Things seem to be getting more squirrelly out and about and I would like to keep a rifle in my car when I'm driving around.
I've never kept a rifle in my car except to transport them to the range in cases. I've been trying to find info and everything I've seen is about carrying a pistol.
I have my weapon license and always carry a pistol but looking to upgrade, what's the story on the laws of Florida with having a rifle in my car loaded ?

Totally legal. Can be uncased as well.

Thanks ! Coming from a officer of the law makes me feel better about it. I keep seeing posts in GD about people almost getting car jacked. The one guys mother was next to a guy that got jacked then ran over buy the POS. One other was the guys father was getting ready to get jacked by 4 urban youths but was saved by the cops showing up ricky tic. Not to worried about Citrus county, but traveling to my sisters place near Zephyrhills.

You think you need a rifle to go to Zephyrhills?

Somebody needs to show you a real 'hood.

I know it's not bad there, but still traveling in the car with a rifle gives me peace of mind.
I've worked in Harlem, East NY, Flatbush and Atlantic Aves in Brooklyn, the South Bronx among plenty of other fucked up places so I know all about the hood.

IMHO a rifle will do you no good in FL (unless you live in the Everglades.  By the time you bring it to bare in the confines of a car, you will either be laying on the ground or deaded.  A handgun you can quickly bring into action will be more useful in our likely scenarios.

I know the felling...  Was shot at on Willis ave, jumped on sutter once.
Rifle no problem. I carry mine when I have to travel, arms length away.

Certainly a point to consider. I say it depends on the rifle's configuration coupled with the individual's skill set.

I've rolled up on hot calls many times with a 16" carbine in my lap... the SBR I carry now is much more easily manipulated.

I've got to where just about any time I leave town I take one of my 10.5" SBRs with me, and it sits upright right next me... it's compact and very easy to put into use.

Good points.  I was thinking of a traditional rifle, not a SBR.

I carry both handgun and long gun.  You just never know what might pop up.

Is that SBR still as easy to maneuver with a can on it?
I've toted my .300 BO SBR around but the can I have brings it back to a 16" length.

Lacoochee is sketch AF!

I often roam the ranch with a suppressed SBR with a can looking for hogs... personally, I find it easy to use.



My duty rifle, a Colt Commando, does not have a can and I've used it in an OIS...  auditory exclusion is real.

Isn't it standard practice to use your handgun to fight to your rifle?

I too live in Citrus county , grew up in Dade City / Trilby area in the 70's Lacoochee has always been sketchy in places.

I remember the Friday night stabbings/ shootings at Dos Amigos almost every Friday night....

20 round mags and band your sling up so it doesnt get tangled up in shit. I put an old surplus police overhead shotgun rack in my personal F150 mossberg 590 rode for years all secured up with a hidden access switch to pop the lock. Longuns are great to have just dont get stolen in a smash and grab....

.300 Blackout?

The rifle pictured above is a .300 BO, my other SBR's are .223/5.56.

I just picked up a MK18 upper for this exact reason.

I have both rifle and SG up front between the front seats, easy to access even when driving down the road.



I'd like to install the same in my personal truck but I have a middle seat that most likely would get in the way... haven't really looked that close at it. Not that I would leave them in the truck either.

I'm not a lawyer, but the Florida statute for concealed weapons has no provision for rifles

https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/790.06
"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)"

Don't be hung up on not specifically including a machine gun, as if all exceptions must be listed. All legal inclusions are defined, and rifles are not there. The machine gun exclusion in this case means that any of the defined weapons are excluded if they are also a machine gun.


https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/790.01
The penalties for carrying a concealed weapon that are not "pursuant to the provisions" of the other section (such as a rifle) are listed here.

A Miami cop will say that your rifle in the back seat was concealed, and the opposite of concealed carry, open carry, is not legal in Florida anyway. Keep it in the trunk.

But...

