FL: Bill introduced to decriminalize breif glipses of CC weapons

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by UtiPossidetis, Jan 31, 2018.

  1. UtiPossidetis

    UtiPossidetis American

    3,173
    244
    63
    Under a proposal advanced in the state House this week, Floridians with a concealed carry license wouldn’t be criminally liable if their firearm is temporarily displayed.

    "Weapons and Firearms; Removes statement of applicability relating to certain violations of carrying concealed weapon or firearm; reduces penalties applicable to person licensed to carry concealed weapon or firearm for first or second violation of specified provisions relating to openly carrying weapons; provides that person licensed to carry concealed weapon or firearm does not violate certain provisions if firearm is temporarily & openly displayed."

    The measure, HB 39, sped through the House Criminal Justice Sub-Committee Monday 9-4 with the sponsor of the bill arguing it is needed to keep well-meaning gun owners from being prosecuted — but made clear it is not an open carry proposal.

    https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2018/00039
     
  2. Suburbbus

    Suburbbus Well-Known Member

    2,090
    32
    48
    I thought that something like this had already been passed in Florida.
     
    AtlPhilip likes this.

  3. UtiPossidetis

    UtiPossidetis American

    3,173
    244
    63
    Apparently not.

    1/29/2018 House • Favorable by Criminal Justice Subcommittee; YEAS 9 NAYS 4
    • Now in Judiciary Committee
     
  4. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    63
    48
    790.053 Open Carrying of Weapons.—
    (1) Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device. 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.
    (2) A person may openly carry, for purposes of lawful self-defense:
    (a) A self-defense chemical spray.
    (b) A nonlethal stun gun or dart-firing stun gun or other nonlethal electric weapon or device that is designed solely for defensive purposes.
    (3) Any person violating this section commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
    History.—s. 1, ch. 87-537; s. 173, ch. 91-224; s. 3, ch. 97-72; s. 1205, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2006-298; s. 1, ch. 2011-145.​

    I guess more clarification was needed.
     
    AtlPhilip likes this.
  5. Glockenator

    Glockenator Active Member

    847
    120
    43
    Me too. I stopped worrying a couple of years ago about accidentally printing, which used to be a crime.

    I'm too lazy to compare the current law and this new bill. Trying to pretend to be a lawyer and understand legal-speak, designed by stupid or sorry politicians, with the intent of giving cops having a bad day the ability to nail anyone who they don't like, gets old for me.
     
  6. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    63
    48
    HB 39
    CODING: Words in gray are deletions; words in bold are additions.

    790.053 Open carrying of weapons.—
    (1) Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device. 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.
    (2) A person may openly carry, for purposes of lawful self-defense:
    (a) A self-defense chemical spray.
    (b) A nonlethal stun gun or dart firing stun gun or other nonlethal electric weapon or device that is designed solely for defensive purposes.​
    (3)
    (a) A Any person violating this section who is not licensed under s. 790.06 commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
    (b) A person violating this section who is licensed under s. 790.06 commits:
    1. A noncriminal violation with a penalty of:
    a. Twenty-five dollars, payable to the clerk of the court,for a first violation; or
    b. Five hundred dollars, payable to the clerk of court, for a second violation.

    2. A misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, for a third or subsequent violation.

    Copypasta of .PDF's is always a pain, I hope my formatting is underatandable
     
    POPATOP67 likes this.
  7. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    63
    48
    It appears that 'accidental exposure' penalties may be back on the table, which would be a step backwards.
     
  8. Glockenator

    Glockenator Active Member

    847
    120
    43
    ^^ That's better, and more understandable without searching and comparing. Thanks.

    According to my understanding, printing or accidental brief exposure haven't changed from the current law. But getting caught open-carrying went from a real crime to a very petty crime ($25 fine for 1st offense). What makes that confusing is that the part about accidental printing or brief exposure would be eliminated. Am I understanding the gist of this bill correctly?
     
  9. Taurus92

    Taurus92 Well-Known Member

    9,458
    112
    63
    I wonder if those carrying with an out of state license falls under 3(a) or 3(b)?
     
  10. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,831
    505
    113
    As long as it's brief....

    [​IMG]
     
  11. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    63
    48
    For those states with reciprocity, I would imagine 3(a).
     
  12. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,494
    600
    113
    There is nothing in current or proposed Florida law regarding printing (gun is concealed under a garment but it looks like you have a gun under there). It is completely legal, and won't be changed by the new bill if it becomes law.

    All provisions pertaining to "licensed under s. 790.06" should cover all persons legally carrying, regardless of reciprocal state they are licensed in.

    This possy-footing around open carry makes me sick. They should honor liberty and just make it legal.

    When I visit Florida I will openly wear my enclosed pistol-shaped holster containing nothing but a spare loaded magazine (to preserve state preemption). My pistol will be in my fanny pack, probably with a button pinned on it stating I am armed.

    They can't take away my First Amendment Rights.

    And since I am a member of Florida Carry, if the police violate my rights for legally "advertising", I will sue.
     
  13. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    63
    48
    I don't think it's anything about printing...
    What worries me is the elimination of language pertaining to "brief exposure" in a non-threatening manner.
    Didn't FLA work hard enough to get that included??
     
    POPATOP67 likes this.
  14. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,494
    600
    113
    Who knows if that will be put back in at some point in the bill? It may have been taken out on purpose to stir things up to cause an open door to get real open carry when the fines hit the fan. Or it could just be taken out in order to gin up more revenue for the state.

    Florida politics is so dirty, I just don't know which one.

     
  15. Taurus92

    Taurus92 Well-Known Member

    9,458
    112
    63
    Kind of how I read it too. So, straight to the:
    and the
     
  16. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Looks perfectly understandable, but now I am confused. Accidental and brief exposure is now no differently treated than flashing your gun at somebody and saying, "You got a problem, a-hole?"

    Any exposure for any reason is now $25 fine the first time, $500 fine the second time, and jail the third time.

    Wind blows your jacket up (who wears a jacket in Florida???), pay $25. If it happens again, $500, and so on . . .
     
  17. Taurus92

    Taurus92 Well-Known Member

    9,458
    112
    63
    Not a jacket. In Fla, it would be a light weight button-up shirt easily blown in the wind.
     
  18. Glockenator

    Glockenator Active Member

    847
    120
    43
    It's pretty bad when laws are written such as to be confusing even to lawyers. But that is probably intentional.
     
  19. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,622
    1,707
    113
    There were no fines, penalties or jail time associated with "brief exposure" in the past. FS 790.053 currently reads: http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2017/790.053
    HB 39 will provide for fines and jail time for "brief exposure" if it passes. And the five reps associated with the bill are all republicans. WTF? This needs to die a quick death. I'm sure Marion Hammer is all over this. :popcorn: