Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Open Carry on private residential property in Florida?

  1. #1
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463

    Question Open Carry on private residential property in Florida?

    I am a bit pressed for time and was hoping that someone could provide links to Florida law and/or Florida state court decisions regarding the Open Carry of firearms on one's own private residential property.

    Here in California, our 1967 ban had an exemption but the California courts in 1976 construed that to be an exemption to have, but not carry, a loaded firearm on his property (openly or concealed).

    Obviously, I'm interested in Florida law as it pertains to the exterior of one's home.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  2. #2
    Regular Member 2OLD2W8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Black Waters
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    I am a bit pressed for time and was hoping that someone could provide links to Florida law and/or Florida state court decisions regarding the Open Carry of firearms on one's own private residential property.

    Here in California, our 1967 ban had an exemption but the California courts in 1976 construed that to be an exemption to have, but not carry, a loaded firearm on his property (openly or concealed).

    Obviously, I'm interested in Florida law as it pertains to the exterior of one's home.
    I believe F.S. 790.25 (3) (n) is what you are looking for... keep in mind IANAL!!

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...s/0790.25.html
    “We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.” Ayn Rand

    "free people ought...to be armed." In so doing we grasp the larger lesson that the ability to defend ourselves is part and parcel to our freedom. George Washington , January 7, 1790

  3. #3
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by 2OLD2W8 View Post
    I believe F.S. 790.25 (3) (n) is what you are looking for... keep in mind IANAL!!

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...s/0790.25.html
    Thank you, it seems that Florida laws suck as badly as California's.

    "(m) A person while carrying a pistol unloaded and in a secure wrapper, concealed or otherwise, from the place of purchase to his or her home or place of business or to a place of repair or back to his or her home or place of business;
    (n) A person possessing arms at his or her home or place of business;"

    Although one cannot carry a firearm without also possessing a firearm a person can possess a firearm without carrying it. In short, possession by someone does not equal carrying by that someone.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    Thank you, it seems that Florida laws suck as badly as California's.

    "(m) A person while carrying a pistol unloaded and in a secure wrapper, concealed or otherwise, from the place of purchase to his or her home or place of business or to a place of repair or back to his or her home or place of business;
    (n) A person possessing arms at his or her home or place of business;"

    Although one cannot carry a firearm without also possessing a firearm a person can possess a firearm without carrying it. In short, possession by someone does not equal carrying by that someone.
    Not even close, my friend. Not even in the same universe!

    Carry and possess are synonyms with respect to 790.25.

    790.25 Lawful ownership, possession, and use of firearms and other weapons.—
    (3) LAWFUL USES.—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:
    790.06 and 790.053 are statutes prohibiting carry of firearms, concealed and openly, respectively.
    Last edited by notalawyer; 03-31-2015 at 10:45 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    Not even close, my friend. Not even in the same universe!

    Carry and possess are synonyms with respect to 790.25.
    Carry and possess are never synonyms in the law. Possession and carrying are two different acts. Strange that although you quote me saying that "Although one cannot carry a firearm without also possessing a firearm a person can possess a firearm without carrying it. In short, possession by someone does not equal carrying by that someone." you fail to provide a reference to any other code section saying that to possess also means legal to openly carry or a citation to a Florida court case saying that possess means legal to openly carry. Given that there are folks in Federal and state prisons who thought that they could not be convicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm so long as they did not carry the firearm, your post isn't worth much but thanks for playing.

    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    [COLOR="#FF0000"][B]790.25 Lawful ownership, possession, and use of firearms and other weapons.—
    790.06 and 790.053 are statutes prohibiting carry of firearms, concealed and openly, respectively.
    Sorry, but neither 790.06 nor 790.053 nor mention any exception for one's home or private residential property.

    If you would like to try again, perhaps you can point me to a code section or Florida court decision where it says that it is legal (or not illegal) to openly carry a modern, loaded firearm for the purpose of self-defense outside of an incorporated city where the discharge of a firearm is not otherwise prohibited.

