• 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.

hb517

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,561
It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.

I JUST DON'T GET IT. If you're carrying in a concealed manner, how does one openly display a firearm? And what is the definition of angry. Is it against the law to be angry? THIS IS SO BROAD. I can't believe something like this is actually beign made by our freaking law makers. This is just so crazy. It's not that I'm mad that OC is taken out (which I am), but it's the fact that this is so impossible to measure. How do you measure if someone is angry or not? Wtf?
 

Willm3053

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
45
Location
Miami, FL
When I clicked back to the channel, I heard it was going to a 3rd reading, is that correct?
 

firedog

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
156
Location
FL/NC
Ok this is new language and a new amendment. This is a different read on things. They seemed to have removed some of the ambiguous language. This may be interesting. It says you can briefly openly display a firearm as long as your intention is to carry it concealed. The “briefly” is questionable but it is not near as ambiguous as accidentally or inadvertently. Am I reading something wrong? So If I'm getting into my truck and I take my jacket off before I get in and my weapon becomes visible I am not in violation. Before if I took my coat off in such a manner then the exposure was not accidental or inadvertent and I was subject to arrest. This is interesting..

1) http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/0234/Amendment/688734/HTML New language
2) http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/0234/Amendment/322294/HTML Old language

New Language:
It
12 is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to
13 carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who
14 is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly
15 and openly display the firearm
to the ordinary sight of another
16 person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an
17 angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.

Old Lanquage:
It
11 shall not be a violation of this section for a person who is
12 licensed to carry a concealed firearm, and who is lawfully
13 carrying it in a concealed manner, to accidentally or
14 inadvertently display the firearm to the ordinary sight of
15 another person so long as the firearm is not displayed in a
16 rude, angry, or threatening manner.
 
Last edited:

rvrctyrngr

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
363
Location
SE of DiSOrDEr, ,
Ok this is new language and a new amendment. This is a different read on things. They seemed to have removed some of the ambiguous language. This may be interesting. It says you can briefly openly display a firearm as long as your intention is to carry it concealed. The “briefly” is questionable but it is not near as ambiguous as accidentally or inadvertently. Am I reading something wrong? So If I'm getting into my truck and I take my jacket off before I get in and my weapon becomes visible I am not in violation. Before if I took my coat off in such a manner then the exposure was not accidental or inadvertent and I was subject to arrest. This is interesting..

1) http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/0234/Amendment/688734/HTML New language
2) http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/0234/Amendment/322294/HTML Old language

New Language:
It
12 is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to
13 carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who
14 is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly
15 and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another
16 person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an
17 angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.

Old Lanquage:
It
11 shall not be a violation of this section for a person who is
12 licensed to carry a concealed firearm, and who is lawfully
13 carrying it in a concealed manner, to accidentally or
14 inadvertently display the firearm to the ordinary sight of
15 another person so long as the firearm is not displayed in a
16 rude, angry, or threatening manner.

I think you're reading it correctly. It is the same verbiage that is in SB234. Doesn't really matter about taking your coat off at your car though...still can't open carry in your vehicle. :banghead:
 

brboyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
412
Location
Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
Ok this is new language and a new amendment. This is a different read on things. They seemed to have removed some of the ambiguous language. This may be interesting. It says you can briefly openly display a firearm as long as your intention is to carry it concealed. The “briefly” is questionable but it is not near as ambiguous as accidentally or inadvertently. Am I reading something wrong? So If I'm getting into my truck and I take my jacket off before I get in and my weapon becomes visible I am not in violation. Before if I took my coat off in such a manner then the exposure was not accidental or inadvertent and I was subject to arrest. This is interesting..

1) http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/0234/Amendment/688734/HTML New language
2) http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/0234/Amendment/322294/HTML Old language

New Language:
It
12 is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to
13 carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who
14 is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly
15 and openly display the firearm
to the ordinary sight of another
16 person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an
17 angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.

Old Lanquage:
It
11 shall not be a violation of this section for a person who is
12 licensed to carry a concealed firearm, and who is lawfully
13 carrying it in a concealed manner, to accidentally or
14 inadvertently display the firearm to the ordinary sight of
15 another person so long as the firearm is not displayed in a
16 rude, angry, or threatening manner.

Again, uninformed....

This happened back on the 27th IN THE SENATE...perhaps you have not been paying attention?
 
Last edited:

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
Keep in mind. Folks in those seats can actually try to debate what the meaning of the word "is" is. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
 

firedog

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
156
Location
FL/NC
Boyer, KMA dude. You are ignored so I have no idea what your saying. I can't imagine its anything nice towards me so you don't need to waste you time if it is.
 

brboyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
412
Location
Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
Boyer, KMA dude. You are ignored so I have no idea what your saying. I can't imagine its anything nice towards me so you don't need to waste you time if it is.

I'm crushed!

If you would not open your mouth and spew uninformed information, that some other less informed individual might taker to heart, I, and others, would not have to continually come and correct you.
 

Willm3053

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
45
Location
Miami, FL
New or Old it's still garbage, lets just let it ride, hopefully Gov. Scott has some kind of common sense and vetos this bill. Let our voices and peaceful demonstrations show them in Tallahassee that we mean business, don't Eff with our rights, YOU WILL BE VOTED OUT, don't get comfy on your chair.
 

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
I'm crushed!

If you would not open your mouth and spew uninformed information, that some other less informed individual might taker to heart, I, and others, would not have to continually come and correct you.

"uninformed "
Here we go again. For the last time. Inform us, O Gatekeeper of All-Knowing Knowledge and Wisdom, inform we feeble-minded masses...

































....ya, somehow I didnt think you could, either.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
 

RRobaldo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
61
Location
Lutz, FL
Hmmm. I'm no lawyer, but it looks to me like if they strike out the words "briefly and" we'd be golden!

That being the case, I think we should let the amendment stand as is. Then next year rather than trying to pass some complicated language, let's just get them to strike out those two words.
 
Last edited:

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
Why am I even wasting anytime arguing with this troll?
Henceforth ignored. All future posts... pointless.
 
Top