Florida bill could hand gun owners huge win, make the US a constitutional carry majority country

[Paul7]

Florida's requirement to "safely discharge a firearm" could really be done away with. The one shot requirement isn't enough to tell you anything about whether someone can shoot. And it's not like FDACS seriously enforces even the most basic one shot requirement, as long as they get their money.

I see most people at the range banging away with full size guns at a silhouette at 5 yards. It seems like a waste of money. You should be able to shut your eyes and hit a silhouette at 5 yards. A person with limited skill should be able to hit an 8" plate at 25 yards, at least most of the time.

But to put it into perspective, most of these people aren't going to shoot back in the .00001% chance they end up in a situation where it would be justified to ahoot at 25 yards. It takes little skill to hit within usual self defense distances.

I'm more worried about whether they're safe. But it's been legal to buy a handgun in FL since forever without training. It's legal to drive around with a loaded gun in the glovebox without training- been that way since at least the 40s or 50s. And it doesn't seem to be a problem.

25 yards is a stretch, supposedly most self defense encounters are three shots, three seconds, three yards.

As far as longer, even the police rarely engage at 50+ yards.

I read once that simply discharging any caliber firearm at a perp ends a large number of attacks, they may be criminals but they aren't stupid.

 

[Paul7]

Please, go and get your permit in the long run it will help you out. Florida state government is like a pendulum Light Red today and Dark Blue tomorrow.

I am against the permit on principle, if I don't have to. Just like I would be opposed to be made to have a permit for any of my other constitutional rights.

 

[dannyd]

I was an NRA instructor until the gun show classes started. Hard to compete with their prices; when you tell a potential student they will need a gun, pay class fee, range fee and have a box of 50 rounds.

I would also have to tell them I am Not a lawyer and this not a tactical class.

The class was intended for the student to able to shot at a hit a 8" target at 15 yards.

Definitely understand your position on the Permits, but Florida is a strange place and your never know what the next group of politicians will do, so at least you would be grandfathered in.

 

[FlSwampRat]

Not being from Florida, I don’t know much about the politics down there. What’s in it for Disney to try to shut it down?

They're a California company. Why would they go against the Parental Rights in Education bill?

And do they have the political clout to do so?

Not so much anymore.

 

[Paul7]

Definitely understand your position on the Permits, but Florida is a strange place and your never know what the next group of politicians will do, so at least you would be grandfathered in.

The trend is our friend:

https://dos.myflorida.com/elections...orts/voter-registration-by-party-affiliation/

 

[Styx]

The main thing that carry training needs to teach is not shooting, but when not to shoot. I'm worried that with "constitutional carry," more people will be carrying without being aware of their legal obligations. Here in Virginia, the training requirement for a carry license does not include mandatory range time.

You have law enforcement and even trained abd knowable gun owners who frequent gun forums and in right leaning social media who claim they'll shoot shoot in situations that it's against the law, e.i., someone punches then once in the face, is fleeing after a robbery or their, or even if approach by "the usual suspects" aka a black or brown person panhandling for money.

IMHO, the non "gun nut" gun owners who don't collect firearms and aren't obsessed with guns, ballistics, 2A rights, etc are least likely to fire a gun when not warranted. It's usually the gun guys with a chip on their shoulder about crime who's firearms gives them courage who will put themselves into bad situations hoping for an excuse to be able to pull their firearm.

 

[Tinman357]

STYX;

What you describe above is a vary rare animal in my experiance. I'm sure it does happen, but those few that fit that description either don't live long, wind up in prison, or grow up.

But it does read like food for the antis. Lot of bluster in forums. Text is a poor medium for expressing intent, emotions, and mindset. Too much room for misinterpretation. I'm just as prone to misinterpretation as others.

 

[BlueHeelerFl]

Wrong, first you are no longer talking about a tax. Second, you are assuming mutual exclusivity where it does not exist. And third, you are trying to draw conclusions by looking at a singular data point that cannot possibly contradict what I have already explained.
Yes producers must eat some of the change, to the extent that demand is elastic. Just because prices are rising for the consumer does not mean that producers have not also lost surplus. Those things are not mutually exclusive. Fuel as an input going up in price will shift the supply curve, not the demand curve. Mathematically this means total surplus must have shrunk. And further, only in the case of a perfectly inelastic demand does that reduction in total surplus come only from consumers. This applies to theme park tickets, groceries, and yes, even firearms and ammunition.

So an increase in other expenses will have an impact on consumer costs, but somehow an increase in tax expenses will be magically eaten by the producer

 

[Will Munny]

So an increase in other expenses will have an impact on consumer costs, but somehow an increase in tax expenses will be magically eaten by the producer

Strawman. Read what I have written more carefully.
Where the burden of a tax falls depends on the elasticity of demand for the good. Only with a perfectly elastic demand does it fall entirely on the producer, and only with a perfectly inelastic demand does it fall entirely on the consumer.
The term "expense" is not very precise, but if you think of a fuel price increase as an input cost then the above analysis holds, it is dependent on the elasticity of demand.

