Here's your chance..

"We" in this case includes groups like Florida Carry, of which I am a member, and others, most of which I am not. I have not been a very active participant in the process, but I have spoken to my legislator, or an aide, a time or three about the matter. It's not about politics, except to the extent that hoplophobes like yourself make it so, it's about our right to live our lives unmolested, and not to require us to carry expensive permission slips to exercise a birthright. Which I've explained to you now at least three times.

I consider it the right thing to do for all humans, for it is a human right we are discussing, and even those who don't wish to exercise it do have that right, and circumstances may make them change their minds. Imagine a relative of yours is getting their life threatened by an ex-lover, spouse, coworker, or even a relative stranger. Further imagine that said relative believes that person actually intends to do them harm, and as a result, wants to be armed just in case.

The old way, they would have to make an appointment at the Dept. of Ag for an application, after completing a class if required (for vets and LEOs, it is not), and fingerprinting, that may or may not be provided at all locations. Then after submitting all of that, along with a check for over $100, which for many of us is real money, waiting for a month, two, three, or six. All for a piece of paper they are qualified for, and the paper is nothing but a formality, but one that may make the difference between life and death.

Maybe if you absorb that, you might start understanding.

 

We didn't have registration before, so how would this fix something which didn't exist?

The concealed carry class is useful, mostly in the sense that is educated people of gun laws. When I took the class, the instructor said 50% of the people who take the class, never carry because they realize how much responsibility comes with. Now we are going to have lot of ignorant and untrained gun carriers out there. And no, Miami back alleys do not compare to rural Vermont in any way, shape or form.

Can you still get carry permits after this goes into effect? The permit does make it easier for legal owners to purchase guns (no waiting).

 

@Lucky1knows

I don’t have time to restructure your formats. But let’s just establish who is making things up here. You are. Here is the fee schedule for FL carry permits. The actual schedule, not your unsubstantiated incorrect opinion.



The initial cost for a permit is $119. That does not include another $20-50 for a class and another possible $20-$30 range fee.

Are you making things up or just can’t report facts about your own freaking state?

I have little interest in debating constitutional law and SC rulings etc. with someone who can’t accurately access a fee in their own state.

My patience for the willfully ignorant is spent.

 

Over the long term, I don't think it will impact the violent crime rate much in either direction.

 

IMO, police should not stop anyone unless they are clearly committing a felony. Criminals carrying guns is not a problem unless they use them to commit a crime.
An armed public does not need proactive policing to keep the peace.

 

You say it's not a political issue, but you keep bringing up Ronny D, who is only peripherally related to this insofar as he is the one who signed the bill.

Why are you doing that, despite having been told that multiple times?

 

Technically, you are correct that one does not need a permit to carry in FL. under House Bill 543.
However, my point remains.

 

Change registration to permits. Did you have permits before? If so, you won't need them now.
According to what I've read, the bill designates for lawfully owned guns.

My point remains that this legislation does not make it easier for criminals to carry guns, as Lucky1knows has wrongly asserted. It makes it easier for the lawful to carry guns.

Btw, you make a good point by explaining your own experience.

 

It was easy before, so what was the point? Now police have to run a criminal check on everyone, including lawful owners just to make sure the people they deal with are not carrying illegally. Before all that was needed was the license, which criminals would fail to produce.

 

3) Your number 3 above is convincing that the permit process might be about collecting fees and does little to teach. Am I correct?

 

The carrier will still have to have a valid ID on them to carry. Those that are stopped by the police and don't have an ID will face the consequences. The valid ID in this case acts much like a gun permit. Felons/criminals will then be checked, and will busted for having their guns illegally.

 

It does not act as a gun permit. IF you have gun permit, it means your criminal background has already been cleared, but anyone can have a driver license, and now they have to run your ID to clear you, so even law abiding gun owners will now have to submit to be treated like a criminal just for carrying a gun.

 

Sure appears that way. It was probably to appease the anti gun nuts at some point. Probably in 1987 when shall issue carry was pioneered in Florida.

 

You have the presumption of innocence, the right to remain silent, and the right to be secure against unreasonable searches. You don't have to prove ANYTHING. THEY have to prove it. And you don't have to (and shouldn't) cooperate in their investigation to incriminate you.

