Concealed part not edited; and that's how it should be.

Currently existing snippet of 790 said:

The licensee must carry the license, together with valid identification, at all times in which the licensee is in actual possession of a concealed weapon or firearm and must display both the license and proper identification upon demand by a law enforcement officer.

Click to expand...

I noticed this the first time I read it, but nobody else has brought it up.

I think it's going to be the sticking point if this Bill gets Signed. LEOs are going to try using this part and ignore the fact that it applies to Concealed, not Open.

Since cases concerning the fact that just having a Gun is not RAS/PC have already been settled, in this same State no less, will Officers crossing that line have any hope of Qualified Immunity?

Yes, yes; we all know I'm anti-LEO. With good damn reasons. That's not the point, --Mod edited--

It would seem that if an Officer demands ID from an OCer under Color of Law, s/he is solidly screwed. Would you agree with this estimation?

In FL is a license a defense to unlawfully carrying a gun or is the lack of a license an element of the crime?

Could they ask to see the license under color of law?

In theory no, in practice yes. It's for everybody's "safety" of course. You see, that lady over there was scared of you so I'm just checking you out for "safety" sir.

It is a very important question. Assuming Evers is right that SB 234 will pass, OC should be the same as with driving a car. The courts have ruled that a "law enforcement" officer CANNOT pull somebody over arbitrarily to see if they have a valid driver's license (Of course they can do it en masse at one of their east german checkpoints).

This was part of the reason I was originally against this bill, but a good retort for when people ask "Do have a license for that?" will be "Yes. Florida does not recognize the right to bear arms even though most other states do." This norms guns and educates the sheeple.

Currently existing snippet of 790 said:

The licensee must carry the license, together with valid identification, at all times in which the licensee is in actual possession of a concealed weapon or firearm and must display both the license and proper identification upon demand by a law enforcement officer.

Click to expand...

gutshot said:

I don't see the problem. This is almost the exact language that is in the Ky. CC law and I've never heard of anybody (LEO or judge) attempting to extend this to OC in the 15 years we have had CC. Even if they "try" to extend it to OC, it's black letter law, it means what it says. Any LEO who would try to twist this to mean OC requires you to carry a license would twist any wording to arrest you. No one has mentioned it because no one thinks it would be completely turned on its head. I think your worries are unfounded.

Click to expand...

Let us not get ahead of ourselves.

I'm actually covering multiple subjects here.

This is actually a part of the CURRENT law. It DOES NOT allow OC.

However, if the proposed OC Bill DOES pass as written, it WOULD NOT remove the word "concealed" from the CURRENT law that I quoted above.

It CURRENTLY provides for a Demand of ID and Permit for CC. If passed DOES NOT provide Authority to demand ID and Permit for OC. This section remains intact, and ID/Permit demand authority would exist only for CC.

Of course, that is exactly as it should be. Just like Driving a Car does not give RAS to pull over anyone and 'check them out to see if they're allowed to drive.' The Officer must have RAS of a Crime, they can't fish for RAS. Well, not legally anyway...

What I'm looking at is the most likely modes of failure that could exist, and how we can be prepared for them on Day 1.

If this Bill passes as written, and the above quoted section of existing law is not reworded:

1) It makes the Statute stand up to current findings that merely having a gun is not RAS. The Statute will not have to be challenged to pass 4th Amendment muster. The Statute is in compliance with settled law.

2) An Officer who demands ID and Permit under Color of Law from an OCer with no RAS or PC of a crime, would have breached the 4th. Since this is a matter of settled law, said Officer would be open to a 1983/42 suit.

If that one little word gets removed then the new Statute would provide that ID and Permit can be demanded of OCers, there is going to be a big mess, and the Officer and Prosecutor will have Qualified Immunity. The law will end up being changed back to it's form in the proposed Bill to account for currently settled law at the expense of some poor Citizen who didn't do anything wrong. Said Citizen not being able to recoup any losses due to Qualified Immunity of a Statute created in defiance of settled law. Or worse; if said citizen cannot afford a defense from such predation (me).

Lets pray it passes as written. One word changes, and it'll be a disaster.

It really seems like way too many folks are putting the cart before the horse.
Let's see what passes, after the politicos get done trampling all over it- and then figure out what is/isnt.
Stressing out about if an LEO merely asks to see if you are permitted to carry (if the OC passes w/ that requirement) is a bit silly. Just play it safe and have the thing handy in case it's needed. We should'nt have any issue with providing documentation demonstrating we are carrying legally.

But, as I also say, we should'nt-as responsible gun-owners- be going around looking like a dirtbag, or behaving in ways that draw LEO attention to us in the 1st place.

Most LEOs I've spoken with are completely in favor of this bill,or at least have no issue with it. So why are we already crapping our pants over "what ifs" about LEO encounters?

j4l said:

We should'nt have any issue with providing documentation demonstrating we are carrying legally.

Click to expand...

And we should not have a problem with LEO searching our cars or our persons or showing ID if we are just walking down the street if we have nothing to hide right?

j4l said:

It really seems like way too many folks are putting the cart before the horse.
Let's see what passes, after the politicos get done trampling all over it- and then figure out what is/isnt.
Stressing out about if an LEO merely asks to see if you are permitted to carry (if the OC passes w/ that requirement) is a bit silly. Just play it safe and have the thing handy in case it's needed. We should'nt have any issue with providing documentation demonstrating we are carrying legally.

But, as I also say, we should'nt-as responsible gun-owners- be going around looking like a dirtbag, or behaving in ways that draw LEO attention to us in the 1st place.

Most LEOs I've spoken with are completely in favor of this bill,or at least have no issue with it. So why are we already crapping our pants over "what ifs" about LEO encounters?

Click to expand...

I not *****ing my pants.

I'm pointing out that one little word is all it will take to make this into a disaster. Not just for our interests, but for what will be the path to fixing it for some poor schm, er, citizen....

It's exactly the sort of poison pill anti's would want to add just to make a mess of things. And, it would be REALLY easy for them to get away with. In the long run, it wouldn't make a difference. But they just love to screw things up, their entire political platform is based on exactly that. Not watching this like a hawk would be a fools errand. I'm outlining why.

I often wonder if people who have Internet access are given ADD pills. My points are never hard to understand, but no one ever gets it. If I speak it out loud with the same words, everyone in the room understands. Post it on a Forum, no one has a clue what I'm talking about...

I'm suggesting we're walking a razor's edge, and need to watch it THAT closely.

"And we should not have a problem with LEO searching our cars or our persons or showing ID if we are just walking down the street if we have nothing to hide right?"

When have I, and why would I, ever have this happen? Applying as much common-sense as I can muster, I dont go around looking like/behaving like someone that John Q. Law should feel some instinctive need to give me more than a glance...:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
But then, as a (reasonably -and disputably) mature adult male in 2011, Im not sporting grills on my teeth, dont have my hat on backwards, or my pants hanging half-off my backside -nor am I tooling around in my beater with bass beats vibrating everything within a 1/2 mile either...
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Not implying anything-just saying-c'mon folks, a minute or two of common-sense about how we present ourselves can go a looooooooooooong way to avoiding any/all LEO confrontations that are likely to be negative.
But if we look/act like someone of questionable intentions-while openly sporting a sidearm-then ya, we well and should fully expect a LOT of extra LEO attention.
To get worked up about imaginary "what-ifs" is getting just plain silly.

j4l said:

Im not sporting grills on my teeth, dont have my hat on backwards, or my pants hanging half-off my backside -nor am I tooling around in my beater

Click to expand...

Nothing quoted above is RAS/PC of a crime, so it doesn't deserve attention from the cops any more than someone who doesn't do/have those things.

I find these sorts unpleasant, but I'll not deprive them of the same protections that I insist upon.

j4l, are you an Only One? It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck...

Arguing that social propriety is a decider is a failed argument because social propriety is the most biased and prejudiced concept on Earth, nor has it any solid rule set or definition. It can, and is, re-written for the convenience of predators and hate-mongers. Some might say it is the invention of the same persons. Look how the Liberals have bent it against Gun Owners. Bingo.

I don't like what a lot of people do. That doesn't mean they need to be hassled by the Cops or deprived of freedom without cause.

The least I can do to make sure of that is to carry a gun and make ACTUAL thugs uncomfortable with the idea of doing that to others, even if I hate them, their lifestyle, or what they're wearing. Currently, it's illegal to partake of that civic duty. Responsibility and Civility are a CRIME, think about it.

Do you really like it that way?

No, and I agree with you completly on that. Now ,whether any of us like it or not,- certain stereotypes/behavoirs are more likely to draw extra LEO attention than others. Let's maybe avoid such things,and perhaps avoid these LEO encounters about which everyone seems so paranoid before they even occur.

But,I just dont see it as likely-most of the time-that we're going to be chased down,pulled over or hassled just becaue we carry..this is Florida, not NYC, not Maryland, etc. The shooting/sporting culture is much more established here. And that includes many of the LEOs about which folks are expressing so much worry in here.
The Sheriff's Offices of our Counties will be informed, when the time comes, of what the new law is. I doubt too many cops are going to get their panties in a wad when they begin seeing Avg. Joe Sixpack sporting a .45 on his hip openly-as God intended.

-But- here's a bit of something, perhaps the rest of us here can do the same. Get out ahead of this thing, and bring it up with LEOs in a positive way and in a positive setting. For example-for the Counties that have such things, join the local SHADCO, and bring it up at one of the meetings. I plan to do so with my SHADCO meeting later this month. I put the issues on the floor, and see what kind of feedback we get from officers about Open Carry,etc.
(Sheriff's Advisory Council)

j4l said:

Avg. Joe Sixpack sporting a .45 on his hip openly-as God intended.

Click to expand...

That's awesomely well said:lol:

Why, TY, sir. Im sure Master Cooper would have approved also lol.

Kingfish said:

And we should not have a problem with LEO searching our cars or our persons or showing ID if we are just walking down the street if we have nothing to hide right?

Click to expand...

In reality, though, how often is/does this happen-for no good reason? How many cops out there are so bored out of their minds,that they are going to go out of their way to pull you over, or stop and search you, just for sh&&s and giggles?Really?
How many are going to want to waste their time, end up having to do a ton of paperwork,etc., etc.?

But, to answer the question- You can choose to have a problem with it or not.Up to you. Personally, Im not the least bit concerned-especially because I have nothing to hide. We- as Avg. Joe's have no idea who or what they may be looking for at times. For all you or I know, they could be looking for someone wanted for something, whom we may resemble-or may be driving a car like one described,etc.
That person or persons they might be looking for-could very well be as much a threat to you and yours as they were to whomever they've harmed or wronged. Would I rather they actually be out there looking/searching trying to stop them,rather than just wave me on by? You bet.
Let me put to you from my personal perspective. After a recent attack on my home, and the killing of my dog there, I was trying like heck to get local PD to put down the donuts and actually DO something. It was like pulling teeth-despite the fact that everyone in the immediate area knew exactly who was behind the incident, and was pointing out the location where the guy was holed-up.
It took the better part of 3 days, AND getting the media involved, just to get them even remotely interested in doing anything beyond filing a report.
So, yes, I find the concept of cops bored enough, or lacking enough other things to do beyond randomly hassling law-abiding folks for their mere amusement, a weeeeeeeee bit of a stretch of the imagination.

Since when is Prepared and Vigilant equal to Paranoid?

It's always better to look for gotchas BEFORE it's too late.

Within, reason,sure. But to go creating mountains out of non-existent (yet) molehills is just getting a bit ahead of ourselves, is all.

For our part, let's consider a few things.

Put yourself in the shoes of the local cop:

Not including any potentially violent dangers out there, consider how many genuine idiots, an LEO must see/deal with/interact with on his shift.
Many of these idiots-we all see them every day-have a hard time simply pointing a car down the road, and getting somewhere without killing themselves or everyone around them.

Now, factor in the Village Idiot who now also legally posseses a loaded, openly-carried sidearm...:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Ya, If Im that officer, Im going to be a little bit concerned about that clown walking around with a loaded firearm...legally or otherwise. As such, I'd probably be inclinded to look into whether or not he's legally doing so, and if he seems to be able to handle himself while doing so...Not too unreasonable, I dont think...

Now, factor in what an officer must think when the Village Idiot immediately goes into some defensive rant, when approached, and starts spouting off about "because I can" and "police state this/police state that..." etc...
Can one not reasonably see what kind of rep this may begin to form in an already-cynical-minded LEO, as well as less-than-pro-gun witnesses?

Nonetheless, the LEO who gets annoyed and pushes past what is permitted by statute may suject the department to litigation and the city or county to financial liability. Please refer to the Madison Five.

I agree. And if/when it happens, there are proceedures to deal with that, as there are with any such abuses. Hopefully the Village Idiot will have kept his or her head, and avoided escallating things to the point where they -or the officer ends up shooting, and then persues things as best they are able, via appropriate means.

But not, by creating a situation that didnt need to exist to begin with. Keep our heads,keep our cool,comply in as much as is needed-and if we feel and can prove-that we have in some way been wronged-take it up with an attorney if need be to find some corrective action on the matter.

Anyway, I never meant to side-track or hi-jack the original thread here. Apologies to all for that.

But-apart from griping/debating-let me propose this-As I have elsewhere:

BEFORE any of this even becomes an issue- have a chat or two with as many LEOS as you can about the issue.Ask a local officer, in a professional way, what he/she knows about the potential for OC in Florida. Ask said officer what -if any-opinion he has on the matter, and ask him how he plans-or if he has in any way been provided guidance on-handling such situations.

IF your county SO has a SHADCO (Sheriif's Advisory Council) -join it. Attend a meeting or two. When the time comes for the members to bring up issues or concerns-pose these questions to the Chief. See what they say.
I fully intend to at my next SHADCO meeting-next week, I believe.
If I recieve permission to do so, I'll try to record audio of the session, and will attempt to post it somehwere here. If not, I'll at least report back on what response I get.

For my part, I've already discussed this matter with several LEOS from my Zone/Sector.
Thus far, opionions have been very favorable-in general-to the topic of OC.The only negatives I've heard, have been in line with the concerns-from the LEO perspective- I mentioned above.
Dont sweat it,yet folks. Relax.

And, in case anyone needs it: by no means all-inclusive, but it's a start.
Get out there folks, for our sake-and theirs, and let's head things off at the pass, rather than fantasize about issues that havent arrived yet.


http://www.coj.net/Departments/Sher...en+Involvement/Sheriffs+Advisory+Councils.htm

http://www.faqs.org/tax-exempt/FL/Broward-Sheriffs-Advisory-Council-Inc.html

http://www.sjso.org/

http://www.flsheriffs.org/index.cfm/referer/content.contentItem/ID/320/item/204/

http://www.fhpadvisorycouncil.org/bios/Walsh.htm

http://lcso.leonfl.org/sheriff.htm

Why any cop would care that somebody was OCing is beyond me. It's almost inconceivable that a real bad guy would OC. This is why OC and constitutional carry are so important. If I were a cop in Florida, and saw a bulge under someone's shirt, I'd be slightly uneasy thinking to myself (does that guy have a permit or is he willing to risk a felony?), even though I think such is a right without a permit. If I were a cop in Vermont and I saw the same, I would not be alarmed at all because the law is respectable there. Nothing would give me reason to believe the carrier is anything but a law abiding citizen. In all states without constitutional carry, the law is not respectable and neither are the leo's enforcing those laws. So in most states, a bulge is going to make a cop worried.

The quickest way to make freedom lovers have more respect for the police, the quickest way for the police to cultivate more respect for themselves and "civilians", and the quickest way to make both safer and calmer-is to get rid of every malum prohibitum