FL open carry, ended 1987, reallow it.

Florida Open Carry

  • For Concealed Carry, the optional open

  • Against it, No open carry

  • See my post...

  • Constitutional Carry

  • Shall issue separate Open Carry licensing


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Z1D2

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
78
Location
in S, SE USA
regulating firearms is akin to imposing rules against journalism, which would violate the First Amendment.
Florida state's nearly 30 year oldish concealed weapons law violates our U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment. It requires people to be allowed to openly carry guns. Right to Bear arms. Lawmakers should this year strongly consider a proposal to allow people our God given rights, or make it clear Rights are limited.
Florida should Dang well grant a Constitutional Carry. Or at the very least allow all with concealed weapons licenses to openly and freely carry.
In 1987 as this link to a older "article", Reno shoved through a unconstitutional push to restructuring our own Rights.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2621956/posts
 
regulating firearms is akin to imposing rules against journalism, which would violate the First Amendment.

Why would imposing rules on people and organizations that call themselves “journalists” violate the first amendment? Rules like attempting to be fair and impartial. Attempting to tell the truth. Attempting to tell both sides of a story without editorializing. Licensing journalists so that we know they are not lying to us. If they get reported for knowingly lying on a story or omitting facts that change the complexion of a story the loose their license to be a journalist.
Just “common sense restrictions” on the first amendment.
 
While I think we should be allowed open carry, shouting WE USED TO HAVE IT BUT NOW WE DON'T doesn't do it for me. I don't wish to return to those days.

IF (and you notice, that's a big if) you had a permit you could carry. Open or concealed - didn't matter.

We were a MAY ISSUE state. You had to explain to the county commissioners why you felt you needed to carry a gun. And then they might - MIGHT - sell you a permit to carry. Which cost $125.00, was good for one year, and was only good in your county of residence.

Now we are a SHALL ISSUE state. I don't have to explain why I want to carry. They have to come up with a reason - and it needs to be a really good one - for why they won't let me. The permit costs $65.00, is good for seven years, and is good statewide.

I think this is better.
 
I’ve lived in Fla. since ‘72. I never once noticed anyone open carry before ‘87. Or if I saw it I thought nothing of it. So I don’t see the problem. Gangs and criminals were just as rampant then as now.

One difference between the 1A and the 2A is the 1A specifically says “Congress shall make no law...” which seems to allow States to do so. The 1A says “...shall not be infringed,” Period. By any branch of government.
 
In NC, concealed carriers must be licensed, but OC is legal without a license. In Fl, CC must have a license, but OC is illegal in most cases no matter what. People have been charged for accidental exposure of a legally carried concealed firearm. Given the climate in Fl most of the time, and what people wear do to the temps as a result of the climate, this isn't difficult to do. I don't think a criminal charge is appropriate due to a mishap like me tripping over a curb and exposing my sidearm, or bending over to pick up a set of keys I dropped, or my shirt riding up while riding a motorcycle.
 
maybe one should start with something simple. like CC holders can open carry in rural areas. I mean who is going to care if someone open carries in a swamp?
 
In NC, concealed carriers must be licensed, but OC is legal without a license. In Fl, CC must have a license, but OC is illegal in most cases no matter what. People have been charged for accidental exposure of a legally carried concealed firearm. Given the climate in Fl most of the time, and what people wear do to the temps as a result of the climate, this isn't difficult to do. I don't think a criminal charge is appropriate due to a mishap like me tripping over a curb and exposing my sidearm, or bending over to pick up a set of keys I dropped, or my shirt riding up while riding a motorcycle.


That was changed when Scott took office; accidental "brandishing (like having your jacket blow open at the gas station) is no longer an issue.
I will personally, never OC unless camping/hunting; I feel it makes you a target for bad guys and can have serious consequences if someone reports MWAG and LEO responds; just too many things that might go wrong compared to CC. YMMV
 
. . . .Licensing journalists so that we know they are not lying to us. . . Just “common sense restrictions” on the first amendment.
Recall Poe's Correlary, "Any sufficiently advanced troll is indistinguishable from a genuine kook." I'm pretty sure you're trolling the common sense restrictions position to demonstrate it's disingenuousness, but I can't be certain.
 
FL-NC, a few years back they tried to legalize open carry, with that argument. "If the wind blows my jacket open I can be arrested for open carry." But, thanks to the transplanted New Yorkers in south Florida, it didn't happen. They did, however, change the law to where "temporary inadvertent" exposure was not criminal.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.053.html

> It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.<
 
Why would imposing rules on people and organizations that call themselves “journalists” violate the first amendment? Rules like attempting to be fair and impartial. Attempting to tell the truth. Attempting to tell both sides of a story without editorializing. Licensing journalists so that we know they are not lying to us. If they get reported for knowingly lying on a story or omitting facts that change the complexion of a story the loose their license to be a journalist.
Just “common sense restrictions” on the first amendment.


Who decides what is "fair and impartial????"


The ●GOV, that's who. Do you want that?

Yes, we live in an era of FAKE NEWS. But who should "stand guard to the guards?" A lot of people have a hard time deciding what IS truth. Did Donald Trump really suborn perjury, as we might infer from a recent Buzz feed story -------- or is THAT story more fake news?
In an era of cr@ppy media, who seem to mostly just want to attack President Trump, we still ought to support freedom.....sorta like, say, supporting free enterprise against democratic socialists even during economic bad times.
Take the longer view.

Fake news....whatever the motive, isn't new. I recall seeing a Chicago newspaper, dated April 15, 1912, report the sinking of the R. M. S. Titanic under the headline "ALL SAVED FROM TITANIC DISASTER."
Ooooops. An accurate headline-------NOT!
It wasn't motivated by hate, but it was really BAD journalism.
But we survived.
 
We already know rights are limited. Libel and slander are illegal even under the 1st. This "you can't limit a right" has been debunked over and over.

It has been explained (to me) that a right is limited to the existential ends it protects. Libel and slander aren't protected. Also, I believe, "fighting words," "incitement to riot," are not. But that which is IS protected, IS PROTECTED.
LIke the second amendment does not protect one from taking a gun and murdering people, or firing it haphazardly in a town where bullets might kill randomly.
 
With the newly elected Ag Sec and the appointee she has made, Constitutional Carry is the only way to avoid the two anti-gun officials now responsible for overseeing the issuance of CCW.
 
Why would imposing rules on people and organizations that call themselves “journalists” violate the first amendment? Rules like attempting to be fair and impartial. Attempting to tell the truth. Attempting to tell both sides of a story without editorializing. Licensing journalists so that we know they are not lying to us. If they get reported for knowingly lying on a story or omitting facts that change the complexion of a story the loose their license to be a journalist.
Just “common sense restrictions” on the first amendment.
Its a, what is called, a "Simili" not a direct comparison. But you see any journalist get told anything like they cant, they argue.
 
With the newly elected Ag Sec and the appointee she has made, Constitutional Carry is the only way to avoid the two anti-gun officials now responsible for overseeing the issuance of CCW.
Would like to see a Provision protecting the New constitutional carry Law from attacks in the Future, that would belittle it. Making the Law more Granite, unles it expands the Right of the people
 
It does seem silly that Florida doesn't have OC. I lived in Florida for a few years and had a Florida CWP pretty quickly upon moving there, and I still have it. When I moved there it was a better state to carry in than my home state of Texas. Shortly after Texas started making it easier and more affordable to get a CHL, and eventually we went to open carry and "LTC". My how the tables have turned... I hope Ron DeSantis fixes all of it.
 
It does seem silly that Florida doesn't have OC. I lived in Florida for a few years and had a Florida CWP pretty quickly upon moving there, and I still have it. When I moved there it was a better state to carry in than my home state of Texas. Shortly after Texas started making it easier and more affordable to get a CHL, and eventually we went to open carry and "LTC". My how the tables have turned... I hope Ron DeSantis fixes all of it.
Won't be easy with what the left elected here with the help of outside meddlers.
 
I’ve lived in Fla. since ‘72. I never once noticed anyone open carry before ‘87. Or if I saw it I thought nothing of it. So I don’t see the problem. Gangs and criminals were just as rampant then as now.

One difference between the 1A and the 2A is the 1A specifically says “Congress shall make no law...” which seems to allow States to do so. The 1A says “...shall not be infringed,” Period. By any branch of government.

You kind of beat me to it, so I'll just say " "same here." I grew up in Florida. Lived there from 1973-2005. I never. ever. saw anyone carrying a gun. Never.

Even here in Alaska, where we do have Constitutional carry, in the 13.5 years I've lived here, I have seen exactly... five people carrying a gun in town. (4 open carrying and the fifth was just doing a poor job of concealed carry.)
 
Idealistically, Constitutional carry should be a thing, which includes allowing open carry anywhere -- although I would consider it inadvisable to do so in most everyday situations, because it tells potential bad guys who to disarm or shoot first. So in an ideal America, where the people don't trust the government to regulate their rights, adults could carry as they please.

But pragmatically, in actual America as it is today, with its "changing demographics", and the number of pharmaceutically-mind-altered nutcases, and all the felon gangbangers and wannabes... Well, I don't want a good 50% of people out there to be armed. I can't trust their decision-making. You shouldn't either.

So, whereas, on the one hand -- the government is more-or-less controlled, behind the scenes, by malicious forces at the levers of power, doing their utmost to install every form of tyranny... on the other hand -- half the people out there are effing stupid and nuts, or just scumbags who I'd prefer NOT be armed.

What to do? Well, maybe the licensing requirements, as they are, are the best compromise.
 
I would just like to be able to ride a motorcycle here, and have no concerns about what the wind is doing to my clothing as it concerns what is on my belt. That way, there would be no question as to if I am in violation of the law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top