SB 234 Signed by Gov

Rich7553 · Jul 23, 2011

Terminal Velocity said:
Okay so SB234 went into effect on June 17, 2011 and my brother received this notice on July 14, 2011. Then it is clear to assume that he then received the most current 790/HB45 statue details. So here's the thing.... it states nothing about the term BRIEFLY anywhere in the 21 page notice, nor do I recall reading anything specifically outlining FLAGGING. So I'm confused, lol...

Define flagging, I'm not familiar with the term.

So the statue is saying that as long as no one can see the "physical" gun itself, then you're legal?

Correct.

Seeing the outline or imprint of a gun is not seeing the gun itself.. right?

Correct.

Okay... so let me go ahead and as this... I don't like IWB holsters so I will be carrying my XD45c in a OWB. Now what if the TIP of the HOLSTER is sticking out of the bottom of my shirt, or what if I reach for something and my HOLSTER (not the gun) is exposed, is that flagging? Since it is NOT the GUN you see, but ONLY the HOLSTER, I would assume that you're good since there is no "physical" part of the gun being exposed.... Yes/No?

The new statute says that so long as you are otherwise carrying concealed, a brief exposure of your firearm is not a criminal act so long as such exposure was not made in a deliberate and threatening manner. So, if you are reaching up for an item on a top shelf in a store and your firearm becomes visible to the ordinary sight of another person, then there is no crime committed and you cannot be prosecuted.

Now I would assume that if you have an open ended holster and your shirt does not cover it completely, IE; the tip, then you would be in violation of the statue since your gun ITSELF can be "physically" seen.

That's the way I see it as well. On the other hand, if your holster completely hides your firearm (think WWII Luger holsters), then that would be lawful in the same way one can carry a Ruger LCP in a fanny pack.

Thanks for bearing with me on this

My pleasure sir!

RetiredOC · Jul 23, 2011

Is a gun a holster? No. The holster is the holster. There is no law outlawing the wearing of a holster. Can I be arrested for open carrying if I have an EMPTY holster showing under my shirt line? No... it is a holster. It is not a gun. The holster is not only holding the gun, but it is also concealing it from ordinary sight.

What is "flagging" I'm not really new to the firearms community, but I never hear this term used. Help a brotha out!

I PRINT and BRIEFLY display all the time. If I feel like carrying the 1911 under a T shirt the holster hangs below the shirt line. THE FIREARM ITSELF IS INDEED REMOVED FROM ORDINARY SIGHT!

Terminal Velocity · Jul 23, 2011

Flagging from my understanding with how my brother uses the term, is if you reach for something, or the wind blows your shirt up and your gun is no longer concealed, that is flagging. But I was under the impression that included the holster to, but as you guys pointed out, the holster is not a gun.

I will present this argument to my brother, but I'm sure he will not concede, lol

The SCREW ME part of all this is I live in JAX and we all know how JAX cops are

Thanks guys!!!

ixtow · Jul 23, 2011

Terminal Velocity said:
Anyways, he is VERY adamant that it is illegal to print.

Then HE should be able to cite the Statute and Case Law that makes him so certain. I am, of course, applying the same standard I apply to myself. I have never been 'VERY adamant' about anything I haven't read and determined for myself. If he has done so, then he should be able to produce it. If he can't, see below.

Terminal Velocity said:
Now I want to make it clear that my brother is not one of those ***** cops

Until he produces the Citations in Statute and Case Law that make his 'adamant' position valid; YES, HE IS.

And since he will never doo that, because such things do not exist... Guess what... He will be exactly that until he retracts his statmenet and stops being an Opinion Enforcement Officer.

RetiredOC · Jul 23, 2011

Your brother is not a law enforcement officer. He is an Opinion Enforcement Officer. We have too many of those these days...

ixtow · Jul 23, 2011

I developed the term "OREO" or "O/REO" to differentiate any possible racial tone.

"Opinion/Revenue Enforcement Officer"

I beleive it is far more polite a term than such persons deserve, but I like to be well-spoken unless I'm making a point of being Willfully Inarticulate. It isn't about them.

