Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Is this considered open carry.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    23

    Is this considered open carry.

    So if a licensed or non licensed person is carrying a handgun in plain sight in their vehicle it wouldn't be an OC violation as long as it's "Snapped in a holster" correct? Snapped in a holster meets the states definition of securly encased and the state makes no mention of whether it can be visible or not, only that the law shouldn't be construed to allow non licensed persons to carry it on them concealed.

    I'm on vacation and the laws of the states I'm going through/staying in got me reading ours again. So far Fl has the best laws except for no oc. Nc has, real retarded stuff in their laws imho but they can oc though.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Wikipedia would seem to agree with you...
    Vehicle carry without a license is permitted.

    Handguns – must be either "securely encased" or not immediately available for use.790.25 (5) "Securely encased" means in a glove compartment, whether or not locked; snapped in a holster; in a gun case, whether or not locked; in a zippered gun case; or in a closed box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for access.FS 790.001(17) Carry of a Handgun on one's person inside a vehicle without a license is not permitted (except in the case of open carry in accordance with the law outlined above). Once a handgun is securely encased, it can be stored anywhere inside the vehicle and is not limited to just the glove compartment/center console.
    790.25 (5) POSSESSION IN PRIVATE CONVEYANCE.—Notwithstanding subsection (2), it is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license, if the firearm or other weapon is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use. Nothing herein contained prohibits the carrying of a legal firearm other than a handgun anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm or other weapon on the person. This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including lawful self-defense as provided in s. 776.012.

    790.001 (17) “Securely encased” means in a glove compartment, whether or not locked; snapped in a holster; in a gun case, whether or not locked; in a zippered gun case; or in a closed box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for access.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 12-22-2014 at 07:55 PM.

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,610
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrich86 View Post
    So if a licensed or non licensed person is carrying a handgun in plain sight in their vehicle it wouldn't be an OC violation as long as it's "Snapped in a holster" correct? Snapped in a holster meets the states definition of securly encased and the state makes no mention of whether it can be visible or not, only that the law shouldn't be construed to allow non licensed persons to carry it on them concealed.

    I'm on vacation and the laws of the states I'm going through/staying in got me reading ours again. So far Fl has the best laws except for no oc. Nc has, real retarded stuff in their laws imho but they can oc though.
    Each state has different laws and different definitions - there is no one size fits all.
    Some states (PA as an example) do not allow unlicensed OC in a vehicle, though on foot is legal.

    Off the top of my head, I know of no state where "snapped in a holster" constitutes "securely encased." OC generally does not dictate what type of holster must be used. If it isn't visible and easily identifiable as a handgun, then it isn't OC.

    I'll not trade Virginia's gun laws for Florida's - they're not too bad, but need improvement
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 12-22-2014 at 07:58 PM.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Regular Member conandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    248
    What is going to be the catch is the readily accessible for use. It is my understanding that is the catch cops will use to site you. You will have a hard time fighting that unless it's unloaded.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by conandan View Post
    What is going to be the catch is the readily accessible for use. It is my understanding that is the catch cops will use to site you. You will have a hard time fighting that unless it's unloaded.
    Yes but it says securly encased OR not readily accessible for immediate use. Not readily accessible doesn't apply when the weapon is securely encased with the way the law reads. There is no requirement that it be both securly encased and not readily accessible from what I'm seeing in the law.

  6. #6
    Regular Member conandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrich86 View Post
    Yes but it says securly encased OR not readily accessible for immediate use. Not readily accessible doesn't apply when the weapon is securely encased with the way the law reads. There is no requirement that it be both securly encased and not readily accessible from what I'm seeing in the law.
    I agree with you, but you should know it's not what the law says or how we interpret it. It is how the LEO wants to interpret it. There are counties here in Florida that are very anti gun. They will charge you and you will have to fight it in court.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Incorrect. What 'counts' is how the courts interpret things. An officer isn't trained in the law, only in how to enforce the law, or what he thinks is the law.

    As "the law" (meaning 790.001 (17)) says. "...'Securely encased' means in a glove compartment, whether or not locked; snapped in a holster; in a gun case, whether or not locked; in a zippered gun case; or in a closed box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for access." then the fact that a law enforcement officer believes to the best of his knowledge that the box must be gift wrapped with a red bow is meaningless. The law says a cardboard shoe box with a cover is sufficient.

    It may result in an arrest, it won't result in a conviction and any competent solicitor will request the case be nolle prosequied, which can then be expunged.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Each state has different laws and different definitions - there is no one size fits all.
    Some states (PA as an example) do not allow unlicensed OC in a vehicle, though on foot is legal.

    Off the top of my head, I know of no state where "snapped in a holster" constitutes "securely encased." OC generally does not dictate what type of holster must be used. If it isn't visible and easily identifiable as a handgun, then it isn't OC.

    I'll not trade Virginia's gun laws for Florida's - they're not too bad, but need improvement

    Welcome to Florida:
    790.001
    (17) “Securely encased” means in a glove compartment, whether or not locked; snapped in a holster; in a gun case, whether or not locked; in a zippered gun case; or in a closed box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for access.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrich86 View Post
    Yes but it says securly encased OR not readily accessible for immediate use. Not readily accessible doesn't apply when the weapon is securely encased with the way the law reads. There is no requirement that it be both securly encased and not readily accessible from what I'm seeing in the law.
    But that is only in 790.25(5) which, by the way, requires a handgun to be concealed.

