Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: 2016 licensed Open Carry Bill.

  1. #1
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005

    2016 licensed Open Carry Bill.

    If we're being honest, most of us know the courts will not recognize our right to carry a firearm. The most Norman vs State will give us is a license "issued as a matter of right", which is a good and worthwhile result! Our hope for OC lies in the legislature.


    I know it's silly and weird and extreme to actually do something for your rights but I've written my own licensed OC bill and will present it to my Republican state senator, in person (Rob Bradley). The changes to 790.053 and 790.10 below are simple and you can present them to your Senator if they are a Republican. I will not ask those who have Democrat Senators to waste their time, with the exception of Senator Abruzzo.

    If Florida Carry gets sponsors for their own bill and it's different than this at least the senators will have been introduced to the concept by people other than those who are the heads of gun rights lobbies.

    I suggest presenting the topic and the suggested changes to your senator. Please don't wear cammo when you do this. If they are opposed tell them you will research their specific concerns (even if you already know them to be unfounded) and that you will return later with evidence to the contrary. If they support it or not, address the concerns of the Retail Federation. 1. Private properties can already decide if they want to allow any type of behavior (no shoes, no shirt, no service). 2. Most states already allow open carry without a license, and retailers there have no concerns over open carry.

    If you do this report back in this thread with your experience and which senator you visited.


    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) to openly carry a holstered handgun.
    (2) A person may openly carry, for purposes of lawful self-defense:
    (a) A self-defense chemical spray.
    (b) A nonlethal stun gun or dart-firing stun gun or other nonlethal electric weapon or device that is designed solely for defensive purposes.
    (3) Any person violating this section commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.


    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. 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.
    Last edited by 77zach; 05-11-2015 at 11:33 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.

  2. #2
    Regular Member ADulay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Punta Gorda, Florida, USA
    Posts
    466
    77Zach,

    Very nice and a good idea.

    I'll be printing it out and preparing a small presentation for when the appropriate time presents itself.

    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

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The Swamp
    Posts
    76
    I'll have to see if I can arrange a meeting with Jeff Brandes

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    No need to change 790.10, as it already only prohibits rude, angry, careless display.

    You should consider changing your language in 790.053 to mirror the changes to 790.01 that will take place when Scott signs SB 290. This makes the lack of a CWFL an element of the crime vs an affirmative defense to the crime.

    I'd have to think about it some, but here's a first draft off the top of my head.

    Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person who is not licensed pursuant to s. 790.06 to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device...
    Then you will also need to change 790.06 to include Open Carry.

    There might need to be some other changes as well. Like 790.25(5)....

  5. #5
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    No need to change 790.10, as it already only prohibits rude, angry, careless display.

    You should consider changing your language in 790.053 to mirror the changes to 790.01 that will take place when Scott signs SB 290. This makes the lack of a CWFL an element of the crime vs an affirmative defense to the crime.

    I'd have to think about it some, but here's a first draft off the top of my head.


    Then you will also need to change 790.06 to include Open Carry.

    There might need to be some other changes as well. Like 790.25(5)....
    Great minds think alike lol! I thought about doing the EXACT same thing to make our law like Georgia's, but then I thought it may make things more difficult if I rock the boat too much. Besides, I just want to introduce the concept, it's not like my version will go anywhere. NRA or Fl Carry will be the ones to get a bill introduced if at all.

    Apart from court decisions saying carry is not grounds for a stop in and of itself, Fl law says we have to show a cop the permit upon demand if we're carrying a concealed weapon. But yes, making carry an element of the crime would be superior.
    Last edited by 77zach; 05-12-2015 at 01:20 PM.
    “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.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    Great minds think alike lol! I thought about doing the EXACT same thing to make our law like Georgia's, but then I thought it may make things more difficult if I rock the boat too much. Besides, I just want to introduce the concept, it's not like my version will go anywhere. NRA or Fl Carry will be the ones to get a bill introduced if at all.

    Apart from court decisions saying carry is not grounds for a stop in and of itself, Fl law says we have to show a cop the permit upon demand if we're carrying a concealed weapon. But yes, making carry an element of the crime would be superior.
    Fl law says we have to show a cop the permit upon demand if we're carrying a concealed weapon
    If one is lawfully detained, yes. But if you don't, it's not criminal, it's merely a $25 administrative fine.


