FL - Senate Bill... Relating to Carrying Firearms

[Rich-D]

Florida Senate - 2011 COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
Bill No. SB 234

Barcode 245176

LEGISLATIVE ACTION
Senate . House
Comm: RCS .
03/14/2011 .
.
The Committee on Criminal Justice (Evers) recommended the
following: Full Text! (http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/0234/Amendment/245176/HTML)

[Aguila Blanca]

Stupid, stupid law.

First, it isn't "constitutional carry."

Second, only a legislator could write a law that provides for CONCEALED carry, discusses exactly what CONCEALED carry entails ... and then goes on to provide that OPEN carry is allowed, if you have a license to carry CONCEALED. And then to tack on a requirement for a Level 2 retention holster, plus displaying the license in a clear sleeve mounted near the holster ... what's the purpose of THAT?

Stupid, stupid, stupid. http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/notallthere.gif http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/banghead.gif http://forum.e46fanatics.com/images/smilies/facepalmsmiley.gif

[Rich-D]

The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday easily approved the so-called "open carry" bill for concealed weapons permit holders. The vote was 14-4 with Democrats John Julien of Miami and Darren Soto of Orlando joining all Republicans in voting for the bill (HB 517), which is sponsored by Rep. Chris Dorworth, R-Lake Mary. He says the bill is needed to prevent lawful permit holders from inadvertently violating Florida law. Full Article (http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/hammer-wins-easy-vote-open-carry-gun-law)

[kenhwind]

There are parts of this law that are good from what I can decipher. The part about aconcealed carry not being a crime if the firearm is inadvertantly exposed is very good IMO.
The article in Rich's link is very ungratifying too.

Been trying to clarify the provision that pertains to a; "Type 2 retention holster" and training.

I will still continue to carry concealed because IMO open carry is overrated.

[Aguila Blanca]

Been trying to clarify the provision that pertains to a; "Type 2 retention holster" and training.
Type 2 retention is an industry standard (old). There's no problem clarifying that; no clarification is necessary.

The training clause technically would mean that the entire open carry provision is invalid, because none of the training venues allowed under the law teaches anything about holster (or firearm) retention. That's a CQB or street brawling technique that comes under advanced tactical skills for LEOs. There's no hunter safety course that covers it, and the NRA Basic Pistol course doesn't cover it. Florida accepts a DD-214 as proof of firearms safety training, and the U.S. Army didn't teach it when I was in.

I would regard that clause as a "poison pill" that was inserted to make the open carry provision unworkable.

[Rich-D]

Aguila Blanca, It's possible that I am missing something that you see in this ill worded bill. I read it a bit differently than you do. While the bill lacks common sense, Line 53 has a "shall issue" clause. Followed by a list of 7 qualifiers. We are aware that Hunter Safety Courses do not teach handgun retention. We are also aware that organized shooting competition, does not instruct one in handgun retention. Nor have those who have been previously licensed been trained in handgun retention. However, as the bill is written, it appears that anyone meeting one of the seven qualifications "shall" be issued a license.



49 (c) Carrying openly requires the carrier to have
50 demonstrated competence with a firearm and firearm retention as
51 provided in paragraph (2)(h).
52 (2) The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
53 shall issue a license if the applicant:
54 (h) Demonstrates competence with a firearm and firearm
55 retention by any one of the following:
56 1. Completion of any hunter education or hunter safety
57 course approved by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
58 or a similar agency of another state;
59 2. Completion of any National Rifle Association firearms
60 safety or training course;
61 3. Completion of any firearms safety or training course or
62 class available to the general public offered by a law
63 enforcement, junior college, college, or private or public
64 institution or organization or firearms training school,
65 utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle
66 Association, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission,
67 or the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services;
68 4. Completion of any law enforcement firearms safety or
69 training course or class offered for security guards,
70 investigators, special deputies, or any division or subdivision
71 of law enforcement or security enforcement;
72 5. Presents evidence of equivalent experience with a
73 firearm through participation in organized shooting competition
74 or military service;
75 6. Is licensed or has been licensed to carry a firearm in
76 this state or a county or municipality of this state, unless
77 such license has been revoked for cause; or
78 7. Completion of any firearms training or safety course or
79 class conducted by a state-certified or National Rifle
80 Association certified firearms instructor;

[kenhwind]

I must be missing something because I don't see any provision for the "Type 2 Retention Holster or training":
http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/0234/BillText/c1/HTML

Hereis the House bill 517
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=45327&BillText=517&HouseChamber=H&SessionId=66&

[Rich-D]

Ken, Go to http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/0234 Click on Amendments and view amendment 245176. The last amendment deleted lines 312 to 322. Which covers inadvertent display.

