Proposed FL Carry Law Changes...Your Thoughts

[GoOfY-FoOt]

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill...nt/245176/HTML

Here is a link to portions of the changes proposed to FL Statute 790.

I have conflicting feelings about the new wording and subsequent differences between the original bill and this new gutted version. Namely the part about having to display your CWP in a clear sleeve, on or near your weapon.
The level 2 retention holster isn't a problem, and frankly would increase sales at the shop. And the training, I believe, is a good idea as well, but the way it reads, the "training" received as part of your CWP class would suffice, and many local offerings leave a bit to be desired, IMO.

How do you feel about the lawmakers, who have previously been adamant about concealing (no pun intended) the identity of permit holders, now wanting us to wear our information on our sleeve, so to speak...?

[MLeake]

The bill you're citing applies to open carry. If open carry is limited to CCW holders, then simply by carrying openly you are already telling the world you have a CCW (or else you are breaking the law).

Therefore, I don't see your point... If you don't want people to know about your CCW, carry concealed.

OTOH, perhaps you are arguing that Florida should have Constitutional Carry, a la Wyoming?

[Al Norris]

Hmmm, this is kinda going backwards, isn't it?

[GoOfY-FoOt]

In what respect, Al?

Being a proponent of open carry, in as much as it should be my choice, based on my current location and circumstances, I would really like to see Florida regain some semblance of normality.
The original bill, SB234, was designed to address some limitations and 'gray area' of the current law, as well as to repeal some of Ms. Reno's regulations, while offering some provisions to assist law-abiding folk from being wrongfully prosecuted for an inadvertent display of their weapon.
I, personally, can forsee many scenarios where the outcome would likely be more favorable, for the lawful citizen, if one was wearing their weapon openly. It all comes down to 'choice'.
The 2nd Amendment give us the right to possess the means to defend ourselves, and I tire of those who want to live their lives with blinders on, and would have me disguise my stance, to resemble a meek and passive target.
No thanks.

[GoOfY-FoOt]

Therefore, I don't see your point... If you don't want people to know about your CCW, carry concealed.

My point, as I stated, is that the powers-that-be, are wanting me to display my info, if I display my weapon. Do you feel that this is a reasonable request on their part? Or should we have constitutional carry, like we used to, before Ms. Reno?

[Aguila Blanca]

I have no conflicting feelings about it whatsoever. I don't like it. I see no reason to display your license. They might as well ask everyone to log onto Maxsell and buy one of those Concealed Carry Permit badges, and be done with it.

And I really REALLY don't like the requirement for a level 2 retention holster. There's no reason for that, either. I'll bet the don't require police detectives to carry in level 2 retention holsters, so why impose that restriction on the commoners?

This looks to me like a variety of poison pill revision. The antis don't think they can kill the bill, so they'll make open carry as difficult and unattractive as they can so as to dissuade as many people as possible from doing it.

[Kreyzhorse]

That's a pretty silly law and I don't agree with displaying your license if open carry. As MLeake pointed out, if open carry is restricted to those with a CCW license by open carrying you are showing that you have a CCW license. Displaying your license info why doing so is redundant.

[MLeake]

1) Should there be a CCW requirement in order to carry openly?

My opinion on that one is a simple, "no." I would prefer constitutional carry.

but then,

2) Given that there is (for now) a CCW requirement for open carry, as written, does it bother me that the law would require display of the license if the gun is displayed?

My opinion on that one is mixed. As I noted earlier, you are already telling the world that you have a CCW, by virtue of open carry.

Ideally, we'd get open carry without any CCW requirement. In the meantime, one possible compromise would be a revamping of the Florida CCW card format. For instance, put official Florida credentials and a photo on one side, for display, and all personal data (name, address, etc) on the other, where it can be kept from view.

Now, would I carry, with the law as is, and the CCW card as is? No.

Then again, I generally don't like open carry anyway. I think it should be legal, but personally I don't like advertising. I prefer the tactical advantage of not letting strangers know that I carry.