    But yes, making carry an element of the crime would be superior.
    Once Scott signs SB290, it will be.

    ETA: SB290 was sent to the Governor last Thursday, so it will be law on, or before, May 23, unless he vetoes it.

    On that date (well, it's already the law according the the Florida Supreme Court - but some/many/most LEO & SAs will choose to ignore that particular piece of case law) unless a LEO knows, or has RS that one is unlicensed, or has RS of criminal activity; any stop based solely upon the possession of a firearm (concealed) will be clearly unlawful. Also with the statutory change the so-called 'reasonable mistake of law' will not stand up to scrutiny.
    Last edited by notalawyer; 05-12-2015 at 09:13 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    How do you expect licensed OC to pass the same bunch of jerks who are deliberately blocking campus carry right now?

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Quote Originally Posted by randian View Post
    How do you expect licensed OC to pass the same bunch of jerks who are deliberately blocking campus carry right now?
    Two different issues, possibly not in the same committee = different route.

    Would not expect carte blanche OC in Florida w/o restrictions/limiting factors........not yet.
    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.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    I'm not sure, as a practical matter in the big scheme of things, that licensed OC is a bad next step. We didn't get the 2A restrictions we have in one fell swoop and we generally haven't regained the ground we have in leaps and bounds. Incrementalism has been an effect tool to implement agendas in this nation for a century.

    MO, until October, only had preemption for CC, so municipalities could pass any sort of OC restriction. We moved to preemption for OC with a CCW going into effect last October. The timing, IMO was fortuitous.

    The local papers were full of hyperbolic comments, just like with CC, of armed OC mobs scaring children and old ladies by wandering around with bazookas and bandoleers outside the local daycare and grocery stores. Going into effect just before winter meant that most of the time people would be CC just because winter clothing naturally covered the sidearm. As weather has warmed, I've spotted a few others OC around the only local town that banned OC. And despite the hyperbole and fear mongering of the masses, I have yet to have any negative comments or be accosted by any LEO. (we also passed a constitutional amendment that on its face essentially creates constitutional carry but the actual effect is not clear cut and already has cases winding through court)

    What I'm getting at is that sometimes, easing into a thing isn't the worst way to get where you want to be. Some object to licensed OC on principle, and while I don't disagree, there is a political and social reality. If we can go from no OC, to licensed OC and people realize that just like with CC there isn't blood in the streets, the arguments against non-licensed OC are diminished.

    FL is an interesting social study as having been the lead in the modern CC movement, it has lagged significantly in OC. I suspect it is related to the massive numbers of northeasterners inhabiting the state. My in-laws live in FL and have numerous northeastern transplants for friends. I am stunned at the numbers of them who CC and vigorously support it. But not a single one has even mumbled passing support for OC when the discussions have arisen and a few are adamantly opposed. I can't claim this is anything resembling a representative group however, I suspect it is demonstrative of the hurdles faced.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Two different issues, possibly not in the same committee = different route.
    Why wouldn't OC pass through the same committee?

  11. #11
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Two different issues, possibly not in the same committee = different route.

    Would not expect carte blanche OC in Florida w/o restrictions/limiting factors........not yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by randian View Post
    Why wouldn't OC pass through the same committee?
    I don't know - you tell me. I don't make their procedural rules. Perhaps someone local can explain how bills are assigned to committees - got a pretty good idea, but no hands on experience in Florida.

    Some bills never get assigned to a committee - that's what is called a pocket veto.
    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
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    SNIP (b) A nonlethal stun gun or dart-firing stun gun or other nonlethal electric weapon or device that is designed solely for defensive purposes.
    Its not the main point of the proposed statute, I know; I'm just mentioning this next as a detail I noticed.

    I would urge dropping the word nonlethal.

    These devices have already proven lethal. Some years ago, Taser was forced to change the terminology from nonlethal to less-lethal.

    I can see it now. Some guy uses such a device on drugged up attacker who requires multiple jolts because he doesn't feel it much, then the attacker dies from heart seizure or something. Then defender is charged by some socialist prosecutor for carrying a lethal stun weapon in defiance of the statute. Which then erases his clean-hands protective mantle for justified self-defense in the prosecutor's mind.

