• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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 Residents, Which do YOU Support?

Which of these options do you support?

  • A constitutional amendment reading"The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of thems

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Leave the constitution alone, repeal Florida Statute 790.053

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Modify the current CCW to be a generic Firearms Permit where the holder could carry open or conceale

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

rebel-patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
110
Location
Tampa Bay Area, Florida, USA
imported post

Eagle Eye wrote:
I think it should be like Alaska and Vermont with no permit necessary for open or concealed carry. <rant on>GET THE :cuss:GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR LIVES! <rantoff>
I agree with you Eagle Eye. However I also understand that for the past 124 years the state of Florida has regulated just HOW people in this state bear their arms. Change is needed definitely. But change is not easy to come by unless you just defraud the people and you are the one in power doing the defrauding. Otherwise, change comes slowly.

So given the current state of where we are with the laws here in Florida, HOW do you propose we go about getting the government out of our lives and acheive the no permit necessary to carry open or concealed?

I am very interested in hearing your answer and discussing this further.

Reb
 

Eagle Eye

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
18
Location
South end of the Gunshine State, Florida, USA
imported post

I know it's not just that "simple". It would take a long time to muster people to vote better people in and get the "professional politicians" out as well as educate more folks about better politicians. I don't have any single great idea. Educate folks about what is happening in government is the biggestI think. Use the Tea Parties and other protest avenues , visit local government meetings etc... We all need totake back the country from the "Big Government" by using whatever legal means necessary. Too simplistic but possibly effective. What say you??? By the way I don't care for the "two party system" we have right now. We need more than that!
 

rebel-patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
110
Location
Tampa Bay Area, Florida, USA
imported post

Eagle Eye wrote:
I know it's not just that "simple". It would take a long time to muster people to vote better people in and get the "professional politicians" out as well as educate more folks about better politicians. I don't have any single great idea. Educate folks about what is happening in government is the biggestI think. Use the Tea Parties and other protest avenues , visit local government meetings etc... We all need totake back the country from the "Big Government" by using whatever legal means necessary. Too simplistic but possibly effective. What say you??? By the way I don't care for the "two party system" we have right now. We need more than that!
I get the impression, and please do excuse me if it is the incorrect impression, that the changes you seek are broad-brush and big picture in nature. Those types of changes take a very long time to gain momentum and move forward. I actually prefer to try to keep things as simple as possible. While I agree with you that people need to get educated and take action, I also believe that most people do not want to disrupt their daily lives enough to make the types of necessary changes that are required.

My personal decision and efforts are to pick a single issue at a time and do my best to change that one thing. Hopefully if I am successful I will be able to change a handful of things in my lifetime yet.

The one I am working on right now is the open carry issue here in Florida. I am also attending tea parties and doing other things to demonstrate to our current elected "leaders" my civil distaste for the direction they are taking my country in. But this issue is the one I am dedicating most of my free time to right now. Currently it is in the form of research and position policy creation. Soon it will be in directly changing the current law.

As for the two party system we currently have? It is a joke. None of the elected reps in either party truly care about the opinions of the people not wish to serve the general populace as a whole. But this forum is not place for my general political beliefs. :)

Reb
American by birth, Southern by choice
 

ADulay

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
512
Location
Punta Gorda, Florida, USA
imported post

brboyer wrote:
#3 is not possible without repealing 790.053.

Once again, it's things like this that will force me to really start digging into the Florida state statutes so I can converse intelligently about these details.

I did select #3 as it appeared, at least on the surface, to be the easiest path but once you involve repealing 790.053, then it gets a lot more difficult.

Thanks for the info and I'm off to the books to get up to speed on this.

AD
 

rebel-patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
110
Location
Tampa Bay Area, Florida, USA
imported post

brboyer wrote:
#3 is not possible without repealing 790.053.
Everyone has an opinion, and on this one Sir, I do disagree. There is no conceivable reason which the state legislature could not leave 790.053 intact and modify the CCW section of 790 to allow for option 3 which would simply mean you still do not have the right to carry either concealed or open without a state license.


Reb
American by birth, Southern by choice
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
imported post

rebel-patriot wrote:
brboyer wrote:
#3 is not possible without repealing 790.053.
Everyone has an opinion, and on this one Sir, I do disagree. There is no conceivable reason which the state legislature could not leave 790.053 intact and modify the CCW section of 790 to allow for option 3 which would simply mean you still do not have the right to carry either concealed or open without a state license.