790.25 Lawful ownership, possession, and use of firearms and other weapons.—

(3) LAWFUL USES.—The provisions of ss. 790.053 and 790.06 do not apply in the following instances, and, despite such sections, it is lawful for the following persons to own, possess, and lawfully use firearms and other weapons, ammunition, and supplies for lawful purposes:

(5) POSSESSION IN PRIVATE CONVEYANCE.—Notwithstanding subsection (2), it is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license, if the firearm or other weapon is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use. Nothing herein contained prohibits the carrying of a legal firearm other than a handgun anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm or other weapon on the person. This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including lawful self-defense as provided in s. 776.012.

You've highlighted a portion of 3, but not said which of the lawful purposes a-o include carrying a concealed rifle. That red part does not mean that 790.06 does not apply, period, it means that it does not apply "in the following instances"

for 5, it says that specifically only for lawful purposes, and nowhere else declares that a concealed rifle is lawful. It also specifically says that it does not authorize concealed weapons. Part 3 lists those lawful uses for Part 5, and a concealed rifle is not there.

I reiterate that a Miami cop is going to say that the rifle they did not see on their first glance in your backseat was concealed, or in your manual possession (within arm's reach)

The sections above do allow for a rifle to be privately, legally, conveyed in the trunk, "securely encased or in a public conveyance when the weapon is securely encased and not in the person’s manual possession"

When in doubt always err on the conservative side of the law.  I do not fault you for carrying your rifle in the trunk.  I'm just tossing out some information that you did not include in you OP.

I believe "a legal firearm other than a handgun" would include the subset of "rifle."  But of course this is a Florida Statute so it may not apply in Miami.

(5) POSSESSION IN PRIVATE CONVEYANCE.—Notwithstanding subsection (2), it is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license, if the firearm or other weapon is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use. Nothing herein contained prohibits the carrying of a legal firearm other than a handgun anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm or other weapon on the person. This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including lawful self-defense as provided in s. 776.012.

You stated that open carry is not legal in Florida... I would encourage you to read F.S.. 790.25 for an enumeration of the times that it IS legal to open carry in Florida.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.25.html

I get it, but it specifically says for a lawful use, and defines the lawful use for conveyance as being securely encased, out of your personal possession.

It's not in your posts here, but from some of the other posts in this thread, nowhere in any of this does a concealed weapon or firearm license change the legality of carrying a rifle.

What is legal for someone with a license is the same for someone without in regards to a rifle.

I'm aware of the specific use cases, such as "going to or returning from" fishing, that have been used for legal protest.

My lunch break is over so I need to go.  I enjoyed our little chat.

Stop posting stupid shit.

Merely posting the law, it may be stupid but I didn't write it.

The pinned FAQ in this forum addresses all of this.

If you're angry about saying Miami cops will arrest you for it because you're a former cop, https://flsenate.gov/Laws/statutes/2012/790.33 was written in part because of them.

No, you're not posting the law, you're speculating on what a "Miami Cop" would do. Big difference. You do realize case law has already established long guns in vehicles are not "readily accessible for immediate use" ? However, SBR's have yet to be tested.

Actually the last sentence of FSS 790.25(5) better addresses the issue vs. FSS 790.33 as it's in the Conveyance section... This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including lawful self-defense as provided in s. 776.012.

I'm not "mad" about anything... I've been on the job 25 years and I'm still at it. I just get and then when people make speculative posts about what some cop somewhere might do... and then insinuate previous posts contain bad or wrong legal information.

By linking the relevant statutes and giving a rundown on why that particular section applies, yes, I am posting the law.

I think the final sentence is good in that it gives intent that should align with being allowed, but if you are allowed to carry them not in a case, then what is this section for?

"A person traveling by private conveyance when the weapon is securely encased"

What does this mean when it is specifically listed as the legal means of transportation if being securely encased does not matter?

I think that under the law it does matter, and that I shouldn't rely on a sentence at the end that does not mean "all of that stuff above is just words, do what makes you happy." I read it as intent that anything not specifically listed should be left alone, and use your common sense. But anything specifically listed counts, like whether or not it's ok to travel in a private car with a rifle (you can), and whether or not it needs to be in a case or in the trunk (it does). And how a concealed license applies to a rifle (it doesn't)

I'm not trying to argue with anyone in some stupid case of wanting to win an argument, just posting the law as I read it to try and avoid getting people in trouble. If there is a specific updated law that specifically changes the law that rifles must be encased, please share. I'd prefer to have a rifle in my car, especially an SBR.
Otherwise, specific beats general as I understand it. That is, anything specifically enumerated as the legal method needs to be followed, and trumps any other general section that does not specifically change this.

Section (5) provides the answer and gives more protections under the law. Remember, you can always add protections, not take away.

If you're going to be hung up on (3)(l) then I don't know what to say.

Section 5 reiterates that weapons are allowed in a car for anyone, regardless of license, as long as they are encased.

It then says that this does not change any purpose that has been defined as a lawful use, and 3 defines those lawful uses. I can't ignore 3 because 5 directly references them. 5 does not make 3 irrelevant, I am not hung up on anything.

This means that legal concealed weapons do not need to be encased, since the requirement for encasing a weapon does not change the lawful use for carrying concealed.

Nothing anywhere changes access to rifles for people with a concealed license, as rifles are not legally concealed in Florida.

Explain then why it has always been legal in Florida to carry a long gun in a rack in the back window of a pickup truck.   I’m not sure what you are missing here.

What I'm saying is that it hasn't been legal

Relying on a cop leaving you alone is not the same as legal

If you do think that it is legal, please show me what statute makes that legal to cancel the quoted statutes above to teach me

I've tried... guess you simply ignored the case law aspect as well as the additional rights afforded under (5) that I provided.

I think I have a better grasp of the law and it's application than you do... after all, I cash paychecks making legal decisions concerning this very issue often. Haven't got it wrong in over 20 years.

What's your training, education, and experience to support otherwise? Living in Miami doesn't count lol.

I live in Jacksonville, I highlighted Miami because they were notorious for arresting people for local charges that they knew what would be thrown out eventually in court. It did not matter if you eventually were released fighting the local law vs state law, their goal was to fuck with you and they were allowed to do that until the preemption law posted above. Miami police are thugs.

#5 does not cancel the specific rules of 3, as I've said. Where does it say in #5 that the rule stated within the same statute requiring rifles to be encased is null and void? It doesn't. Once again, 5 does not make 3 null and void.

I've just posted the laws as written, you being paid to arrest people doesn't mean the statutes above are wrong. If you were a lawyer you would have said so, you are not so have you no credentials that apply here. I'm an engineer, for what it's worth, not a lawyer.

I'm not trying to be mean, I would not have said anything about your credentials if you did not bring them up as somehow meaning that your answers are right based on getting paid. You don't need a law degree, though, to point out specifically which law cancels the requirement for encasing a rifle. But I don't see that it exists.

This is the important question, if rifles legally do not need to be encased due to 5, why does the law say so in 3? Why would they bother writing that part if the same law throws it away?

I don't have to be a lawyer to know what I posted is correct. I don't have credentials to have a say/opinion? That's laughable.

Maybe I'm crazy, but perhaps it's the countless hours of In-Service training, Legal Guidelines, and Legal Updates that get crammed down our throats as LEO's that hep me understand the laws as well as their tiered application.

Now you're just trolling and talking out your ass. I'm sorry you lack the ability to read, interpret, and apply statutes.

I'll make sure to pass your legal determination on to the SAO at my earliest convenience...

You don't have proper credentials to say that your answer is correct based on credentials alone. I stand by that.

You could instead use your knowledge of the law (that likely exceeds mine and most others here) to point out which law specifically removes the requirement to encase a rifle.

