The NEW SB-234

[77zach]

A "brief" period of time. I want to commiserate with everyone, but words are failing me. "Brief" Where do they find these senate creatures?


Good grief.

 

[77zach]

Never gonna happen. Even if the evidence supports it. The SA simply won't charge him. I was told as much when asking about my FOIAs in reference to lobbying reimbursement.

"Doesn't matter what you find, we won't touch them."

This is my shocked face.

They murder innocent people for no reason in broad daylight (Las Vegas Costco) and don't even get in trouble.

 

[jmelvin]

Never gonna happen. Even if the evidence supports it. The SA simply won't charge him. I was told as much when asking about my FOIAs in reference to lobbying reimbursement.

"Doesn't matter what you find, we won't touch them."

ixtow what's the issue you all are referring to on the lobbying topic? If you have a public official from a department that receives federal funds who has been lobbying in his official capacity he may have violated federal law. See the Hatch Act for details.

 

[RRobaldo]

You are mistaken. Please tell me what statute I will be charged under if I have a securely encased firearm in my car in the mall parking lot.

ETA: I assume you are referring to 790.251, right? If so here is a link to the statute. Please copy and paste the section I will be charged under and the associated penalty, please.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.251.html

The continued mischaracterization of the actual scope of 790.251 simply amazes me!

The statute would referr to TRESPASSING! Right now, private companies can TRESSPASS you if you keep a firearm in a vehicle.

This law FIXES that! They will no longer be able to prevent you from carrying a firearm in your vehicle. This also covers colleges. They will now have to allow students to keep a firearm secured in their locked vehicle.

Listen, I know you're ANGRY about losing open carry. But we DO gain SOME benefits.

 

[brboyer]

ixtow what's the issue you all are referring to on the lobbying topic? If you have a public official from a department that receives federal funds who has been lobbying in his official capacity he may have violated federal law. See the Hatch Act for details.

1) Florida law prohibts any person from lobby efforts unless that person is registered with the legslature

2) Florida law prohibits public funds being used to lobby the legslature

 

[RRobaldo]

As 790.06 is currently written, it doesn't address accidental exposure at all. Judges have ruled that accidents are not within the spirit or intent of the law. So, the bogus charges don't stick.

With this bill as amended, the LEOs get to add in their own opinion of your intent to determine if the now statutory exception applies to you or not. They have made their position on how they intend to abuse this very clear over the past 24 years, and very vocally during committee debates.

The bill, as amended, serves no other purpose.

LEOS could do that before. This is nothing new. Even before the amendment, a LEO could say it was your INTENT to show.

This actually makes it LEGAL to accidentally show. Sure a LEO can say it wasn't an accident, but they could do that BEFORE.

 

[Rick H]

Now, In the third reading, if they find flaws in it and can not fix them can this revert back to it original text as an open carry bill?
Because there are major flaws.

 

[brboyer]

The statute would referr to TRESPASSING! Right now, private companies can TRESSPASS you if you keep a firearm in a vehicle.

This law FIXES that! They will no longer be able to prevent you from carrying a firearm in your vehicle. This also covers colleges. They will now have to allow students to keep a firearm secured in their locked vehicle.

Listen, I know you're ANGRY about losing open carry. But we DO gain SOME benefits.

First, I'm not angry at all about this political development....I'm disappointed...I may be angry with some of the individuals involved in the effort, but that is completely different. One thing that does anger me is when people post assumptions/generalizations on law that have no basis in fact.

Second, it is already legal for individuals to keep a firearm securely encased in their car on college/university property. Students and employees can still be expelled/fired for it today - and in the future even with this new language.

Trespassing....OK, first they would have to find out about the firearm somehow...that should never happen anyway. Second, they would have to tell you to leave and you refuse. This law does not change that, at all. When a property owner tells you to get out for any reason, (except solely based on the individual being a member of a protected class) you must or face arrest.

The unconditionally vague wording in the bill does not change that at all. It will be ruled unconstitutional in the first case that challenges it as it fails to provide specific language that enumerates, in detail, what other provisions of Florida statutes it purports to supersede.

790.251 failed to accomplish what you are suggesting this does and look how detailed it was - it was still ruled unconstitutional.

