so in essence- we DO have unlicensed open carry in the state of florida...lol
i could just say "i'm hunting Al Qaeda"
-
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.
Upon demand by a Law Enforcement Officer
- Thread starter RetiredOC
- Start date
so in essence- we DO have unlicensed open carry in the state of florida...lol
i could just say "i'm hunting Al Qaeda"
thebigsd
Founder's Club Member
Am I missing something? I've been through DUI checkpoints and other checkpoints where they DO check DL's, insurance, and registration. There is no probable cause - they are stopping any and all that happen to be along that particular road.
Motofixxer
Regular Member
Yes, and you voluntarily complied didn't you? So they do it again, and again and again. Till people put a stop to it. Till people take a stand for real freedom. Not having to prove your innocent before you have been accused of something.
It's been clearly established in the courts:
"For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.
A long established requirement of the courts:
Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984)
"In essence the question of Standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues. Standing doctrine embraces... the general prohibition on a litigant's raising another person's legal rights, the rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches, and the requirement that a plaintiff's complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked. The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief."
So if your driving or get harassed because your firearm becomes visible and go to court for the "violation" who is the "injured party", and what injury occurred that will be redressed by the courts? The answer...None! Unless you hurt somebody in the process. So there is no subject matter jurisdiction for the court to adjudicate.
Some more food for thought here:
The Supreme Court of the United States of America has determined, "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…" Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985).
"There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent." [Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.]
Ever read your State Constitution? Here is a quote from mine "All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Last edited:
77zach
Regular Member
It's my understanding that these Soviet style checkpoints are legal. What's illegal is if a cop pulls you over out of the blue just to see if you have a DL or insurance.
Last edited:
nigmalg
Regular Member
Seeing as concealed carry is a privilege and open carry is effectively banned, wouldn't there be a federal constitutional argument for at least OC? That's quite a careful collection of case law you've gathered.
Do you have links to the cases you're watching Rich?
Last edited:
Seeing as concealed carry is a privilege and open carry is effectively banned, wouldn't there be a federal constitutional argument for at least OC? That's quite a careful collection of case law you've gathered.
Do you have links to the cases you're watching Rich?
http://georgiacarry.com/state/places_of_worship/
This case in in the 11th Circuit, which is our circuit. If the 11th Circuit rules on a level of scrutiny to be applied in 2nd Amendment cases, it directly affects us.
There currently is a circuit court split over scrutiny between the 9th Circuit http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/05/02/07-15763.pdf and the 7th Circuit http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/9Y0YNZV8.pdf. This is something SCOTUS will need to rule on.
And, this one http://volokh.com/2011/04/22/cert-petition-in-right-to-carry-case/, where the Supreme Court of the US has asked the Maryland Supreme Court where it got the idea that carry outside the home isn't a right.
77zach
Regular Member
Before this year, I knew for a fact that OC would never, ever be seriously considered in Tallahassee and I was wrong. And I'm now saying that the courts will NEVER give Fl OC. Not licensed, and not in a billion years unlicensed.
May I be wrong on that as well, if it comes to it.
Seeing as concealed carry is a privilege and open carry is effectively banned, wouldn't there be a federal constitutional argument for at least OC? That's quite a careful collection of case law you've gathered.
Do you have links to the cases you're watching Rich?
"Where rights are secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436, 125
requiring you to obtain a permit in order to exercise a right to carry in florida does not necessarily "abrogate" that right, it does "infringe" on that right.
Infringe: "Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on"
in the McDonald case, the SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd amendment applies to the states with the 14th amendment. therefore- the 2nd amendment says nothing about "except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law". it simply says "...the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed."
making carrying a gun in florida illegal without a permit is in direct violation to the 2nd amendment of the US constitution, which the SCOTUS said applies to the states via the 14th amendment.
i think we've got grounds to OC or CC- one or the other (or both)- without a permit here in florida.
Last edited:
i'm proud of myself....i wrote my previous post before i read the georgia carry.org case, and i think the point i made is in their argument that the law in georgia violates the 2nd amendment via the McDonald case, 14th amendment, and Heller. lol
just wanted to give myself a "pat on the back" for being smart for 5 minutes...haha
via the georgia case-
"The District Court expressed skepticism at
Georgia’s argument that by “limiting the locations to which one may
lawfully bring a weapon a weapon, the [Ban] deters gun violence by 22
providing for punishment for those who do bring weapons to those
locations.” Id. The Court said it was not clear that this reasoning would
pass intermediate scrutiny. "
that's what we were talking about when you said it's not what "you or i" think, but the elected officials...
now i see one of the reasons you are watching this case...
from the DC v Heller decision:
"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right "is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. 2813*2813 The second amendment ... means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress."
now since the McDonald case incorporated the 2nd amendment to the states via the 14th amendment, doesn't that mean that states shouldn't be allowed to make individual practice of the 2nd amendment only attainable by getting a permit or a license? ie: infringed?
and i understand that they are only "regulating the manner in which you can carry" (or whatever it exactly says in the florida constitution), BUT- in essence, they are also prohibiting you from doing so, if you don't want to pay for that permit....since the US constitution doesn't require you to have a permit for it...
if the permit was required for concealed carry, but no permit was required for open carry, then they would be fine, because there is a fall back option available to citizens, ie: OC. concealed carry would be regulated per florida constitution via a CWL.
IANAL, but i read a few court cases and formed my own honest opinion...
"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right "is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. 2813*2813 The second amendment ... means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress."
now since the McDonald case incorporated the 2nd amendment to the states via the 14th amendment, doesn't that mean that states shouldn't be allowed to make individual practice of the 2nd amendment only attainable by getting a permit or a license? ie: infringed?
and i understand that they are only "regulating the manner in which you can carry" (or whatever it exactly says in the florida constitution), BUT- in essence, they are also prohibiting you from doing so, if you don't want to pay for that permit....since the US constitution doesn't require you to have a permit for it...
if the permit was required for concealed carry, but no permit was required for open carry, then they would be fine, because there is a fall back option available to citizens, ie: OC. concealed carry would be regulated per florida constitution via a CWL.
IANAL, but i read a few court cases and formed my own honest opinion...
READ IT AGAIN- just the act of carrying can be THE crime itself. Unless/until it is determined that you are indeed CCW permit to do so. Hence-they ask, and you show- problem solved, and you both go on about your merry way.
Let's put the whole thing another way. You already carry your driver's license with you when you're driving,right? If not, and you get pulled over and the cops asks for it, and you dont have it-what happens? 90% of the time, you spend a night @ The County Hostel for Outlaws and Degenerates getting acquainted with the tragic life-story of Bubbah Q. Dirtbag, -until you go to court the following morning (provided this isnt on a Friday night), prove-or not- that you actually do HAVE a license to drive a car, and pay an obscene fine to the county and/or state for the hassle.
All this aside, how difficult is it, really, to keep your permission slip on-hand, and avoid all the above?
Last edited:
Incorrect.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...60411591&q=790.053&hl=en&as_sdt=4,10&as_vis=1
"Fulvio Regalado appeals his conviction and sentence for carrying a concealed weapon, contending that the trial court erred in denying his dispositive motion to suppress. Because it is legal to carry a concealed weapon in Florida, if one has a permit to do so, and no information of suspicious criminal activity was provided to the officer other than appellant's possession of a gun, the mere possession of a weapon, without more, cannot justify a Terry stop. The court erred in denying the motion to suppress. We reverse the conviction."
that was my response to his post, but i knew you were gonna cite the actual case, so i just waited for you to do it.
fishing license
[ Only if you are fishing from a pier, boat, or dock.] No fishing license required [ if fishing from a sea wall, bank or bridge that spans the water. ] But you will need a fishing license for freshwater.
[ Only if you are fishing from a pier, boat, or dock.] No fishing license required [ if fishing from a sea wall, bank or bridge that spans the water. ] But you will need a fishing license for freshwater.
77zach
Regular Member
If I'm reading the link of the reversal correctly, the court did not care that 790.053 was violated. Part of the reason it said Regalado was different from Baptiste was that Baptiste was reported to have committed a crime by violating 790.10. I wonder if that judge disrespects 790.053, if he was aware that historically the right to bear openly was taken very seriously by the courts. Hence the dearth of red states in the OC map.
lol