FL to reach 1 million carry permits in the next few weeks!!!!

[77zach]

New American article on crime drop in Florida

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...concealed-carry-permits-up-violent-crime-down

 

[Talesman]

There are at least two examples of Florida case law that I'm aware of in which the court declared licensed concealed carry to be a privilege, not a right. Therefore, we have no right to carry in Florida. Rights cannot be dependent on licensing, fees, or training requirements. That is considered to be the legal equivalent of a poll tax and is unconstitutional.

Rich, the Florida Constitution states:
SECTION 8. Right to bear arms.—(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

To most "manner" would be defined as either open or concealed (are there any other methods?). Has that ever been litigated? The current law regulates much more than "manner" as it extends to who and where as well.

Also, in 790.06 it states: License to carry concealed weapon or firearm.—(1) The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is authorized to issue licenses to carry concealed weapons or concealed firearms to persons qualified as provided in this section (emphasis mine). Not saying a license cannot be all inclusive but I would think the way it is worded there really should be two types of licenses, One for firearms and one for all other weapons. Was wondering if that section has even been litigated?

 

[notalawyer]

[snip]
Also, in 790.06 it states: License to carry concealed weapon or firearm.—(1) The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is authorized to issue licenses to carry concealed weapons or concealed firearms to persons qualified as provided in this section (emphasis mine). Not saying a license cannot be all inclusive but I would think the way it is worded there really should be two types of licenses, One for firearms and one for all other weapons. Was wondering if that section has even been litigated?

Your emphasis is misplaced.

The legislature created a term (for the purposes of 790.06 only) that encompasses certain items as shown below:

For the purposes of this section, concealed weapons or concealed firearms are defined as a handgun, electronic weapon or device, tear gas gun, knife, or billie, but the term does not include a machine gun as defined in s. 790.001(9).

 

[Talesman]

Your emphasis is misplaced.

The legislature created a term (for the purposes of 790.06 only) that encompasses certain items as shown below:

Please, by all means, enlighten me (and many others as well who ask or have asked the same question) what is the meaning of "OR" is as is found in the multiple parts of 790, et al.

It would be interesting to know what the term means, legally and legislatively, other than meaning an alternative. Or in the immediate case - one of two or more.

 

[notalawyer]

Please, by all means, enlighten me (and many others as well who ask or have asked the same question) what is the meaning of "OR" is as is found in the multiple parts of 790, et al.

It would be interesting to know what the term means, legally and legislatively, other than meaning an alternative. Or in the immediate case - one of two or more.

Um, read the third sentence in 790.06(1) which I quoted above. :uhoh:

Here, I'll post the relevant portion for you, again:

. . . concealed weapons or concealed firearms are defined as a handgun, electronic weapon or device, tear gas gun, knife, or billie,

If you have specific references where the use of the word "or" confuses you, please post the specific statute, and I'll be happy to explain it for you if I can.

 

[Talesman]

Um, read the third sentence in 790.06(1) which I quoted above. :uhoh:

Here, I'll post the relevant portion for you, again:


If you have specific references where the use of the word "or" confuses you, please post the specific statute, and I'll be happy to explain it for you if I can.

Thought I did...never mind, no need to reply. You have little to add to any of my posts and always seem to be argumentive rather than instructive.

BTW, when did you become Rich or his alterego?

Again, save your typing. No reply necessary or wanted

 

[notalawyer]

Thought I did...never mind, no need to reply. You have little to add to any of my posts and always seem to be argumentive rather than instructive.

BTW, when did you become Rich or his alterego?

Again, save your typing. No reply necessary or wanted

Thought I did...never mind

Reading comprehension, how does that work again?

You have little to add to any of my posts

Other than actual facts with appropriate cites to applicable case law and statutes, not much else is required to correct your misinformation.

Again, save your typing. No reply necessary or wanted

Probably not wanted but definitely needed, lest someone not well informed on such legal matters takes some of your information as fact.