ixtow
Founder's Club Member
Castro Lite. Why fight oppression when you can be it?
-
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.
-
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.
Florida open carry bill shoots through house committee
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
IT's a short-sighted move by the anti's, and Gaetz is merely "conceeding it" becasue he knows it burns them in the long run. Essentially, giving them rope.
Yes, it means someone will have to get arrested and fight it in the Kangaroo Kourts of Floriduh, but the precedent is pretty damned heavy. It'll only cost the offending cop/department, and Gaetz knows this. So, let them have this ammendment... It's a booby trap, and for the first time, one of our own...
efriday
Regular Member
reply from Representative Geatz's office
When I asked Representative Geatz's office about the many proposed Amendments to the Bill, here is their reply -
"The majority of the amendments you see are what we call substitute amendments, and the reason they were filed were to try to undo or fix an amendment that another member had filed that we thought was not good for the bill."
When I asked Representative Geatz's office about the many proposed Amendments to the Bill, here is their reply -
"The majority of the amendments you see are what we call substitute amendments, and the reason they were filed were to try to undo or fix an amendment that another member had filed that we thought was not good for the bill."
77zach
Regular Member
That is true, but I just don't get why they don't understand this. An amendment like this from the sponsor is for Republican appeasement. I guess they really are that stupido.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Last edited:
77zach
Regular Member
Our statist rulers in the Full House will now decide if they will partially recognize our rights. 4PM, 2/2/2016
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/HouseCalendar/broadcast.aspx
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/HouseCalendar/broadcast.aspx
California Right To Carry
Regular Member
Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause in 11th Circuit (Florida)
The proposed amendment saying that:
Representative Gaetz offered the following:
3 Amendment (with title amendment)
4 Remove line 40 and insert:
5 investigations as otherwise authorized by law, including, but
6 not limited to, the authority to demand a person openly carrying
7 a firearm to display a valid license to carry a concealed weapon
8 or firearm. Refusal to display a valid license to carry a
9 concealed weapon or firearm by a person not carrying a firearm
10 pursuant to s. 790.25(3) constitutes reasonable suspicion that a
11 crime is being committed.
The 11th Federal Circuit is the controlling court for the State of Florida (SCOTUS notwithstanding). The 11th Circuit is in conflict with other Federal circuits. See U.S. v. LEWIS, 674 F.3d 1298, Eleventh Circuit (2012).
Unless and until the 11th Circuit changes its mind, or SCOTUS has its say, the 4th Amendment will continue to be null and void so long as the Open Carry of a handgun remains a crime and a permit is merely an affirmative defense.
Ironically, in this sense Florida and the 11th Circuit are even more leftist when it comes to firearms than are California courts and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Yet another reason to support Norman v. State.
The proposed amendment saying that:
Representative Gaetz offered the following:
3 Amendment (with title amendment)
4 Remove line 40 and insert:
5 investigations as otherwise authorized by law, including, but
6 not limited to, the authority to demand a person openly carrying
7 a firearm to display a valid license to carry a concealed weapon
8 or firearm. Refusal to display a valid license to carry a
9 concealed weapon or firearm by a person not carrying a firearm
10 pursuant to s. 790.25(3) constitutes reasonable suspicion that a
11 crime is being committed.
The 11th Federal Circuit is the controlling court for the State of Florida (SCOTUS notwithstanding). The 11th Circuit is in conflict with other Federal circuits. See U.S. v. LEWIS, 674 F.3d 1298, Eleventh Circuit (2012).
Unless and until the 11th Circuit changes its mind, or SCOTUS has its say, the 4th Amendment will continue to be null and void so long as the Open Carry of a handgun remains a crime and a permit is merely an affirmative defense.
Ironically, in this sense Florida and the 11th Circuit are even more leftist when it comes to firearms than are California courts and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Yet another reason to support Norman v. State.
Last edited:
Mas49.56
Regular Member
77zach
Regular Member
The amendment was withdrawn. It goes to final reading a clean licensed OC bill.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
I was kinda hoping the "papers please" amendment would stay on there, so the clowns would get battered for it after someone sues over such an arrest and wins... I prefer exposing them over hiding them...
We still have to deal with Casto Lite (portilla), and there might not be time to expose him...
Last edited:
California Right To Carry
Regular Member
I am glad that the amendment was not adopted. Under current 11th Circuit law that person would lose.
77zach
Regular Member
Portilla makes me ill. Politically speaking I don't understand him, except that he is indeed a fan of Fidel. He's a Republican, he is smart enough to know OC will be forgotten 2 months after passage, and that OC will eventually come in the years ahead if he stops it (assuming a Republican governor). He has nothing to gain politically speaking by doing this.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
randian
Regular Member
His constituents are probably as anti-gun as he is. You see the same thing in Hawaii, where a bunch of Japanese immigrants brought their anti-gun politics (Japan makes New Jersey look like gun heaven) with them.
notalawyer
Regular Member
Just like with the House debates on the 3rd reading of HB-4001 & 163. The Dems positively knew that they were going to pass at a 2-1 margin, and they knew there arguments were complete fabricated BS and fear-mongering, but they still spent over three hours making political 'speeches' that they can now show to their constituents and 'supporters' for political gain.
I can guarantee that 95% really don't give a **** about restricting open carry or concealed carry (especially since many of them admit to having CWFLs) they are simply using it for political purposes. They strive to be the next Sheila Jackson Lee, Hank 'Guam is going to capsize' Johnson, Al Sharpton, or Zero himself.
randian
Regular Member
What does having a CWFL have to do with it? Plenty of people in government believe in privileges for special people.
California Right To Carry
Regular Member
Please provide the citations where SCOTUS has said the state can toss the Fourth Amendment into the trash by passing a law. SCOTUS certainly didn't say that in City of L. A. v. Patel, No. 13-1175, United States Supreme Court (2015) and that was a case which involved hotel registers which have been historically open to public view.
Last edited:
77zach
Regular Member
California Right To Carry
Regular Member
Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000) supports my position.
I could not find a SCOTUS decision in which "nathaniel black" was a party. Perhaps you could provide a pinpoint citation to both cases where you think these two cases support your position?
my position is that where legal, carrying a weapon is not reasonable suspicion for a stop.