The quoted part of the article ONLY applies if you have been lawfully and involuntarily detained, which means they must already have reasonable suspicion that you have committed a specific crime. Not just because you are carrying a firearm. You do not have to disclose anything, or cooperate in any way with an officer during a voluntary contact.

 

Hmm...OK previously if a cop spotted a guy with a gun grip sticking out of his shirt he could stop him and question him, and it sounds like you are saying that won't be possible now.

 

He can approach him and ask questions, just like anyone can approach anyone else in public. The guy doesn't have to answer any questions (5A), or produce any ID (4A), and can simply walk away. The cop would have to lawfully detain him to force him to produce ID in association with the firearm. A lawful detention requires the cop have reasonable and articulable suspicion that a specific crime has been, or is being committed.

 

And the cop on the beat is going to be able to tell who has lost their lost their rights and who hasn't...how exactly? Before, someone comes up to a cop and tells them such and such description in this store has a gun, I saw the handle sticking out of their pants. The cop would approach the person to see if they had a concealed carry. Now you are saying the cops can't approach anyone, so we don't know unless the person decides to use the weapon. Is this law making it easier or more difficult for criminals?

 

Hmmm I think I'd prefer for my criminals not to be armed, but that's me. Waiting until the criminal actually commits a crime with a gun to find out if he's a lawful gun owner or not doesn't seem to be very efficient. Under the old CCL law, a cop could quickly discern who the good guy with the gun and who was the bad guy fairly quickly. Now he is not going to know until the bullets start flying.

 

Right. A person with a CCL could just show it and be on his way, and NOT having one was probable cause by itself. Now someone who doesn't want to show their ID can also just walk away unless the cop has a specific "reasonable and articulable suspicion that a specific crime has been, or is being committed."

 

I'm not sure WTF a 'leader play' is, but as I have repeatedly told you, this has been in the works for far longer than Desantis has been our governor, so it is you that is using it to make political hay against a politician you fear might dethrone your village idiot who tries to shake hands with ghosts!!!

No, I do not mean Republicans, as it is a non-partisan issue, and if you believe in the USA, and the Constitution, you would be cheering this on as it restores, if only slightly, our fundamental god given rights that our founders intended us to have in perpetuity, or at least until a large enough majority existed to nullify the 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments.

I am NOT, repeat NOT a spokesman for Florida Carry, I can only speak as a minor member who watches and listens far more than I actively participate, but they have been working on getting 'constitutional carry' for many years at this point. This bill went part, but only part of the way. Permitless concealed carry is nice, and since I don't travel much, and my mother, who lived in NC is now deceased, so I have little reason to travel outside the State, it's going to save me the money and hassle of having to renew my permit every 7 years.

So what, you say, it's only whatever the price is now (all together, between the (optional for me) class, fingerprinting, and application fees, it was over $200 my first time, I do not remember what my last renewal was, as I think it happened in between my surgeries where my memory is *****, but how would you feel if we required yourself to get such a license to post your opinions here at PF?

Or even better, what if we charged the same fee to register to vote?

Now all of a sudden it's a different story, now, isn't it?

You think members of the black community, looking to protect themselves from gangbangers and drug dealers in their neighborhoods do so for partisan GOP reasons? How about a woman, who has been raped, and threated by her ex-husband that the next time he sees her, he's going to kill her? You think that is partisan? Or a member of the LGBT community who has been consistently bullied and threatened by his scumbag redneck neighbors? You seriously think all those people want to carry a firearm outside of their home without having to wait months and months for some government lackey who works 3 minutes a day and fscks off the other 7 hours and 57 minutes doing nothing, knowing he is untouchable because the union will come to his rescue?

At any rate, I recommend you read this so you can actually (maybe) understand the fundamental legal issues at play. You just might learn something.

 

Not exactly. A person who is questioned during a "voluntary contact" can ALWAYS refuse to answer any questions and simply walk away. That has always been the case. Exercising your constitutional rights by bearing a firearm (2A), refusing to answer questions (5A), or refusing to produce documents (4A) cannot be elevated to reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

Only after the officer has reasonable suspicion that a specific crime has been, or is being committed, can he lawfully detain you and compel you to produce ID by force. Your refusal to cooperate with him cannot be elevated to reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot.

