Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Posted: 1/13/2015 8:47:53 PM EST
Jets running back Chris Johnson was arrested after a Florida cop saw the handle of a gun between the running back’s feet during a traffic stop, police said Saturday.

Johnson, 29, was pulled over around 8:55 p.m. Friday by Orlando police after the athlete failed to come to a halt at a stop sign, cops said.

That’s when the cop saw the weapon.

Johnson has a license to carry a weapon in Florida, but was arrested because he was doing so openly, according to ProFootballTalk.

He was charged with open carrying of a firearm, a second-degree misdemeanor.
View Quote


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/jets/jets-rb-chris-johnson-arrested-gun-charges-orlando-article-1.2073166

I thought carrying a gun in your car made the gun "concealed," not "open," unless its in a container, like the center console or glove box and a permit was a defense against having a "concealed" weapon in the car?
Link Posted: 1/13/2015 9:51:04 PM EST
overzealous cops....Another example of cops not knowing the laws they are enforcing...Pretty sure the charge will be dismissed.

Link Posted: 1/14/2015 12:53:23 AM EST
790.053 Open carrying of weapons.
View Quote
(1) Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device. 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.
(2) A person may openly carry, for purposes of lawful self-defense:
(a) A self-defense chemical spray.
(b) A nonlethal stun gun or dart-firing stun gun or other nonlethal electric weapon or device that is designed solely for defensive purposes.
(3) Any person violating this section commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
History.s. 1, ch. 87-537; s. 173, ch. 91-224; s. 3, ch. 97-72; s. 1205, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2006-298; s. 1, ch. 2011-145.


Where is the statute that says having a handgun in plain view inside your vehicle is not against the law?
Link Posted: 1/14/2015 1:10:38 AM EST
Sounds like a bad collar.

Maybe the celebrity athlete can be a spokesman for gun rights now.
Link Posted: 1/14/2015 10:12:17 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/14/2015 10:13:26 AM EST by searchin4shacks]
I've always been of the understanding that a gun can not be transported in a car in plain view. As an example you can't place your handgun on the seat next to you when driving. You guys stating that this is legal please reference the law that allows this!! Who here thinks it's a good idea to have a handgun in plain view when a cop walks up to your car for a traffic stop?
Link Posted: 1/14/2015 1:17:54 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By fuzzy03cls:
overzealous cops....Another example of cops not knowing the laws they are enforcing...Pretty sure the charge will be dismissed.

View Quote


Do you have other information NOT included in the cited article?
Link Posted: 1/14/2015 2:07:46 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By searchin4shacks:
I've always been of the understanding that a gun can not be transported in a car in plain view. As an example you can't place your handgun on the seat next to you when driving. You guys stating that this is legal please reference the law that allows this!! Who here thinks it's a good idea to have a handgun in plain view when a cop walks up to your car for a traffic stop?
View Quote


My understanding when I read the laws before getting my permit says it has to be out of plain view. IE: Concealed under a shirt, in the console, range bag, etc...
Link Posted: 1/14/2015 2:28:24 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Campy6169:


My understanding when I read the laws before getting my permit says it has to be out of plain view. IE: Concealed under a shirt, in the console, range bag, etc...
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Campy6169:
Originally Posted By searchin4shacks:
I've always been of the understanding that a gun can not be transported in a car in plain view. As an example you can't place your handgun on the seat next to you when driving. You guys stating that this is legal please reference the law that allows this!! Who here thinks it's a good idea to have a handgun in plain view when a cop walks up to your car for a traffic stop?


My understanding when I read the laws before getting my permit says it has to be out of plain view. IE: Concealed under a shirt, in the console, range bag, etc...


The part in red (from FSS 790.25(5)) excludes handguns from being "ANYWHERE"... thus causes confusion:

(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.

BUT under FSS 790.25(3), FSS 790.053 does not apply when traveling by private conveyance.