Terminal Velocity · Jul 23, 2011

Yeah like I said, he interpenetrates printing as not being concealed per the actual definition of the word. He's is one of the good guys out there, but as we all know, the laws are quite ambiguous regardless of the fact that they are printed in many 1ft thick books. We all talk about subject to interpretation and cops need to do this so that they make it home at night. Do I like it... NO! I've been subject to many of these "interpretations" while growing up, but I deal.

I was told once by a judge that though it is not in the "book," that does not me it is not illegal, it is the "spirit of the law" that is broken. This may be one of those instances in my brothers eyes and many other officers.

I'm going to hit up a few of the gun shops, the Sheriff's Office and a few cops and ask them. I'll bet most will say that printing is in violation.

And for the record, I agree with you guys! If it's not in the statutes then there is nothing to violate! Screw all that "spirit of the law" Bull-Poop!

RetiredOC · Jul 23, 2011

Terminal Velocity said:
Yeah like I said, he interpenetrates printing as not being concealed per the actual definition of the word. He's is one of the good guys out there, but as we all know, the laws are quite ambiguous regardless of the fact that they are printed in many 1ft thick books. We all talk about subject to interpretation and cops need to do this so that they make it home at night. Do I like it... NO! I've been subject to many of these "interpretations" while growing up, but I deal.

I was told once by a judge that though it is not in the "book," that does not me it is not illegal, it is the "spirit of the law" that is broken. This may be one of those instances in my brothers eyes and many other officers.

I'm going to hit up a few of the gun shops, the Sheriff's Office and a few cops and ask them. I'll bet most will say that printing is in violation.

And for the record, I agree with you guys! If it's not in the statutes then there is nothing to violate! Screw all that "spirit of the law" Bull-Poop!

It is not up to your brother or any officer to "interpret." The law defines "concealed."

§790.001:

“Concealed firearm” means any firearm, as defined in subsection (6), which is carried on or about a person in such a manner as to conceal the firearm from the ordinary sight of another person.

If the firearm is concealed from ordinary sight then it is concealed IAW with Florida law. PERIOD. Your brother, guns shops, sherriff's office; none of them can decide anything regarding concealed, it is done for them.

ixtow · Jul 23, 2011

Lets not turn this into a thread about defending someone's honor. That's already a moot point and there is nothing to argue.

He shall provide the Statutes that give him the authority to arrest someone who is printing. If he does not, his name is mud.

Period. That's it. The next post should be him, on a new account making his first post telling us how we cannot read and neither can any judges. Even the Judges posture about it, but don't follow through. There is a reason.

Let your bro know that I might be in town, printing like mad in some brightly colored shirt, and briefly exposing all over the place.

My time in town will also be brief, unfortuantely. Which brief counts? Oh, I'm so confused...

Terminal Velocity · Jul 23, 2011

Schlitz said:
It is not up to your brother or any officer to "interpret." The law defines "concealed."

§790.001:

“Concealed firearm” means any firearm, as defined in subsection (6), which is carried on or about a person in such a manner as to conceal the firearm from the ordinary sight of another person.

If the firearm is concealed from ordinary sight then it is concealed IAW with Florida law. PERIOD. Your brother, guns shops, sherriff's office; none of them can decide anything regarding concealed, it is done for them.

And I agree with you 200%, but I can see how it can be a conflict of interpretation if you go by the definition of the word concealed.

Conceal:

1) To prevent disclosure or recognition of
2) To keep from being seen, found, observed, or discovered; hide
3) To keep from discovery; hide
4) To keep secret

Printing does NONE of these things if weighed on the actual definition of the word. And number 1 says it all -- To prevent recognition of.

Do you see where I'm going with this? there is plenty of room to intemperate this since Florida is a concealment state. But like I said, I with you guys 200%! But I just don't want to get caught up in court where the ***** prosecute says to the judge -- Well you honor, it is found that Mr. XXX was in clear violation of failing to conceal his weapon in the form of printing since the arresting officer was capable of recognizing Mr. XXX's weapon as a gun via the printing through his shirt, and since we know that the definition of concealment is to prevent disclosure or recognition of said item which is to be concealed, the officer found viable cause to arrest Mr. XXX and waste his time and cause him to lose his job while waiting for his hearing....blah...blah...blah...