Reb
American by birth, Southern by choice
You have the RIGHT... regardless of government contrivances (license and permit) to the contrary. You would retain the RIGHT if there were no government at all. Rid your head of the 'clutter'... The government has authority to recognize or deny a right. Not 'grant' a right. Rights are pre-existing. What part of 'Shall not be infringed' does your legislature not comprehend? The 2A'is' open carry... as is the traditional means of all persons bearing arms.
 

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
750
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
imported post

If nothing else, someday (after incorporation of the 2A via the 14A to be enforceable against the states), Florida's unconstitutional statute barring open carry of arms hopefully will be struck down. Meanwhile, I'm all for getting open carry by any other means available!
 

brboyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
412
Location
Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
imported post

rebel-patriot wrote:
brboyer wrote:
#3 is not possible without repealing 790.053.
Everyone has an opinion, and on this one Sir, I do disagree. There is no conceivable reason which the state legislature could not leave 790.053 intact and modify the CCW section of 790 to allow for option 3 which would simply mean you still do not have the right to carry either concealed or open without a state license.


Reb
American by birth, Southern by choice

You are correct, I'm sorry, I forgot about this part...

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.
 

Mossy_35

New member
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
33
Location
, Florida, USA
imported post

Hello everyone. I've been browsing the forums for some time now and finally had to register. This site provides a plethora of information for the open carry movement. All i can say is thanks Mike and John for the forum.

For anyone who lives in Florida, you must know of the crime ridden areas like Jacksonville and Miami-Dade. I think unlicensed open carry would only make matters worse in these areas. Don't get me wrong, I whole-heartedly feel that if one wants to openly carry, they should without restriction, barring violent felons and others physically and mentally incapable of that responsibility. Having a carry permit is the best way to avoid these few individuals that desire to carry, but shouldnt.

My major concern is if we are going to move as a group to get open carry reissued (was statutorily legal from 1893 up until 1987... see session law Ch. 4146 (1893) and Ch. 87-537), how do we get past this issue? Licensed or unlicensed?
 

rebel-patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
110
Location
Tampa Bay Area, Florida, USA
imported post

Tucky wrote:
Hello everyone. I've been browsing the forums for some time now and finally had to register. This site provides a plethora of information for the open carry movement. All i can say is thanks Mike and John for the forum.

For anyone who lives in Florida, you must know of the crime ridden areas like Jacksonville and Miami-Dade. I think unlicensed open carry would only make matters worse in these areas. Don't get me wrong, I whole-heartedly feel that if one wants to openly carry, they should without restriction, barring violent felons and others physically and mentally incapable of that responsibility. Having a carry permit is the best way to avoid these few individuals that desire to carry, but shouldnt.

My major concern is if we are going to move as a group to get open carry reissued (was statutorily legal from 1893 up until 1987... see session law Ch. 4146 (1893) and Ch. 87-537), how do we get past this issue? Licensed or unlicensed?
Tucky,

Hello and welcome to the forum. Yes I can quite agree this forum and website offer a lot of information. Not only on Open Carry but a lot of other issues all relating to firearms, RKBA etc.

I would be interested to understand and hear more regarding your opinion that open carry would make higher crime areas worse. I think if you investigate the issue closely you will find almost empirical data showing the contrary.

Regarding keeping felons and mentally incapable individuals from open carrying, just how do these people purchase guns today? Felons are not going to care what the law is no matter what. That is why they are felons. However the addage of out of sight, out of mind comes to play here. The felons today do not see people carrying in general. If they did, IMO, they would go look for an easier mark somewhere else.

Reb
American by birth, Southern by choice.
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
imported post

Tucky wrote:
Hello everyone. I've been browsing the forums for some time now and finally had to register. This site provides a plethora of information for the open carry movement. All i can say is thanks Mike and John for the forum.

For anyone who lives in Florida, you must know of the crime ridden areas like Jacksonville and Miami-Dade. I think unlicensed open carry would only make matters worse in these areas. Don't get me wrong, I whole-heartedly feel that if one wants to openly carry, they should without restriction, barring violent felons and others physically and mentally incapable of that responsibility. Having a carry permit is the best way to avoid these few individuals that desire to carry, but shouldnt.

My major concern is if we are going to move as a group to get open carry reissued (was statutorily legal from 1893 up until 1987... see session law Ch. 4146 (1893) and Ch. 87-537), how do we get past this issue? Licensed or unlicensed?

