Arrest for Florida Open Carry in Vehicle
- Thread starter numaone
- Start date
- Status
MedWheeler
Member
The "securely-encased and not on person blah-blah" part of the statute is to provide a means for a non-licensee to have a handgun within a vehicle. Otherwise, the law prohibits having a concealed firearm on or about one's person in a "readily-available" manner.
A CWFL authorizes the licensee to "break the law", so to speak, that otherwise prohibits having such a readily-accessible weapon concealed on or about his person.
Since the "securely-encased etc." requirement is there to provide the non-licensee a lawful means for having a handgun present, and that is its purpose, I just cannot see any argument that someone who does hold a carry license would still be bound by those provisions.
A CWFL authorizes the licensee to "break the law", so to speak, that otherwise prohibits having such a readily-accessible weapon concealed on or about his person.
Since the "securely-encased etc." requirement is there to provide the non-licensee a lawful means for having a handgun present, and that is its purpose, I just cannot see any argument that someone who does hold a carry license would still be bound by those provisions.
Sebastian the Ibis
Member
A Florida concealed carry permit, does not permit open carry. Mr. Johnson was charged with open carry. His permit to carry a concealed weapon is meaningless.
The "securely encased blah, blah, blah" applies to both open and concealed weapons.
Mark Dido got it right.
Red Wind
Member
Yes. Post #120. Why is this so difficult to understand? The charge was for open carry. Florida is one of 5 states that does not allow OC (except under very limited conditions).A vehicle is not one of those conditions.
MedWheeler
Member
^^ I wasn't referring to open carry.
I was referring to the assertion that concealed-carry licensees are subject to all of the same restrictions as are non-licensees when transporting a firearm within a vehicle.
That is part of what I have an issue with. If open-carry is prohibited under all circumstances (for purposes of this discussion), and the defendant was charged with violation of that prohibition, why do we have people here who are describing l"securely encased" as a legal way to open carry?
Also, I still cannot find anything that supports the argument that concealed-carry licensees cannot stow a handgun in their vehicle (concealed) without being bound by the same "securely-encased" requirement that non-licensees are bound.
In a vehicle, a holster only meets the description of "securely-encased" if it is snapped, per the statute. Would that mean a licensee carrying in an open-top holster, with no snap, is in violation while within a vehicle? After all, he is not when on foot.
I'm just not seeing where licensees are bound by a stricter code when they enter a vehicle than when they do not. Perhaps someone can help me with case history examples, some that I cannot find.
Citing post 120 does me no good, as no posts following it have offered information to support it, despite requests to provided such. Dido doesn't offer from where he gets the opinion posted, and that's what I'm looking for.
I was referring to the assertion that concealed-carry licensees are subject to all of the same restrictions as are non-licensees when transporting a firearm within a vehicle.
That is part of what I have an issue with. If open-carry is prohibited under all circumstances (for purposes of this discussion), and the defendant was charged with violation of that prohibition, why do we have people here who are describing l"securely encased" as a legal way to open carry?
Also, I still cannot find anything that supports the argument that concealed-carry licensees cannot stow a handgun in their vehicle (concealed) without being bound by the same "securely-encased" requirement that non-licensees are bound.
In a vehicle, a holster only meets the description of "securely-encased" if it is snapped, per the statute. Would that mean a licensee carrying in an open-top holster, with no snap, is in violation while within a vehicle? After all, he is not when on foot.
I'm just not seeing where licensees are bound by a stricter code when they enter a vehicle than when they do not. Perhaps someone can help me with case history examples, some that I cannot find.
Citing post 120 does me no good, as no posts following it have offered information to support it, despite requests to provided such. Dido doesn't offer from where he gets the opinion posted, and that's what I'm looking for.
It's incorrect, so it's impossible to understand. The statutes clearly indicate concealed carry can be on or about the person. If you're pushing a wheelbarrel with a pistol covered in a croaker sack you're covered.
Last edited:
Red Wind
Member
http://handgunlaw.us/states/florida.pdf has vehicle carry under 790.025 and 790.001.
What else are we looking for?
What else are we looking for?
Ed N.
Member
Interestingly, the gun does not have to be concealed if it's "securely encased." It could be encased in a clear Tupperware box sitting on the dashboard and it would be legal.
