Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-07-2012, 13:14   #61
rmodel65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunowner1 View Post
This shouldn't be turned in to an open carry/ concealed carry debate. The main point is this guy made no real attempt to conceal his firearm which is the law in the state of Florida.I hope he gets convicted so he learns a lesson. Another thing is the "he can't be a criminal cause he passed a bachground check." All that means is he isn't in the system.


wait you want him convicted for violating a statute that is repugnant to the constitution of the US and the sovereign state of Florida?

Last edited by rmodel65; 06-07-2012 at 13:15..
rmodel65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2012, 13:20   #62
rmodel65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by cowboy1964 View Post
Then take it the Supreme Court. That's what you do if you don't like a current law. A jury does not decide whether or not a particular law is Constitutional.

Sure looks like the holster/gun was well exposed to me. I don't care if he had no intent, the guy is an idiot. Maybe he will take his responsibilities more seriously now.


I lol'd in fact that is exactly what they do... I dont live in Florida but I do live 45 mins across the border in GA this is what our state has to say about judging laws...

http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/GAConstitution.pdf

Quote:
Paragraph XI. Right to trial by jury; number of jurors; selection and compensation
of jurors. (a) The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate , except that the court shall
render judgment without the verdict of a jury in all civil cases where no issuable defense is
filed and where a jury is not demanded in writing by either party. In criminal cases, the
defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be the
judges of the law and the facts
.

The right to judge the law has been enshrined in our judicial system since William Penn was found not guilty for violating a law he most certainty violated
rmodel65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2012, 13:29   #63
Redheadhunter21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 570
Ok maybe neglectful is the wrong word, but careless would also be applicable as far as I'm concerned in this video.
I agree with what statue you posted but there is also this one in Florida law
Also noted this may not have been part of revisions but still current

790.10* Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.--If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Last edited by Redheadhunter21; 06-07-2012 at 13:31..
Redheadhunter21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2012, 14:26   #64
PAGunner
Senior Member
 
PAGunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sunny South Florida
Posts: 6,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmodel65 View Post
wait you want him convicted for violating a statute that is repugnant to the constitution of the US and the sovereign state of Florida?
That is the problem with the pro2a crowd. We throw each other under the bus all the time. You should have seen the Zimmerman thread when this first went down. With friends like many on this forum, who needs enemies?

Remember the saying, united we stand and divided we fall, lots of weak minded people on our side who are easily manipulated by the nanny staters. The gun grabbers aren't our biggest problem, we're (pro-2a, pro constitution crowd) our own worst enemy.
__________________
M&P 40 CORE, M&P FS 40, M&P 40c, M&P 40 Shield
DDM4V1 LW, DDM4V5 LW, SCAR 17s, VEPR 12
PAGunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2012, 14:39   #65
PimpStick
Senior Member
 
PimpStick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Naptown & Vegas
Posts: 1,079


Quote:
Originally Posted by rvrctyrngr View Post
Second case of this we've been involved with in the last 6mos. First one was dismissed with prejudice.

Seems that whole 'briefly' thing isn't quite the solution the legislators thought it would be.

http://www.allnineyards.com/
Anyone know who the prosecuting atty is? Let's all deluge him with emails and letters expressing our thoughts in a show of our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights. This is becoming ludicrous.

It's all about people's rights. "BUT..." That's how it always starts.

Sometimes I'm glad I live in Indiana, minus the weather...
__________________
-CCW: SA XDs .45. Home Defense: Glock 29 and Bushmaster M4A3.
-Current G's: 19, 23c, 26, 27, 29, 36, 37 & 38 (Gen 3s)
-Past GLOCKs: 30, 37
"The green ones make me horny."
PimpStick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2012, 14:40   #66
DScottHewitt
EMT-B
 
DScottHewitt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Waynesboro, VA
Posts: 29,252
Send a message via AIM to DScottHewitt Send a message via Yahoo to DScottHewitt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misty02 View Post
It can be neglectfully, it can be intentional, what it cannot be is more than “briefly”. Briefly is not defined (yet).
That is the biggest problem with unclear laws. Who decides how brief briefly IS?!?!?