'Sorry... you've been brainwashed. 'Not your fault... just inculcated with anti's propaganda so long ya can't think straight. You're not alone. 'Permit/License' is a government contrivance of 'control'. Such stuff is directly opposite of 'Shall not be infringed'. The free exercise of a right... any right, does not depend on government permission. Government has authority... but government (as a body) has no rights. Only people have rights. Such rights would exist if there were no government at all.

Arizona, among others... has no such restrictions on the right to bear arms openlyin it's history. Criminals (in recent history) do not bear arms openly. They will carry arms regardless of any laws to the contrary. That includes those prohibited by 18 USC Gun Control Act of 1969. They are CRIMINALS! Laws only apply to criminals when they're caught and enforced punitively.
 

Mossy_35

New member
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
33
Location
, Florida, USA
imported post

bear with me, i'm new with the functions of the board


rebel-patriot wrote:
I would be interested to understand and hear more regarding your opinion that open carry would make higher crime areas worse. I think if you investigate the issue closely you will find almost empirical data showing the contrary.

Regarding keeping felons and mentally incapable individuals from open carrying, just how do these people purchase guns today? Felons are not going to care what the law is no matter what. That is why they are felons. However the addage of out of sight, out of mind comes to play here. The felons today do not see people carrying in general. If they did, IMO, they would go look for an easier mark somewhere else.

I'm willing to bet that we all can agree that the responsible open carry will deter crime and make them look elsewhere.

When I made my comments, I had in my mind of some gangbangers and overly prideful individuals openly carrying their firearms. Legally speaking, if ULOC is on the books, any violent criminal, as well as law abiding citizen can openly carry a firearm if they are over 18. How could law enforcement distinguish between the two? Only if there is RAS could a LEO detain the individual for investigation (as it should be). Theoretically, there could be thugs with firearms and immunity from search.


Sonora Rebel wrote:
Tucky wrote:
Hello everyone. I've been browsing the forums for some time now and finally had to register. This site provides a plethora of information for the open carry movement. All i can say is thanks Mike and John for the forum.

For anyone who lives in Florida, you must know of the crime ridden areas like Jacksonville and Miami-Dade. I think unlicensed open carry would only make matters worse in these areas. Don't get me wrong, I whole-heartedly feel that if one wants to openly carry, they should without restriction, barring violent felons and others physically and mentally incapable of that responsibility. Having a carry permit is the best way to avoid these few individuals that desire to carry, but shouldnt.

My major concern is if we are going to move as a group to get open carry reissued (was statutorily legal from 1893 up until 1987... see session law Ch. 4146 (1893) and Ch. 87-537), how do we get past this issue? Licensed or unlicensed?

'Sorry... you've been brainwashed. 'Not your fault... just inculcated with anti's propaganda so long ya can't think straight. You're not alone. 'Permit/License' is a government contrivance of 'control'. Such stuff is directly opposite of 'Shall not be infringed'. The free exercise of a right... any right, does not depend on government permission. Government has authority... but government (as a body) has no rights. Only people have rights. Such rights would exist if there were no government at all.

Arizona, among others... has no such restrictions on the right to bear arms openlyin it's history. Criminals (in recent history) do not bear arms openly. They will carry arms regardless of any laws to the contrary. That includes those prohibited by 18 USC Gun Control Act of 1969. They are CRIMINALS! Laws only apply to criminals when they're caught and enforced punitively.
Sonora,
See my response to rebel above. Yes, I may be brainwashed, but the logic makes complete sense to me.

ULOC would be a great accomplishment for the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, but it isnt practical for those who have shown their irresponsibility/immaturity and have had the State take that Right away. Again, that is my opinion. Perhaps nobody should have rights taken away by a governmental authority.
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
imported post

Tucky wrote:
bear with me, i'm new with the functions of the board


I'm willing to bet that we all can agree that the responsible open carry will deter crime and make them look elsewhere.

When I made my comments, I had in my mind of some gangbangers and overly prideful individuals openly carrying their firearms. Legally speaking, if ULOC is on the books, any violent criminal, as well as law abiding citizen can openly carry a firearm if they are over 18. How could law enforcement distinguish between the two? Only if there is RAS could a LEO detain the individual for investigation (as it should be). Theoretically, there could be thugs with firearms and immunity from search.

Sonora,
See my response to rebel above. Yes, I may be brainwashed, but the logic makes complete sense to me.

ULOC would be a great accomplishment for the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, but it isnt practical for those who have shown their irresponsibility/immaturity and have had the State take that Right away. Again, that is my opinion. Perhaps nobody should have rights taken away by a governmental authority.