If the person in the vehicle has a CCW, though, his CCW rules don't go away just because he's in a car, and those rules only say it has to be concealed, not secured in any way. So it could be sitting loose in his lap underneath a paper napkin and be technically legal (though stupid).
So, here the charge is for "open carry," which has nothing to do with the "securely encased" criteria for carrying in a vehicle. The question then becomes whether the gun, partially under the seat on the floorboard, was concealed from ordinary view. There's no requirement that it be securely encased if it was "on or about" the person of someone with a CCW.
I'm betting the State Atty's office will drop this one, rather than risking the creation of a new precedent that's not in their favor.
If the person in the vehicle has a CCW, though, his CCW rules don't go away just because he's in a car, and those rules only say it has to be concealed, not secured in any way. So it could be sitting loose in his lap underneath a paper napkin and be technically legal (though stupid).
So, here the charge is for "open carry," which has nothing to do with the "securely encased" criteria for carrying in a vehicle. The question then becomes whether the gun, partially under the seat on the floorboard, was concealed from ordinary view. There's no requirement that it be securely encased if it was "on or about" the person of someone with a CCW.
I'm betting the State Atty's office will drop this one, rather than risking the creation of a new precedent that's not in their favor.
790.25 deals with unlicensed persons. Go ahead and QUOTE the language you're looking at.http://handgunlaw.us/states/florida.pdf has vehicle carry under 790.025 and 790.001.
What else are we looking for?
Red Wind
Member
I hope you are correct,.Ed N.
Last edited:
Red Wind
Member
Cell phones.are.murder.to.post.on.
Last edited:
Red Wind
Member
Dido and Sebastian can try to carry on. I'm done.
wojownik
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
- Messages
- 2,086
I agree with at EdN's post, except posdibly for the assessment that the attorney general may drop this case because the firearm was partially under the seat on the floorboard. This may be the key issue. The arresting officer does not state that the firearm was partially hidden from view - his report states that it was in "plain view". The defendant will likely take a rather different position.
I do agree that this could potentially be a test case that the state attorney general's office might want to avoid ( if they see it that way ). This particular defendant may have the financial wherewithal and vested interest to go the whole nine yards in a legal battle.
The test could revolve around how far the definition of "concealed" can be extended. What is outside of "ordinary sight"? Is a handgun on the floorboard of a vehicle outside of "ordinary sight" by virtue of its position down there, as well as "about" a person by virtue of it being nearby and readily accessible?
Last edited:
Nick Burkhardt
Member
Pulled over for Driving While Black. Searched to justify an arrest based on the officers misinterpretation of the law.
Red Wind
Member
Trayvon Martin Man of the Year award winner! And it's only January! But.... it's Oregon.
Nick can read the LEO's mind from 3,000 miles away. What a feat!
You can't come up with one quote to support your posts?
Red Wind
Member
Red Wind
Member
Go,Baby!
Red Wind
Member
If I'm wrong , I get you $50 of Buffalo Chicken Wings! Anti-Gun but very cool!
Anti-Gun but very cool!
Red Wind
Member
On 2nd thought, Outback may be better! But I'm with you always, Come rain or come shine!
But I'm with you always, Come rain or come shine!
Last edited:
Sebastian the Ibis
Member
If you are not referring to open carry, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Licensees can carry concealed - including in a car. A license does not apply to open carry so " licensees are subject to all of the same restrictions as are non-licensees when [openly] transporting a firearm within a vehicle."
"Securely encased blah, blah, blah" (to use your terminology) is an exception to the open carry prohibition in certain circumstances. Your premise that "open carry is prohibited under all circumstances (for the purposes of discussion)" is wrong - this must be overcome to understand the importance of "Securely encased blah, blah, blah."
You cannot find any support for this position because it is wrong. A licencee may carry concealed in a car, without complying with the "securely-encased" requirement.
It depends on whether the gun is open or concealed. This is the same for a car or on foot.
Again, you can't find it because it does not exist. This is wrong.
Look back through the beginning of this thread. Red Wing, the mods and others have provided all the information you would need as a courtesy. Based on your questions above, you appear to be looking for information which simply does not exist. We cannot provide you with "Affirmation" only "Information." If you would like to make "requests" and be provided with such, you should retain the counsel of your choice who can provide you with the "Information" you "request."
- Status
