Pinellas County? You mean Sheriff Jim Coats' Pinellas County? Whose deputies would draw down on open carriers and where rights must be granted responsibly and to the right people? Big surprise!
-
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.
-
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.
Arrested for carrying
- Thread starter GIdeon_70
- Start date
Pinellas County? You mean Sheriff Jim Coats' Pinellas County? Whose deputies would draw down on open carriers and where rights must be granted responsibly and to the right people? Big surprise!
SGB
Regular Member
Going to need some tangible proof of this incident having occurred as posted before weighing in on it
Sure.
Florida statutes say "3) LAWFUL USES.--The provisions of ss. 790.053 and 790.06 do not apply in the following instances, and, despite such sections, it is lawful for the following persons to own, possess, and lawfully use firearms and other weapons, ammunition, and supplies for lawful purposes: 790.053 is the open carry ban and 790.06 is the concealed carry requirements. They do not apply if you are....
(h) A person engaged in fishing, camping, or lawful hunting or going to or returning from a fishing, camping, or lawful hunting expedition;
and
(l) A person traveling by private conveyance when the weapon is securely encased...
(17) "Securely encased" means in a glove compartment, whether or not locked; snapped in a holster; in a gun case, whether or not locked; in a zippered gun case; or in a closed box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for access.
So if you are in your car, and you are openly carrying and your weapon is in a snap holster, then you are exempt from the open carry statute 790.053.
Sorry, I was thinking firshing or camping, just didn't say it. I normally carry in parks when I camp.
With all due respect, I was not chasing anyone, nor was I investating anything. I was talking to my neighbor across the fence. I was not talking to the police and I WAS minding my own business.
And you haven't filed any lawsuits? Why would you let them take your firearm? I'm not trying to be harsh, but if you allow them to violate your rights like that, then you are giving them permission to continue to violate your rights - and hurting everyone else that gets stopped and robbed..
swatpamike
Regular Member
To answer Gideon_70 questions:
1. Can a police officer enter onto your property and tell you to disarm even though it is your right to carry.
2. Can a police officer order you to go into your house even though you have not committed a crime.
3. Would those orders be considered "Lawful Orders," in Florida.
YES, if the Office believes the either he or others are in immediate danger or for your own safety.
I am not a LEO so I can only guess what goes through their minds when they respond to a shots fired call but I am sure that their emotions and adrenaline levels are running much higher then with most calls. So when they see an armed individual standing in a yard near the house that just had shot fired into it this escalates the situation to an even higher level. Why any individual would ever put themselves or their family into that situation in beyond me.
I am all for promoting and supporting our constitutional rights for open carry but we have to do this in way that does not alienate law enforcement or the general public. I know that some LEO's are steadfast against open carry and we can never do anything about these people. But by acting belligerent to LEO's who approach us while we lawfully open carry only promotes negative feelings between both groups. Confrontation will never generate the support we need to make effective changes to Florida Law and the suspicious mindset of Law Enforcement.
The way I see it our job is to inform, both law enforcement and the general public, through mutual respect what are views are and what we as a group seek. Does this mean that we have to buckle down or roll over on our rights when approached by an uninformed or suspicious LEO? The answer is maybe, if by following the LEO's directions we can redirect the situation into a positive outcome then both parties win. We as a group of like minded individuals MUST use common sense when it comes to where and when we choose to open carry and how we react to Law Enforcements challenges to these rights. Only through cool heads will we succeed in our quest to restore our 2nd amendment right to all the Florida faithfull.
Cheers
Mike
TY. FINALLY someone "gets it"
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
I'm the first to agree with you, but dead men can't sue. Florida is not the place to sue or even try to defend yourself. It's a good way to get dead. I'm leaving.
FireStar M40
Regular Member
I'm Curious..
Why hasn't there been a "stolen" firearms report made with the name of the Cop who took the gun as the thief who did it? I would then make copies of the report and send it to the FHP, County Mounties, City Police, F.B.I., B.A.T.F., etc., etc.
I bet then you'd get it back real quick. If what's being said is true (and at this point I have nothing to say it isn't), I can possible see a lawsuit in this whole situation.
