Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Florida Permit Requirements, Remove The Right To Bear Arms!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    If you can pass a background check, and attend a course in firearms safety, and can hit a target!

    It isn't much of a RIGHT, if you have to get permission to exercise it!

    I think Florida's permit requirement is blatant defiance of the Constitution. I would really like to get a lawsuit going against it!

    If you cannot afford to pay for a concealed weapons permit, it is illegal for you to carry a gun, and protect your life!




  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
    Posts
    412

    Post imported post

    Mr Patriot wrote:
    If you can pass a background check, and attend a course in firearms safety, and can hit a target!

    It isn't much of a RIGHT, if you have to get permission to exercise it!

    I think Florida's permit requirement is blatant defiance of the Constitution. I would really like to get a lawsuit going against it!

    If you cannot afford to pay for a concealed weapons permit, it is illegal for you to carry a gun, and protect your life!


    Lets break this down item by item:



    If you can pass a background check, and attend a course in firearms safety, and can hit a target
    You do not have to hit a target, simply show proficiency with a firearm.

    I think Florida's permit requirement is blatant defiance of the Constitution
    It's not a permit, it's a license. The Florida Constitution states that the manner of carry may be regulated by law. The US Constitution's second amendment has not yet been incorporated via the 14th to the states yet.

    I would really like to get a lawsuit going against it!
    You need to have standing first. So go out without having a CWFL and get arrested; get convicted; lose; appeal to DCA; lose; appeal to Florida Supreme Court; lose; appeal to US supreme court; win. Simple enough.

    If you cannot afford to pay for a concealed weapons permit, itis illegal for you to carry a gun, and protect your life!
    No it's only illegal to carry a gun in violation of the laws authorized by the Florida and US Constitutions.Plus you do not need a gun to protect yourself.

  3. #3
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    i'm going to mouth off radically on this topic; i'm getting my penn. permit to carry non-res. but it's no good in fla. it kinda insults me that i won't get reciprocity. then i hear about all the non-res. fla. is selling, and i get the feeling of revenue-ing. yeah, i know about the fla. requirements, but dang, what the hell else.....ya know?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
    Posts
    412

    Post imported post

    McX wrote:
    i'm going to mouth off radically on this topic; i'm getting my penn. permit to carry non-res. but it's no good in fla. it kinda insults me that i won't get reciprocity. then i hear about all the non-res. fla. is selling, and i get the feeling of revenue-ing. yeah, i know about the fla. requirements, but dang, what the hell else.....ya know?
    Yeah, it really sucks living in State 'A', gettinga permitfrom State 'B' that State 'C' won't honor.....

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Eight Mile, , USA
    Posts
    234

    Post imported post

    brboyer wrote:

    Lets break this down item by item:

    You do not have to hit a target, simply show proficiency with a firearm.

    It's not a permit, it's a license. The Florida Constitution states that the manner of carry may be regulated by law. The US Constitution's second amendment has not yet been incorporated via the 14th to the states yet.

    You need to have standing first. So go out without having a CWFL and get arrested; get convicted; lose; appeal to DCA; lose; appeal to Florida Supreme Court; lose; appeal to US supreme court; win. Simple enough.

    No it's only illegal to carry a gun in violation of the laws authorized by the Florida and US Constitutions.Plus you do not need a gun to protect yourself.
    Weak.

    Either way you have to "prove" yourself prior to being "afforded" 2nd amendment rights.

    I've never heard anyone argue that one does not have the right to own and carry arms due to the 14th amendment. Strange.

    Permit: a written order granting special permission to do something.

    License: formal permission from a governmental or other constituted authority to do something, as to carry on some business or profession.

    Same thing. Permission slip.

    Correct on the crappy court system.

    Nice to know that you can tell the future and decide what weaponry will be needed in the event of an attack. You should give lessons on that power of yours. I'd love to have first hand knowledge of an impending attack on myself and/or my family.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
    Posts
    412

    Post imported post

    smttysmth02gt wrote:
    brboyer wrote:

    Lets break this down item by item:

    You do not have to hit a target, simply show proficiency with a firearm.