[Aguila Blanca]

Rich, here's the part I think is unworkable. The problem isn't issuing the license, the problem is being legally allowed to use it for open carry. From the draft of the law in the link in your opening post (with line numbers removed to facilitate reading):

(a) Carrying openly requires that the firearm be secured by the carrier in a Level 2 security holster.
(b) Carrying openly requires that the carrier display his
or her license to carry a concealed firearm in a clear sleeve on or near the holster in such a manner as to be visible.
(c) Carrying openly requires the carrier to have demonstrated competence with a firearm and firearm retention as provided in paragraph (2)(h).
The problem is that, while most of the venues approved in Paragraph (2)(h) work fine for issuing a license, they do NOT cover the retention training required in (c) above)

(2) The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall issue a license if the applicant:
(h) Demonstrates competence with a firearm and firearm retention by any one of the following:
1. Completion of any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or a similar agency of another state;
2. Completion of any National Rifle Association firearms safety or training course;
3. Completion of any firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by a law enforcement, junior college, college, or private or public institution or organization or firearms training school, utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, or the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services;
4. Completion of any law enforcement firearms safety or training course or class offered for security guards, investigators, special deputies, or any division or subdivision of law enforcement or security enforcement;
5. Presents evidence of equivalent experience with a firearm through participation in organized shooting competition or military service;
6. Is licensed or has been licensed to carry a firearm in this state or a county or municipality of this state, unless such license has been revoked for cause; or
7. Completion of any firearms training or safety course or class conducted by a state-certified or National Rifle Association certified firearms instructor;
Out of the whole list, only #4 might include retention training. I'm sure it does for LEOs, but I'm not so sure it would for security guards.

What about reciprocity? No other state teaches or requires handgun retention to be taught as a prerequisite to a carry license/permit, so this would mean that the open carry provision in Florida's law (if enacted) COULD NOT apply to anyone carrying on a reciprocal permit, OR to anyone who obtained a Florida permit on the basis of training in another state where retention is not taught as part of the class.

However, it seems to be a moot point, because the latest revisions have removed those questionable (?) requirements.

[Rich-D]

Aguila Blanca, While I still read the qualifiers a bit different than you do in the poorly worded document, as you state the points are moot as amendments have removed the questionable requirements.

[Aguila Blanca]

This touches on a major problem with laws -- they are written by people with an agenda, but often limited writing skills (although I'm certain legislative aids would universally disagree with me). They write things that obviously don't make sense from a grammatical/linguistic perspective, but the people who write them know what they have in mind so it's perfectly okay with them. And, as we now know courtesy of Ms. Pelosi and Obamacare, the legislators who vote on these things generally don't read the actual bill, they read the summary of what it's supposed to achieve and vote on the concept rather than the actual language.

So it then falls to the police to enforce a law that may or may not say what it means, and then to the courts to interpret what the law really says. And while courts certainly try to interpret laws consistent with the legislative intent, the courts also have to recognize that a prudent person who reads a law has to be able to act according to what the law says and rely on it. So a court cannot and will not (intentionally, anyway) rule that a law means the opposite of what it actually says.

So applying this to the (now replaced) bill in Florida: The bill basically covered the law for issuing concealed carry licenses. It listed seven venues through which an applicant could demonstrate having received firearms safety training. If you showed any of these seven items, Florida would give you a concealed carry permit. So far, so good.

But then Florida went on to say that if people wanted to carry openly, they had to have a concealed carry license. Never mind the logical disconnect in that statement, they then said that people could carry openly in Florida if they had a concealed carry license, AND if the carrier has demonstrated competence with a firearm and firearm retention as provided in paragraph (2)(h).

But paragraph (2)(h) is the list of seven avenues for showing firearms safety training for the CONCEALED carry license. Nothing in (2)(h) mentions retention training at all. Those training venues (other than LEO classes) typically don't talk about retention holsters, and they certainly don't teach firearm retention techniques. Even if instructors in Florida were to revise their curricula to satisfy this law, there are 49 other states. An NRA Basic Handgun class from an instructor in any state will satisfy the Florida safety training requirement, but NRA instructors in the other 49 states are not likely to change their class (thus departing from the NRA class outline) on the off chance that one student out of 500 might use the class to apply to Florida.

