Florida attempts to pass open carry.........

[Tom Servo]

Right now I am not very happy with Hammer and the NRA, but if you all are that has to be fine with me.

You've made some strong accusations, but you haven't given us any specifics. As far as I can tell, they did some serious good in Florida this year.

I haven't always agreed with them. In fact, I've been incredibly disappointed with them a couple of times. If there's foul play, I'll be one of the first to get on the phone and raise some dust.

However, there are people out there who think it sport to simply bash the NRA out of hand. I'd like to think that's not what's happening here.

[GoOfY-FoOt]

Although it may be a feeble attempt, Florida House Rep. Abruzzo filed this last minute amendment to revert the wording of SB 234 back to Licensed OPEN CARRY...
It is scheduled to be heard on the House floor, today, but an apparent temporary new rule adoption, will only give Rep. Abruzzo 5 minutes to argue the point. Here is the link to the revision...I wonder how it will turn out.

Everyone cross your eyes and close your fingers...


http://myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/D...mentType=Press Release&FileName=348

[GoOfY-FoOt]

The House just postponed the third reading and the subsequent vote on CS/CS/SB 234, a bill regarding open carry, in Florida.

[P5 Guy]

From OC to you may not get arrested if your carry handgun is inadvertently exposed. Pinellas Sheriff J Coats ordering his deputies to draw on OCers. M Hammer's tapdance video about how nobody will OC anyway.
Most the other "several States" have a form of legal open carry. But not Florida? The "Gunshine State" first among the several states for shall issue CCW. Why is it the southern states and some of the most liberally governed are the states with no OC? Is this a left over from Reconstruction? Jim Crow?
So many here think I'm a spoiled brat for wanting it all RIGHT NOW!
I just remember Barry Goldwater's speech about vises and virtues.
My apologies for offending with strong accusations.
SeYa P5

[GoOfY-FoOt]

It's about how to win an uphill battle...

When a specific legislator's views can't sway the masses with logic and fact, they resort to emotion, speculation and sensationalism. It kills me when our 'leaders' have to make up what-if's, might-be's and could-happen's, because they can't find facts to support their views.

The, "OMG", approach to politics and the Bill of Rights is really, really, getting old...

[flcjinflorida]

I think it is ridiculous that our politicians have to use fear as a way to get what they want. Even the far left know that Florida will not turn into the wild wild west if open carry happened. They just don't want the people of the state of Florida to carry any weapons. They want to keep us repressed so that they can tell us how to run our lives.

I hope that we can get some more gun laws on the books to make it difficult for a liberal government to remove them. If you change the language of all of the different laws, they have to remove each on independently.

[Don P]

From the NRA-ILA email.
Not all we hoped for but, better than a total loss.

Senate Bill 234, introduced by Senator Greg Evers (R-2) and House Bill 517, introduced by state Representative Chris Dorworth (R-34) were heard in the Full House yesterday on Second Reading. SB 234 was substituted for HB 517 and Representative Dorworth handled the bill on the House Floor. Today, SB 234 came up for debate and final passage AND PASSED in the House by a 99 to 17 vote.

The bill now goes to Governor Rick Scott for his signature.

[AirForceShooter]

This time i WANT a total loss.

I don't want anyone to be able to claim they got something done on OC

AFS

[Tom Servo]

This time i WANT a total loss. I don't want anyone to be able to claim they got something done on OC

How is that constructive? When it comes to reclaiming our rights, it's not going to happen 100% and overnight. This is a battle of inches, and it's just getting started.

[JohnKSa]

It's important to understand that a small win is still a win.

It's taken years in TX to go from essentially no legal way to carry a handgun except in very limited circumstances, to an initially restrictive CHL law to seeing restriction after restriction lifted until we got to where we are today. Now any TX citizen--with or without a license--can legally have a pistol in their vehicle as long as it's concealed. There's still progress to be made, but every restriction that is lifted without fulfilling all the negative predictions of the anti-gunners makes it that much easier to lift the next restriction.

