Here's your chance..

I see your response as being that of one that doesn't look for solutions to problems/issues but is a critic of everything that you don't like while lauding those things you do like.

 

IRONY

 

Same probable cause.

 

I'm not following your logic here because if they had probable cause because you need a permit to carry then they would also still have probable cause because some people aren't allowed to carry.

 

My logic is simple: Before this new law, the officer, if informed or observes that someone has a concealed firearm, had probable cause to approach someone to inquire if they had a concealed carry license, since having a concealed firearm and no license was an automatic felony. Now, there is no license required and no probable cause to approach.

 

Then buy that very same logic someone who has a gun that they are not entitled to own is also committing a felony.

If you are arguing they had probable cause because a license is required you can also argue that they have probable cause because not everyone has the right to carry a gun

 

Actually, I believe more people should carry the tools necessary for self preservation. I would like to see everyone carry.

 

I'm not talking about logic, I'm talking about the law. Per posts #230, 249, & 258, these posters have informed me that with the new law, there is no probable cause to approach someone who has a concealed firearm.

I started asking questions in this thread to get some clarification about the new law and it seems that there are multiple interpretations as to what it means. It would have been nice if these had been hashed out before it passed.

 

It probably is .

I'm just pointing out that you were saying that before this law was passed it was illegal to carry without a permit and if an officer spotted a gun that that was enough to demand the ID

This law has not changed one iota of the fact that it is illegal for certain people to have guns.

So if before they thought people might be carrying illegally what's to stop them from thinking that people might be possessing and carrying illegally?

They have just as much probable cause now as they did before.

And if someone is actually concealing a gun it's not going to be seen because it's concealed.

 

What I posted has nothing to do with the new law. Nothing has changed with regards to that. Police must have reasonable suspicion that a specific crime is afoot before they can compel anyone to produce ID. That was the case before the new law, and it's the case now.

In Florida, open carry is illegal unless you are engaged in fishing or hunting, or traveling to or from fishing or hunting. Silly, I know. I have seen a guy walking down Ft Meyers beach with an AR-15 and a fishing pole. Cops did nothing but watch.

 

I do not believe that to be the case. Exercising your 5th amendment right to remain silent cannot be escalated to reasonable suspicion of a crime. Police must have reasonable suspicion to legally detain and ID you. You have no duty or obligation to comply, answer any questions, or provide ID, unless you are legally detained.

By your logic, if I understand it correctly, a cop could say that since many gang members are black, that he is justified in stopping and questioning any black person he encounters, to be sure they aren't a gang member.

 

I believe your statement is the craziest thing I ever heard.

Yeah, let give everyone guns, including angry, crazy, dumb, stupid, insane, mentally ill, and strongly biased people. Lets give everyone the tools with which they can kill anyone they think are a threat to them, such as people that have opposite religions, opposite cultures, opposite values, opposite points of view, opposite colors of skin, and opposite genders and let them all go "at it" and let the strongest win. In the process, this to include the killing of innocent children, mothers, parents, care-givers, teachers, service people, etc. that may get in the way or are thought to be part of the problem.

Wow, wow, and wow a thousand times. Pure anarchy is your view of what this nation should be, right.



I am suddenly realizing that this problem is far greater than even the worst fears that have been expressed. This statement of yours suggests that what you have inside of you is pure unadulturated fear and that you see no other way to defend yourself other than by arming yourself to the max and hope that you are better than whoever might be coming for you.

 

Gees, judging by your assumption of the human species it’s amazing knives aren’t enough to kill everyone off. Amazing how you must feel this way about yourself to have such an overreaching comment.

 

What I find interesting about the gun control crowd is that when one of them is getting robbed, stabbed, shot, or maimed, they call the police. And do you know why they call the police?

Because the police bring guns.

I keep a fire extinguisher in the closet too, for the same reason I keep a gun. The fire station is a good half hour away.

 

We've had "Constitutional Carry" (any legal gun owner can carry open or concealed without any permit or registration requirements... no waiting periods, magazine capacity limitations either) here for awhile. All is well. No negative changes at all that I know of.

TEXAS!!! WHERE FREEDOM LIVES!!!

 

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Live it, learn it, love it

 

The problem is that for every person saved by a policeman with a gun, in the U.S. there have been more than 10X that amount of people killed by someone that should not have had a gun in the first place.

Why you would use the fire extinguished example is beyond my ability to understand, given that I do not believe there have ever been people that have been killed by someone using a fire extinguisher to kill someone else.

 

What about any time a firearm is a deterrent to crime without any shots fired?

It happens often and is almost never reported.

The girl that just shot up a school in TN might be an example. The cops said she considered another target but decided on the school because the school was unprotected.

Edit- I'm sorry you didn't understand my fire analogy. The cops shop is right next to the fire station in my town and a good half hour's drive from my place. If there is a fire I'll likely get it put out with my fire extinguisher before the fire department shows up. So too, if somebody busts into my house I can likely use a firearm to convince them to leave me alone long before the cops answer the call.

 

Here are some FACTS that show that your way of thinking is not correct:

It is incredible to me how most everyone is ignoring the FACT that those that are carrying a gun are 5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not carrying a gun.

and here are over 30 studies that show that more guns does not mean more safety:

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows
More firearms do not keep people safe, hard numbers show. Why do so many Americans believe the opposite?

 

Perhaps because the number of guns in private ownership has more than doubled since the 1990s, whereas the violent crime rate is less than half in the same time frame? It's easy for people to make that correlation.