So the result of the proposed language would have been a legal requirement that LEOs would have had no way to enforce. Either Florida would have had to refuse to issue a license to anyone who could not document that their class included training in firearm retention, or Florida would have had to create a second type of concealed carry permit so they could differentiate between those whose training included retention training, and those who didn't.

Clearly, that would be an enormous administrative burden, it would have caused massive confusion for applicants (and current license holders) from other states, and in general it would have been totally unworkable.

But it shows the way law writers think, and it shows why you can't skim a law and understand what it says. You have to read every word, and apply each word in the context of the other words in the particular law. And sometimes, when you do that (which is what judges have to do), the ultimate conclusion is that the law is in conflict with itself and cannot reasonably be enforced. This is what occurs when a judge rules a law "unconstitutionally vague."

I have personal experience in getting a state law repealed for similar reasons. It was about twenty years ago, so I can't look up the language. In that case, the law was very clear in what it said. The problem was, it was enforced so rarely that police thought it said a lot more than it did. They arrested an insurance company executive for violating it. At the trial, the two arresting officers provided detailed testimony of how they had contacted the woman, met with her, and they said this and she said that and blah, blah, blah. At the end of all that, the prosecution rested. The defense immediately moved for dismissal; didn't call a single witness. The judge asked why. The defense attorney said "Because this law specifically prohibits two very explicit things. And these police officers have not provided any testimony or evidence that my client did either of the two things specifically prohibited by this law."

The judge re-read the law, and dismissed the case. A few months later, a coalition of interested parties (of which I was a member) successfully lobbied the state legislature to repeal the law, on the basis that the ONE time in EIGHTY YEARS anyone was arrested under it, the case was thrown out of court.

Words have meanings. We ignore that at our peril.

[kenhwind]

The other problem with Laws, are that they seem to be written by legislative attorneys, to be read and understood by legal scholars and the courts system. What I mean is that they are written in a grammatically complicated way that makes them hard to interpet.

When I received my FL CWP it came with a nice brochure and a copy of the FL 790.00 Statues that pertain to firearms. While this is a very good idea, some of these statues have absolutely nothing to do with concealed carry, and then there are parts that are written that aren't clear and need some clarification, or a decisive meaning.

This new bill was the same way as AB has posted. Now I was a late commer to the issue, and thanks to the forum link on our other site, I started paying a little more attention. I was following this on a thread @ flguns.com, and was reading about the "retention holster and training" but didnot see this in the bill when I looked it up on the FL website.

Well of course it was amended.

A concealed carry permit to open carry do seem a bit redundant don't it.

[Rich-D]

In PA, our permits are titled "License to Carry Firearms" However, anyone who can legally own a firearm may carry a firearm openly without a License throughout the State, with the exception of Philadelphia. In Philly, one must possess the "License to Carry Firearms" in order to Open Carry or Carry Concealed.

However, in spite of clearly worded State Law and Official Police Department Directive. Open Carry in Philly will in most cases lead to Officers taking you down to the ground at gun point. States like Florida considering Open Carry should also make it a chargeable offense to deny someone their rights under the law.

Listen to this incident which was posted on m1911... Click Here! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Z-vUYeJXSrA) At the same time I must admit that the person carrying the gun did not exercise the best judgment when confronted by the officer.

[Aguila Blanca]

Rich, has there been any discussion of that incident on the PA Firearms site? I hope the guy has initiated a huge lawsuit against the Philadelphia PD. It's disgraceful when the police don't understand the laws they are supposed to enforce.

[Rich-D]

Rich, has there been any discussion of that incident on the PA Firearms site? I hope the guy has initiated a huge lawsuit against the Philadelphia PD. It's disgraceful when the police don't understand the laws they are supposed to enforce.

The person in question has tried to hire an Attorney without success. As he was not formerly arrested nor his gun confiscated and the make up of the jury pool in Philly, they don't see a viable law suit. Here is the link to the PAFOA, where the person first posted the event on February 13th 2011...Link! (http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-144/126083-arrested-philadelphia-police-open-carry.html)