No wonder people get into trouble. Here in Virginia, if it gets exposed, you went from concealed carry to open carry. No big deal. {As long as you got the card for concealed.....}
__________________
Dear Lord, Thank You for guiding me straight and true through the many obstacles in my path. Thank You for any good that I may have done, I'm so sorry about the bad.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
DScottHewitt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2012, 14:45   #67
PimpStick
Senior Member
 
PimpStick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Naptown & Vegas
Posts: 1,079


Quote:
Originally Posted by rmodel65 View Post
I lol'd in fact that is exactly what they do... I dont live in Florida but I do live 45 mins across the border in GA this is what our state has to say about judging laws...

http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/GAConstitution.pdf




The right to judge the law has been enshrined in our judicial system since William Penn was found not guilty for violating a law he most certainty violated
Here in Indiana, Jury Nullification is the absolute RIGHT of the Jury. Regardless of Constitutional issues, if a Jury in Indiana believes a person is guilty, they may still acquit using Jury nullification.

Article I, Section 19 of the Indiana Constitution provides “In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.”

Blaker v. State, 130 Ind. 203 (1892). On appellate review the Supreme Court approved the instruction but admonished, “the Constitution gives to juries in criminal cases the right to determine the law as well as the facts."
__________________
-CCW: SA XDs .45. Home Defense: Glock 29 and Bushmaster M4A3.
-Current G's: 19, 23c, 26, 27, 29, 36, 37 & 38 (Gen 3s)
-Past GLOCKs: 30, 37
"The green ones make me horny."
PimpStick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2012, 17:49   #68
Bruce M
Senior Member
 
Bruce M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S FL
Posts: 22,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by PAGunner View Post
As many as anyone else has on this forum of someone walking down the street minding his own business not breaking any laws (the law about printing or accidentally exposing your firearm was changed last year to avoid situations like this).

..t.
I am guessing then that means zero. I have no doubt that the mere armed presence of some here would cause even the most hardened criminal to become incontinent with fear by their presence. But evidentally one or more of the officers there felt they were not individually fleet enough of foot, strong enough of back or quick enough of hand; that they felt the possibility of a hostile crowd gathering, that they guessed that their firearms skills were not quite good enough to guarantee a quick instantly incapacitating hit with a handgun, or maybe they just felt that based on past experience that a bad guy was less likely to choose to fight when he was outnumbered. But of course even a handful of officers against one armed man does not always end well.
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/01/19...urder-warrant/

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmodel65 View Post
wait you want him convicted for violating a statute that is repugnant to the constitution of the US and the sovereign state of Florida?
Any of several Legislators who also happen to be attorneys with some reasonable experience in Consitutional issues and any of several others with susbstantial resumes regarding the Constitution do not seem to think the statute is "repugnant." Odd as it may seem some do not think the Second Amendment allows one to carry a firearm openly in an urban area causing people lawfully there to be alarmed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PAGunner View Post
That is the problem with the pro2a crowd. We throw each other under the bus all the time. You should have seen the Zimmerman thread when this first went down. With friends like many on this forum, who needs enemies?

....
Some of us believe that supporting actions that are at best marginal and show poor decision making and at worst are violations of the law do nothing to help Second Amendment rights at all and may help reinforce views held by the opposing side that anyone who chooses to carry a gun cannot be trusted to make solid decisions.
__________________
Bruce
I never talked to anyone who had to fire their gun who said "I wished I had the smaller gun and fewer rounds with me" Just because you find a hundred people who agree with you on the internet does not mean you're right.
Bruce M is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2012, 19:27   #69
rmodel65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce M View Post


Any of several Legislators who also happen to be attorneys with some reasonable experience in Consitutional issues and any of several others with susbstantial resumes regarding the Constitution do not seem to think the statute is "repugnant." Odd as it may seem some do not think the Second Amendment allows one to carry a firearm openly in an urban area causing people lawfully there to be alarmed.


Some of us believe that supporting actions that are at best marginal and show poor decision making and at worst are violations of the law do nothing to help Second Amendment rights at all and may help reinforce views held by the opposing side that anyone who chooses to carry a gun cannot be trusted to make solid decisions.

They might not...but it was originally understood that any ban on carrying Openly is null and void...Nunn Vs GA was cited in the Heller decision

In Nunn v. State, 1Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right:


Quote:
“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”
from Nunn V GA

Quote:
We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void; and that, as the defendant has been indicted and convicted for carrying a pistol, without charging that it was done in a concealed manner, under that portion of the statute which entirely forbids its use, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the proceeding quashed.

