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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
>...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.
 
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.
 
> 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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top