    It's not a permit, it's a license. The Florida Constitution states that the manner of carry may be regulated by law. The US Constitution's second amendment has not yet been incorporated via the 14th to the states yet.

    You need to have standing first. So go out without having a CWFL and get arrested; get convicted; lose; appeal to DCA; lose; appeal to Florida Supreme Court; lose; appeal to US supreme court; win. Simple enough.

    No it's only illegal to carry a gun in violation of the laws authorized by the Florida and US Constitutions.Plus you do not need a gun to protect yourself.
    Weak.

    Either way you have to "prove" yourself prior to being "afforded" 2nd amendment rights.

    I've never heard anyone argue that one does not have the right to own and carry arms due to the 14th amendment. Strange.

    Permit: a written order granting special permission to do something.

    License: formal permission from a governmental or other constituted authority to do something, as to carry on some business or profession.

    Same thing. Permission slip.

    Correct on the crappy court system.

    Nice to know that you can tell the future and decide what weaponry will be needed in the event of an attack. You should give lessons on that power of yours. I'd love to have first hand knowledge of an impending attack on myself and/or my family.

    You obviously don't believe that it's wise to be precise with dealing with legalities.

    Also you have an obvious lank of understanding regarding Constitutional law.

    Here's a hint:

    The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the US Bill of Rightsto thestates. In the past the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine certain provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the states, by virtue of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Eight Mile, , USA
    Posts
    234

    Post imported post

    brboyer wrote:
    You obviously don't believe that it's wise to be precise with dealing with legalities.

    Also you have an obvious lank of understanding regarding Constitutional law.

    Here's a hint:

    The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the US Bill of Rightsto thestates. In the past the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine certain provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the states, by virtue of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
    So by your "obvious" amount of understanding of the constitution, any state can regulate and restrict any of the bill of rights then? If this is so, then how can the federal government do anything at all, since there is no physical boundary in regards to state vs federal?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757

    Post imported post

    Wait until the McDonald decision is handed down in June.

    To get 'standing' to sue over the license requirement (without actually getting arrested), one merely has to send in a completed concealed weapons application package without payment. When you get a denial back due to lack of the fee being included...you then have legal standing to sue and challenge the licensing requirement (at least the imposition of the fee itself being an unconstitutional infringement of your right to bear arms).

    This is the far better way to get the requisite legal'standing' to challenge the law.

    Dick Heller was successuful in getting standing to sue the District of Columbia in this way. He applied and was denied...thus giving him standing. No need to get arrested first!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Eight Mile, , USA
    Posts
    234

    Post imported post

    OC4me wrote:
    Wait until the McDonald decision is handed down in June.

    To get 'standing' to sue over the license requirement (without actually getting arrested), one merely has to send in a completed concealed weapons application package without payment. When you get a denial back due to lack of the fee being included...you then have legal standing to sue and challenge the licensing requirement (at least the imposition of the fee itself being an unconstitutional infringement of your right to bear arms).

    This is the far better way to get the requisite legal'standing' to challenge the law.


    Dick Heller was successuful in getting standing to sue the District of Columbia in this way. He applied and was denied...thus giving him standing.
    Has anyone ever done this?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757

    Post imported post

    Sorry we cross posted. I edited to include Dick Heller as an example, but you may not have caught that line.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757

    Post imported post

    Dick Heller did not get denied because he refused to pay an application fee, but the idea is the same.

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613

    Post imported post

    smttysmth02gt wrote:
    OC4me wrote:
    Wait until the McDonald decision is handed down in June.

    To get 'standing' to sue over the license requirement (without actually getting arrested), one merely has to send in a completed concealed weapons application package without payment. When you get a denial back due to lack of the fee being included...you then have legal standing to sue and challenge the licensing requirement (at least the imposition of the fee itself being an unconstitutional infringement of your right to bear arms).