Last edited by rmodel65; 06-07-2012 at 19:29..
rmodel65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2012, 04:58   #70
Misty02
Senior Member
 
Misty02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redheadhunter21 View Post
Ok maybe neglectful is the wrong word, but careless would also be applicable as far as I'm concerned in this video.
I agree with what statue you posted but there is also this one in Florida law
Also noted this may not have been part of revisions but still current

790.10* Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.--If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
He may have been careless in his concealed method but he was not carrying or exhibiting the firearm (itself) in a careless manner, which is what that quoted statute applies to. It appears the grip was covered by the shirt; however, the holster was showing.

I’ve carried my LCP (once so far) in this


It was clipped to my skirt’s waistband and not covered at all. Technically there is absolutely no difference; I was showing my holster (entirely) at all times. The only difference being that mine may not be recognized by the general public as a holster containing a firearm.


.
__________________


"In making tactical dispositions, the highest pitch you can attain is to conceal them." - Sun Tzu

Outpost Member #69
Misty02 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2012, 05:07   #71
Misty02
Senior Member
 
Misty02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by DScottHewitt View Post
That is the biggest problem with unclear laws. Who decides how brief briefly IS?!?!?


No wonder people get into trouble. Here in Virginia, if it gets exposed, you went from concealed carry to open carry. No big deal. {As long as you got the card for concealed.....}
Indeed! The way this statute is worded allows for the intentional but brief display when moving your firearm from your holster to a lockbox and the like. I don’t particularly like laws that I don’t know if I broke until after the fact, absence of definition of “brief” does just that. Brief can be the second it takes to go from the holster to the lockbox, bending over and inadvertently exposing your firearm (which a person may notice immediately or a few minutes after), etc. A judge or jury get to define it, likely not consistently, after you’ve spent a few thousands in legal fees.

One of the reasons I’m receptive to OC, in spite not being interested in OC myself.

.
__________________


"In making tactical dispositions, the highest pitch you can attain is to conceal them." - Sun Tzu

Outpost Member #69
Misty02 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2012, 07:28   #72
redbaron007
Lifetime Membership
A Nice Prick!
 
redbaron007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southwest Missouri
Posts: 6,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misty02 View Post
Indeed! The way this statute is worded allows for the intentional but brief display when moving your firearm from your holster to a lockbox and the like. I don’t particularly like laws that I don’t know if I broke until after the fact, absence of definition of “brief” does just that. Brief can be the second it takes to go from the holster to the lockbox, bending over and inadvertently exposing your firearm (which a person may notice immediately or a few minutes after), etc. A judge or jury get to define it, likely not consistently, after you’ve spent a few thousands in legal fees.

One of the reasons I’m receptive to OC, in spite not being interested in OC myself.

.
I like your Sneaky Pete Holster!

As to the definition on brief...I hate it. As you said, it not decided until your arrested, several $$$ spent for a judge/jury to decide what it is for that day.

They just passed a law this year here in MO that allows accidental displaying of a firearm while CCW. It isn't so bad, because OC is ok in the state. The problem is, a municipality/incorporated area can place restrictions in it. If an area doesn't restrict it, then accidental display is not much af an issue; however, in a place like St Louis and other cities that do prevent OC, this door of 'what is accidental/brief display' mean?

I hate undefined 'terms' in the laws.



red
__________________
TopGun *357sig* Club - #2632
The 10 Ring #00720

R.I.P. Cajunator® ~ R.I.P. JTull7
R.I.P. Mullah (aka El_Ron1) ~ R.I.P. GioaJack ~ R.I.P. Okie
redbaron007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2012, 07:55   #73
FL Airedale
Dog Breath
 
FL Airedale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 1,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron007 View Post
As to the definition on brief...I hate it. As you said, it not decided until your arrested, several $$$ spent for a judge/jury to decide what it is for that day........

I hate undefined 'terms' in the laws.
A clever attorney may move for dismissal because the law doesn't define "brief".

I really hope this guy does get this case dismissed. If not, I hope he is found not guilty.

His attorney, Ashley Minton, is in private practice. That's a good sign. Public defenders are often overwhelmed with too many cases and can't offer as good a defense.