(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:

(l) A 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;

This case more than likely involves a handgun that was just lying there not holstered or in a container of some type. Again... not enough details in the article. A handgun that is visible, which is securely encased or otherwise not readily accessible, is lawful. when traveling by private conveyance.
Link Posted: 1/14/2015 2:31:41 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By searchin4shacks:
I've always been of the understanding that a gun can not be transported in a car in plain view. As an example you can't place your handgun on the seat next to you when driving. You guys stating that this is legal please reference the law that allows this!! Who here thinks it's a good idea to have a handgun in plain view when a cop walks up to your car for a traffic stop?
View Quote




being between his feet i would assume it was under the seat, and slid out during the drive.


if it is not stated as illegal in the statutes one could also assume it is legal.


think about a rifle in a rifle rack in the back window, wouldn't that be in plain view?
Link Posted: 1/14/2015 2:32:16 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By fuzzy03cls:
overzealous cops....Another example of cops not knowing the laws they are enforcing...Pretty sure the charge will be dismissed.

View Quote




i believe this will be the case.
Link Posted: 1/14/2015 2:59:19 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tier1bro:




being between his feet i would assume it was under the seat, and slid out during the drive.


if it is not stated as illegal in the statutes one could also assume it is legal.


think about a rifle in a rifle rack in the back window, wouldn't that be in plain view?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tier1bro:
Originally Posted By searchin4shacks:
I've always been of the understanding that a gun can not be transported in a car in plain view. As an example you can't place your handgun on the seat next to you when driving. You guys stating that this is legal please reference the law that allows this!! Who here thinks it's a good idea to have a handgun in plain view when a cop walks up to your car for a traffic stop?




being between his feet i would assume it was under the seat, and slid out during the drive.


if it is not stated as illegal in the statutes one could also assume it is legal.


think about a rifle in a rifle rack in the back window, wouldn't that be in plain view?


Did you not read the above...?

The issue with firearms in vehicles is not visibility per se... it's about accessibility... FSS 790.25(5) allows long guns anywhere and case law has established they are not readily accessible for immediate use due to their size.
Link Posted: 1/14/2015 3:18:04 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bowhntr6pt:


Did you not read the above...?

The issue with firearms in vehicles is not visibility per se... it's about accessibility... FSS 790.25(5) allows long guns anywhere and case law has established they are not readily accessible for immediate use due to their size.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bowhntr6pt:
Originally Posted By tier1bro:
Originally Posted By searchin4shacks:
I've always been of the understanding that a gun can not be transported in a car in plain view. As an example you can't place your handgun on the seat next to you when driving. You guys stating that this is legal please reference the law that allows this!! Who here thinks it's a good idea to have a handgun in plain view when a cop walks up to your car for a traffic stop?




being between his feet i would assume it was under the seat, and slid out during the drive.


if it is not stated as illegal in the statutes one could also assume it is legal.


think about a rifle in a rifle rack in the back window, wouldn't that be in plain view?


Did you not read the above...?

The issue with firearms in vehicles is not visibility per se... it's about accessibility... FSS 790.25(5) allows long guns anywhere and case law has established they are not readily accessible for immediate use due to their size.



i type slow so it is very possible you posted while i was typing, i did not see your post before i submitted mine.
Link Posted: 1/14/2015 6:09:08 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/14/2015 6:09:54 PM EST by searchin4shacks]
For us non attorney types it would seem that handguns need to be encased and not in plain view. Long guns can be out open, in a rack, on the seat, whatever. A layperson can read the law a thousand times and still not know what they mean..............
Link Posted: 1/14/2015 7:54:34 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bowhntr6pt:


Do you have other information NOT included in the cited article?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bowhntr6pt:
Originally Posted By fuzzy03cls:
overzealous cops....Another example of cops not knowing the laws they are enforcing...Pretty sure the charge will be dismissed.



Do you have other information NOT included in the cited article?

Nope, but I know Orlando cops, & I know FHP & I know PLENTY of people that post & don't post about being targeted & wrung up only to have the charges dropped because the arresting officer was wrong.

