HB 45 is already working

http://www.pnj.com/article/20110629...daysarchives/Gulf-Breeze-review-city-gun-laws
Anti gun city council members are freaking out now that house bill 45 goes into effect October 1st. They are scrambling to rescind ordinances that don't agree with the new state law. According to the article, the Gulf Breeze city attorney Matt Dannheisser says Florida is going to be like Texas now with guns everywhere. The sky is falling, the sky is falling! These guys live in a different reality than most Americans IMHO.

Naples and collier county has started already. The white circle is covering the gun image.

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk

Mas49.56 said:

They are scrambling to rescind ordinances that don't agree with the new state law.

Click to expand...

IF the news article can be believed, as long as the offending ordinances aren't enforced, there's no penalty for having them. But anyone who enacts or enforces a local law which conflicts w/ the new state law is in for big trouble.
Probably best if the old laws are simply not available as temptation.

Gulf Breeze city attorney Matt Dannheisser says Florida is going to be like Texas now with guns everywhere.

Click to expand...

Um, doesn't he know that FL already has people carrying?
The law as explained in the article doesn't do a thing about who carries, or making someone carry, only makes all local gun-related laws void.
WI has something similar. I wasn't here when it was enacted (more than 10 years ago... don't remember the exact date), but other than a few places which haven't heard of the state law yet there aren't problems.

These guys live in a different reality than most Americans IMHO.

Click to expand...

Going strictly by numbers, technically it is we (citizens lawfully armed for our own defense) who live in a different reality.

Pinellas county parks have also removed signs

Heh-heh! :banana:

We have state preemption here in Washington as well. We are legally allowed to carry in the stadiums but because they are managed by a third party they can say no firearms. State preemption also means (out here) that the rules don't apply to the state run services, just cities, counties and municipalities.

If our court houses are secure areas (think metal detectors) they are required to have either lock boxes or someone to take charge of a firearm. Getting someone to take said firearm can take up to 45 minutes at times. They do this to discourage you from bring it in. 9 times out of 10 when you get your firearm back they have emptied the mags (or mags) and hand it back unloaded. If you took public transportation to get there, just where are you suppose to reload it??

While this is a BIG PLUS for you guys just be aware of the possible ways they will find around it or just plain difficult to use.

M1Gunr said:

We have state preemption here in Washington as well. We are legally allowed to carry in the stadiums but because they are managed by a third party they can say no firearms. State preemption also means (out here) that the rules don't apply to the state run services, just cities, counties and municipalities.

If our court houses are secure areas (think metal detectors) they are required to have either lock boxes or someone to take charge of a firearm. Getting someone to take said firearm can take up to 45 minutes at times. They do this to discourage you from bring it in. 9 times out of 10 when you get your firearm back they have emptied the mags (or mags) and hand it back unloaded. If you took public transportation to get there, just where are you suppose to reload it??

While this is a BIG PLUS for you guys just be aware of the possible ways they will find around it or just plain difficult to use.

Click to expand...

1st bolded: Depending on how your preemption statute is worded and existing precedent in case law, you may be able to get that practice stopped. Public land or property does not become private land or property merely because a private entity is managing or leasing it. It can be argued that the government (state/local) cannot pass onto a private contractor an authority (banning of firearms) that it, itself does not possess.

2nd bolded: The legislature should be lobbied to amend the statute to require that any firearms surrendered in this manner must be returned to the owner in the same condition as they were originally surrendered. What is to prevent the authorities from completely disassembling the firearm and handing you back a baggie of parts?

Rich7553 said:

1st bolded: Depending on how your preemption statute is worded and existing precedent in case law, you may be able to get that practice stopped. Public land or property does not become private land or property merely because a private entity is managing or leasing it. It can be argued that the government (state/local) cannot pass onto a private contractor an authority (banning of firearms) that it, itself does not possess.

2nd bolded: The legislature should be lobbied to amend the statute to require that any firearms surrendered in this manner must be returned to the owner in the same condition as they were originally surrendered. What is to prevent the authorities from completely disassembling the firearm and handing you back a baggie of parts?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately we have already had a court case go against us on this and it does allow cities to act as a private business.