Again, see where I am going with this?

ixtow · Jul 23, 2011

As sad as it may be, the dictionary has never had much bearing on the definitions of legal terms. Pretending that it suddenly does just to support a traitor... It's a stretch.

I have also referred to the Dictionary, but only as a sarcastic joke to show that the word 'briefly' is ambiguous, and even the Dictionary can't define it to the extent we need.

To jump to a book of definitions that the Law seems quite happy to avoid, and even contrast with in such abundance, is no support for the argument.

Terminal Velocity · Jul 23, 2011

ixtow said:
As sad as it may be, the dictionary has never had much bearing on the definitions of legal terms. Pretending that it suddenly does just to support a traitor... It's a stretch.

I have also referred to the Dictionary, but only as a sarcastic joke to show that the word 'briefly' is ambiguous, and even the Dictionary can't define it to the extent we need.

To jump to a book of definitions that the Law seems quite happy to avoid, and even contrast with in such abundance, is no support for the argument.

Yeah, briefly is ever worse! But I think I make more than a valid point since concealment has a definite, defined and understood definition, unlike briefly. I love the fact that if I get popped for printing, I can argue it in court and obviously win. What will suck is that I will have to deal with the B.S. court system. But the silver lining is I might have a law suite out of it, lol...

We-the-People · Jul 24, 2011

Terminal Velocity said:
Yeah, briefly is ever worse! But I think I make more than a valid point since concealment has a definite, defined and understood definition, unlike briefly. I love the fact that if I get popped for printing, I can argue it in court and obviously win. What will suck is that I will have to deal with the B.S. court system. But the silver lining is I might have a law suite out of it, lol...

Read post # 68 The LAW defines concealed, not the dictionary.

Now, what is the LEGAL definition of "from ordinary sight".....I would argue that it means you can't see THE GUN .... NOT that it means the SHAPE of a gun ... and now if the GUN is briefly exposed that's okay too.

ixtow · Jul 24, 2011

We-the-People said:
Read post # 68 The LAW defines concealed, not the dictionary.

Now, what is the LEGAL definition of "from ordinary sight".....I would argue that it means you can't see THE GUN .... NOT that it means the SHAPE of a gun ... and now if the GUN is briefly exposed that's okay too.

For all the ridiculous crap that LEOs have tried to pull on me, you'd think I'd be in trouble for printing and brief exposure by now, but it isn't mentioned...

I doubt it's the notion that I might shoot them first... They've never been timid about shooting at me in certain parts of the State.

If nothing else convinces, I'd say experience. They've tried to set me up for Statutory Rape, tried to plant drugs on me, they've even stolen cars, parked them in my yard, and claimed I stole them! I've been up one side and down the other with a few SOs. Never was the fact that I was carrying and printing a concern. Why would they go so far out of their way with such elaborate BS if they could get me for printing? Hell, I didn't even have a permit some of the time! Not a peep...

I've gotten more trouble for OCing an AK mag, and even that is hardly worth mentioning. I only do so for the scale of the non-event that printing is.

RetiredOC · Jul 24, 2011

Terminal Velocity said:
And I agree with you 200%, but I can see how it can be a conflict of interpretation if you go by the definition of the word concealed.

Conceal:

1) To prevent disclosure or recognition of
2) To keep from being seen, found, observed, or discovered; hide
3) To keep from discovery; hide
4) To keep secret

Printing does NONE of these things if weighed on the actual definition of the word. And number 1 says it all -- To prevent recognition of.

Do you see where I'm going with this? there is plenty of room to intemperate this since Florida is a concealment state. But like I said, I with you guys 200%! But I just don't want to get caught up in court where the ***** prosecute says to the judge -- Well you honor, it is found that Mr. XXX was in clear violation of failing to conceal his weapon in the form of printing since the arresting officer was capable of recognizing Mr. XXX's weapon as a gun via the printing through his shirt, and since we know that the definition of concealment is to prevent disclosure or recognition of said item which is to be concealed, the officer found viable cause to arrest Mr. XXX and waste his time and cause him to lose his job while waiting for his hearing....blah...blah...blah...

Again, see where I am going with this?