 

[Styx]

STYX;

What you describe above is a vary rare animal in my experiance. I'm sure it does happen, but those few that fit that description either don't live long, wind up in prison, or grow up.

But it does read like food for the antis. Lot of bluster in forums. Text is a poor medium for expressing intent, emotions, and mindset. Too much room for misinterpretation. I'm just as prone to misinterpretation as others.

I believe it's more common than law abiding novice and newbies wrongfully pulling the trigger. I see gun owners on forums and social saying how they'd handle things, and I seen the publicized reports of shooters/gun owners who shot when they should not have. It's inconvenient, so you might not choose to believe it, but it's factual based on real world examples.

On AKFiles, Glock Talk, Sig Talk, AR15.com, DefensiveCarry, etc, there will be literally dozens of members advocating for shooting peeps for the dumbest of things like being pushed for example. They'll claim that being pushed by an unarmed man is deadly force because they could have fell and busted their heads open, so that's reason enough to empty a mag on someone. Others are talking about situational awareness, and how they pulled their gun because a unarmed panhandle was approaching them who theoretically could have had a knife or gun on them. I'm not making this stuff up. I'm in the minority, and I get pushback in these threads or comment sections when I attempt to explain how these things will land them in jail.

The text and their intentions and what they believe are very clear, and aren't being misinterpreted.

 

[wayneinFL]

So unlocked glove compartment is OK, but not the center console, correct?

Center console is fine as long as the lid is shut.

If you have the book Florida Firearms by Jon Gutmacher, it's on page 90.

 

[dannyd]

Good Book

 

[Paul7]

Center console is fine as long as the lid is shut.

If you have the book Florida Firearms by Jon Gutmacher, it's on page 90.

But currently, only if you have a CCW permit? Sorry, I'm new here.

 

[bubbatime]

But currently, only if you have a CCW permit? Sorry, I'm new here.

You do not need a FL CCW to car carry in Florida. The law states that the firearm must be securely encased. The statutory definition of securely encased is in a closed glove box, a box with a lid, a zippered gun pouch, a closed center console with a lid, etc. as long as it has a lid or is zippered close, it’s legal. Don’t just throw a gun under the seat (illegal) . It’s super easy to comply with the law and not be illegal.

So to reiterate, yes it’s legal in Florida to have a fully loaded pistol (mag full, round in the chamber) and the gun thrown in your glove box or center console with closed lid.

(Former Florida cop here that used to write 2nd amendment training briefs for the rookies , since I was the “gun guy”)

 

[wayneinFL]

But currently, only if you have a CCW permit? Sorry, I'm new here.

Anybody in Florida can keep a loaded handgun in a car securely encased or not readily accessible.

This is a good book. Get the newest edition. The author puts updates on his website when the laws change. He has a blog where he covers changes in the law, and he's been pretty quick to respond with free legal advice when I've asked.

https://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/

 

[BlueHeelerFl]

I believe it's more common than law abiding novice and newbies wrongfully pulling the trigger. I see gun owners on forums and social saying how they'd handle things, and I seen the publicized reports of shooters/gun owners who shot when they should not have. It's inconvenient, so you might not choose to believe it, but it's factual based on real world examples.

On AKFiles, Glock Talk, Sig Talk, AR15.com, DefensiveCarry, etc, there will be literally dozens of members advocating for shooting peeps for the dumbest of things like being pushed for example. They'll claim that being pushed by an unarmed man is deadly force because they could have fell and busted their heads open, so that's reason enough to empty a mag on someone. Others are talking about situational awareness, and how they pulled their gun because a unarmed panhandle was approaching them who theoretically could have had a knife or gun on them. I'm not making this stuff up. I'm in the minority, and I get pushback in these threads or comment sections when I attempt to explain how these things will land them in jail.

The text and their intentions and what they believe are very clear, and aren't being misinterpreted.

Actually being pushed over and falling and being unable to defend yourself is a concern of mine.
i have bad hips and a bad back and if I'm knocked to the ground I will be immobile enough to be defenseless. I know this cause about 2 years ago I took a step backwards and tripped over a pallet on a loading dock. I went down, landed on my worse left hip and got a huge shock of pain from my tail bone to my skull. I had no real strength in my legs or back and was essentially helpless.

It took my manager lifting me and me hanging onto a fence to get my body off the ground. I then had to sit down for about 45 minutes before I left comfortable enough to attempt walking on my own.

The only reason why my skull did not hit the concrete was that I tucked my head into my chest, so it never touched the ground.

This is a legitimate fear even if you choose not to believe so.

People die all the time from getting knocked down. Recently an elderly Home Depot employee got knocked down by a thief and died. Several years ago a college basketball coach punched a man in NYC and that man fell and "busted his head open" and died.