 

That above explanation sounds very feasible. T/Y
I know in CA. the anti-gun Democrats have made it almost impossible to carry. However, a Supreme Court ruling might have helped...
It's doubtful that the law will ever become more lax here with Democrats in power.

California moves to fortify concealed carry limits after high court invalidates 'good cause' rule - POLITICO

 

Bullshit. You have the right to remain silent, and you have the right to not provide any information which may tend to incriminate yourself. The best advice you can ever get is don't talk to the police, ever, about anything, some would say even if you are the victim, but that might be problematic. Despite what that guy on the video said, you have no obligation to inform an officer that you are armed, and you have no obligation to tell them if they ask, though if you are asked, and choose to lie about it, that itself might get you jammed up.

And sure, cops can and do make up complete bullshit to either pull someone over if driving, or do something similar if on foot, but that doesn't change the fact that merely having a firearm on or about your person is not sufficient to be probable cause for a detainment or arrest, and the best advice you can get is pretend like you don't even see or hear them. I'm not saying be rude, or walk straight into them, or anything of that nature, simply continue about your business as though they hadn't said a word.

Everything I have just said is how the laws have worked for many years right here in Florida, which as a resident you should know. Anytime you go out in public you are literally surrounded by armed persons, most of them legal good guys, who you have nothing to fear from. Carry permit holders are statistically safer even than actual sworn law enforcement officers, and not by a small amount. You seem petrified about this, but for no reason, as nothing will change except the State's revenue is going to go down, which I am more than fine with. We need to keep it going down, down, down, and we need to completely eliminate property taxes, as it's nothing more than an extortion 'protection racket', just like the mob does to small business owners, to prevent them from stealing your property. But that's a whole different conversation.

I don't know if you were around back in '85-6 when the civilian concealed carry bills were first being debated and passed, but the same paranoid fantasies that you have evoked over and over again were said then, too. "There will be blood in the streets", they said, "Simple fender benders will escalate to shootouts" they said, and so much more.

And they were wrong.

Instead, what happened after Florida passed the civilian carry law was that homicides by firearm, not by firearm, and all other crimes have dropped by roughly 2/3rds, up until the time the pandemic spike happened. That was a major contributing factor to the increases in crime since then, but it was exacerbated by the 'defund the police' movement, DAs who stopped 'prosecuting the offenders' (with apologies to the Law & Order series), no cash bail, and other criminal friendly policies were enacted nationwide.

I don't know if we suffered a similar spike here in Florida, or even if that data is available yet, I haven't personally seen it. But I know, despite our reputation as the 'Gunshine State', I can only think of 2 mass shootings here, the school shooting by that crazy f&ck in S. Florida, and the Pulse nightclub, which was ruled to be an act of terrorism, and thus outside the realm of the day-to-day criminal justice system. Of course, the shooter was dead, so it's not like he was going to be sent to prison anyway. Unless they start putting the bodies of dead offenders in there, which now that I think of it, is not the worst idea I've ever heard. It will certainly provide people exposed to it a reason to never do another crime that will send them back to jail again!

Your irrational fear is just that... Irrational. And yes, it's about me, all the other people who won't be hassled about a permission slip, or required to spend the time, effort, and money it takes to get it done, and allows an otherwise qualified person to arm themselves immediately, so they may stand a chance if the person who just threatened to kill them decides to act on that threat. But your life will not change, your risk is not elevated above what it already is, and if you don't start nothing, with 99.999% of qualified carriers, won't be nothing.

Stop spreading misinformation, and stop being so whiney and terrified of things that don't go bump in the night. The people you have to worry about are the ones who are, have been, and will continue carrying a gun in public it's not even legal for them to possess. This legal change is not going to make bad guys who aren't already doing that start. The very idea is laughable.

 

Are you trying to bait me? We’re talking about the right to bear and self defense. I’m Not talking about going out and brandishing and shooting your gun in the air.

 

I would prefer a lot of things that will never be. It will always be easier for criminals to obtain guns than it is for you to buy groceries at a supermarket regardless of any gun control law including gun bans.

How would a cop "quickly discern who the good guy with the gun and who was the bad guy"?