It's hard to get major changes in gun law passed. But when a law DOES get passed and the dire predictions of the antis don't come true, it's fairly easy to expand on that law in future legislative sessions. If you don't get the initial foot in the door, then it's an entirely different story.

Support this law and next legislative session it should be much easier to get the restrictions lifted even more--especially when it can be shown that there have been no adverse effects from passing the law.

Get greedy and say you won't take anything if you can't have it all at once and you may get your wish. If the legislators decide there's not enough support for OC to even get a law like this one passed they won't have any incentive to try to pass something even less restrictive in the future.

[GoOfY-FoOt]

What we Floridians for Open Carry are upset about, is how this bill was supposed to be about OC, campus carry for our young adults and the deletion of current statute, to conform with national law regarding firearms purchases made out of state.

What we got, was a diluted and downright worthless bill that only accomplished something that was unenforcable, anyway, regarding the latter.

But as it reads, now, another part of the law that was not prosecutable, i.e. "printing and inadvertent exposure", has very vague language that can be used against us, by an over-zealous cop or state's attorney.

The word, "brief", has us concerned. As it could mean anything from a brief glance, to a brief stint in the military.

Highly subjective, and has nothing to do with open or campus carry.

It was a ruse from the beginning, IMO, and the wording and hype was only designed to gain leverage so that a "compromise" could be reached, giving the appearance of attempting to do the will of their constituency, whilst not upsetting their counterparts across the aisle.

A complete waste of time, taxpayer's dollars and oxygen, in and around the Tallahassee area, as far as I'm concerned.

[Eghad]

As my Great Grandpa always told me you have to learn to walk before you run. The antigun forces are going to use every trick in the book to getting folks to believe this is a bad idea. They will not mind telling half truths and fibs.

If you sell it as letting folks OC who have met the requirements for a permit it becomes less of a hard sell because the permit program has had good results for years.

If you get the OC passed for licensed folks then as said by John people get used to seeing people open carry. So when the time comes to put forth constitutional carry as some folks call it it makes it harder for the anti gun forces to say its a bad idea..doom and gloom, blood in the streets, the wild west ect....

If you have a permit you can OC if it passes. If you want to get a permit to OC you can do so. I know that the argument is why should we have to have a law to do what is guaranteed to us in the Constitution. We the people got jumped years ago when state and federal legislation was passed. The NRA and other organizations and gun owners have made a good bit of progress. There is light at the end of the tunnel.

So we have to go for an inch when we can't get a mile. Pretty soon those inches turn into miles.

[GoOfY-FoOt]

Pretty soon those inches turn into miles.

Pretty soon?????

There are exactly 63,360 inches in a mile. I'm pretty sure, that is pretty far from pretty soon...
And it didn't take that long for the powers that were, to take away those rights.

As for the Florida bill, soon to become law, as it is veto-proof, THERE IS NO OPEN CARRY. NOT EVEN WITH A LICENSE. Open carry, was removed and replaced with some mumbo-jumbo, that old Iron-Sides couldn't figure out. (Yes, I know I'm dating myself with that last comment.)

[JohnKSa]

But as it reads, now, another part of the law that was not prosecutable, i.e. "printing and inadvertent exposure", has very vague language that can be used against us, by an over-zealous cop or state's attorney.

This is how we got our current law that allows vehicle carry for anyone as long as the handgun is concealed.

The TX legislature initially passed a car gun law that was ambiguous and offered questionable protection to those with handguns in their vehicles without a license. Anti-gun district attorneys around the state came out publicly and said that the law was ambiguous enough that they were going to continue trying to prosecute citizens with handguns in their cars in spite of the law.

Bad move. The legislature saw that as a slap in the face and passed a very clear law in the next session. It could easily be argued that the ambiguity in the initial poorly written law that offered poor protection was actually instrumental in passing the very clear law offering very obvious protection in the next legislative session. It gave the anti-gun DAs enough rope to hang themselves and their antics roused the state legislature to action that they probably wouldn't have taken otherwise.