[Aguila Blanca]

I guess if Florida is going to require open carriers to visibly display their CCW license (ignoring for the moment the irony of needing a concealed carry permit to carry UNconcealed), there must be a companion bill to require everyone openly operating a motor vehicle to visibly display their driver's llicense in the lower left corner of the windshield.

Right?

[Al Norris]

GoOfy-FoOt, allow me to say that I am also an advocate of open carry. Unregulated, unadulterated open carry.

That said, I'm also aware that the States can regulate the manner of carry. Scalia, in writing the Heller decision, said as much. But the manner of the historical account given (in Heller), would indicate that if the State wishes to regulate (or completely ban) concealed carry, then it must allow open carry, with minimal regulations and no licensure.

I don't agree with schemes that regulate, by license, all manner of carry. That converts a fundamental right to self defense, into a privilege.

When one seriously looks into how the fundamental right to travel was divorced from driving a vehicle (by licensure of the act of driving), one sees the same mechanism at work.

Originally Posted by GoOfy-FoOt

In what respect, Al?

Public display of a Concealed Carry License to prove to one and all that you are allowed to Carry Openly.

Ever heard of the Scarlett Letter?

[hogdogs]

As a Florida resident, I was, at first, very interested in this law. But then I learned it was just for CC permit holders... basically the only intent was to make "printing" or incidental display such as wind blown shirt etc. a non issue, no longer a crime.

But I am not for this effort in any configuration. I was hoping I was going to be able to exercise my 2A rights all the time. I just refuse to shell out the cash to exercise that right nor am I fond of proficiency qualification or any other part of permitted carry.

So basically, I am against it if it isn't constitutional carry in nature.

If I could carry concealed with out a permit, I WOULD... But I would likely prefer open carry as it is faster, more comfortable etc.

Brent

[GoOfY-FoOt]

The antis don't think they can kill the bill, so they'll make open carry as difficult and unattractive as they can so as to dissuade as many people as possible from doing it.

That's just it. From what I understand, the wording changes and additional parameters were self-inflicted by the commitee proponents of the bill. It seems that they initiated a pre-emptive attack on the forthcoming opposition. It's quite strange, to say the least. The first feedback from the legislators who championed the bill, was that is was the right time, and that there was no foreseen roadblocks to it's passage. And now this linguistic rodeo, before it even reaches the floor. Is this how a normal lawmaking session works? Do they just write and rewrite a bunch of stuff so that they appear busy?

[GoOfY-FoOt]

When one seriously looks into how the fundamental right to travel was divorced from driving a vehicle (by licensure of the act of driving), one sees the same mechanism at work.

So what you're saying Al, is that even though our representatives know that this is not only the will of the people and governed by Federal law, they still want to keep/maintain as much control as they can?

With driving privileges, it seems to be a means of both revenue and control.
This can't be said of the Florida CWP, though. All funds acquired from the program, by law, can only be used to fund the program itself. And any surplus over a certain amount, can only be used to purchase soft-body armor, for law enforcement officers.


As previously stated, I'm on the fence. While open carry legislation of any kind, is a step in the right direction, the parameters in the current bill's wording, would at the least, elicit more sales at the shop. Although, if they are going to stipulate some form of retention training requirement, they should revamp the entire CWP process, and develop a uniform standard.

Do you forsee a legal battle, in regard to the SCOTUS decision, and the amount of authority, or lack thereof, the state can apply?

Oh, and yes, I have heard of the scarlet letter. I, too, feel that the requirement to display my permit when I OC, is a way to single me out, and assign some sort of 'brand', to those that choose to exercise their right. Most cops that I know, either don't mind citizens who carry, or keep their true feelings closely guarded.

We have many LEO customers, and I am always OC'ing at the shop. The only attention that I receive from any of them, is when I am toting something new. This tells me that they notice, but only to the extent of curiousity. Perhaps this is only because of the rural area that I live and work in.

[osallent]

I oppose open carry in Florida. It is a terrible idea. But if they are going to go forward with it, I see nothing wrong with having the open carry person prove they are genuinely authorized to do so (ie, license near the holster). Otherwise too many morons and criminals in South Florida will have a field day.

