Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Florida SB 234 Live Video 4/12/11 1:00pm

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by sarduy, Apr 12, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. robhof

    robhof Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Messages:
    959
    Location:
    Bowling Green Ky.
    Fl. sheriff's have such a spotless record: Okaloosa sheriff and several deputies under indictment for fraud and other misconducts, Escambia sheriff and city police under investigation and these are only 2 that I know of because I have relatives living there. I have a nephew that is a retired Fl. deputy and he said that politics and the good old boy club permeates the sheriff depts. throughout Fl.
     
  2. sarduy

    sarduy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2007
    Messages:
    2,519
    Location:
    United States of America
    we won the second vote 8 yes 4 no in the rule comittee
     
  3. Ed N.

    Ed N. Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    289
    Location:
    Haines City, Florida
    I'm glad this seems to be moving forward. I did notice something interesting in the text of the bill, however. Lines 33 - 40 of the Senate bill read (emphasis added):

    33 ........Any person in compliance with the terms of
    34 such license may carry a concealed weapon or concealed firearm
    35 notwithstanding the provisions of s. 790.01, or may carry openly
    36 notwithstanding s. 790.053. The licensee must carry the license,
    37 together with valid identification, at all times in which the
    38 licensee is in actual possession of a concealed weapon or
    39 firearm
    and must display both the license and proper
    40 identification upon demand by a law enforcement officer.


    This would seem to imply that when the weapon is NOT concealed, it's not necessary to have your permit in your possession and that you are not under any requirement to show it to a LEO upon demand.

    Thoughts?
     
  4. BIGBANG

    BIGBANG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    151
    Location:
    Between Orlampa!
    wow idk I just got in an argument with with the guy behind the counter at a lgs today sayin the open carry was just for prining or accidental exposure. oh and Ed N. nice to meet you i'm in Haines City also.
     
  5. Ed N.

    Ed N. Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    289
    Location:
    Haines City, Florida
    >...guy behind the counter at a lgs today sayin the open carry was
    >just for prining or accidental exposure.

    He should read the bill. That's one of the arguments being used to promote it, but that's not what the bill says. The text is very clear that CCW holders may carry openly.

    The bill says what it means and means what it says. Seems pretty simple to me.
     
  6. quatin

    quatin Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    970
    I watched the Judiciary Committee debate. No one supported open carry in the general public. The only thing I heard was hiking in the mountain and having a gun for snakes and cougars. Therefore, when the opponents brought up the issue of open carry on the beach and restaurants, there was no response. That's why there's amendments being suggested to change it for the specific circumstances on which the sponsor emphasized on, accidental exposure. No one on the proponent side is seriously advocating for unrestricted open carry during debate.
     
  7. Ed N.

    Ed N. Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    289
    Location:
    Haines City, Florida
    > The only thing I heard was hiking in the mountain and having a gun
    > for snakes and cougars.


    Could you please show me a mountain and a cougar in Florida?

    A housecat in Mt. Dora would be about as close as anyone could come to that.

    I believe what was passed by Judiciary simply says CCW holders may carry openly.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page