I infer nothing. Merely pointing out that your comparison is a poor one. New York has a carry permit system that is designed to keep applicants at the whim of the issuer. NYC is worse. There it has been made a privilege, very hard to get a carry permit in NYC. Also, if I remember right, there is a ceiling quota on permits in NYC, someone has to die, or get revoked to open a slot.
In Florida, the "right to bear arms" is recognized in the State Constitution and throughout Florida state law. "Shall issue" means that anyone, not a criminal or insane or a dope addict, [b]must[/b] be issued the permit after applying for it. No privilege here. There is one exception, will talk about later.
Is it a compromise of your rights? Sure it is. But go ahead and carry concealed without it. Unless you are up in Vermont, you get caught, [b]you are going to jail.[/b] Reality bites. If Florida law were changed, the permit suspended, we would be no worse off than if it had never been. As it is, we need to keep up the push for shall issue and reciprococity.
The exception is why the Emerson case is so critical. Here we have it that someone not guilty of a felony or not even charged with a crime, merely under a restraint order, deprived of their rights. The Government's position, [b]The "right to bear arms" is not an individual right![/b] Hence, no rights are taken away. Scary stuff.
The best solution is to make wife beating a felony, put it right up there with abusing your dog. But, I believe that they have avoided that obvious solution, so as to keep attacking the 2nd.