FireStar M40
Why hasn't there been a "stolen" firearms report made with the name of the Cop who took the gun as the thief who did it? I would then make copies of the report and send it to the FHP, County Mounties, City Police, F.B.I., B.A.T.F., etc., etc.
I bet then you'd get it back real quick. If what's being said is true (and at this point I have nothing to say it isn't), I can possible see a lawsuit in this whole situation.
FireStar M40
9 Micky Mouse
Regular Member
I am not trying to be a ***** here but why did you feel it necessary to go outside an investigate? You are safer in your home call the police.
I would have looked out of a window or the blinds but never walked outside my permit does not say police. Some people go from being milded mannerd to an S on their chest
when they have a gun and this is why they want to take away or restrict our rights to have weapons.
If I was in my house right now and heard a noise outside I will have my weapon ready peek outside and if I saw something wrong call the police I am not going into a gunfight. One thing you must be able to do is articulate your actions in court unless it was a loved one in grave danger or something along those lines call the police.
I had a situation with a guy a few years back in Kroger, long story short he was waiting outside by my vehicle and I am always armed I even have 7 permits I can legally carry in all but 12 states. I called the police and when the officer noticed I was armed asked if I had a permit and thanked me shook my hand for calling them.
This is not a scolding just be safe
I would have looked out of a window or the blinds but never walked outside my permit does not say police. Some people go from being milded mannerd to an S on their chest
when they have a gun and this is why they want to take away or restrict our rights to have weapons.
If I was in my house right now and heard a noise outside I will have my weapon ready peek outside and if I saw something wrong call the police I am not going into a gunfight. One thing you must be able to do is articulate your actions in court unless it was a loved one in grave danger or something along those lines call the police.
I had a situation with a guy a few years back in Kroger, long story short he was waiting outside by my vehicle and I am always armed I even have 7 permits I can legally carry in all but 12 states. I called the police and when the officer noticed I was armed asked if I had a permit and thanked me shook my hand for calling them.
This is not a scolding just be safe
I doubt you'll find any law enforcement officer, judge, or firearms attorney who would agree with your interpretation because §790.25(5) F.S. deals specifically with with firearms possession in a private conveyance. It states:
POSSESSION IN PRIVATE CONVEYANCE.—Notwithstanding subsection (2), it is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license, if the firearm or other weapon is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use. Nothing herein contained prohibits the carrying of a legal firearm other than a handgun anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm or other weapon on the person. This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including lawful self-defense as provided in s. 776.012.
Feel free to confirm this with a competent firearms attorney or reference Gutmacher's book, but I'm sure you'll be told that open carry in a vehicle is not lawful. This is one of the reforms that Florida Carry will be working for in the upcoming legislative session.
77zach
Regular Member
In Florida, you can't OC in a vehicle, even with a permit. I still do it all the time as it's unenforceable, but that's how ridiculous the open carry situation is here. I'd say that the 2012 session should try and go for unrestricted carry in a vehicle. Still wouldn't pass most likely, but would be more liberating than OC while "hiking" alone. Maybe constitutional carry in vehicles and in unincorporated areas? That would be nice.
JeepSeller
Regular Member
With all due respect, yes you were.
You heard shots outside, you grabbed your gun and ran out the door gun in hand. To be brutally blunt and honest here, stupid move. What if there really was a criminal out there shooting? You didn't think about that, though, did you? You would have ran head first into a shootout with the guy.
You can try to back pedal all you want, but, the end result is you got "gun = superman complex" You ran out there to be nosy and be Mr. Bigshot with your gun. THEN, you have the gall to get upset with your local LEO who arrives on scene of an unknown shooter and wants to check out the only one they see standing around with a gun??
Taking your gun is the ONLY thing I see wrong with the LEO's actions. But, since you exasperated things by trying to play "front-porch Matlock" with the LEO, you hold some blame for the loss of your gun in the process IMHO. I'll bet had you simply complied with the officer's commands, you'd still have your gun and your day would have gone much smoother. Live to fight another day in other words.
In every encounter I've seen, on every forum, in every thread about LEO vs. citizens, 100% of the time, then end result is that the scene is the WRONG place to try to pretend you're a lawyer. Play nice, be respectful, and if you truly feel the LEO is in the wrong, follow proper channels. With a REAL lawyer if needed. That's not giving up any of your rights. That's not cowering down to anyone or anything. It's simply being smart enough to know where and when to pick your battles.
