SECTION 5B OF THE FLORIDA STATE CONSTITUTION AS AMENDED IN 1998 ALLOWS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL COUNTIES TO INSTITUTE 5 DAY WAITING PERIODS AND BACKGROUND CHECKS ON PRIVATE SALES TAKING PLACE ON PROPERTY TO WHICH "THE PUBLIC HAS RIGHT OF ACCESS".

Holders of Concealed Firearms and Weapons Licenses are not affected under these ordinances.

Face to face (private) sales of firearms which are conducted in their entirety on private property to which the public is not granted access are not affected under these ordinances.

This is the only sort of firearms ordinance that local governments can enact under the state legislature's preemption of firearms law.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Constitution#A8

SECTION 5. Local option.—
(a) Local option on the legality or prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors, wines or beers shall be preserved to each county. The status of a county with respect thereto shall be changed only by vote of the electors in a special election called upon the petition of twenty-five per cent of the electors of the county, and not sooner than two years after an earlier election on the same question. Where legal, the sale of intoxicating liquors, wines and beers shall be regulated by law.

(b) Each county shall have the authority to require a criminal history records check and a 3 to 5-day waiting period, excluding weekends and legal holidays, in connection with the sale of any firearm occurring within such county. For purposes of this subsection, the term “sale” means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration for any firearm when any part of the transaction is conducted on property to which the public has the right of access. Holders of a concealed weapons permit as prescribed by general law shall not be subject to the provisions of this subsection when purchasing a firearm.
History.—Am. proposed by Constitution Revision Commission, Revision No. 12, 1998, filed with the Secretary of State May 5, 1998; adopted 1998.

The state preemption statute 790.33 clearly mentions the constitutional exemption allowing the counties to enact such ordinances.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.33.html

You're a better legal investigator than I, if you can find a legal definition of "PROPERTY TO WHICH THE PUBLIC HAS RIGHT OF ACCESS".

The only reference I can find has to do with beach front property.

Local Option section 5 (b)  clearly refers to property, whether publicly or privately owned, to which the general public has been granted the rights of invitees and therefore, right of access  by the property owner.

For example; a privately owned venue that sells tickets to the general public, the parking lot at Publix, a mall, a public street, a park, etc.

Any reason you are making everybody aware of it?

Of course; so we can fight effectively,  because misinformation hurts us and there's too much of it going around and there will be more falsehoods spread regarding this in the future.

Understanding exactly what the counties are, and aren't able to enact under the preemption law can help folks work around the law when conducting private sales.

The newspapers and mainstream media will be intentionally spreading misinformation such as "all private sales must now include waiting periods and background checks", which isn't true at all.

Others who, may be well meaning, will be saying incorrectly, " it's illegal for the counties to enact any ordinance calling for waiting periods and/or  background checks."

I believe it's better for folks to know what the counties can, and cannot do under the state legislature's preemption of firearms law so we can fight them intelligently if they try to over reach.

Our big fight is coming, as municipalities are lining up to sue in order to remove the penalties faced by those who intentionally disobey state preemption and enact illegal local laws like they used to do under the original preemption law before it was reenacted to include the penalties.

Ignorance may be bliss,  but it's also weakness;  and we can't afford to be either ignorant or weak these days.

Thank you for sharing this information.  You are correct, the more well-informed people we have on our "side" of the debate the better off we will be.  I'd also like to add "articulate" to that as well, as I really hope as this fight continues we police ourselves and minimize the media's chances of portraying all 2A supporters as backwoods, Confederate flag militia types.  The internet memes plagued with grammatical and spelling errors that are making rounds drive me insane.  We do have well-spoken and informed people among our ranks and those are the ones that need to be in the forefront of this battle.

I know what 5(b) says, and it does not "clearly" say what you said is says...

Can you provide a citation that supports your statement?  Is there case law?

Not being argumentative, but I have spent a lot of time on this in the past and would like to know for my self actualization.

If you are just making this up and it is just your personal interpretation please let me know so I can stop looking.

I could see how 5(b) could be used to push UBC's. No CWL and you want to do a private FTF in a parking lot? Nope, go get a background check done and make the buyer wait 5 days.

Yeah, you could do it on your private property to avoid it, but who's going to invite some stranger to your house for a FTF?

I think you missed the point of my question.

I just want a definition of the property that triggers the ordinance's background check requirement.

Like you said, I don't think anyone wants to do a FTF at their home, but Denny's might be nice.  Does the public have a RIGHT to eat breakfast at Denny's.  I like the 2/4/6/8 menu.

And, of course I really don't care about the definition, but I want the LEO that is going to arrest me to know the definition.

Or, is the definition unconstitutional for vagueness?  So far, no one has ever been able to cite a source for a definition.

Hijack someone else's thread or start one of your own in which you can search for your damned self actualization.

I was not trying to hijack your thread.

You made some statements that indicated that you had some important information that applied to the thread and I was just asking you to share.

I was just trying to put some perspective into your somewhat confusing OP.

It appears that you do not have any useful information to share, so I apologize if I annoyed you by asking.

I won't bother you anymore.

Thanks for going away after first pissing in my thread.

I foolishly believed that all the passive aggressive trolls were to be found only in GD.