    790.25(3)(l)
    A person traveling by private conveyance when the weapon is securely encased [which 'snapped in a holster' is]. . .
    on the other hand does not contain the readily accessible language and explicitly supersedes the Open Carry, Concealed Carry and licensing requirements.

    There is only one appellate case (the defendant lost and his conviction upheld) that addresses the 'conflict' between these two statutes. But it's not a very good one because #1 the defendant had an idiot for an attorney - himself and #2 the court came to the conclusion (how, I have no idea) that 790.25(5) 'clarifies' 790.25(3)(l).

    I'm pretty confident that if this guy had a real attorney, specifically a firearms attorney, he would have likely won at the appeal court (at least on the concealed firearm charge), but if not there, certainly at the Supreme Court level.

    He simply made too many mistakes in the presentation of his case, choosing to focus, not on the law, but on the actions of the out of state LEO that arrested him after he allegedly threatened to shoot them during an apparent road-rage situation.

    And he was very, very lucky that the State Attorney chose not to prosecute him on an Aggravated Assault with a Firearm charge as well (of which he was clearly guilty.)


    Having said all of that, I give someone a 99.44% chance of being arrested (and convicted at the trial court level) should they choose to 'visibly' carry a pistol, "on or about their person", snapped in a holster, in their car. Unless they are participating in any of the activities listed in 790.25(3).*

    * Which is precisely why the decision of the 4th DCA was incorrect.
    Last edited by notalawyer; 12-24-2014 at 03:27 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    There is only one appellate case (the defendant lost and his conviction upheld) that addresses the 'conflict' between these two statutes. But it's not a very good one because #1 the defendant had an idiot for an attorney - himself and #2 the court came to the conclusion (how, I have no idea) that 790.25(5) 'clarifies' 790.25(3)(l).
    .
    I didn't even know about this case, I just never did it ( I knew it was legal) because I don't like carrying a gun on the hip while driving, I find it very awkward. Add it to the list of reasons I don't have any faith in the court to rule correctly in Norman. I'm excited to be proved wrong.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  11. #11
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,610
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Each state has different laws and different definitions - there is no one size fits all.
    Some states (PA as an example) do not allow unlicensed OC in a vehicle, though on foot is legal.

    Off the top of my head, I know of no state where "snapped in a holster" constitutes "securely encased." OC generally does not dictate what type of holster must be used. If it isn't visible and easily identifiable as a handgun, then it isn't OC.

    I'll not trade Virginia's gun laws for Florida's - they're not too bad, but need improvement
    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    Welcome to Florida:
    790.001
    (17) “Securely encased” means in a glove compartment, whether or not locked; snapped in a holster; in a gun case, whether or not locked; in a zippered gun case; or in a closed box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for access.
    Appreciate the clarification - always willing to learn.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    I didn't even know about this case, I just never did it ( I knew it was legal) because I don't like carrying a gun on the hip while driving, I find it very awkward. Add it to the list of reasons I don't have any faith in the court to rule correctly in Norman. I'm excited to be proved wrong.
    I think you missed the point of my post. The 4th DCA said, in essence, it's unlawful, when carried "on or about one's person".

  13. #13
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    They key word is within the first sentence here:

    790.25 (5) POSSESSION IN PRIVATE CONVEYANCE.—Notwithstanding subsection (2), it is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license, if the firearm or other weapon is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use.

    It is describing a concealed firearm that is out of view and under the stated conditions. It needs to be concealed, not visible, and under a condition the state recognizes as non-accessible. Concealed in a glove box. Concealed in a case. Concealed in a snapped holster, etc. The big word there is concealed. It's trying to say you may not need a permit to conceal it under those conditions, not that you can have it out in the open.

    There's only a few conditions in which open carry is allowed here, some of which include traveling to or from a firing range, hunting, fishing or camping. Other than that, you must conceal it.

    In a related case, NY Jets running back Chris Johnson was recently arrested in Orlando for not having his firearm concealed after officers saw the butt of the handle in the open while it was stored in his car:

    http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/stor...rrying-firearm

    In the story within the link, you'll notice two versions of the story- but neither of them justify his transporting under the law.

    In the police version, they say the butt of the weapon was visible. Therefore, they arrested him for open carry. In his version of the story, he says it was concealed under a bag and was only found during a search he consented to. In that scenario, he would still be arrested because it was not encased (a lock box, a glove box, snapped in a holster, etc).

    I'm sure the courts will work it out one way or the other, but the prime point here is that he was arrested for not having it under the conditions the law calls for. Florida is pretty lenient, but they are also hell on carriers who they feel are not following the laws. If it involves open carry, they are more than willing to arrest first and ask questions later.
    Last edited by rotorhead; 01-13-2015 at 11:00 AM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by rotorhead View Post
    In his version of the story, he says it was concealed under a bag and was only found during a search he consented to. In that scenario, he would still be arrested because it was not encased (a lock box, a glove box, snapped in a holster,
    Yes but he did have a CWFL. With one you can carry a concealed handgun on or about your person in a vehicle. So if it was really under bag and not visible the securly encased stuff doesn't apply since he is licensed and it was "about his person". Anyway bad arrest due to ****** laws. Fl needs it's firearm laws redone anyway. Should be able to carry your gun how you want.

    On a side note I made a new thread about his arrest before seeing you comment.

  15. #15
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    I had noticed in a later piece that he has his permit in FL so yeah, he should have been legal. It's a twist I wasn't aware of when I made my last post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •