SB-245, suggestions

Hello everyone, first time poster here.

At one point the Florida Sheriff's Association, I believe, made the following recommendations (paraphrased) to the committee reviewing SB-234. They nearly matched suggestions I had made to the committee earlier.


1. Beyond CCW, require weapon retention training, so we know how to keep control of the weapon which can someday safe lives,

2. Require a Class 2 or better gun holster with built in safeties to ensure a) the weapon will not fall out by accident and b) it cannot be easily pulled out by other than the owner. Here's reference of gun holsters, for your information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun_holster.

3. Add a visual indication around the holster area to show police officers that the person carrying a weapon openly is indeed licensed to do so. This could be a small sticker on the holster, similar to a vehicle license plate registration decal so it's unobtrusive yet lets an officer know, from across the room, that the person carrying the weapon is qualified to do so.


The NRA was adamantly opposed to these but did not give a reason for that. Any comments?

JR

Im not crazy about the idea of "requiring" things. But I see your point-to an extent.
But to require such things is kinda/sorta like "requiring" motorcyclists to have training wheels,until they can prove they know how to ride.

Now, if they wanted to add some training to the existing classes to cover retention training in more detail,maybe.. but to create or add more classes to be able to get a permit? No thnx.

Yeah, I'd be all for one of those things (sort of): an ACTUAL improvement/extension of the crappy cwl class we already have to get, and better regulate the instructors... every person who's had 3 hours of "training", well, we should've been taught: gun components, care, safety, and laws, comfort with using several types of firearms, target control, basic SD scenarios, law-enforcement cooperation and more. And yes, that is reasonable within a true 3 hour training session.
I don't really agree with holster requirements, retention levels are a marketing system, no legally established guidelines, and goes right back to restricting our carry options like CC only. That said, I do agree with most here who recommend using one, and have myself made an unusual clasp-opened retention holster to use for OC.
I don't really agree with swinging our badge from our belt either, sort of sounds like it'd risk impersonating an officer, but I do agree with willingly showing it to a LEO immediately upon encounter to establish rapport and cooperation.

That was quick, thanks!

Right, I'm mostly looking at these from either a cop or general public's perspective so it would be known that you had to go through some kind of qualification before you were allowed to openly carry.

For #1, not only everyone would feel more comfortable knowing there was some effort and qualification passed but it can certainly come in handy for the person carrying. Beyond basic requirements, I'd take any optional training available to me in a heartbeat.

On #2, I'm picturing an active - or immature - 21 y/o with his/her friends and how easily would be an openly carried weapon to drop out of a standard holster.

And if #3, can keep a cop from stopping me unnecessarily, I'll be happy to put a state decal on the holster (note: not a badge).

So the overall idea is to make the public and the police more comfortable while enhancing safety. If that's going to let me carry openly, I'm willing to give that much in return.

JR

See your points, and all, but.. there's this one little document that already takes care of our "qualification" and that, really, should be the end of it all. In EVERY State.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

j4l said:

See your points, and all, but.. there's this one little document that already takes care of our "qualification" and that, really, should be the end of it all. In EVERY State.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Click to expand...

Amen....!

The weapon retention training will limit some disabled people (people missing one arm) from always passing this class, So that is not helpful or could be grounds for a group to sue to challenge that law.. or requirement..

The Holster requirement is like some one saying lets put a pad lock on it while it hangs on your hip.. (gun shops locally saying, Make them carry openly with a empty chamber and a magazine removed...) This is off and would slow down your ability to defend your self as some retention holsters have failed and caused their owners to be at a greater risk using it.

The only issue with a visual aid to proving your allowed to carry is it can be faked and it will lead to more people being checked... I like the fact that the holders can and should be allowed to carry in a flash Id case that either hangs on their neck or fastens onto their belt near their holster...

Too many rules will only destroy this hopefully passed law..., If we are wanting to see change, then we need to agree on change and see it happen...

Just my opinion...

JRoque said:

Hello everyone, first time poster here.

At one point the Florida Sheriff's Association, I believe, made the following recommendations (paraphrased) to the committee reviewing SB-234. They nearly matched suggestions I had made to the committee earlier.


1. Beyond CCW, require weapon retention training, so we know how to keep control of the weapon which can someday safe lives,

2. Require a Class 2 or better gun holster with built in safeties to ensure a) the weapon will not fall out by accident and b) it cannot be easily pulled out by other than the owner. Here's reference of gun holsters, for your information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun_holster.

3. Add a visual indication around the holster area to show police officers that the person carrying a weapon openly is indeed licensed to do so. This could be a small sticker on the holster, similar to a vehicle license plate registration decal so it's unobtrusive yet lets an officer know, from across the room, that the person carrying the weapon is qualified to do so.


The NRA was adamantly opposed to these but did not give a reason for that. Any comments?

JR

Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum, JR!

In response to your post, let me offer my reply as I was intimately involved in standing firm against the FSA's suggestions.