 

[brboyer]

Now, In the third reading, if they find flaws in it and can not fix them can this revert back to it original text as an open carry bill?
Because there are major flaws.

Only with a 2/3 majority vote.

 

[seminoles1999]

An engrossed bill is a bill which has been amended. A bill may be engrossed many times. An enrolled bill, which may or may not have been engrossed, is a bill that has passed both houses of the legislature in identical form and has been converted into an act for presentation to the Governor or Secretary of State.

 

[RRobaldo]

You are mistaken. Please tell me what statute I will be charged under if I have a securely encased firearm in my car in the mall parking lot.

ETA: I assume you are referring to 790.251, right? If so here is a link to the statute. Please copy and paste the section I will be charged under and the associated penalty, please.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.251.html

The continued mischaracterization of the actual scope of 790.251 simply amazes me!

Gutmacher 7th Edition, Page 120 "A federal district court (Florida Retail Assoc v. Attorney General) held that the statute only protects employees who have a ccw, and that the provisions applying to customers and other invitees were unconstitutional."

THAT means, the public cannot carry a firearm in their locked vehicle if the owner of the private property doesn't want them to.

It's been tried in court. This FIXES 790.251 by pre-empting it and specifically allowing anyone to carry in a private parking lot in their locked vehicle.

 

[RRobaldo]

Trespassing....OK, first they would have to find out about the firearm somehow...that should never happen anyway. Second, they would have to tell you to leave and you refuse. This law does not change that, at all. When a property owner tells you to get out for any reason, (except solely based on the individual being a member of a protected class) you must or face arrest.

15
(b) A person licensed under this section shall not be prohibited from carrying or storing a firearm in a vehicle for lawful purposes.

I think this takes care of it. Looks pretty straight forward to me. SHALL NOT BE PROHIBITED. Looks like it would apply to private, public, and everything in between.

 

[RRobaldo]

<Trespassing....OK, first they would have to find out about the firearm somehow...that should never happen anyway.>

Well, sure. But just because you aren't "caught" doesn't mean you're not doing something wrong. I want to know what I'm doing is LEGAL, not just that I won't be caught!

 

[seminoles1999]

Hey we can follow to see if Texas becomes open carry it passed house committee today

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=HB2756

 

[tcfla]

God..

Im sorry guys... I know how down you all must feel, most of you are very angry, but try and look at this in a more positive manner.Before you couldnt expose your weapon at all, now at least it kinda protects you if you happen to display it..

The only problem that I see in this amendment, is that there is no real way for the officer to tell if it was accidental brife display or not. This again leaves it to the officer to decide if it was or not. I spoke to Mr.Rice and even gave him my own input on this whole thing. He was very sorry to say that sen.Evers wasnt sure if he had enough votes to pass the bill as a all out open carry verson.

Sen.Evers never agreed with her on anything but didn't want the bill to go to waste. You really have to give it to him for at least trying. That being said, I dont think open carry is over just yet, they are still chipping away at the wall that leads to open carry.

I understand you guys must be depressed, but as law-abiding and honorable citizens as all of you are... you must obey the law, carry responsibly and set the example..

God, what a whiner “I understand you guys must be depressed, but as law-abiding and honorable citizens as all of you are... you must obey the law, carry responsibly and set the example.” Why not just drop to your knees? These elected morons need to be voted out! To carry is a right, not a privilege! A RIGHT! Stop bending over and write these idiots that they are on the way out. Write every day. Fill up their e-mail boxes with “get out of office” letters. I for one am tired of being told what is best for me. Every day, I am sending an e-mail to all of the senate telling them I want my rights back now! Not next week, or next month. NOW! I have read on here so many wimps stating “we just need to work with them and the NRA”. Bull, the NRA is not working with us. It’s a “dog and pony show” to get you to send money and support their jobs. Just like the senate. I am so sick of this whole “please give me my privilege to carry my little pistol.” TAKE YOUR RIGHTS BACK!

 

[StogieC]

I read it through again now that I'm not seeing as much red. Vehicle OC is still illegal. This bill does NOTHING good for OC.

The ONLY thing this bill really accomplishes now is allowing DoACS to take fingerprints. They have been doing it illegally for over a year but nobody cared.