    This is the far better way to get the requisite legal'standing' to challenge the law.


    Dick Heller was successuful in getting standing to sue the District of Columbia in this way. He applied and was denied...thus giving him standing.
    Has anyone ever done this?
    Presume you mean, Has anyone ever done this in Florida?

    Yata hey
    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.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Eight Mile, , USA
    Posts
    234

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    smttysmth02gt wrote:
    OC4me wrote:
    Wait until the McDonald decision is handed down in June.

    To get 'standing' to sue over the license requirement (without actually getting arrested), one merely has to send in a completed concealed weapons application package without payment. When you get a denial back due to lack of the fee being included...you then have legal standing to sue and challenge the licensing requirement (at least the imposition of the fee itself being an unconstitutional infringement of your right to bear arms).

    This is the far better way to get the requisite legal'standing' to challenge the law.


    Dick Heller was successuful in getting standing to sue the District of Columbia in this way. He applied and was denied...thus giving him standing.
    Has anyone ever done this?
    Presume you mean, Has anyone ever done this in Florida?

    Yata hey
    Not necessarily. I do not live in FL.

  14. #14
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613

    Post imported post

    smttysmth02gt wrote:
    Grapeshot wrote:
    smttysmth02gt wrote:
    OC4me wrote:
    Wait until the McDonald decision is handed down in June.

    To get 'standing' to sue over the license requirement (without actually getting arrested), one merely has to send in a completed concealed weapons application package without payment. When you get a denial back due to lack of the fee being included...you then have legal standing to sue and challenge the licensing requirement (at least the imposition of the fee itself being an unconstitutional infringement of your right to bear arms).

    This is the far better way to get the requisite legal'standing' to challenge the law.

    Dick Heller was successuful in getting standing to sue the District of Columbia in this way. He applied and was denied...thus giving him standing.
    Has anyone ever done this?
    Presume you mean, Has anyone ever done this in Florida?

    Yata hey
    Not necessarily. I do not live in FL.
    Well to point out the obvious then, your question was asked following the best example there is - Dick Heller. :?

    Yata hey
    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.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
    Posts
    412

    Post imported post

    smttysmth02gt wrote:
    brboyer wrote:
    You obviously don't believe that it's wise to be precise with dealing with legalities.

    Also you have an obvious lank of understanding regarding Constitutional law.

    Here's a hint:

    The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the US Bill of Rightsto thestates. In the past the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine certain provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the states, by virtue of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
    So by your "obvious" amount of understanding of the constitution, any state can regulate and restrict any of the bill of rights then? If this is so, then how can the federal government do anything at all, since there is no physical boundary in regards to state vs federal?
    For those rights not yet incorporated, yes.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
    Posts
    412

    Post imported post

    OC4me wrote:
    Wait until the McDonald decision is handed down in June.

    To get 'standing' to sue over the license requirement (without actually getting arrested), one merely has to send in a completed concealed weapons application package without payment. When you get a denial back due to lack of the fee being included...you then have legal standing to sue and challenge the licensing requirement (at least the imposition of the fee itself being an unconstitutional infringement of your right to bear arms).

    This is the far better way to get the requisite legal'standing' to challenge the law.

    Dick Heller was successuful in getting standing to sue the District of Columbia in this way. He applied and was denied...thus giving him standing. No need to get arrested first!
    That would only give you standing to challenge the fee, not the licensing requirement itself, nor 790.01.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    The Right To Bear Arms Shal NotBe Infringed, meaning requiringa permit is not Consitutional.

    Without a permit, you cannot legally carry a gun and protect your life.

    I don't care what ever is said, it is really not legal to require a permit to exercise a Right!



    We should really go after the Ill FOIDcard as well! When I goto IllIhave to get my dadwho is an Ill resident to buy the ammo for me! I am 42, andUS military Veteran!

    Folks, we need to be after our rights!











  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
    Posts
    412

    Post imported post

    Mr Patriot wrote:
    The Right To Bear Arms Shal NotBe Infringed, meaning requiringa permit is not Consitutional.