Link Posted: 1/14/2015 8:32:16 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By fuzzy03cls:

Nope, but I know Orlando cops, & I know FHP & I know PLENTY of people that post & don't post about being targeted & wrung up only to have the charges dropped because the arresting officer was wrong.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By fuzzy03cls:
Originally Posted By Bowhntr6pt:
Originally Posted By fuzzy03cls:
overzealous cops....Another example of cops not knowing the laws they are enforcing...Pretty sure the charge will be dismissed.



Do you have other information NOT included in the cited article?

Nope, but I know Orlando cops, & I know FHP & I know PLENTY of people that post & don't post about being targeted & wrung up only to have the charges dropped because the arresting officer was wrong.



OK... so you just lump this specific case in with all the "others" you happen to be privy to... without knowing the specific facts of the case... got it.
Link Posted: 1/14/2015 9:36:51 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bowhntr6pt:


The part in red (from FSS 790.25(5)) excludes handguns from being "ANYWHERE"... thus causes confusion:

(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.

BUT under FSS 790.25(3), FSS 790.053 does not apply when traveling by private conveyance.

(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:

(l) A 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;

This case more than likely involves a handgun that was just lying there not holstered or in a container of some type. Again... not enough details in the article. A handgun that is visible, which is securely encased or otherwise not readily accessible, is lawful. when traveling by private conveyance.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bowhntr6pt:
Originally Posted By Campy6169:
Originally Posted By searchin4shacks:
I've always been of the understanding that a gun can not be transported in a car in plain view. As an example you can't place your handgun on the seat next to you when driving. You guys stating that this is legal please reference the law that allows this!! Who here thinks it's a good idea to have a handgun in plain view when a cop walks up to your car for a traffic stop?


My understanding when I read the laws before getting my permit says it has to be out of plain view. IE: Concealed under a shirt, in the console, range bag, etc...


The part in red (from FSS 790.25(5)) excludes handguns from being "ANYWHERE"... thus causes confusion:

(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.

BUT under FSS 790.25(3), FSS 790.053 does not apply when traveling by private conveyance.

(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:

(l) A 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;

This case more than likely involves a handgun that was just lying there not holstered or in a container of some type. Again... not enough details in the article. A handgun that is visible, which is securely encased or otherwise not readily accessible, is lawful. when traveling by private conveyance.


Busting this guy is akin to citing someone for jaywalking because they cut 6 inches of the corner to get to the crosswalk. May be able to make it stick if they really try but, the spirit of the law was adhered to.
Link Posted: 1/15/2015 5:30:28 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mossberg:


Busting this guy is akin to citing someone for jaywalking because they cut 6 inches of the corner to get to the crosswalk. May be able to make it stick if they really try but, the spirit of the law was adhered to.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mossberg:
Originally Posted By Bowhntr6pt:
Originally Posted By Campy6169:
Originally Posted By searchin4shacks:
I've always been of the understanding that a gun can not be transported in a car in plain view. As an example you can't place your handgun on the seat next to you when driving. You guys stating that this is legal please reference the law that allows this!! Who here thinks it's a good idea to have a handgun in plain view when a cop walks up to your car for a traffic stop?


My understanding when I read the laws before getting my permit says it has to be out of plain view. IE: Concealed under a shirt, in the console, range bag, etc...


The part in red (from FSS 790.25(5)) excludes handguns from being "ANYWHERE"... thus causes confusion:

(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.

BUT under FSS 790.25(3), FSS 790.053 does not apply when traveling by private conveyance.

(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:

(l) A 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;

This case more than likely involves a handgun that was just lying there not holstered or in a container of some type. Again... not enough details in the article. A handgun that is visible, which is securely encased or otherwise not readily accessible, is lawful. when traveling by private conveyance.


Busting this guy is akin to citing someone for jaywalking because they cut 6 inches of the corner to get to the crosswalk. May be able to make it stick if they really try but, the spirit of the law was adhered to.


More than likely you are correct... was this a LAWFUL arrest? Perhaps. Was it a GOOD arrest? Probably not. Can't say... was not there.

I've encountered this type situation MANY times in my line of work... total arrests because of it... 1.

I believe what out statute says in reference to the laws being liberally construed in favor of lawful gun ownership... that portion of the law tells me the Legislature would prefer EDUCATION over ENFORCEMENT... and if you ever follow what I post on this site about these things you would see I'm quite consistent in that attitude.