Open carry doesn't work for Florida. My hopes are that they will repeal this and go back to concealed carry soon after it passes.

[GoOfY-FoOt]

OK. I have been studying the information available at this link...

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/0234

...and the best that I can figure is, all of the word wrangling that had prompted my original post, has went away. From what I have been able to extrapolate, is that we have somewhat resorted back to roughly the original bill, as it was submitted.

I would really appreciate one of you lawyer-type folks, taking a look and let me know if you concur, or if I have missed something.

As it appears, after several revisions, they have decided to eliminate the verbage, and subsequently the aforementioned requirements for OC. Is this what everyone else gets from it all???

[Al Norris]

Having read through the changes and analysis, I no longer have any objections.

Good to see that your legislators removed the "contiguous states" provision, relating to purchases of rifles and shotguns.

Did you notice that the bill is allowing non-lethal concealed carry on colleges? Granted its only to those that are actual students, faculty and staff, but its a start, nonetheless.

[spacecoast]

Sorry to be stupid, but what is a Level 2 holster, how many levels are there and what defines the various levels? Can someone post a page that explains it? The only thing that I have been able to find is this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIXc9NRLRJI

Is a common Fobus holster that the trigger guard "snaps" into a Level 1 or a Level 2 holster?

BTW, the instructor at a couple of pistol classes I have intended hates the holsters which require you to depress a switch with a finger to draw the gun - says it leads to accidents because the pressure of your finger toward the gun leads to the trigger being engaged with your finger as the gun is drawn out of the holster.

[hogdogs]

Maybe I will get that dern CC permit so I can openly tote my Mossberg...

Brent

[GoOfY-FoOt]

BTW, the instructor at a couple of pistol classes I have intended hates the holsters which require you to depress a switch with a finger to draw the gun - says it leads to accidents because the pressure of your finger toward the gun leads to the trigger being engaged with your finger as the gun is drawn out of the holster.

The way I read the final version of the bill that was voted on and passed out of commitee, 3 yeas - 2 nays, they have removed the stipulations regarding Open Carry. In other words, no requirements.
Level 2 is a retention style holster that requires an action to take place, before the weapon can be removed. ie; snap unsnapped, release button depressed, etc...As for the Fobus that utilizes a friction type retention, I couldn't say.

I use Blackhawk Serpa CQC holsters with the button, but the location of the button is right where the index finger should be upon drawing your gun. Right along the slide. It took very little practice, as well, to develop a very quick draw, with it. Much quicker than IWB or SOB carry took and is faster overall, too. I wear mine at 8:30 (left-handed) with an FBI style forward cant.

[GoOfY-FoOt]

Maybe I will get that dern CC permit so I can openly tote my Mossberg...

Let me know how that goes... The law clearly states, "handgun".

[cwok]

... display license near holster.
Well it looks like i didn't.

Extract from the bill quoted
(a) Carrying openly requires that the firearm be secured by
45 the carrier in a Level 2 security holster.
46 (b) Carrying openly requires that the carrier display his
47 or her license to carry a concealed firearm in a clear sleeve on
48 or near the holster in such a manner as to be visible.

unquote
Note: The numbers are the line numbers of the bill -- makes it easier to track down a particular phrase in a fifty page bill.


I find it hard to imagine a police officer, seeing someone open carrying, walking over -- stooping down to holster level -- and trying to read a license.

Does this make any kind of sense to a Law Officer ?
.

[Al Norris]

cwok, you are reading the old version of the bill.

Go here to read the current version.

[hogdogs]

goofy, in the link in Al's post above, where is it stating "handgun" all I see is "firearm" and my mossberg is a firearm last I checked....

Yep just lit off a round and fire did come out the end of it...

Brent

[GoOfY-FoOt]

28 licensee. For the purposes of this section, concealed weapons or
29 concealed firearms are defined as a handgun, electronic weapon
30 or device, tear gas gun, knife, or billie, but the term does not
31 include a machine gun as defined in s. 790.001(9).

Here it is...

[hogdogs]

But we are not talking about it being a "concealed" weapon if it is "open" carried...
Yeah I know, I am splitting hairs but it is what it is...

Brent