I see where you are going, and I'm not being a dick or anything, I'm just telling you you are wrong and this is why.

When they made this law the clearly defined concealed IN THE LAW so that there could be no mistake...

“Concealed firearm” means any firearm, as defined in subsection (6), which is carried on or about a person in such a manner as to conceal the firearm from the ordinary sight of another person.

This was added so there is no reference to the dictionary, here is the definition of a CONCEALED firearm per florida law. Because the LAW defines concealed the dictionary definition means nothing.

Do you see where I am going with this? When it comes to law: Florida Statutes > Websters Dictionary

hammer6 · Jul 24, 2011

Schlitz said:
I see where you are going, and I'm not being a dick or anything, I'm just telling you you are wrong and this is why.

When they made this law the clearly defined concealed IN THE LAW so that there could be no mistake...

“Concealed firearm” means any firearm, as defined in subsection (6), which is carried on or about a person in such a manner as to conceal the firearm from the ordinary sight of another person.

This was added so there is no reference to the dictionary, here is the definition of a CONCEALED firearm per florida law. Because the LAW defines concealed the dictionary definition means nothing.

Do you see where I am going with this? When it comes to law: Florida Statutes > Websters Dictionary

(and ordinary sight probably means a glance...not an intense stare down)

but seriously- why is this a problem???? the word printing does not appear in the statutes, so therefore, it's not against the law!!!!!!!!!!! obviously this guy's brother needs to be educated on the law he has sworn to uphold. because he isn't enforcing it.

RRobaldo · Jul 25, 2011

hammer6 said:
(and ordinary sight probably means a glance...not an intense stare down)

According to my seventh edition "Florida Firearms Law Use & Ownership" book, "Ordinary Sight" means exactly what it sounds like. ie. NOT X-RAY VISION.
If you can't see the physical gun, then it's concealed under Florida law.

Actually, what you should tell your brother is to pick up a copy of this book.
Or better yet, YOU need to have a copy of this book. Pretty much all of your local gun shops will have it for sale.
If you're going to carry, then this book is absolutely worth having.

The book very clearly explains the law and very clearly explains that "printing" is not illegal.

Terminal Velocity · Jul 25, 2011

RRobaldo said:
According to my seventh edition "Florida Firearms Law Use & Ownership" book, "Ordinary Sight" means exactly what it sounds like. ie. NOT X-RAY VISION.
If you can't see the physical gun, then it's concealed under Florida law.

Actually, what you should tell your brother is to pick up a copy of this book.
Or better yet, YOU need to have a copy of this book. Pretty much all of your local gun shops will have it for sale.
If you're going to carry, then this book is absolutely worth having.

The book very clearly explains the law and very clearly explains that "printing" is not illegal.

Awesome! Thanks for the info on the book, I will deff get a copy!!!

BTW -- how often is it updated? Is the new SB234 updates in the newest version? If not, when does the updated version come out? Thanks again!

Rich7553 · Jul 25, 2011

Terminal Velocity said:
Awesome! Thanks for the info on the book, I will deff get a copy!!!

BTW -- how often is it updated? Is the new SB234 updates in the newest version? If not, when does the updated version come out? Thanks again!

The previous edition came out in 2009, but Jon Gutmacher has a website on which he posts regular updates to the current version as they are clarified through case law or by the legislature.

http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/

RetiredOC · Jul 25, 2011

hammer6 said:
(and ordinary sight probably means a glance...not an intense stare down)

but seriously- why is this a problem???? the word printing does not appear in the statutes, so therefore, it's not against the law!!!!!!!!!!! obviously this guy's brother needs to be educated on the law he has sworn to uphold. because he isn't enforcing it.

People who are kind of *new* to the firearms community are just learning things like this. As you become an involved part of this community you learn more and more about law, the biggest problem people seem to have is "HOW CAN THIS BE LEGAL IF THERE IS NO LAW SAYING IT IS LEGAL!?!?!"

I had the same problem so I see where this guy was coming from. I use to think, "how can open carry be legal!? nothing says it's legal!" (from a different state). I also use to talk to LEO for legal advice regarding firearms. :lol:

SB 234 Signed by Gov

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Campaign Veteran

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran