2016 licensed Open Carry Bill.

notalawyer · Jun 9, 2015

Fallschirmjäger said:
Do not, please, Please, PLEASE, DO NOT submit the bill with that wording. It makes the mere open carry of a firearm RAS of a crime. The way you should write the bill is something akin to " No person shall openly carry a handgun/rifle/40-megawatt laser unless such person has a valid weapon's carry license issued...."

The difference, and it's not mere quibbling, is that the first gives RAS upon the mere discovery that a firearm is being carried while the second requires RAS that a person is unlicensed. The second is also the way many/most state laws are written in regards to licensing and automobiles. It's the absence of a license not the driving of a car that is illegal.

If I may blow my own state's horn, I think Georgia has a marvelously well crafted law on the subject:
1) It matches nearly word for word the traffic code regarding licenses. Makes it super easy for an officer; if he can remember one, he can remember both without confusion.
2) It provides the exact same penalty for not having a weapon license in one's possession as does the traffic code for not having a driving license
3) In contrast to the traffic code, is prohibits an individual from being detained merely because an officer sees a firearm and wants to investigate that person without RAS.

That's the law as it exists today.
I'm assuming the plan is to re-write 790.053 (and make other appropriate housekeeping updates to other statutes that reference it) to include the wording we just added to 790.01 - making the absence of a CWFL an element of the crime as opposed to an affirmative defense.
Then change 790.06 (the concealed license statute) to simply remove he word 'concealed'.

StogieC · Jun 9, 2015

Fallschirmjäger said:
Do not, please, Please, PLEASE, DO NOT submit the bill with that wording. It makes the mere open carry of a firearm RAS of a crime. The way you should write the bill is something akin to " No person shall openly carry a handgun/rifle/40-megawatt laser unless such person has a valid weapon's carry license issued...."

The difference, and it's not mere quibbling, is that the first gives RAS upon the mere discovery that a firearm is being carried while the second requires RAS that a person is unlicensed. The second is also the way many/most state laws are written in regards to licensing and automobiles. It's the absence of a license not the driving of a car that is illegal.

If I may blow my own state's horn, I think Georgia has a marvelously well crafted law on the subject:
1) It matches nearly word for word the traffic code regarding licenses. Makes it super easy for an officer; if he can remember one, he can remember both without confusion.
2) It provides the exact same penalty for not having a weapon license in one's possession as does the traffic code for not having a driving license
3) In contrast to the traffic code, is prohibits an individual from being detained merely because an officer sees a firearm and wants to investigate that person without RAS.

That's the current law. We would never propose a bill that makes licensed OC an affirmative defense rather than an element of a crime. I can't guarantee what the language will end up looking like, that depends on the bill sponsors in the legislature, but I can assure you that we will do everything in our power to make it a clean bill.

Fallschirjmäger · Jun 9, 2015

StogieC said:
That's the current law. We would never propose a bill that makes licensed OC an affirmative defense rather than an element of a crime. I can't guarantee what the language will end up looking like, that depends on the bill sponsors in the legislature, but I can assure you that we will do everything in our power to make it a clean bill.

My apologies, but did you not understand what I was trying to communicate in my post?
The way the proposed bill is written provides an articulable suspicion of criminal behavior upon sighting an openly carried firearm.

790.053 Open carrying of weapons.—
(1) Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device.

"Officer Reed, why did you stop Mr Citizen that day?"
"I observed him committing a violation of sub-section 2 of Florida Code 790.053; openly carrying a firearm."
That makes the mere sight of a firearm an element of the crime, and producing a license an affirmative defense, does it not?

An officer is not required to consider any and all circumstances that might not support the charge, but need only find circumstances supporting it. In other words, there could be some very good reasons to be running down the road with a bag that has orange smoke coming from it while alarm bells are blaring from a nearby bank, but an officer only needs consider circumstances that warrant a detention and investigation.

StogieC · Jun 9, 2015

Fallschirmjäger said:
My apologies, but did you not understand what I was trying to communicate in my post?
The way the proposed bill is written provides an articulable suspicion of criminal behavior upon sighting an openly carried firearm.

790.053 Open carrying of weapons.—
(1) Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device.

"Officer Reed, why did you stop Mr Citizen that day?"
"I observed him committing a violation of sub-section 2 of Florida Code 790.053, he was openly carrying a firearm."

That makes the mere sight of a firearm an element of the crime, and producing a license an affirmative defense, does it not?

What bill? There is no bill written right now.

You quoted the current law. If you are talking about what Zach wrote in the OP... Don't worry about it. He isn't getting anyone to file that language even over my dead body.

Zach, nice try but you need more legal education. FallSchrimpHunter (sp? I don't have an umlaut) is (partially) right if he is talking about the language you proposed in your OP. It will create huge affirmative defense issues.

FWIW I am the guy who drafted the new language, that fixed the issue you are concerned with, in 790.01 Fla. Stat.

StogieC · Jun 9, 2015

Can I buy a vowel and an eszett?

Fallschirjmäger · Jun 9, 2015

notalawyer said:
That's the law as it exists today.

StogieC said:
That's the current law.

Assuming that you're referring to Post #1 (the only post where FLA law is quoted).....Errr... no it isn't.

The current law is quoted below, marked up to show the changes proposed by Zach in his original post. (Deletions are shown by strike-through, additions are made bold.

790.053 Open carrying of weapons.—
(1) Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device. It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to openly carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), a̶n̶d̶ ̶w̶h̶o̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶l̶a̶w̶f̶u̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶c̶a̶r̶r̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶ ̶f̶i̶r̶e̶a̶r̶m̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶c̶e̶a̶l̶e̶d̶ ̶m̶a̶n̶n̶e̶r̶, ̶to̶ ̶b̶r̶i̶e̶f̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶o̶p̶e̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶d̶i̶s̶p̶l̶a̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶i̶r̶e̶a̶r̶m̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶d̶i̶n̶a̶r̶y̶ ̶s̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶a̶n̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶p̶e̶r̶s̶o̶n̶,̶ ̶un̶l̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶i̶r̶e̶a̶r̶m̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶t̶e̶n̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶d̶i̶s̶p̶l̶a̶y̶e̶d̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶a̶n̶ ̶a̶n̶g̶r̶y̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶r̶e̶a̶t̶e̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ m̶a̶n̶n̶e̶r̶,̶ n̶o̶t̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶n̶e̶c̶e̶s̶s̶a̶r̶y̶ ̶s̶e̶l̶f̶-̶d̶e̶f̶e̶n̶s̶e̶.̶ to openly carry a holstered handgun.
(2) A person may openly carry, for purposes of lawful self-defense:

(a) A self-defense chemical spray.
(b) A nonlethal stun gun or dart-firing stun gun or other nonlethal electric weapon or device that is designed solely for defensive purposes.
(3) Any person violating this section commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Y'know... I look these things up before posting, right?

What bill? There is no bill written right now.

D'oh. You're right, of course. I apologize for characterizing Zach's proposed changes as being a bill instead of a statement of his ideas.

Can I buy a vowel and an eszett?

I usually just copy/paste if I'm too tired to do Alt+028. Not sure what a ß is going to do for you, I never used it unless telling people I lived at Schannatstraße 2,5 67520 Worms (iirc)

StogieC · Jun 9, 2015

Fallschirmjäger said:
Assuming that you're referring to Post #1 (the only post where FLA law is quoted).....Errr... no it isn't.

The current law is quoted below, marked up to show the changes proposed by Zach in his original post. (Deletions are shown by strike-through, additions are made bold.

Y'know... I look these things up before posting, right?

then see my comments above. Not using that language and I didn't point out the problems with it before because it is not being used.

Fallschirmjäger said:
I usually just copy/paste if I'm too tired to do Alt+028. Not sure what a ß is going to do for you, I never used it unless telling people I lived at Schannatstraße 2,5 67520 Worms (iirc)

I always just spelled it as strasse when I was stationed in Baumholder.

Fallschirjmäger · Jun 9, 2015

I haven't seen your proposal, but I do hope that it's written so that mere sight of a firearm does not provide RAS of a crime as I tried to point out.

The VERY best of luck to you and yours in getting open carry decriminalized in Florida.

StogieC · Jun 9, 2015

You can see the 790.01 changes that were passed this year here: http://laws.flrules.org/2015/44

Fallschirjmäger · Jun 9, 2015

790.01Unlicensed carrying of concealed weapons or concealed firearms.
(1) Except as provided in subsection(3) (4), a person who is not licensed under s. 790.06 and who carries a concealed weapon or electric weapon or device on or about his or her person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083

Excellently written, it requires a developed and particularized suspicion that the person is not licensed before a detention to investigate a potential 790.01 to occur (at least if the courts pay attention to the way the law is written and not go by their personal opinion on the matter.) "He looked like the type of person that wouldn't have a license" will be insufficient.

StogieC · Jun 9, 2015

It took us two years to pass that language.

77zach · Jun 10, 2015

Detention for merely carrying has been illegal in Florida. However, I understand the changes that were made this year and why they are better. I was told what Texas did would never pass the Fl Senate. That is, changing 790.06 by deleting every reference to "concealed". Why? I have no idea. The whole thing is mind boggling. Ignorance is not bliss. If someone is armed it's better to know that they are, especially if you hate armed citizens. Private establishments can disallow any and all carry of course. It's dumb that this is an issue, OC would protect CCers, and all this should be acceptable to any legislator that actually "supports the 2nd amendment". Even with a "but" afterward.

ixtow · Jun 20, 2015

StogieC said:
Florida Carry will need at least $25,000 to pay for the direct and indirect lobbying necessary to pass a licensed open carry bill. Even if fully funded, the outcome is never assured.

I think you'll need more than that.

I'm willing to put in a major chunk of that number.

Presuming I'm not in prison or dead by that time...

2016 licensed Open Carry Bill.

notalawyer

Regular Member

StogieC

Campaign Veteran

Fallschirjmäger

Active member

StogieC

Campaign Veteran

StogieC

Campaign Veteran

Fallschirjmäger

Active member

StogieC

Campaign Veteran

Fallschirjmäger

Active member

StogieC

Campaign Veteran

Fallschirjmäger

Active member

StogieC

Campaign Veteran

77zach

Regular Member

ixtow

Founder's Club Member