    We can at least do that in California and we don't even need a permit or license.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  6. #6
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    790.25.3 (n) A person possessing arms at his or her home or place of business;


    While this says possess, it says 790.06 and 790.053 (dealing with carry) do not apply to the exceptions in 790.25. Therefore, carry would be legal. Our legal tradition certainly does this. I have seen many business owners and employees openly carry in the presence of police. I've never heard of anyone being arrested. In analysis of SB 234 in 2011 (the licensed OC bill that failed), it said OC was already legal at one's home or place of business.
    “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.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    Carry and possess are never synonyms in the law. Possession and carrying are two different acts. Strange that although you quote me saying that "Although one cannot carry a firearm without also possessing a firearm a person can possess a firearm without carrying it. In short, possession by someone does not equal carrying by that someone." you fail to provide a reference to any other code section saying that to possess also means legal to openly carry or a citation to a Florida court case saying that possess means legal to openly carry. Given that there are folks in Federal and state prisons who thought that they could not be convicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm so long as they did not carry the firearm, your post isn't worth much but thanks for playing.



    Sorry, but neither 790.06 nor 790.053 nor mention any exception for one's home or private residential property.

    If you would like to try again, perhaps you can point me to a code section or Florida court decision where it says that it is legal (or not illegal) to openly carry a modern, loaded firearm for the purpose of self-defense outside of an incorporated city where the discharge of a firearm is not otherwise prohibited.

    We can at least do that in California and we don't even need a permit or license.
    Not very good at interpreting statutes are you? Bit of a ***** too.

    Already gave you the the relevant statute. 790.053 says you can't carry openly. 790.25(3) says you can ignore 790.053 if you are at your home or business (among other places). Over 40 years of case law agrees with this common sense interpretation of the statute.

    Where the heck did the political subdivision, age of firearm, or load status come into play? And why are we talking about discharge? They are all completely irrelevant in Florida. Stop trying to compare your very limited (zero) understanding of Florida law with those in California.


    If you're really that interested (doubtful, as you appear to be more argumentative than curious) you can look up Peoples v. State a Florida Supreme Court case from 1973. Although you might have a difficult time understanding it because that case is about concealed carry. But from there you can find scores of other cases. Have fun!

  8. #8
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    Not very good at interpreting statutes are you? Bit of a ***** too.
    I'm very good at reading court decisions and under both Federal and California law one can be convicted for unlawful possession of a firearm without so much as ever even touching the firearm. I suspect the same as true but you did not provide a legal citation where the courts have held that one can openly carry a firearm on his private residential property. You seem not to be aware that the Heller decision involved a law where it was legal to possess a firearm in one's home but one could not carry the firearm in one's home.

    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    Already gave you the the relevant statute. 790.053 says you can't carry openly. 790.25(3) says you can ignore 790.053 if you are at your home or business (among other places). Over 40 years of case law agrees with this common sense interpretation of the statute.
    Forty years of case law and yet you didn't provide a single citation? Without providing the citations you are just blowing smoke.

    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post

    Where the heck did the political subdivision, age of firearm, or load status come into play? And why are we talking about discharge? They are all completely irrelevant in Florida. Stop trying to compare your very limited (zero) understanding of Florida law with those in California.
    The purpose of my original post which should have been made clear by my subsequent posts was to understand the difference between Open Carry in California and Florida.

    Why is it I wonder that so may people who troll my posts have cognitive defects?

    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    If you're really that interested (doubtful, as you appear to be more argumentative than curious) you can look up Peoples v. State a Florida Supreme Court case from 1973. Although you might have a difficult time understanding it because that case is about concealed carry. But from there you can find scores of other cases. Have fun!
    That isn't a citation.

    Do us all a favor and put me on your ignore list.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	NRA Suckers.jpg 
Views:	138 
Size:	97.4 KB 
ID:	12460
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    I'm very good at reading court decisions and under both Federal and California law one can be convicted for unlawful possession of a firearm without so much as ever even touching the firearm. I suspect the same as true but you did not provide a legal citation where the courts have held that one can openly carry a firearm on his private residential property. You seem not to be aware that the Heller decision involved a law where it was legal to possess a firearm in one's home but one could not carry the firearm in one's home.