    Heck, I should think any model of electric stun weapon strong enough to be effective has a good chance of having killed some attacker or police abuse victim somewhere. Meaning the statute, as written, disallows most electric stun weapons or could be interpreted that way by a court or malicious cop.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member ADulay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Punta Gorda, Florida, USA
    Posts
    466
    Quote Originally Posted by deepdiver View Post

    What I'm getting at is that sometimes, easing into a thing isn't the worst way to get where you want to be. Some object to licensed OC on principle, and while I don't disagree, there is a political and social reality. If we can go from no OC, to licensed OC and people realize that just like with CC there isn't blood in the streets, the arguments against non-licensed OC are diminished.
    I would tend to agree with you on this. Going from a basically "concealed and out of sight" mentality to one of "openly carried" of our sidearms most probably won't be done all at once.

    Getting the small, incremental advancement, session after session, is probably the most productive course of action.

    Having watched "the system" work in real time, I'm still amazed ANYTHING ever gets done in the legislature.

    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

  14. #14
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    I don't know - you tell me. I don't make their procedural rules. Perhaps someone local can explain how bills are assigned to committees - got a pretty good idea, but no hands on experience in Florida.

    Some bills never get assigned to a committee - that's what is called a pocket veto.
    Randian is correct, OC dies in the Senate Judiciary Committee without strong support from more than a few other Republicans. Judiciary chair is a very anti gun republican from south Florida/Miami area.

    However, as to campus carry, there are open carry states where campus carry has failed multiple times. See Nevada, for example. Most states have OC, because they had that decided in a more civilized time.
    Last edited by 77zach; 05-16-2015 at 05:04 PM.
    “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.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    Randian is correct, OC dies in the Senate Judiciary Committee without strong support from more than a few other Republicans.
    Can they force the Judiciary chair to put it to a vote? Said other Republicans are irrelevant otherwise. As for Nevada, the chair of the committee considering campus carry also worked for UNLV. A huge conflict of interest if you ask me, but he was instrumental in blocking campus carry. He's out of the legislature now if I recall correctly.

  16. #16
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by randian View Post
    Can they force the Judiciary chair to put it to a vote? Said other Republicans are irrelevant otherwise. As for Nevada, the chair of the committee considering campus carry also worked for UNLV. A huge conflict of interest if you ask me, but he was instrumental in blocking campus carry. He's out of the legislature now if I recall correctly.
    They could indirectly. If there were a lot of support from the other senators, the Senate president could force Judiciary to hear it or pull it from the committee altogether.

    Any OC bill would almost certainly go through Criminal Justice, then Judiciary, then Rules, then to the Floor. CJ is no problem, anything pro gun would pass, probably even constitutional carry, then it hits a brick wall of tyranny and stupid.

    The House will pass anything pro gun, the senate is always the limiting factor.
    Last edited by 77zach; 05-17-2015 at 08:27 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.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran StogieC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    746
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    I don't know - you tell me. I don't make their procedural rules. Perhaps someone local can explain how bills are assigned to committees - got a pretty good idea, but no hands on experience in Florida.

    Some bills never get assigned to a committee - that's what is called a pocket veto.
    There is not such a thing as a pocket veto in Florida law. If the Governor fails to sign or veto a bill in time, usually 15 days, it becomes law.

    Not assigning a bill to committee is also not possible in Florida, law and the FL constitution requires that all filed bills be assigned to committees by the House Speaker and Senate President.

    What, and how many, committees the bills are assigned to is at the discretion of these legislative officers.

    Committee chairs can refuse to calendar a bill they don't like. In these cases, the main recourse is for the Senate President or House Speaker to withdraw the bill from that committee. This is called not "taking up" a bill and the bill dies "on the table".

    Bills are much easier to kill than they are to pass. Florida Carry will need at least $25,000 to pay for the direct and indirect lobbying necessary to pass a licensed open carry bill. Even if fully funded, the outcome is never assured.

    It took NRA 7 years to pass shall-issue in Florida. We've been working on open carry for 5 years now. This coming session, our 6th year, will be a full court press on the issue.

    One of our greatest challenges in the legislature comes from well meaning OC advocates who do not know how to politely and effectively ASK legislators to support open carry bills.

    Calling or writing Senators, Representatives & their staff to demand that they vote for the bill - "or else"... Hurts our cause immeasurably. I can assure you that nobody in Tallahassee is going to vote to allow people who they perceive as "hot heads" and bullies to carry unconcealed.

    Florida Republicans are not Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Oklahoma, or Louisiana Republicans... Some of the antics we saw in Texas with OC advocates behaving badly with legislators would most assuredly kill an OC bill here.

