• 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.

just got this in a email **Florida Law Enforcement Officers Push the Limit to Stop OC

deserteagle50

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
85
Location
florida cracker
Sean Caranna April 13 at 7:53pm Reply• Report
Florida Open Carry
(A grass roots community of over 6000 registered members.)
----------------------------------------------


Florida Law Enforcement Officers Push the Limit to Stop Open Carry Rights Bill.
The main provision of Florida Senate Bill 234 would, for the first time since 1987, permit concealed weapon or firearm license holders to carry handguns openly. On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony regarding the bill.

Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office Major Ken Davis told of a recent traffic stop of six Tampa Bay Outlaw motorcycle gang members. “Although the six Outlaws were certified gang members, and had histories of criminal arrests, most were also concealed carry permit [sic] holders”, he related.

According to Florida Statute, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services must suspend the licenses of those persons arrested or formally charged with a crime that would disqualify an individual for a license until final disposition of the case, and a licensee who is under an injunction that restrains them from committing acts of domestic violence or acts of repeat violence. Finally, the agency must revoke the license of a licensee who have been found guilty of, had adjudication of guilt withheld for, or had imposition of sentence suspended for one or more crimes of violence within the preceding three years.

One must conclude that Major Davis was either embellishing the facts surrounding the criminal arrests of the certified gang members in order to sway the committee, or his department was derelict in not reporting the disqualifying arrests to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for suspension of the licenses of those involved.

In fact, it appears that members of the Orange County Sheriff’s Office may have violated the law in order to influence the committee members. During his testimony, Captain Mike Fewless stated, “I actually stopped by every one of you guys’s [sic] office this morning (and) dropped off seven photographs of some biker outlaw gang guys that have carrying concealed firearm permits [sic]. Those are the ones we’re worried about carrying.”

Florida Statute 790.0601 expressly forbids the release of personally identifying information of a person who has applied for or who has received a license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm. The specific circumstances in which that information may be released are with the express written consent of the licensee, by a court order upon showing a good cause, or upon request of a law enforcement agency in connection with performance of lawful duties. There is no exemption for release of identifying information by anyone for the purposes of furthering a political agenda.

Outright misrepresentation of fact appears to be a tactic our sheriffs are willing to utilize to defeat SB 234. Volusia County Sheriff Ben Johnson testified that open carry would be evident in the stands at next year’s Daytona 500 auto race. Conveniently, Sheriff Johnson omitted the fact that carry at a professional athletic event is a violation of existing statute, and Daytona International Speedway is a privately owned facility and has the statutory right to have anyone trespassed from the property for any reason, including carry of open or concealed firearms.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly in these times of fiscal austerity, were any public funds utilized to oppose the expansion of Second Amendment rights on behalf of the Florida Sheriffs Association? Although elected officials, like the sheriffs are exempt, statute forbids anyone else to be compensated for lobbying without being registered as a legislative branch lobbyist. This means that if any non-elected law enforcement officers were compensated for in any way, by any public or private entity, they very well may have been in violation of law. Were any publically owned vehicles used for travel? Did any of the officers use per diem allowance or stay overnight on the taxpayer dime? And how many were on the clock? But even if on their own dime, was it ethical to then wear their uniforms and, ironically, their firearms to the committee meeting?

It is apparent that member agencies of the Florida Sheriffs Association may be willing to embellish circumstances, bend the law, and intentionally misrepresent facts in order to influence the committee and the legislature at large in order to maintain their virtual monopoly on open carry. Ironic since in 1987, when shall-issue concealed carry was being debated, the same association stated they preferred open carry over concealed carry so their deputies would not have to guess at who was armed.

Florida Carry, Inc.
www.Open-Carry.org
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
It is apparent that member agencies of the Florida Sheriffs Association may be willing to embellish circumstances, bend the law, and intentionally misrepresent facts in order to influence the committee and the legislature at large in order to maintain their virtual monopoly on open carry. Ironic since in 1987, when shall-issue concealed carry was being debated, the same association stated they preferred open carry over concealed carry so their deputies would not have to guess at who was armed.

These people, and I use the term loosely, will oppose anything. As you pointed out, they are now opposing OC in the complete opposite fashion they once supported it. They're blow-hards who just hate the hell out of the notion that We the People have some kind of Rights. You won't find a more anti-American bunch of LEOs anywhere in this country.