Since the police report says he wasn't attempting to conceal the weapon, and the police officers are almost certainly going to testify to the same thing, challenging the law may be the better course of action.
__________________
Life Member - NRA, GOA,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
.
I used to be a people person but people ruined that for me.
FL Airedale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2012, 08:02   #74
valvestem
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Maine
Posts: 60
Only in America.
valvestem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2012, 09:44   #75
Jon_R
Silver Membership
Senior Member
 
Jon_R's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 4,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misty02 View Post
Well, that too, but a tad less convincing without the fishing equipment.

.
He was on his way to camping..... Technically what equipment do you need to camp. Laying on the ground in a field can be camping. Anyone busted for open carrying in FL feel free to use that one. I was on my way to the woods to lean against a tree aka camping....
Jon_R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2012, 09:58   #76
Jon_R
Silver Membership
Senior Member
 
Jon_R's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 4,724
The wording from FS 790.001 Definitions in case anyone wants to actually see it in all its glory.

(2) “Concealed firearm” means any firearm, as defined in subsection (6), which is carried on or about a person in such a manner as to conceal the firearm from the ordinary sight of another person.

IMO IMO IMO

Seeing the bottom of an enclosed holster meaning you do not see a gun is concealed. Laying on the ground to see "up" the holster seeing a gun muzzle barrel would not be ordinary sight. Seeing the outline of the gun without actually seeing gun is concealed from ordinary sight. Might mean nothing in this particular case if the officer saw actual firearm but I hold that there is no printing in FL and a holster is not a firearm.

Of course that is IMO.
Jon_R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2012, 10:19   #77
glockurai
Senior Member
 
glockurai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 582
It appears this individual was using this gun as a status symbol. It is a good arrest since it was not an accidental exposure. For it to be an accidental exposure you have to be carrying concealed to begin with. It is hard to believe that this individual was not aware that his gun was visible. Anyone who believes otherwise is lying to themselves.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
__________________
Proper prior planning prevents piss poor performance.
glockurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2012, 11:30   #78
Jon_R
Silver Membership
Senior Member
 
Jon_R's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 4,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by glockurai View Post
It appears this individual was using this gun as a status symbol. It is a good arrest since it was not an accidental exposure. For it to be an accidental exposure you have to be carrying concealed to begin with. It is hard to believe that this individual was not aware that his gun was visible. Anyone who believes otherwise is lying to themselves.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
I wonder what the evidence against him will be other than officer testimony? Soon as he was ordered to put his hands up or at least once he was forced to the ground if it was concealed from ordinary sight or not can't be used as it was not no longer his choice. You should not be expected to maintain concealment when forced to do unnatural activities.

How will the state prove beyond reasonable doubt that is was not accidental exposure?

I hope the case goes forward and forces the issue. To bad for him but maybe some good comes from it for us.

If it is legal to unconceal it for some undetermined arbitrary time then it should be okay to unconceal it all the time making open carry legal.

The entire thing took place a little south of me so will try and keep an eye on it. I think the case will be dropped before it ever goes to court meaning it can't get a judicial review for some precedence....
Jon_R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2012, 12:18   #79
redbaron007
Lifetime Membership
A Nice Prick!
 
redbaron007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southwest Missouri
Posts: 6,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon_R View Post
.....
The entire thing took place a little south of me so will try and keep an eye on it. I think the case will be dropped before it ever goes to court meaning it can't get a judicial review for some precedence....
This is the probability!



red
__________________
TopGun *357sig* Club - #2632
The 10 Ring #00720

R.I.P. Cajunator® ~ R.I.P. JTull7
R.I.P. Mullah (aka El_Ron1) ~ R.I.P. GioaJack ~ R.I.P. Okie
redbaron007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2012, 14:14   #80
Bruce M
Senior Member
 
Bruce M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S FL
Posts: 22,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmodel65 View Post
They might not...but it was originally understood that any ban on carrying Openly is null and void...Nunn Vs GA was cited in the Heller decision

In Nunn v. State, 1Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right:




from Nunn V GA

Maybe his attorney should ask for the case to be dismissed based on this ruling. A few things have changed since this case law was written but this might be the ruling to have open carry declared to be legal everwhere. Never know unless one tries...
__________________
Bruce
I never talked to anyone who had to fire their gun who said "I wished I had the smaller gun and fewer rounds with me" Just because you find a hundred people who agree with you on the internet does not mean you're right.
Bruce M is online now   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 21:00.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,335
363 Members
972 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31