What you cannot do is say that your credentials mean that you are correct, regardless of doing that or not. Your credentials are not sufficient for that.

"person traveling by private conveyance when the weapon is securely encased or in a public conveyance when the weapon is securely encased and not in the person’s manual possession"

1. Do you think that this applies to people without a concealed license when transporting a rifle?

2. Do you think that this applies to people with a concealed license when transporting a rifle?

If 1 and not 2, what changed for rifles based on having a concealed license?

If neither, then what was the purpose of writing this line?

OK... these folks are lawyers... good enough?

https://www.uslawshield.com/carrying-a-long-gun-in-fl/

In case you missed it... However, if you’re in a car, there is no need to worry as long guns may be kept in a vehicle in Florida for a lawful purpose, either concealed and securely encased or openly.

I wish they would have pointed out the relevant statute, since concealed licenses do not cover rifles in Florida. thanks for the link.

Not being a smart ass (right now lol) but I'm sure if you asked them they would direct you to the same subsection of the statutes I have.

I can't stress enough that FURTHER READING of statutes can not be ignored as they often grant more rights than the preceding statutes. One of the biggest lessons to learn as a cop is to KEEP READING the law and NOT to stop when you see something you think fits or meets your agenda.

Florida's firearms laws are not written very well and often appear to conflict. That's why reading an entire chapter is important.

Many of Florida's law say something is illegal initially only to say otherwise 15 paragraphs later.  

Drove around in Miami for 4 years with an AK on my floorboard. Never had a problem......

A comment before I go to bed...

Generally, the Florida state statutes tell us what behavior is prohibited or unlawful. Generally if something is not specifically prohibited then it is lawful... it is allowed.

Florida Statutes, especially those concerning firearms, have become so confusing that the legislature has found it necessary to sometimes tell us what behavior is legal/allowed.

This is sometimes confusing because one statute might tell us something is illegal but the legislature then drafts a new statute that tell us that the illegal behavior is now legal.

Most of the confusion concerning open carry and concealed carry started in 1982 with Janet Reno and has become a patchwork of changes since.  Some of this was addressed in 1987 when 790.06 became the law, taking concealed licensure out of the purview of the county and standardizing it state wide.  These changes created some confusion concerning open carry that was addressed by a special session of the legislature.  Some of the confusion was addressed by 790.25 but .25 and .06 have been amended several times since.  Most recently 790.01 and 790.053 have been amended to attempt to clarify those statutes.

This year we changed 790.06 as it applies to 790.115.  It will take a few years to find out if it is really ok to carry on church property if a school is co-located on the property.

My employer is a university that has a multi-denominational chapel located on the property.  Does this mean I can now carry at work?  Just askin??

These are the kind of questions that take years to answer each time a change is made to the statutes.

It is best not to claim you know what the statutes mean.  My attorney once tole me that most important word in the law is "if."  "If" the court finds... as in:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use or threatened use of force.—

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

And even something as simple as the burden of proof, has recently changed, in this statute, as it applies to a claim of "self defense."

I doubt the confusion will end anytime soon.

Good night.

Took this like 6 months ago. Middle of the day, middle of the week, middle of Brevard. I hadnt seen window racks in a LONG time and it gave me feelings of nostalgia. Attached File

I like the bumper sticker

Agree. I think his GAF is pretty minimal. lol

Hell, I had my AUG with me in my trunk during the Martin upheaval whe I was working up in the Sanford area at that time.

And I had a Glock 23 on me and a M&P9 backup in the car too.

Fight what you have.

November 2014, the Michael Brown verdict I had to drive to Ohio and back right before the verdict was announced. Not knowing when it would be announced and hearing reports that protesters were going to stop traffic and maybe pull people out of their cars ala Reginald Denny, I went loaded for war. No way on GOD's green earth was I going to let that happen to me. Luckily I made it just passed Georgia when the verdict was reached that night coming home to FL.