JBT to the core.
 

jammer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
85
Location
, ,
deserteagle50

Hi I think THAT I'LL SEND THIS TOO ALL OF THE SEN. ON RULES COMM. SO IF THEY DIDN'T GET WHAT THESE LEO'S ARE DOING BEFORE, THIS SHOULD MAKE THEM TAKE NOTICE, MAYBE EVERYONE SHOULD SHOULD COPY AND PAST THIS AND EMAIL IT TO ALL OF THEM EVEN THE FULL SEN. WITH YOUR PERMISSION OF COURSE.
 

deserteagle50

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
85
Location
florida cracker
Hi I think THAT I'LL SEND THIS TOO ALL OF THE SEN. ON RULES COMM. SO IF THEY DIDN'T GET WHAT THESE LEO'S ARE DOING BEFORE, THIS SHOULD MAKE THEM TAKE NOTICE, MAYBE EVERYONE SHOULD SHOULD COPY AND PAST THIS AND EMAIL IT TO ALL OF THEM EVEN THE FULL SEN. WITH YOUR PERMISSION OF COURSE.

that's a great idea!!
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
http://www.flsenate.gov/Senators/#Senators

I made a total list, and also split it up into groups of how they have behaved so far.

The Whole Senate said:

Use the above list to reach all senators.

Below is a breakdown of how they voted on committee and a few notes in case you want to write a "special" email to these people.

Republican Neocon who tried to destroy it with perverted amendments and then voted against it when she didn't get her way; will likely vote against it on the floor said:

Republican Neocon who pulled some very serious douchebaggery to push his Statist LEO interests said:

So that is 2 of the Republicans who are blatantly Neocon and will vote against this bill.

Voted favorably in Criminal Justice Committee AND did NOT say they would vote against the bill (duh said:

Voted favorably in Judiciary committee said:

Voted AGAINST in Criminal Justice Committe and made retarded arguments against it said:

Voted AGAINST in Judiciary Committe and made retarded arguments against it said:

We have a bi-partisan coalition of Statist Liberals and Neocons conspiring to kill this bill.

The Senate contains 28 Republicans and 12 DemocRATS. We have already seen a huge percentage of Republicans show themselves to be Neocons. We cannot rest on the hopes that party lines will pass this bill. This will be a close one and we MUST take names of those who defy Freedom's interests.
 
Last edited:

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
Dean took a lot of heat. That's why he gave in. If it gets to the floor vote intact we in his district will light him up again and MAYBE convince to abstain from the vote. Hopefully, it won't matter. Even if All demoncrats vote no and 8 neocons vote no, that leaves a tie that will be broken in our favor by the favorable vote of president Haridopolis (isn't that how ties are handled?) who said he supported the bill, and that was even when school carry was in there.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
Dean doesn't care about 'heat.' He's set for life. His only interest in Politics is to push the LEO Neocon agenda. He lives and breathes it.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
Then he would have strangled it in the cradle.

I think he passed it to show respect for the Committee position. Committees are often used as a "Impose my interests" committee, instead of the name and purpose of the Committee.

Criminal Justice Committee; to see how the law would effect bad guys. It isn't meant for all the other crapola.

Judiciary Committee; to see if it suits existing Case Law. Not for political interests.

He backed out of his position by using the 'that's not what this committee is for.' Which is proper. But for his interests, it was just an excuse. His attempts to impose wild crap showed he really didn't have an interest in that until it became a plausible excuse to help him save face.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
I think he passed it to show respect for the Committee position. Committees are often used as a "Impose my interests" committee, instead of the name and purpose of the Committee.

Criminal Justice Committee; to see how the law would effect bad guys. It isn't meant for all the other crapola.

Judiciary Committee; to see if it suits existing Case Law. Not for political interests.

He backed out of his position by using the 'that's not what this committee is for.' Which is proper. But for his interests, it was just an excuse. His attempts to impose wild crap showed he really didn't have an interest in that until it became a plausible excuse to help him save face.

This is true. It hurts him to pique his committee chair.
 

Phssthpok

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
1,026
Location
, ,
But even if on their own dime, was it ethical to then wear their uniforms and, ironically, their firearms to the committee meeting?

An even better question would be...was it LEGAL?


790.053 (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.


790.06 (12) No license issued pursuant to this section shall authorize any person to carry a concealed weapon or firearm into any place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05; any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station; any detention facility, prison, or jail; any courthouse; any courtroom, except that nothing in this section would preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in his or her courtroom; any polling place; any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district; any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof; any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms; any school administration building; any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose; any elementary or secondary school facility; any career center; any college or university facility unless the licensee is a registered student, employee, or faculty member of such college or university and the weapon is a stun gun or nonlethal electric weapon or device designed solely for defensive purposes and the weapon does not fire a dart or projectile; inside the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport, provided that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, which firearm is encased for shipment for purposes of checking such firearm as baggage to be lawfully transported on any aircraft; or any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law. Any person who willfully violates any provision of this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.