No... clear your mind of all the statist clutter. Thiose who bear arms irresponsibly or unlawfully will be dealt with swiftly. You're already expecting LEO harrassment. BG's don't 'open carry'. CCW permit holders 'n BG's can't be readily distinguished for other than behavior and a piece of government paper. 'Overly prideful? For what? Open carry? You remind me of those news weenie dorks in PA describing OC'r's as 'strutting'. You sound like an anti. "ULOC would be a great accomplishment for the RIGHT to keep and bear arms." What is ULOC? Unloaded Open Carry? What good is that? Get out of California... Jeez! No... the RIGHT to bear arms is just that. Bearing arms. ULOC is accomplishing nothing but furthering control of the state over a Right. RIGHTS require... NOTHING but exercising them responsibly.

How does this work? You get up... get dressed, put your gunbelt or holsteron 'n go out the door 'n about your business unimpeded. That's it. That's the free exercise ofthe Right to bear arms.

'those who have shown their irresponsibility/immaturity and have had the State take that Right away." Done deal... USC 18 Gun Control Act of 1969. Do you actually own a firearm? 'Bought any requiring an ATF Form 4473? 'Read it?
 

Mossy_35

New member
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
33
Location
, Florida, USA
imported post


Thiose who bear arms irresponsibly or unlawfully will be dealt with swiftly.
How? Naturally, manually branshing the weapon or acting like a tool with it will get you "dealt with". How about the violent felon who is openly carrying? Yes, chances are they would not. But hypothetically, lets say we get open carry and we get to a point where LE does not think twice about a man with a side arm (that would be great, btw). how will he/she be dealt with swiftly? if there is an incident, then he/she will be charged with unlawful possession by a felon, assuming there is police attention. Point being, do you want this person walking along side you?

You're already expecting LEO harrassment.
It will happen, without a doubt. As with the other states, it will subside over time.

Overly prideful? For what? Open carry? You remind me of those news weenie dorks in PA describing OC'r's as 'strutting'. You sound like an anti.
I was referring to certain types of people who cannot get past their pride and it ruins them. These people fight when they are embarrased, corrected, etc. I did not intend to associate it with those who open carry, but those who are immature.

"ULOC would be a great accomplishment for the RIGHT to keep and bear arms." What is ULOC? Unloaded Open Carry? What good is that? Get out of California... Jeez! No... the RIGHT to bear arms is just that. Bearing arms. ULOC is accomplishing nothing but furthering control of the state over a Right.
ULOC = unlicenced open carry, UOC = unloaded open carry... we need new acronyms, lol. I completely agree, Unloaded Open Carry has accomplished nothing, but furthering controls of the state.


'those who have shown their irresponsibility/immaturity and have had the State take that Right away." Done deal... USC 18 Gun Control Act of 1969. Do you actually own a firearm? 'Bought any requiring an ATF Form 4473? 'Read it?
Yes, I have, for all but one of my firearms. It is a done deal, if the individual in question purchases a firearms from an FFL, which no BG's do. Yes, you are correct in that no BG's will open carry...at first. What happens when LEO's become complacent with OC? I do not really like to argue, so I'll finish and let you have the last word. UnLicensed Open Carry would be a fantastic achievement. Unrestricted 2A. People generally work over every system to reap benefits. Perhaps I'm just a pessimist. Perhaps I should just get off this topic and wait until OC is legalized again and see if this complacency actually happens. Hey, maybe you're right.

Regards,
Tucky
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
imported post

Arms have been carried openly in Arizona and New Mexico two hundred years before statehood. Arizona has been a state since 1912. Bad guys DO NOT open carry... anywhere. Most don't even have/use holsters. It's easier to toss the piece than fiddle with getting a holster off your belt. Those types would be prohibited persons anyway... they don't want that kind'a 'stuff' on 'em. OC... by the Law of the Land is 'legal'... It's not that they're 'illegal'... it's just that the state has denied the right. Big difference. Yeah... the state is 'illegal'... Fix it! (I grew up in North & Central FL.)

Armed felons walk beside you now... you just don't know which is armed.
 

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
750
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
imported post

Yes Tucky,to answer your question with absolute certainty, look at Arizona, you can open carry handguns (and longarms) 365 days of the year with near complete confidence of no LEO hassle. So the percentage of violent felons who choose to open carry in Arizona? Zero.

It is time for Florida to join the other 44 states that allow open carry!
 
Top