-
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.
On the Gov's desk.
- Thread starter RRobaldo
- Start date
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
I have a feeling this was the plan from the beginning. Now anyone who CCs, weather they accidentally expose or not, but are known to the LEO to have a CWFL, can now be arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated based solely on false testimony of a corrupt cop.
I'm inclined to mail my CWFL back and stop carrying altogether. It's just too dangerous now.
I'm inclined to mail my CWFL back and stop carrying altogether. It's just too dangerous now.
Oh stop it.
~*'Phoenix'*~
Regular Member
I wish, but I seriously doubt it. Gov. Scott's conservative and pro-gun, but he hasn't struck me as the sharpest tool in the shed. I doubt he'll see the problems and unconstitutionality of this
~*'Phoenix'*~
Regular Member
I guess I will, but he hasn't vetoed ANYTHING yet... except for most of the budget of course
Last edited:
Japle
Regular Member
No.
I just sent this
Gov Scott,
As a natural born Floridian, and a firearm enthusiast I am implore you to VETO SB-234. This bill is drastically different than what was originally penned at the beginning of the legislative process. The Florida State Senate managed to mangle this bill into such a mess that it could actually do more harm than good for those citizens who choose to carry a firearm concealed.
I beg you to send this bill back to the House and Senate and tell them to give us a bill that restores the right for Florida’s citizens to openly carry a firearm.
Gov Scott,
As a natural born Floridian, and a firearm enthusiast I am implore you to VETO SB-234. This bill is drastically different than what was originally penned at the beginning of the legislative process. The Florida State Senate managed to mangle this bill into such a mess that it could actually do more harm than good for those citizens who choose to carry a firearm concealed.
I beg you to send this bill back to the House and Senate and tell them to give us a bill that restores the right for Florida’s citizens to openly carry a firearm.
77zach
Regular Member
77zach
Regular Member
Wow, reading the disingenuous email from the NRA alerts might give people giving it a cursory read the impression that this is an open carry bill. Why are they calling this an open carry bill when it's a do nothing bill?
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6886
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6886
~*'Phoenix'*~
Regular Member
I wrote too, asking him to urge the senate to pass legislation to truly restore our rights and not just sweep us under the rug like 234 would do if passed.
"... we already took care of that last year..."
"... we already took care of that last year..."
^ a while agomach1chris said:
^now
?
Anywho, I thought the final version that is going to his desk says this:
"It
34 is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to
35 carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who
36 is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly
37 and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another
38 person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an
39 angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense."
Can anyone clarify?
~*'Phoenix'*~
Regular Member
I'm gonna interpret it as, when I'm not near lots of people, I'll "openly and briefly" display my "concealed firearm." Woods, park, maybe even, say, a redneck flea market where everyone is buying selling and wandering around with shotguns on their shoulders anyway? When someone complains, or an officer arrives? "Oh, sorry, I didn't know it was showing that much."
~*'Phoenix'*~
Regular Member
Yeah, I would as backup... I'm not one who's willing to make too much of a scene to tests the limits though...
Did I just read a LEO support my suggestion to try out the "Brief"-OC-and-see-what-happens?:shocker:
Brilliance. Completely defensible under this vague new law. Believe me folks, although it may cause arrests, acquittals will be very easy to come by until the entire law gets quashed by the DCA.
Example 2: @ihop with friends and you want to show them the new sight on your 1911. You pull it out, show it, and take it back into the holster. Brief, not angry, and the entire show may have taken 15 seconds. No clip, no round in the chamber: violation or not?
Let the fight begin about this vague language. This little law may usher in a good year for criminal lawyers.
A step is a step Mach1chris. Let's let the fight continue with a tiny bit more freedom on the citizen's side, and a little more confusion for those in your profession (and mine, thankfully).
77zach
Regular Member
Briefly.
I can't believe they're putting this language into statute. Pushing the law is generally considered poor form and counterproductive. But when your rights are grossly violated and the law is this vague and stupid it begs to be willfully tested. When they come after us we can then say, 'see NRA, it didn't work, now lets go for the real thing.' Briefly can mean anything to anyone. If all LEOs were pro rights like us, the new language could be interpreted as allowing OC everywhere all the time, because our opinions could assign a value of hours to "briefly." If there are 24 hours in a day and I'm in a store for 15 minutes OCing, I'm in the store for a brief part of the day.
I can't believe they're putting this language into statute. Pushing the law is generally considered poor form and counterproductive. But when your rights are grossly violated and the law is this vague and stupid it begs to be willfully tested. When they come after us we can then say, 'see NRA, it didn't work, now lets go for the real thing.' Briefly can mean anything to anyone. If all LEOs were pro rights like us, the new language could be interpreted as allowing OC everywhere all the time, because our opinions could assign a value of hours to "briefly." If there are 24 hours in a day and I'm in a store for 15 minutes OCing, I'm in the store for a brief part of the day.
That is a good point you make, do you thing there is a loophole here in our favor?
Last edited:
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
Perhaps the hot air involved in the statute itself? Hell, that much hot air could keep my firearm exposed at all times... So it's all their fault!