It also fixes some parking lot language that actually also has no real effect. When is the last time the shopping mall searched your car to see if you had a gun in it while shopping?

 

[brboyer]

Gutmacher 7th Edition, Page 120 "A federal district court (Florida Retail Assoc v. Attorney General) held that the statute only protects employees who have a ccw, and that the provisions applying to customers and other invitees were unconstitutional."

THAT means, the public cannot carry a firearm in their locked vehicle if the owner of the private property doesn't want them to.

It's been tried in court. This FIXES 790.251 by pre-empting it and specifically allowing anyone to carry in a private parking lot in their locked vehicle.

You should really not rely on other's interpertaions...especially when you have no understanding of the topic.

Jon's statement is absolutely correct...the problem is with your misunderstanding of the provisions of the statute.

790.251 was simply a measure that attempted to protect employees, visitors, guests, etc. from being fired/disciplined/forced to leave/etc. based on the fact that they had a CWFL and had a gun in the car. It attempted to prohibit action by the property owner. It had nothing at all to do with the legality of keeping that firearm in your car.
The legislature screwed it up so badly that most of it was ruled unconstitutional, except as it applies to most employers.

It was/is a restriction on the property/business owner, period!

specifically allowing anyone to carry in a private parking lot in their locked vehicle.

I'll agree that is the intent of the language, what I'll tell you, again, is exactly what I told the NRA and the Bill's sponsor way back in November. The language is unconstitutionally vague and will be overturned at the first challenge.

It takes quite a bit of work to infringe on a property owner's rights, 790.251 failed and this simple one sentence attempt will fail also.



How is our hypothetical Anti-2nd Amendment business owner going to know about your firearm in the first place?

 

[StogieC]

The problem with the new "parking lot" provision is that it still ONLY applies to CWFL licensees.

So, if you are lawfully keeping a pistol in your glove box, without a license, this protection still does not apply to you.

 

[brboyer]

I read it through again not that I'm not seeing as much red. Vehicle OC is still illegal. This bill does NOTHING good for OC.

The ONLY thing this bill really accomplishes now is allowing DoACS to take fingerprints. They have been doing it illegally for over a year but nobody cared.

It also fixes some parking lot language that actually also has no real effect. When is the last time the shopping mall searched your car to see if you had a gun in it while shopping?

See, I was right...
You already know this, but I suppose it's a good to to reiterate it for the new folks. I'm always right!

It also fixes some parking lot language that actually also has no real effect.

It attempts to fix some parking lot language, but fails miserably.

 

[Mossy_35]

I couldn't let a few things go without my take on them:

Look, being 100% serious here.
So now, what do we have. We can carry to the park and go fishing, and once we could do it openly, but NOW, if you have a CCW, and you expose it INTENTIONALLY, then you are committing a crime? They just wrote away some of our rights!!!!!!! And if we don't stop this travesty from being passed, it is just going to hurt every CCW holder in Florida!

Look, this bill was supposed to help us, and what it is doing now is hurting us by making what was once legal, illegal. No more open carry at ALL if you have a CCW - even when it WAS allowed before.

This is false. The bill, as it sits tonight, (because who knows, it could change wildly on third reading) does not prohibit OC fishing trips or any other OC pursuant to 790.25(3). Section 1 of SB 234 says "Except as otherwise provided by law" one cannot carry openly. If you are carrying per 790.25(3), you are fine. If not in one of the few circumstances, then you are screwed. (misdemeanor open carry screwed)

This law FIXES that! They will no longer be able to prevent you from carrying a firearm in your vehicle. This also covers colleges. They will now have to allow students to keep a firearm secured in their locked vehicle.
.

This is partially false, at least as far as colleges go. Section 2 of SB 234 says that the bill does not modify the terms of 790.251(7), which references 790.115, which allows colleges to prohibit car carry, which would be a felony if they have a written policy prohibiting such action. As a college student, I find this completely absurd. Whoever wrote 790.115 granted all public and private colleges/ universities legislative authority. They can make the action of storing a firearm for lawful self defense a felony if they so choose. There is no ability through Fl. Statute Chapter 120, the Administrative Procedure Act, to petition change. It is completely and totally up to them.




One more thing, I am not a lawyer, just a novice reading the statutes.