    Educating the public on effective communication with legislators is an effort that we have been engaged in since 2011 and will see increased focus over the next few months leading up to the early committee weeks that start in Oct or Nov.
    Last edited by StogieC; 06-09-2015 at 08:39 AM.

  18. #18
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Quote Originally Posted by StogieC View Post
    There is not such a thing as a pocket veto in Florida law. If the Governor fails to sign or veto a bill in time, usually 15 days, it becomes law.

    Not assigning a bill to committee is also not possible in Florida, law and the FL constitution requires that all filed bills be assigned to committees by the House Speaker and Senate President.

    What, and how many, committees the bills are assigned to is at the discretion of these legislative officers.

    Committee chairs can refuse to calendar a bill they don't like. In these cases, the main recourse is for the Senate President or House Speaker to withdraw the bill from that committee. This is called not "taking up" a bill and the bill dies "on the table".

    --snipped--
    Sounds like the same difference to me - pocket veto, refuse to calendar, not taking up, or letting it die on the table.
    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.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran StogieC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    746
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Sounds like the same difference to me - pocket veto, refuse to calendar, not taking up, or letting it die on the table.
    I play with lawyers and legislators too much. Use the wrong term and they look at you like you're an idiot.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    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) to openly carry a holstered handgun.
    (2) A person may openly carry, for purposes of lawful self-defense:
    (a) A self-defense chemical spray.
    (b) A nonlethal stun gun or dart-firing stun gun or other nonlethal electric weapon or device that is designed solely for defensive purposes.
    (3) Any person violating this section commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
    Do not, please, Please, PLEASE, DO NOT submit the bill with that wording. It makes the mere open carry of a firearm RAS of a crime. The way you should write the bill is something akin to " No person shall openly carry a handgun/rifle/40-megawatt laser unless such person has a valid weapon's carry license issued...."

    The difference, and it's not mere quibbling, is that the first gives RAS upon the mere discovery that a firearm is being carried while the second requires RAS that a person is unlicensed. The second is also the way many/most state laws are written in regards to licensing and automobiles. It's the absence of a license not the driving of a car that is illegal.

    If I may blow my own state's horn, I think Georgia has a marvelously well crafted law on the subject:
    O.C.G.A. § 16-11-137
    Required possession of weapons carry license or proof of exemption when carrying a weapon; detention for investigation of carrying permit

    (a) Every license holder shall have his or her valid weapons carry license in his or her immediate possession at all times when carrying a weapon, or if such person is exempt from having a weapons carry license pursuant to Code Section 16-11-130 or subsection (c) of Code Section 16-11-127.1, he or she shall have proof of his or her exemption in his or her immediate possession at all times when carrying a weapon, and his or her failure to do so shall be prima-facie evidence of a violation of the applicable provision of Code Sections 16-11-126 through 16-11-127.2.

    (b) A person carrying a weapon shall not be subject to detention for the sole purpose of investigating whether such person has a weapons carry license.

    (c) A person convicted of a violation of this Code section shall be fined not more than $10.00 if he or she produces in court his or her weapons carry license, provided that it was valid at the time of his or her arrest, or produces proof of his or her exemption.
    1) It matches nearly word for word the traffic code regarding licenses. Makes it super easy for an officer; if he can remember one, he can remember both without confusion.
    2) It provides the exact same penalty for not having a weapon license in one's possession as does the traffic code for not having a driving license
    3) In contrast to the traffic code, is prohibits an individual from being detained merely because an officer sees a firearm and wants to investigate that person without RAS.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 06-09-2015 at 10:10 AM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    Do not, please, Please, PLEASE, DO NOT submit the bill with that wording. It makes the mere open carry of a firearm RAS of a crime. The way you should write the bill is something akin to " No person shall openly carry a handgun/rifle/40-megawatt laser unless such person has a valid weapon's carry license issued...."

    The difference, and it's not mere quibbling, is that the first gives RAS upon the mere discovery that a firearm is being carried while the second requires RAS that a person is unlicensed. The second is also the way many/most state laws are written in regards to licensing and automobiles. It's the absence of a license not the driving of a car that is illegal.

