it never was been illegal for someone to display a firearm unless it was done in an angry angry or threatening manner. So that language was completely unnecessary. Especially in light of the fact that we already have a statute that addresses that crime:
790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.—If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
This change introduced ambiguity where none existed before. Previously, the state would need evidence of specific facts that would provide them with probable cause to believe that you in fact did exhibit your firearm in a rude, careless, angry or threatening manner. (Or that you were intentionally open carrying, which is different from exposing it) in order to arrest and prosecute. Now, all they need is a LEO's subjective judgement that your display was not "brief"!
So that left us with an undefined term and the legislature basically said: We have no clue how to write meaningful laws and are quick to bend to shenanigans from anti-freedom groups, so here is a new term, we don't really know what it's supposed to mean, so if you want to find out, some poor innocent shlub is going to have to get arrested and then convicted and then appeal, costing him ten's of thousands of dollars, maybe lose his job and cause him significant family and social pressure, so the courts can manufacture a definition of the word 'brief'.
Loathsome, despicable, criminally negligent action of their part. But, of course, they are protected from their horrendous disservice to the citizens of the State by the very laws they write!
Just my opinion on the matter.