[GoOfY-FoOt]

I hope you are right, John...It might restore a tad bit of faith, if it comes out that this was the plan.

Of course, with all of the spin, regarding intent/actions, who's to say what is reality and what is smoke and mirrors...?!

[JohnKSa]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the way the story worked out was due to a plan. I don't believe that things were planned to go that way--that's just what happened.

The point being that even a poor law can be much better than no law at all. If nothing else, it offers a foundation to build on. In addition, it's been my experience that legislators are much more willing to "fix" problems with a law passed in a recent legislative session than they are to strike out and pass a new law from a standing start.

[Don P]

But as it reads, now, another part of the law that was not prosecutable, i.e. "printing and inadvertent exposure", has very vague language that can be used against us, by an over-zealous cop or state's attorney.

As I have stated in earlier posts there is no case law to refer to as far as printing or inadvertent exposure of a firearm. Again I do not wish to be the first to test the law as it sits TODAY because I through the years have what could be looked at as very poor luck. Yes the way the law is worded is vague so with this small win printing or exposure problems should be eliminated.

This time i WANT a total loss.

Better to have a slice of the pie then rather to walk away empty handed. Just my opinion on the above quote.

[HoraceHogsnort]

Goofy Foot wrote: "It was a ruse from the beginning, IMO, and the wording and hype was only designed to gain leverage so that a "compromise" could be reached, giving the appearance of attempting to do the will of their constituency, whilst not upsetting their counterparts across the aisle. A complete waste of time, taxpayer's dollars and oxygen, in and around the Tallahassee area, as far as I'm concerned."

Its known as a mental masturbation exercise.

[Tom Servo]

A complete waste of time, taxpayer's dollars and oxygen, in and around the Tallahassee area, as far as I'm concerned.

So, the removal of inadvertent exposure as a criminal offense is a waste of dollars and oxygen?

[JohnKSa]

If a significant portion of the constituency really feels like they're not getting representation then they either did a miserable job of communicating their feelings to their representatives or they need to vote in new ones.* Maybe FL is a lot different from TX, but when enough of the TX voters make their wishes known the TX legislature steps in time. That is, after all, why we put them there and how they get to keep their positions.

My TX House representative last legislative session was not interested in co-authoring pro-gun legislation. My new TX House representative seems to have a very different view of things and signed up to co-author every piece of pro-gun legislation I emailed him about.

*That said, the simplest explanation shouldn't be ignored. It should be kept in mind that it's entirely possible that the reason this measure didn't get passed was because there simply wasn't enough voter support to push it through. That's the reason OC isn't making good headway in TX while other pro-gun bills are moving along nicely. Gauging support for open carry legislation from the responses on gun forums likely doesn't provide a realistic views of the constituency at large.

[GoOfY-FoOt]

So, the removal of inadvertent exposure as a criminal offense is a waste of dollars and oxygen?

Show me where a Florida CWP holder was successfully prosecuted for inadvertent exposure (IE) or printing...

The "open carry" bill, as it was titled and written was supposed to be about OC. When the anti's started complaining, that is when the sponsors and the NRA said the bill was about IE or printing. They opened the door for the wording that we have now.
If the bill was truly about OC, they would have stood their ground, therefore the original title and wording was designed to mislead supporters and create the opportunity to "compromise", as stated in my above post.

While the bill does show progress, the tactics used to get it, were iffy, IMO, and doesn't sit well with myself and other supporters of OC. It's the right to carry, as we as see fit for the circumstance, that we support.

It's not about a proverbial urinating contest. Although, the tactics used by our leaders seem to reflect that very thing.

[LouCap]

Originally Posted by GoOfY-FoOt

Show me where a Florida CWP holder was successfully prosecuted for inadvertent exposure (IE) or printing...

The "open carry" bill, as it was titled and written was supposed to be about OC. When the anti's started complaining, that is when the sponsors and the NRA said the bill was about IE or printing. They opened the door for the wording that we have now.
If the bill was truly about OC, they would have stood their ground, therefore the original title and wording was designed to mislead supporters and create the opportunity to "compromise", as stated in my above post.

While the bill does show progress, the tactics used to get it, were iffy, IMO, and doesn't sit well with myself and other supporters of OC. It's the right to carry, as we as see fit for the circumstance, that we support.

It's not about a proverbial urinating contest. Although, the tactics used by our leaders seem to reflect that very thing.

I don't think anyone has ever been prosecuted that, and I'm too lazy to do a google search. Regardless, the lack of prosecution has not stopped our more vocal pro OC brethren from citing "inadvertent exposure" and "printing" as two major reasons why we need OC. There are some legitimate reasons why w need it, but those aren't some of them. The state has rendered that part of the OC argument moot at this point.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tablet using Tapatalk Pro.

[GoOfY-FoOt]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoOfY-FoOt
Show me where a Florida CWP holder was successfully prosecuted for inadvertent exposure (IE) or printing...

The "open carry" bill, as it was titled and written was supposed to be about OC. When the anti's started complaining, that is when the sponsors and the NRA said the bill was about IE or printing. They opened the door for the wording that we have now.
If the bill was truly about OC, they would have stood their ground, therefore the original title and wording was designed to mislead supporters and create the opportunity to "compromise", as stated in my above post.

While the bill does show progress, the tactics used to get it, were iffy, IMO, and doesn't sit well with myself and other supporters of OC. It's the right to carry, as we as see fit for the circumstance, that we support.

It's not about a proverbial urinating contest. Although, the tactics used by our leaders seem to reflect that very thing.

I don't think anyone has ever been prosecuted that, and I'm too lazy to do a google search. Regardless, the lack of prosecution has not stopped our more vocal pro OC brethren from citing "inadvertent exposure" and "printing" as two major reasons why we need OC. There are some legitimate reasons why w need it, but those aren't some of them. The state has rendered that part of the OC argument moot at this point.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tablet using Tapatalk Pro.

Ummm...That's what I said!!!

[Japle]

Posted by Goofy-Foot:
If the bill was truly about OC, they would have stood their ground, therefore the original title and wording was designed to mislead supporters and create the opportunity to "compromise", as stated in my above post.

While the bill does show progress, the tactics used to get it, were iffy, IMO, and doesn't sit well with myself and other supporters of OC. It's the right to carry, as we as see fit for the circumstance, that we support.

Standing their ground would have resulted in the bill not passing at all. “The tactics used to get it”, were the tactics necessary at the time and under the circumstances to avoid a complete loss.

Did the bill give us everything we wanted? No. That’s the way the world works. Our side doesn’t control the actions of those on the other side. When our side loses one, that doesn’t mean the people working on our side lost on purpose or sold out.

As you said, the bill does show progress. The other two pro-gun bills that passed show additional progress.
Congratulating those who are responsible for making that progress is more productive than complaining that you didn’t get exactly what you wanted when you wanted it.

[GoOfY-FoOt]

Congratulating those who are responsible for making that progress is more productive than complaining that you didn’t get exactly what you wanted when you wanted it.

Congratulate them for being deceptive and underhanded??? I think not.

And as far as not getting what "I" wanted, when I wanted it, I beg to differ.
I would have liked to have seen the bill passed as it was originally written. It would have been a boost for not only the RKBA, but for local gun stores and the economy, as well. It would have done alot more for our state than it would have done for "me".
"I" am just one person with a brain and a voice, albeit muted, through this particular venue. No, my vision was much broader than the selfish disposition you seem to want to bestow on me.

As for the ability to voice an opinion, I do believe I am entitled, as well as capable of relating my thoughts and feelings, rather well. Perhaps you should read more of my posts, before passing judgement.

No, the only one who truly displayed testicular fortitude, throughout this ordeal was Rep. Abruzzo, who attempted to amend the bill back to it's original wording. Unfortunately, he didn't do his homework, and was decimated on the House floor. Causing him to withdraw his amendment, and retreat to lick his wounds...