    Forty years of case law and yet you didn't provide a single citation? Without providing the citations you are just blowing smoke.



    The purpose of my original post which should have been made clear by my subsequent posts was to understand the difference between Open Carry in California and Florida.

    Why is it I wonder that so may people who troll my posts have cognitive defects?



    That isn't a citation.

    Do us all a favor and put me on your ignore list.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	NRA Suckers.jpg 
Views:	138 
Size:	97.4 KB 
ID:	12460
    Reading? Perhaps. Locating and comprehending them, not so much.

    Here I'll toss you a bone.
    Type this into Google: Peoples v. State Florida Supreme Court 1973
    Hint, look at the first hit.

  10. #10
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    Reading? Perhaps. Locating and comprehending them, not so much.

    Here I'll toss you a bone.
    Type this into Google: Peoples v. State Florida Supreme Court 1973
    Hint, look at the first hit.
    Well, since you didn't, I'll put you on my ignore list.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  11. #11
    Regular Member ADulay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Punta Gorda, Florida, USA
    Posts
    466
    Hmm, perhaps when the local PD showed up at my driveway to check on a serial number of a motor vehicle I'm working on (I called them to come and certify it) mabe I should have removed my openly carried G30?

    Paragraph (n) covers the open carry at home thing.

    AD
    NRA Life - AMA Life - ABATE Life
    Viet-Nam Helicopters Pilots Assn - Life
    IDPA, ICORE and USPSA carry gun shooter - Glock Armorer
    NRA Certified Instructor

  12. #12
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by ADulay View Post
    Hmm, perhaps when the local PD showed up at my driveway to check on a serial number of a motor vehicle I'm working on (I called them to come and certify it) mabe I should have removed my openly carried G30?

    Paragraph (n) covers the open carry at home thing.

    AD
    If you are referring to "790.25.3 (n) A person possessing arms at his or her home or place of business," it is meaningless unless you can provide a pinpoint citation to a Florida Court decision which has construed that subsection to mean that one can openly carry a firearm on his private residential property.

    As I had already mentioned, possess does not equal carry. A person can possess something without so much laying a finger on it and, in the case of firearms, be convicted and sent to prison for being in constructive possession of a firearm.

    Our side really needs to learn that laws don't mean what we want them to mean simply because we want them to mean something and all the hoping in the world won't change that fact. Appellate court judges have created a wide and deep body of law they use to uphold convictions. Short of an injunction against a law, or a Florida Supreme Court decision upholding your interpretation that to possess a firearm also means to openly carry a firearm, the only things standing between you and an arrest, prosecution, fine and imprisonment are police and prosecutors.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    If you are referring to "790.25.3 (n) A person possessing arms at his or her home or place of business," it is meaningless unless you can provide a pinpoint citation to a Florida Court decision which has construed that subsection to mean that one can openly carry a firearm on his private residential property.

    As I had already mentioned, possess does not equal carry. A person can possess something without so much laying a finger on it and, in the case of firearms, be convicted and sent to prison for being in constructive possession of a firearm.

    Our side really needs to learn that laws don't mean what we want them to mean simply because we want them to mean something and all the hoping in the world won't change that fact. Appellate court judges have created a wide and deep body of law they use to uphold convictions. Short of an injunction against a law, or a Florida Supreme Court decision upholding your interpretation that to possess a firearm also means to openly carry a firearm, the only things standing between you and an arrest, prosecution, fine and imprisonment are police and prosecutors.
    Our side really needs to learn that laws don't mean
    Some of us are very well versed and experienced with Florida firearms law, both statutory and case law...
    You? Not so much.

  14. #14
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    If you are referring to "790.25.3 (n) A person possessing arms at his or her home or place of business," it is meaningless unless you can provide a pinpoint citation to a Florida Court decision which has construed that subsection to mean that one can openly carry a firearm on his private residential property.

    As I had already mentioned, possess does not equal carry. A person can possess something without so much laying a finger on it and, in the case of firearms, be convicted and sent to prison for being in constructive possession of a firearm.