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.


Maybe someone should alert the bailiff/sergeant-at-arms of their criminal activities when they show up in uniform and armed. :rolleyes:

If they are not 'elected' (IE: The actual SHERIFF) and they are 'on the clock' then as mentioned above they would be violating the lobbying laws mentioned above. If they are not 'on the clock' then they are not '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' an are in violation of the above statutes.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
Message to Bogdanoff said:
I was watching the Judiciary Committee Meeting on the topic of SB234. I have an issue with some deceptive commentary you made and used as your reason for voting "Nay" after expressing your ability to do math. ;-)

You expressed a concern over Merchant Interests. Having seen your opinion on other Laws, such as the Parking Lot Carry matter a ways back, I'm disappointed to see you feign ignorance here. We both know full-well that any Private Property Owner can ask a person to leave for any reason, or no reason at all. You also know that signs forbidding firearms is not altered by this bill. So why pretend that is a valid excuse when it doesn't even apply, and we both know you're aware of that fact?

Florida doesn't have to be the same, you're right. We do some things differently. But doing things stupid just for the sake of being different seems to be your position here, and you're promoting it with willful deception.

Florida is one of the last States in the country to address the Dangers and Lethality of Concealed Carry. Concealment, by definition, demands that a person wait until a bad situation has already degraded to a need for deadly force to draw and probably fire that gun. Of course, presuming it can even be reached from cover. Often, crimes are averted simply by displaying the weapon. This is the key to Open Carry, something that 43 other States have figured out. A holstered gun is better than one that is in hand with a finger on the trigger. Open Carry is about preventing a situation from getting so bad that bullets fly.

It isn't a theory. While it is impossible to measure that which never happens, the fact that it never happens speaks volumes. How many times have you heard about a Concealed Carrier being attacked (duh, they look like an easy target so why not attack them?)? How many times have you heard of an Open Carrier being attacked? One practice is more common than the other, this is true. One clearly shows that it is unable to prevent anything, while the other is virtually unheard of.

I'm sure your mathematical skills are at least equivalent to your powers of deductive reasoning. Open Carry just makes sense. Florida was the first to create Concealed Carry. Why are we among the last to figure out what a bad idea it is to make that exclusively Concealed?

I pray that those who have never had the misfortune of discovering how useless a concealed weapon really is, will learn from reason instead of the hard way. I let my permit expire because 'feeling' safe is not the same as being safe. Concealment is about 'feeling' safe. The joke is on you if you ever need it, and being concealed, you probably will...

An ounce of prevention (Open Carry) is worth a pound of cure (Concealed Carry).

Decent enough?
 

10x

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
134
Location
FL
Talked to my buddy about this today, he is a deputy for one of the counties that had a rep up in Tallahassee yesterday.
He said that if becomes law their sheriff told them they will send two cars to a incident of OC even if no laws were broken. They are even brainwashing their deputies with their BS
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
Talked to my buddy about this today, he is a deputy for one of the counties that had a rep up in Tallahassee yesterday.
He said that if becomes law their sheriff told them they will send two cars to a incident of OC even if no laws were broken. They are even brainwashing their deputies with their BS

Pinellas... Look what they got over in Tarpon for arresting people with cameras... That guy just plain does not care what the law is, I hope his Deputies are smarter than he is.

I'd like to create a sort of outreach letter to these departments... "Your boss isn't putting his butt on the line with these illegal policies, you're the one who will get sued! We understand the hard position this puts you in, but we expect to be respected in spite of his illegal crusade. Lets not become enemies just because your boss is a douche-bag." Something fancier, thats just off the top of my head.

We need to let LEOs know that we're not at war with them just because their boss is at war with us and the law.

Yes, I just said that.

Some kinda press release about Sheriffs making pre-emptive waste-of-time intimidation policies might be in order, too. Or put the two together.... I'm sure there's a Fearless Leader somewhere who see the sense in this.... I'm sure said sheriffs think they're doing something new, but Florida being so tragically remedial in passing OC, they seem to forget we've been down this same road many times...

"tragically remedial" I have a feeling you're going to hear me say that in a video in the next few months....
 
Last edited:
Top