    Without a permit, you cannot legally carry a gun and protect your life.

    I don't care what ever is said, it is really not legal to require a permit to exercise a Right!



    We should really go after the Ill FOIDcard as well! When I goto IllIhave to get my dadwho is an Ill resident to buy the ammo for me! I am 42, andUS military Veteran!

    Folks, we need to be after our rights!









    You should really read my reply. It outlines all the the legalities involved.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, La
    Posts
    175

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    smttysmth02gt wrote:
    OC4me wrote:
    Wait until the McDonald decision is handed down in June.

    To get 'standing' to sue over the license requirement (without actually getting arrested), one merely has to send in a completed concealed weapons application package without payment. When you get a denial back due to lack of the fee being included...you then have legal standing to sue and challenge the licensing requirement (at least the imposition of the fee itself being an unconstitutional infringement of your right to bear arms).

    This is the far better way to get the requisite legal'standing' to challenge the law.


    Dick Heller was successuful in getting standing to sue the District of Columbia in this way. He applied and was denied...thus giving him standing.
    Has anyone ever done this?
    Presume you mean, Has anyone ever done this in Florida?

    Yata hey
    Someone did this in Louisiana, and is suing. In La it had to do with more fees depending on your age and years of resident in the state.

    When you get a denial back due to lack of the fee being included...you then have legal standing to sue and challenge the licensing requirement (at least the imposition of the fee itself being an unconstitutional infringement of your right to bear arms).

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902

    Post imported post

    brboyer wrote:

    Lets break this down item by item:





    It's not a permit, it's a license. The Florida Constitution states that the manner of carry may be regulated by law. The US Constitution's second amendment has not yet been incorporated via the 14th to the states yet.

    If you cannot afford to pay for a concealed weapons permit, itis illegal for you to carry a gun, and protect your life!
    No it's only illegal to carry a gun in violation of the laws authorized by the Florida and US Constitutions.Plus you do not need a gun to protect yourself.


    First off, the license does exclude people. If you reside outside of the United States or if you are a non-immigrant, you are excluded from excercising this right; however, such people still enjoy jury trials, free speech etc. Also, some people may be eligible to purchase a firearm but not eligible for a CWFL, that is unconstitutional as well.

    If a right is licensed, then you have a right to the license. The license does more than just screen out prohibited possessors, it goes too far.

    You don't need a gun or a concealed weapon to protect yourself, just as you don't need to exercise free speech on the internet, because you can use the newspaper, verbal communication.

    The cost of the license is a problem, if you had a free speech license, how much would you charge for it????

    People love to point to parade permits, they are inexpensive and they are also needed because the cause for public roads to be blocked off; by carrying an arm, you are not hindering anyone else as one would be by having a public road blocked off due to a parade.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757

    Post imported post

    brboyer wrote:
    OC4me wrote:
    Wait until the McDonald decision is handed down in June.

    To get 'standing' to sue over the license requirement (without actually getting arrested), one merely has to send in a completed concealed weapons application package without payment. When you get a denial back due to lack of the fee being included...you then have legal standing to sue and challenge the licensing requirement (at least the imposition of the fee itself being an unconstitutional infringement of your right to bear arms).

    This is the far better way to get the requisite legal'standing' to challenge the law.

    Dick Heller was successuful in getting standing to sue the District of Columbia in this way. He applied and was denied...thus giving him standing. No need to get arrested first!
    That would only give you standing to challenge the fee, not the licensing requirement itself, nor 790.01.
    You are correct, a challenge would be unlikely to strike down the entire licensing act, but the point is that the licensing requirements can be attacked (without being arrested first)one piece at at time. Strike down the pay-fee-then-exercise-right requirement and we have a powerful precedant to further challenge different portions of Florida's carry license.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
    Posts
    412

    Post imported post

    Jared wrote:
    brboyer wrote:

    Lets break this down item by item:





    It's not a permit, it's a license. The Florida Constitution states that the manner of carry may be regulated by law. The US Constitution's second amendment has not yet been incorporated via the 14th to the states yet.