    Our side really needs to learn that laws don't mean what we want them to mean simply because we want them to mean something and all the hoping in the world won't change that fact. Appellate court judges have created a wide and deep body of law they use to uphold convictions. Short of an injunction against a law, or a Florida Supreme Court decision upholding your interpretation that to possess a firearm also means to openly carry a firearm, the only things standing between you and an arrest, prosecution, fine and imprisonment are police and prosecutors.



    OR

    you could just read the entire statute and come to your own educated conclusion by doing some easy research. and by easy, i mean that "790.053" is a clickable link.

    "(3) LAWFUL USES.—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:"

    if you were to click on "790.053", it would lead you to the page that says in part,

    "(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."


    Alex, i'll take "common sense for $1,000"

    answer:

    the laws written about prohibiting and restricting open and concealed carry do not apply to someone on their own property or at their place of business. alleviating the need to determine if "possess" means the same thing as "carry".

  15. #15
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    If you are referring to "790.25.3 (n) A person possessing arms at his or her home or place of business," it is meaningless unless you can provide a pinpoint citation to a Florida Court decision which has construed that subsection to mean that one can openly carry a firearm on his private residential property.

    As I had already mentioned, possess does not equal carry. A person can possess something without so much laying a finger on it and, in the case of firearms, be convicted and sent to prison for being in constructive possession of a firearm.

    Our side really needs to learn that laws don't mean what we want them to mean simply because we want them to mean something and all the hoping in the world won't change that fact. Appellate court judges have created a wide and deep body of law they use to uphold convictions. Short of an injunction against a law, or a Florida Supreme Court decision upholding your interpretation that to possess a firearm also means to openly carry a firearm, the only things standing between you and an arrest, prosecution, fine and imprisonment are police and prosecutors.
    Perhaps it will take your....interesting....personality to restore the right to carry in California. You sounds like you may be just the man. Here however, you are wrong and no court decision is needed. 790.053 prohibits open carry. 790.053 does not apply to the exceptions in 790.25. This is also, anecdotally to be sure, how law enforcement construes the statutes. If it were otherwise, you can be CERTAIN, you'd be hearing about it from the people like me and Fl Carry.
    Last edited by 77zach; 04-04-2015 at 07:58 AM.
    “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.

  16. #16
    Regular Member ADulay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Punta Gorda, Florida, USA
    Posts
    466
    Quote Originally Posted by hammer6 View Post
    "(3) LAWFUL USES.—The provisions of ss. 790.053 and 790.06 do not apply in the following instances,
    That first sentence is what makes the rest of the carrying exceptions valid!

    AD
    NRA Life - AMA Life - ABATE Life
    Viet-Nam Helicopters Pilots Assn - Life
    IDPA, ICORE and USPSA carry gun shooter - Glock Armorer
    NRA Certified Instructor

  17. #17
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    I am a bit pressed for time and was hoping that someone could provide links to Florida law and/or Florida state court decisions regarding the Open Carry of firearms on one's own private residential property.

    Here in California, our 1967 ban had an exemption but the California courts in 1976 construed that to be an exemption to have, but not carry, a loaded firearm on his property (openly or concealed).

    Obviously, I'm interested in Florida law as it pertains to the exterior of one's home.

    In hindsight it was foolish of me to post the inquiry here. If I could close this thread, I would.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    In hindsight it was foolish of me to post the inquiry here. If I could close this thread, I would.
    I don't think it was at all foolish to post your inquiry here. On the contrary, look at the results: You have been given specific statutory references along with pointers to relevant case law in addition to real world experiences by some very informed people.

    Now, I do agree that it was foolish to dismiss of all that information while, apparently, lacking the ability or desire to comprehend it.

    Perhaps you could go over to the Florida Concealed Carry forum and post your inquiry there. I sure some of those folks (despite the name) would be happy to address your Open Carry question.
    Last edited by notalawyer; 04-05-2015 at 12:22 AM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    In hindsight it was foolish of me to post the inquiry here. If I could close this thread, I would.
    why? your question was answered, thoroughly, and with citations. apparently you refuse to accept educated responses since they don't agree with your pre-planned opinion.

Posting Permissions

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