If a shopkeeper shoots a strong-arm robber, then he has ended a career of future victimization. So-called "gun deaths" go up by one, but strong-arm robberies go down by how ever many that robber would have committed during his career.

 

Yet you bring up Desantis damn near every post, giving him credit (or blame, really) for this new law, despite the fact that I've told you at least 5 times the idea and bill pre-date his term in office. Yes, he signed it, and perhaps he lobbied for it (I can't speak to that one way or the other), but until and unless the Legislature puts it on his desk, he can't do jackshit about it, which is what has happened for as long as I've been back in Florida, as I said... Until now.

My bringing up Biden was to point out that he is attempting to use the power of the pen to act as though he was the King of the USA, despite the fact that we don't have one of those. Florida doesn't either, and Governors cannot unilaterally make law.

It's called 'being prepared', and it's a little life-hack I learned in the Boy Scouts when I was a teenager. That is also the first place I learned to shoot, though they only let us use .22lr rimfires, which are the lowest powered rifles money can buy. Don't misunderstand me, they are still potentially lethal, as are all firearms, but it would not be my first choice if I had some 400 lb. meathead who decided that he wants my stuff and is more than happy to kill me to get it.

Then you are stupid. Cook long enough, and something is going to catch on fire. Having an extinguisher on hand can make the difference between needing to call Uber-eats for a plan-b meal, and a giant mess in the kitchen, vs. burning your entire house down, and possibly killing someone in the process.

Now that is funny. I can't even change my of f-ing underwear without help, and because I spent so much time in the hospital not working, guess what... I don't qualify for disability! Government doesn't help people, at least not very many. Oh, they talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk, and the talking is only about getting and keeping power.

How many people have been lifted out of poverty from the countless trillions we've spent trying to fix that? Few to none. All government does in the 21st century is use our own money to buy votes, mostly for the democratic party from blacks, latinos (though that is turning fast, and my own latina wife despises the dems), and illegal aliens, who despite it being illegal, can and do vote, probably in vast but unknowable numbers.

Why? Because we don't require people to prove they are citizens, we just take their word for it when they register.

How many crimes do the police stop? More than zero, but usually by the time they show up, it's too late..

They use traffic stops as an excuse to search cars, not to enhance safety. Social security helps people, but only if they live long enough. And the same amount of money invested in even a conservative, safe investment would give people a much greater return, more money to live on in retirement, and something to leave to their kids if they die at 64 years, 364 days of age. The way it is now if that happens, they get NOTHING. It's forfeit, I suppose they consider it a punishment for the crime of dying too young.

I pay to educate total strangers kids, despite having none of my own, and I get indoctrinated communists out of the deal, who think freedom of speech is fascist.

I respect the hell out of our Founders, they were genuises in how they setup this country, basically as a do as you will libertarian place where people are to be left alone. But those days are long gone, and most of what they do these days is straight up Unconstitutional on it's face.

No, we don't need to feed it, we need to starve it, and reduce it to a fraction of it's size. The feds should do little more than run a strong military, protect our borders (which they are failing to do, ON PURPOSE!), running the Federal Courts, and the few other things specifically mentioned in the Constitution. In fact, what you and so many don't seem to realize, like, or care about, is that if the Constitution doesn't explicitly say that .gov has the authority to do x, y, or z, it means they CANNOT do it without Amending it, which hasn't been done (or even attempted) since 1992, and that was just restricting Congressional raises they give themselves into going into effect until the next Congress starts.

I see it as at least six members who subscribe the the originalist (aka textualist) theory of Constitutional Law, which seems to me to be the only rational way to deal with it. If you see the Constitution itself as 'leaning to the right', there is your biggest problem. We do need to use the Amendment process more often (as the biggest example, we need an amendment that authorizes the US to have an Air Force, and do not have one), but it's a document that creates a nation of free persons, but freedom isn't free and comes with responsibilities, among those are feeding, housing, and clothing yourself, and not expecting total strangers to be forced to do so at the business end of a gun.

I EXPECT the USSC to have 9 originalists on it now, and for all time. Enforcing that document, as written and amended, is their primary and most important job by far.

You're damn right I'm in it for myself! I've got 99 problems, and paying your bills ain't one of them. I am entitled to live my life as a free person, free of government interference, able to speak my mind as I see fit, able to defend myself from aggression in any manner I choose, as long as it's proportionate and necessary, able to be free in my own home, which is my castle after all, without worrying about some government representative showing up demanding to inspect my property to make sure I'm doing what they think I ought to be doing.

As long as I'm not hurting anyone (at least without just cause, or permission, like in the case of a mutually agreed upon boxing match), what I do is nobody's business, and what anyone else does is not mine. That is the nation our Founders intended, but it is not what we have now, and those wise men would be rolling over in their graves if they saw what had become of their intentions.

PS... Please learn to use the quote function properly, responding to inline comments like you've been making recently is a PITA.

 

Oh, that how come you want to take people's guns away or limit people'searthy possessions?

The gun control freaks don't sound like they are just in it for my sake. Not at all, they want to exchange both MY security and MY property rights for their perception of safety. Very selfish, these control types.

 

What is likely to happen next when a cop asks a felon with a concealed gun to hand over his papers?

 

Few of us live in Philly where gang bangers shoot each other in your linked study. Few of us engage in criminal activity in Philly so that study is quite irrelevant.

 

That answer sounds more like an excuse to support your thinking. To begin with, the way people think is the same everywhere, second of all, it is pure common sense that if there is an assault and you have a weapon, you will be targeted before the people with no guns.

Lastly, what about the other link I gave. It is based on 30 different studies.

Yeah, ignore them because they do not fit YOUR narrative.