To simply jump to conclusions (as one reply insinuates) as to whether or not the cops on scene know the law or not is laughable as the article simply does not provide enough detail other than a guy ran a stop sign and a cop saw a pistol butt... if that were all there was to it, not only would I not have made an arrest I would not have allowed any of my deputies to make the arrest... that, I've also done before...
Link Posted: 1/15/2015 4:30:36 PM EST
I thought the new law that was enacted in lieu of unlimited open carry offered legal protections for individuals whose gun was briefly exposed so long as it wasn't done in a threatening manner?

The grips of a handgun exposed due to its sliding forward from under the driver's seat of a vehicle being driven by a Concealed Firearms and Weapons Licencee should fall under that description.

This is one example of why we need true and proper open carry in this state, the new law intended to prevent such arrests for accidental and even intentional "brief" exposure of your gun notwithstanding, you can still be arrested for no damned good reason.
Link Posted: 1/15/2015 6:46:34 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By America-first:
I thought the new law that was enacted in lieu of unlimited open carry offered legal protections for individuals whose gun was briefly exposed so long as it wasn't done in a threatening manner?

The grips of a handgun exposed due to its sliding forward from under the driver's seat of a vehicle being driven by a Concealed Firearms and Weapons Licencee should fall under that description.

This is one example of why we need true and proper open carry in this state, the new law intended to prevent such arrests for accidental and even intentional "brief" exposure of your gun notwithstanding, you can still be arrested for no damned good reason.
View Quote


Once again facts are being assumed... who knows how/why the handle was showing... maybe it was tucked in under the seat frame... maybe it did slide out... maybe it wan not securely encased... maybe the cop was just a dick... the article simply not provide information that addresses legitimate legal concerns so it's pointless to speculate whether this was a good or lawful arrest and especially void of necessary information to insinuate the cops don't know the law or the arrest was bad.

I still think this was an issue of securely encased/not readily accessible... a seemingly minor and possible honest mistake... so why the custodial arrest vs. discretion and a very brief legal lesson? Was attitude a factor? Did the suspect "talk his way into an arrest"? I've had plenty of people talk themselves into an arrest...

Link Posted: 1/15/2015 7:03:15 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bowhntr6pt:


Once again facts are being assumed... who knows how/why the handle was showing... maybe it was tucked in under the seat frame... maybe it did slide out... maybe it wan not securely encased... maybe the cop was just a dick... the article simply not provide information that addresses legitimate legal concerns so it's pointless to speculate whether this was a good or lawful arrest and especially void of necessary information to insinuate the cops don't know the law or the arrest was bad.

I still think this was an issue of securely encased/not readily accessible... a seemingly minor and possible honest mistake... so why the custodial arrest vs. discretion and a very brief legal lesson? Was attitude a factor? Did the suspect "talk his way into an arrest"? I've had plenty of people talk themselves into an arrest...

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bowhntr6pt:
Originally Posted By America-first:
I thought the new law that was enacted in lieu of unlimited open carry offered legal protections for individuals whose gun was briefly exposed so long as it wasn't done in a threatening manner?

The grips of a handgun exposed due to its sliding forward from under the driver's seat of a vehicle being driven by a Concealed Firearms and Weapons Licencee should fall under that description.

This is one example of why we need true and proper open carry in this state, the new law intended to prevent such arrests for accidental and even intentional "brief" exposure of your gun notwithstanding, you can still be arrested for no damned good reason.


Once again facts are being assumed... who knows how/why the handle was showing... maybe it was tucked in under the seat frame... maybe it did slide out... maybe it wan not securely encased... maybe the cop was just a dick... the article simply not provide information that addresses legitimate legal concerns so it's pointless to speculate whether this was a good or lawful arrest and especially void of necessary information to insinuate the cops don't know the law or the arrest was bad.

I still think this was an issue of securely encased/not readily accessible... a seemingly minor and possible honest mistake... so why the custodial arrest vs. discretion and a very brief legal lesson? Was attitude a factor? Did the suspect "talk his way into an arrest"? I've had plenty of people talk themselves into an arrest...