    If you cannot afford to pay for a concealed weapons permit, itis illegal for you to carry a gun, and protect your life!
    No it's only illegal to carry a gun in violation of the laws authorized by the Florida and US Constitutions.Plus you do not need a gun to protect yourself.


    First off, the license does exclude people. If you reside outside of the United States or if you are a non-immigrant, you are excluded from excercising this right; however, such people still enjoy jury trials, free speech etc. Also, some people may be eligible to purchase a firearm but not eligible for a CWFL, that is unconstitutional as well.

    If a right is licensed, then you have a right to the license. The license does more than just screen out prohibited possessors, it goes too far.

    You don't need a gun or a concealed weapon to protect yourself, just as you don't need to exercise free speech on the internet, because you can use the newspaper, verbal communication.

    The cost of the license is a problem, if you had a free speech license, how much would you charge for it????

    People love to point to parade permits, they are inexpensive and they are also needed because the cause for public roads to be blocked off; by carrying an arm, you are not hindering anyone else as one would be by having a public road blocked off due to a parade.
    I was simply pointing out that this right has not been incorporated against the states yet, and the State Constitution allows for restrictions on it. I don't agree with it, but we either have to live with it or work to change it.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Hollowpoint38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    A sandwich made of knuckles, Hoover, Alabama
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post


  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    If anyone's interested I think I found a loophole. You can look up these statutes yourself and tell me if you think it doesn't make sense. Under 790.001 a law enforcement officer is classified among other things a militia. Now militias are not ran by the state they are ran by the people. So you can start your own (one man if you choose) militia and you are classified as a law enforcement officer. Now in 790.051 Law enforcement officers are except from licensing when acting on duty. So if a cop says anything about your gun you can just say that you are a member of a militia and your on duty and they cannot do anything about it. Not to mention they use the word "person" if you look up the definition in a law book a person is defined as

    Person - Oran's Dictionary of the Law, West Group 1999, defines Person as: 1. A human being (a "natural" person). 2. A corporation (an "artificial" person). Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word "person" includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary. 3. Any othe...r "being" entitled to sue as a legal entity (a government, an association, etc).

    So You can interpret the law so that when they say person they are referring to a corporation. The artificial person they created when you where born and not the flesh and blood person that is you.

    I wrote a letter of understanding and intent that I plan to carry at all times to give to whoever want it.

    Notice of understanding and intent

    It is to my understanding under the statutes of the state of Florida that I am within my rights as a member of a militia to carry a firearm either openly or concealed as a militia member on duty. I am classified under statute 790.001 as a law enforcement officer and under 790.051 I am within my right to carry and use a firearm for enforcing the law and for self defense without the requirement of a license while on duty.
    I carry my firearm for the purpose of enforcing law and self-defense. As a member of a militia I am always on duty to protect myself and others around me who may need protecting.

    790.001Definitions.--As used in this chapter, except where the context otherwise requires:
    (8)"Law enforcement officer" means:
    (c)Members of the Armed Forces of the United States, the organized reserves, state militia, or Florida National Guard, when on duty, when preparing themselves for, or going to or from, military duty, or under orders;
    790.051 Exemption from licensing requirements; law enforcement officers.--Law enforcement officers are exempt from the licensing and penal provisions of this chapter when acting at any time within the scope or course of their official duties or when acting at any time in the line of or performance of duty.



  25. #25
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Assessment of any fee for the government contrivance of permit in the exercise of an enumerated right as recognized by US Citizensis unconstitutional.

    "You do not need a gun to defend yourself?" Hello? The2A's reference to 'arms' covers any/all bearable arms. However... force disparity (and common sense) would dictate the old adage of not bringing a knife to a gunfight. The problem with FL politics is that the state government was hijacked by Yankee carpet bagger transplants fron NY/NJ goin' back to the '60's when I lived there (Seminole County).

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
  •