First, weapons retention training. There really isn't a need for it. In the states that permit open carry, there have been less than a handful of incidents in which an open carrier's firearm was taken by a criminal, and mostly with the carrier already at gunpoint. The fact is that a criminal will virtually always choose an unarmed victim over an armed victim. A handgun can be bought on the street for $100 and there is no good reason for a criminal to risk getting killed just to get one. The reason given by police is that there have been so many officers killed with their own gun. The part they leave out is that the vast majority have been during arrests in which the bad guy fought back in order to keep from going to prison. Armed citizens are not in the business of looking for bad guys, hence they are not exposed to that same threat. Besides, weapons retention training essentially boils down to, if someone is trying to get your weapon, kill them! Is that what the FSA really wanted?

Second, level 2 holsters. In order to require a level 2 holster, the legislature would have to define just what a level 2 holster is. There is no hard, fast standard and it is not much more than a marketing term at this point. Besides, a level 2 holster isn't available for every model of handgun, so there would be a constitutional issue to require one. And again, there isn't any gun snatching going on in other open carry states.

Third, the "official licensee" credential. Originally, the FSA wanted one's license displayed in proximity or attached to the holster. The older ones have the licensees home address on them, so there would be a privacy issue. Additionally, the run of the mill citizen could mistake a licenseholder for a law enforcement officer. This, of course, is something the law enforcement community is dead set against. Most of the forums contain countless threads on badges, sashes, and the like. Besides, if one's license were in proximity to one's firearm, would one be inclined to reach for the license in the presence of an officer? Don't think so.

But ultimately, the provision was killed because the FSA offered it in exchange for supporting the bill, and then turned around and refused support anyway. So Senator Evers, the bill's sponsor, pulled the amendment and decided that if they weren't going to support the bill with the amendment, why include it? Smart move on his part.

JRoque said:

Hello everyone, first time poster here.

At one point the Florida Sheriff's Association, I believe, made the following recommendations (paraphrased) to the committee reviewing SB-234. They nearly matched suggestions I had made to the committee earlier.


1. Beyond CCW, require weapon retention training, so we know how to keep control of the weapon which can someday safe lives,

2. Require a Class 2 or better gun holster with built in safeties to ensure a) the weapon will not fall out by accident and b) it cannot be easily pulled out by other than the owner. Here's reference of gun holsters, for your information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun_holster.

3. Add a visual indication around the holster area to show police officers that the person carrying a weapon openly is indeed licensed to do so. This could be a small sticker on the holster, similar to a vehicle license plate registration decal so it's unobtrusive yet lets an officer know, from across the room, that the person carrying the weapon is qualified to do so.


The NRA was adamantly opposed to these but did not give a reason for that. Any comments?

JR

Click to expand...

This may only be my opinion but;.

1.This would only extend the prices we already pay on top of our already high licensing cost. Also;
a. When would these people be qualified to teach these classes?=1, 2, 3, 4, months from day becoming law!
b. Who would teach the teachers to teach these classes?
c. How much would the class cost?
d. When would these classes be available for us to sign up for?
e. Where would these classes be conducted? Look into hunter safety class locations. very hard to find in most places in Florida.

2. This would make it harder for the low income people to afford the more advanced holsters that would be required.

3. Driving a car down the road is a privilege and may be required to show you have this privilege and payed the taxes on such privilege, but carrying a firearm is a right that should not be misconstrued as a privilege, therefore should not need a taxation note affixed to it's unit for proof of anything.

4. Many many more reasons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hello all. Rich, that was enlightening, thank you. I wasn't too sure the FSA had suggested the above items since they were so much against the current bill.

As I mentioned earlier, these were my suggestions as compromise to have the bill passed. If it were up to me, I'd like everyone to carry openly. I don't know where some people come from when they oppose open carry. If guns around them make them nervous, wouldn't they want to know where they are so they can leave? Being afraid of guns but wanting them concealed is analogous to crossing a railroad track with your eyes closed because you're scared a train might hit you.

Thanks all for your take on this. Weighing in pros and cons, I'd take the above restrictions over not being able to open carry at all. These are moot points since they were stripped from the bill and it will likely pass as is.

JR

JRoque said:

Being afraid of guns but wanting them concealed is analogous to crossing a railroad track with your eyes closed because you're scared a train might hit you.

Click to expand...

More often, they come get in your face and tell you how terrifying you are.... Because getting in someone's face is what you do when you're afraid for your life...

I love Open Carry because it brings out the people who need on of Bill Engvall's signs.

If I'm so scary with my gun, why are you in my face insulting me in public? Oh, because you're a liar and a douche-bag, that's why...

ixtow said:

More often, they come get in your face and tell you how terrifying you are.... Because getting in someone's face is what you do when you're afraid for your life...

I love Open Carry because it brings out the people who need on of Bill Engvall's signs.

If I'm so scary with my gun, why are you in my face insulting me in public? Oh, because you're a liar and a douche-bag, that's why...

Click to expand...

There is a video of a guy in Michigan OCing an AK, protesting that they denied him his CCW "for no reason." He mentions that people will come up to him and scream in his face. Now, if you thought he was crazy, you go out of your way to agitate him? It's clear that some, like some cops and antigunners, don't want OC because it threatens their desire to dominate others. The psychology of making an OCer agitated needs to be further studied. Obviously they're not afraid. They don't really want to dominate others. What is that?

The logical thing, in the words of a retired Fauquier county, VA officer, is to see OC "as a corollary of good police work." What could be more obvious?