PACIFIC. NORTHWEST. SHOOTING. PARK. ASSOCIATION (PNWSPA) v. CITY OF SEQUIM
”when a municipality acts in a capacity that is comparable to that of a private party, the preemption clause does not apply.”

M1Gunr said:

Unfortunately we have already had a court case go against us on this and it does allow cities to act as a private business.

PACIFIC. NORTHWEST. SHOOTING. PARK. ASSOCIATION (PNWSPA) v. CITY OF SEQUIM
”when a municipality acts in a capacity that is comparable to that of a private party, the preemption clause does not apply.”

Click to expand...

At what level was this case decided? Can it or has it been appealed?

State Supreme Court 2006
http://www.christielawgroup.dreamho.../Pacific-Northwest-Shooting-Park-v-Sequim.pdf

Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association v City of Sequim, 158 Wash.2d 342 (2006), the court held that the City of Sequim was acting in a private capacity when leasing out a city convention center to an association conducting a gun show within the premises belonging to Sequim. The court decided that the laws that apply to public parks, public meetings and other municipally owned premises and property are not the same as restrictions imposed on private parties per a city’s contractual relations with private parties.

An Attorney General Opinion on Preemption
http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/Opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=21188

M1Gunr said:

State Supreme Court 2006
http://www.christielawgroup.dreamho.../Pacific-Northwest-Shooting-Park-v-Sequim.pdf

Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association v City of Sequim, 158 Wash.2d 342 (2006), the court held that the City of Sequim was acting in a private capacity when leasing out a city convention center to an association conducting a gun show within the premises belonging to Sequim. The court decided that the laws that apply to public parks, public meetings and other municipally owned premises and property are not the same as restrictions imposed on private parties per a city’s contractual relations with private parties.

An Attorney General Opinion on Preemption
http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/Opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=21188

Click to expand...

If I read the Supreme Court decision correctly, the legislature in your state has given local governments the authority to regulate the possession of firearms in "convention centers". It looks like that's where the case initially went south. The concept that a public entity can act as a private landlord is asinine, in my opinion. There is a case in Delaware where the NRA is fighting the Wilmington Public Housing authority on its ban on firearms in residential units where the City of Wilmington is acting as a "landlord".

Rich7553 said:

The concept that a public entity can act as a private landlord is asinine, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%.

Hijacking this thread was not my intention but it does give you guys some ideas on what to look forward to once the city & county lawyers get hold of it.

Mas49.56 said:

http://www.pnj.com/article/20110629...daysarchives/Gulf-Breeze-review-city-gun-laws
Anti gun city council members are freaking out now that house bill 45 goes into effect October 1st. They are scrambling to rescind ordinances that don't agree with the new state law. According to the article, the Gulf Breeze city attorney Matt Dannheisser says Florida is going to be like Texas now with guns everywhere. The sky is falling, the sky is falling! These guys live in a different reality than most Americans IMHO.

Click to expand...

I went to the council meeting last night in Daytona Beach, and watched them remove the ones in my city.

Mas49.56 said:

http://www.pnj.com/article/20110629...daysarchives/Gulf-Breeze-review-city-gun-laws
Anti gun city council members are freaking out now that house bill 45 goes into effect October 1st. They are scrambling to rescind ordinances that don't agree with the new state law. According to the article, the Gulf Breeze city attorney Matt Dannheisser says Florida is going to be like Texas now with guns everywhere. The sky is falling, the sky is falling! These guys live in a different reality than most Americans IMHO.

Click to expand...

Like Texas?? Man, that guy is an idiot!
Florida and Texas have pretty much the same right to carry laws. Texas does have preemption of gun laws, but place like San Antonio dont know it. San Antonio banned loaded rifles and locking blade knives of all things!
Thank you Florida guy's and Gals. This HB45 is a great law that shows promise.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way!
P.S. I hope Matt Dannheisser gets himself a big fat fine!