Raggs
Regular Member
While open carrying I have never accidentally concealed my pistol, however I have accidentally flashed my pistol when concealed carrying, How would I prove it was an accident? IDK
While open carrying I have never accidentally concealed my pistol, however I have accidentally flashed my pistol when concealed carrying, How would I prove it was an accident? IDK
And if SB59 passes, as written, then you are at risk of being prosecuted for printing or exposure if a prosecutor thinks, despite your protests that it was accidental, he can convince a jury in his area you violated the no display or OC in PFZ part. How many prosecutions for OC in a PFZ in Michigan have there been? One or two, if any? How many prosecutions against CC'ers printing or accidentally exposing in states with OC bans? Several to many.
OC'ing in a PFZ here in Michigan is much less risky, legally, than CC'ing in no-exposure/display or no-OC zones has proven to be.
Where is a law against printing, Say you have a t shirt on and u can see the outline of your gun through your shirt it is still concealed
i did. no reply.Just out of curiosity, did anyone email Frank Foster (Other than me)? And if you did, did you receive a reply?
No need for an apology... an explanation is good enough for me.
And thanks... I'll show that comment about my having wisdom to my wife... she will undoubtedly laugh about it for at least a week!
Sorry about all the posts folks....
Edited to add: Told my wife about the "wisdom" thing and she said she will be laughing for a lot longer than a week.
I don't think it completely takes (or really much at all) away from their credibility.
I seriously doubt anyone thought either of those 2 laws were temporary. The only gun control law I ever saw that was temporary was the national AWB. And that's only because the language of the law made it so.As far as changing the bill later to remove the pfz language, I'm sure many people thought that the nfa of 1934, or the gca of 1968 would be temporary or could later be altered.
Almost 80 years later the unconstitutional legislation is still around.
While we may be able to alter the current legislation at some point in the future, it is not a given. I would venture to say that most lawmakers would not vote in support of allowing openly carried firearms at schools.
he is responding to us on facebook
https://www.facebook.com/frankdfoster/posts/10151256216543236?comment_id=24356254¬if_t=like
Where is a law against printing, Say you have a t shirt on and u can see the outline of your gun through your shirt it is still concealed
The equivalence of printing to "display" and the judgement that a printing gun is not a concealed gun is up to a prosecutor and a jury. It is entirely plausible that there exists prosecutors and juries who would see things that way.
bossbart said:Where is a law against printing, Say you have a t shirt on and u can see the outline of your gun through your shirt it is still concealed
It isn't and won't be. The argument is tenuous at best and fear mongering in order to support an anti SB 59 position at worse.
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.
DanM said:The equivalence of printing to "display" and the judgement that a printing gun is not a concealed gun is up to a prosecutor and a jury. It is entirely plausible that there exists prosecutors and juries who would see things that way.
Bench trial, then you can appeal the finding of fact...
A situation which we now have to contemplate may be plausibly possible with SB59, whereas today we don't.
Oh, but it is plausible today. Lets go back and look at People v Watkins. I wonder how much $$$ Mr. Watkins spent on Dulan....
BTW, Watkins was a bench trial. He ultimately got off because the finding of facts were overturned on appeal, not the findings of law.
one of those weaknesses may be that they love to argue on the internet.
The proposed bill just says "SHALL NOT INTENTIONALLY" when it could be A LOT BETTER and say "SHALL NOT INTENTIONALLY AND IN AN ANGRY OR THREATENING MANNER". The strengthening of protection for CC'ers unintentionally displaying in Florida is a good model that SB59's language should have incorporated, but doesn't.
I agree with FL's language that you have posted here. Have you contacted the House to see if this language can be incorporated into SB59 before the vote? Since the basic structure of the bill isn't changed, and it just makes the law clearer, the Senate probably wouldn't object on the bill's return to them.