***New amendment up on SB 234 ...reading now ***

oogotbagsoo said:

Have you guys seen those youtube videos of people open carrying and getting harassed by LEOs ? (im sure you have)

In most of those videos, you hear the LEO asking the individual filming "let me see your ID". The person's response to the LEO is "i don't need to give you my ID" and they DON'T provide it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYGSv8dfbU0

Reading at the proposed law:

The licensee must carry the license, together with
24 valid identification, at all times in which the licensee is in
25 actual possession of a concealed weapon or firearm and must
26 display both the license and proper identification upon demand
27 by a law enforcement officer.

I guess the law is different in NM ?


OK i guess you guys answered my question as I typed it out... LOL

Click to expand...

Yes this is what it says but the United States Constitution and the Florida State Constitution, Clearly states that they must have P/C or have a warrant to do such.

Rick H said:

Well for me I'll carry mine for when the situation araises that I may need to conceal I will still be legal...............But still funny they did NOT pick up on this fact

Click to expand...

I don't think anybody 'missed' it. I think it was written this way intentionally to comply with existing law.

oogotbagsoo said:

have you guys seen those youtube videos of people open carrying and getting harassed by leos ? (im sure you have)

in most of those videos, you hear the leo asking the individual filming "let me see your id". The person's response to the leo is "i don't need to give you my id" and they don't provide it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nygsv8dfbu0

reading at the proposed law:

The licensee must carry the license, together with
24 valid identification, at all times in which the licensee is in
25 actual possession of a concealed weapon or firearm and must
26 display both the license and proper identification upon demand
27 by a law enforcement officer.

i guess the law is different in nm ?


Ok i guess you guys answered my question as i typed it out... Lol

Click to expand...

concealed.

This is the kind of thing that merits testing in the courts. Given prior precedent, from the SOCUS no less, it's likely that the "on demand" clause of the law is prima facie unconstitutional. Given the small and civil penalty, however, the law may be able to stand as a strict liability infraction (like seat belts and helmets used to be under FL law, until they changed -- each in a different direction).

Nonetheless, it merits testing in the appeals courts. Don't put the sanctity of your permit at stake, but if you happen to make the mistake of leaving your permit at home, unintentionally, and you are ticketed (and you live in Miami), I'd be more than willing to take your case up on appeal. There is so much useful law to argue (and so much support from those of you online, who are an amazing resource) that it wouldn't make sense to allow a lousy lower case holding to stand.

Let's cross our fingers that this thing passes. Let's not intentionally tarnish the image of gun holders as law-abiding and cooperating, but a mistake is a mistake that can happen to anyone. Write your permit number on your phone or commit it to memory in case you leave the thing at home by mistake. They shouldn't give you s#!t if you are otherwise cooperative. But if they do, let's test that section of the law on appeal: 305-668-5656. I'm not a gun lawyer; I'm a criminal lawyer, so this is the kind of stuff I truly enjoy, and testing a bad clause in the law would, of course, be pro-bono (except for court costs).

Jesus Rodriguez,
Attorney