If you don't think a fall can potentially kill you its you that has the problem, not the people discussing this

 

[Tinman357]

Yes, being pushed down can result in fatal injuries.

 

[Styx]

Actually being pushed over and falling and being unable to defend yourself is a concern of mine.
i have bad hips and a bad back and if I'm knocked to the ground I will be immobile enough to be defenseless. I know this cause about 2 years ago I took a step backwards and tripped over a pallet on a loading dock. I went down, landed on my worse left hip and got a huge shock of pain from my tail bone to my skull. I had no real strength in my legs or back and was essentially helpless.

It took my manager lifting me and me hanging onto a fence to get my body off the ground. I then had to sit down for about 45 minutes before I left comfortable enough to attempt walking on my own.

The only reason why my skull did not hit the concrete was that I tucked my head into my chest, so it never touched the ground.

This is a legitimate fear even if you choose not to believe so.

People die all the time from getting knocked down. Recently an elderly Home Depot employee got knocked down by a thief and died. Several years ago a college basketball coach punched a man in NYC and that man fell and "busted his head open" and died.

If you don't think a fall can potentially kill you its you that has the problem, not the people discussing this

That's all well and good, but the fact remains that pulling out a gun and shooting someone who pushes, shoves, or punches you once will land most people in most states in prison unarmed without any gun rights for the rest of their lives around violent felons. The only group of people that believes that being pushed or hit once justifies the use of deadly force seems to be a minority of people who are immersed in firearms. Michael Drejka rings a bell.

Yes, being pushed, shoved, or punched may result in an injury after the fact, but that in itself does not justify the use of deadly force or to pull out a gun after the fact to shoot an unarmed person unless they're continuing to attempt to attack you. Even then, unless you're a senior or have a disability, a healthy younger male might have an even harder time trying to justify the use of deadly force in the latter situation.

 

[wayneinFL]

If you don't think a fall can potentially kill you its you that has the problem, not the people discussing this

If you shoot someone pushing you, it's you who has the problem. And you don't need to convince people on an online forum, you need to convince a jury.

 

[BlueHeelerFl]

If you shoot someone pushing you, it's you who has the problem. And you don't need to convince people on an online forum, you need to convince a jury.

So you quoted a single line of my post and ignored the rest because it ignores your narrative

I has nothing to do with being "pushed". Its getting hit hard enough to hit the ground and being unable to get up to defend yourself if someone continues to attack you.

 

[BlueHeelerFl]

That's all well and good, but the fact remains that pulling out a gun and shooting someone who pushes, shoves, or punches you once will land most people in most states in prison unarmed without any gun rights for the rest of their lives around violent felons. The only group of people that believes that being pushed or hit once justifies the use of deadly force seems to be a minority of people who are immersed in firearms. Michael Drejka rings a bell.

Yes, being pushed, shoved, or punched may result in an injury after the fact, but that in itself does not justify the use of deadly force or to pull out a gun after the fact to shoot an unarmed person unless they're continuing to attempt to attack you. Even then, unless you're a senior or have a disability, a healthy younger male might have an even harder time trying to justify the use of deadly force in the latter situation.

As was clearly stated in my post, i ain't a healthy younger male. If I am attacked and get knocked to the crowd the same way I was in my story, I would be unable to stand up on my own let alone defend myself against a continuing attack.

 

[Paul7]

As was clearly stated in my post, i ain't a healthy younger male. If I am attacked and get knocked to the crowd the same way I was in my story, I would be unable to stand up on my own let alone defend myself against a continuing attack.

The older you are and the younger the perp, the more leeway to use deadly force. The very fact they touched you at all in a hostile manner is assault. We've all heard of elderly people who fell and broke a hip and never recovered.

 

[JTHunter]

The older you are and the younger the perp, the more leeway to use deadly force. The very fact they touched you at all in a hostile manner is assault. We've all heard of elderly people who fell and broke a hip and never recovered.

Somebody correct me if I am incorrect but I believe that "assault" is the verbal attack/threat while the physical attack is "battery". That is why the charges usually read "assault & battery".

 

[wayneinFL]

So you quoted a single line of my post and ignored the rest because it ignores your narrative

I has nothing to do with being "pushed". Its getting hit hard enough to hit the ground and being unable to get up to defend yourself if someone continues to attack you.

I didn't ignore any of it. I addressed it with my comment about who you were going to have to prove it to. And I stand by that. Tell the tripping over the pallet story to the judge.

Others have commented about age. Your post didn't mention anything about age. If you look old and frail, it will help.

I had a friend with a bad back who would pull his gun at the slightest provocation. Several people told him it would get him in trouble at some point. I don't know how old he was, but he didn't live past about 35. He was probably right about being in too bad a shape to fight, but I still say he would have a hard time convincing a jury if he ever shot someone.

 

[Mars5l]

Somebody correct me if I am incorrect but I believe that "assault" is the verbal attack/threat while the physical attack is "battery". That is why the charges usually read "assault & battery".

That's what I was taught