    If I may blow my own state's horn, I think Georgia has a marvelously well crafted law on the subject:
    1) It matches nearly word for word the traffic code regarding licenses. Makes it super easy for an officer; if he can remember one, he can remember both without confusion.
    2) It provides the exact same penalty for not having a weapon license in one's possession as does the traffic code for not having a driving license
    3) In contrast to the traffic code, is prohibits an individual from being detained merely because an officer sees a firearm and wants to investigate that person without RAS.
    That's the law as it exists today.
    I'm assuming the plan is to re-write 790.053 (and make other appropriate housekeeping updates to other statutes that reference it) to include the wording we just added to 790.01 - making the absence of a CWFL an element of the crime as opposed to an affirmative defense.
    Then change 790.06 (the concealed license statute) to simply remove he word 'concealed'.
    Last edited by notalawyer; 06-09-2015 at 11:06 AM.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran StogieC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    746

    2016 licensed Open Carry Bill.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    Do not, please, Please, PLEASE, DO NOT submit the bill with that wording. It makes the mere open carry of a firearm RAS of a crime. The way you should write the bill is something akin to " No person shall openly carry a handgun/rifle/40-megawatt laser unless such person has a valid weapon's carry license issued...."

    The difference, and it's not mere quibbling, is that the first gives RAS upon the mere discovery that a firearm is being carried while the second requires RAS that a person is unlicensed. The second is also the way many/most state laws are written in regards to licensing and automobiles. It's the absence of a license not the driving of a car that is illegal.

    If I may blow my own state's horn, I think Georgia has a marvelously well crafted law on the subject:
    1) It matches nearly word for word the traffic code regarding licenses. Makes it super easy for an officer; if he can remember one, he can remember both without confusion.
    2) It provides the exact same penalty for not having a weapon license in one's possession as does the traffic code for not having a driving license
    3) In contrast to the traffic code, is prohibits an individual from being detained merely because an officer sees a firearm and wants to investigate that person without RAS.
    That's the current law. We would never propose a bill that makes licensed OC an affirmative defense rather than an element of a crime. I can't guarantee what the language will end up looking like, that depends on the bill sponsors in the legislature, but I can assure you that we will do everything in our power to make it a clean bill.
    Last edited by StogieC; 06-09-2015 at 10:50 AM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by StogieC View Post
    That's the current law. We would never propose a bill that makes licensed OC an affirmative defense rather than an element of a crime. I can't guarantee what the language will end up looking like, that depends on the bill sponsors in the legislature, but I can assure you that we will do everything in our power to make it a clean bill.
    My apologies, but did you not understand what I was trying to communicate in my post?
    The way the proposed bill is written provides an articulable suspicion of criminal behavior upon sighting an openly carried firearm.
    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.

    "Officer Reed, why did you stop Mr Citizen that day?"
    "I observed him committing a violation of sub-section 2 of Florida Code 790.053; openly carrying a firearm."
    That makes the mere sight of a firearm an element of the crime, and producing a license an affirmative defense, does it not?

    An officer is not required to consider any and all circumstances that might not support the charge, but need only find circumstances supporting it. In other words, there could be some very good reasons to be running down the road with a bag that has orange smoke coming from it while alarm bells are blaring from a nearby bank, but an officer only needs consider circumstances that warrant a detention and investigation.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 06-09-2015 at 04:45 PM.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran StogieC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    746

    2016 licensed Open Carry Bill.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    My apologies, but did you not understand what I was trying to communicate in my post?
    The way the proposed bill is written provides an articulable suspicion of criminal behavior upon sighting an openly carried firearm.
    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.

    "Officer Reed, why did you stop Mr Citizen that day?"
    "I observed him committing a violation of sub-section 2 of Florida Code 790.053, he was openly carrying a firearm."

    That makes the mere sight of a firearm an element of the crime, and producing a license an affirmative defense, does it not?
    What bill? There is no bill written right now.

    You quoted the current law. If you are talking about what Zach wrote in the OP... Don't worry about it. He isn't getting anyone to file that language even over my dead body.

    Zach, nice try but you need more legal education. FallSchrimpHunter (sp? I don't have an umlaut) is (partially) right if he is talking about the language you proposed in your OP. It will create huge affirmative defense issues.

    FWIW I am the guy who drafted the new language, that fixed the issue you are concerned with, in 790.01 Fla. Stat.
    Last edited by StogieC; 06-09-2015 at 05:05 PM.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran StogieC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    746
    Can I buy a vowel and an eszett?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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