When you make an arse out of yourself, get arrested, you just look like sour grapes when you try regular channels later on, you take away from your standing. But, if you act like a civilized adult throughout the process, you give your standing more bite.
Last edited:
MR Redenck
Regular Member
Mr., do yourself a favor and go get a lawyer. Some of the comments on this topic are just pathetic. If your were not doing anything illegal you need to take action against those cops. Taking your gun and not charging you with anything is nothing more than Natzi law!
If you can prove they violated your rights, I would suggest a federal rights infringement lawsuit against that police department.
Like you said, if we allow this to continue it will....
The treatment you described is nothing more than cops having no respect for the public.
Spot on. Not specifically for just this situation, but in the many like it. Including those moronic vid/audio baiting stunts.
Bobarino
Regular Member
The wisdom or lack thereof on the part of the OP is completely irrelevant. Simple fact is, he violated NO laws whatsoever and was under no obligation to comply with the cop being as he was not a threat (regardless of what the cop perceives) and was on his own property. The obvious clue was they let him go, but not before committing:
That's just a quick search of FL law, there are probably others. Wisdom, common sense, etc of the OP's actions are not the issue. There is no law that says you have to be wise.
Simple fact is he was arrested for contempt of cop. Nothing more.
Real life shots-fired type of threat > Internet lawyer poser philosophy.
Meaning that when you are in a REAL LIFE situation when a gun has been fired INTO someones house its not a matter of what everyones opinion on an internet forum is, its a matter of making the best decision you can or you could be dead. On the internet we can yap on and on about statutes and case laws but in the end we arent responding to a call where a deadly weapon has been fired.
When in a REAL LIFE situation what you perceive to be a threat will be different than how you perceive things after reading and responding to an internet story for 2 weeks and having time to gather your thoughts.
77zach
Regular Member
Again, one thing we can (or should) all agree on is that if this story is true, the THEFT (vs temporary seizure) of the firearm is pretty damn scary. This is a police state action. The same goes for when there is a self defense homicide shooting and the police confiscate the firearm. This should be a violation of the 4th amendment. I've seen cases of self defense in high crime areas where some old lady had her gun, her only gun, taken "for evidence". Guilty until proven innocent.
Last edited:
230therapy
Regular Member
" YES, if the Office believes the either he or others are in immediate danger or for your own safety."
This stuff does not occur in a vacuum.
The OP did NOT pose an immediate threat.
The officer observed the OP's behavior. He was standing around. If the OP's statements are true, then the officer was acting beyond his authority. The first officer RECOGNIZED that the OP was not a threat and walked away.
There was no authority behind that second officer's orders because it is well established law that the free exercise of a right CANNOT be converted into a crime. The second officer attempted to convert the OP's right into crime.
Frankly, I think the OP should consult with an attorney regarding civil AND corrective action against the second officer.
The OP was exercising a right and was neither involved, nor a suspect, in the crime. He was not at the scene; he was on private property adjacent to the scene. Just because he is OC'ing does not create conditions where the police have authority over him.
This stuff does not occur in a vacuum.
The OP did NOT pose an immediate threat.
The officer observed the OP's behavior. He was standing around. If the OP's statements are true, then the officer was acting beyond his authority. The first officer RECOGNIZED that the OP was not a threat and walked away.
There was no authority behind that second officer's orders because it is well established law that the free exercise of a right CANNOT be converted into a crime. The second officer attempted to convert the OP's right into crime.
Frankly, I think the OP should consult with an attorney regarding civil AND corrective action against the second officer.
The OP was exercising a right and was neither involved, nor a suspect, in the crime. He was not at the scene; he was on private property adjacent to the scene. Just because he is OC'ing does not create conditions where the police have authority over him.
Last edited:
The statute you quoted was only concerning concealed carry. I posted the relevant law concerning open carry.
The provisions of ss. 790.053... do not apply... [to] A person traveling by private conveyance when the weapon is..."Securely encased" mean[ing]... snapped in a holster... . 790.053 is the open carry ban statute. It does not apply.