I'm not arguing the facts in this particular matter in which a licensed CCW holder was arrested because his handgun was visually detected.

The only point I was trying to make is that it should be perfectly legal for a handgun to be visible either on one's person, or in one's vehicle; nothing more and nothing less.
Link Posted: 1/15/2015 7:41:19 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By America-first:


I'm not arguing the facts in this particular matter in which a licensed CCW holder was arrested because his handgun was visually detected.

The only point I was trying to make is that it should be perfectly legal for a handgun to be visible either on one's person, or in one's vehicle; nothing more and nothing less.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By America-first:
Originally Posted By Bowhntr6pt:
Originally Posted By America-first:
I thought the new law that was enacted in lieu of unlimited open carry offered legal protections for individuals whose gun was briefly exposed so long as it wasn't done in a threatening manner?

The grips of a handgun exposed due to its sliding forward from under the driver's seat of a vehicle being driven by a Concealed Firearms and Weapons Licencee should fall under that description.

This is one example of why we need true and proper open carry in this state, the new law intended to prevent such arrests for accidental and even intentional "brief" exposure of your gun notwithstanding, you can still be arrested for no damned good reason.


Once again facts are being assumed... who knows how/why the handle was showing... maybe it was tucked in under the seat frame... maybe it did slide out... maybe it wan not securely encased... maybe the cop was just a dick... the article simply not provide information that addresses legitimate legal concerns so it's pointless to speculate whether this was a good or lawful arrest and especially void of necessary information to insinuate the cops don't know the law or the arrest was bad.

I still think this was an issue of securely encased/not readily accessible... a seemingly minor and possible honest mistake... so why the custodial arrest vs. discretion and a very brief legal lesson? Was attitude a factor? Did the suspect "talk his way into an arrest"? I've had plenty of people talk themselves into an arrest...



I'm not arguing the facts in this particular matter in which a licensed CCW holder was arrested because his handgun was visually detected.

The only point I was trying to make is that it should be perfectly legal for a handgun to be visible either on one's person, or in one's vehicle; nothing more and nothing less.


I agree.
Link Posted: 1/15/2015 8:23:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/15/2015 8:23:22 PM EST by fuzzy03cls]
To simply jump to conclusions (as one reply insinuates) as to whether or not the cops on scene know the law or not is laughable as the article simply does not provide enough detail other than a guy ran a stop sign and a cop saw a pistol butt... if that were all there was to it, not only would I not have made an arrest I would not have allowed any of my deputies to make the arrest... that, I've also done before...
View Quote

Wow, I never realized how full of yourself you are....You can think whatever...we shall see what happens....

Link Posted: 1/16/2015 5:24:29 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/16/2015 5:26:38 AM EST by Bowhntr6pt]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By fuzzy03cls:

Wow, I never realized how full of yourself you are....You can think whatever...we shall see what happens....

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By fuzzy03cls:
To simply jump to conclusions (as one reply insinuates) as to whether or not the cops on scene know the law or not is laughable as the article simply does not provide enough detail other than a guy ran a stop sign and a cop saw a pistol butt... if that were all there was to it, not only would I not have made an arrest I would not have allowed any of my deputies to make the arrest... that, I've also done before...

Wow, I never realized how full of yourself you are....You can think whatever...we shall see what happens....



I don't know why you posted this: "overzealous cops....Another example of cops not knowing the laws they are enforcing...Pretty sure the charge will be dismissed." given the sparse information in the article.

I'm not "full of myself"... I'm just pointing out how people, like you, seem to want to fill in the missing pieces of information and make generalized derogatory statements.

It appears to me your initial comments, along with your comments about how you "know" OPD folks and FHP folks, etc., are the only arrogant comments in this thread... but that's just me.

I don't know what your problem is, or your motives, all I've stated is 1) the article is lacking in facts necessary to make assertions and 2) I would not make such an arrest nor would I allow my guys to if it only involved the simple issue of not knowing the law. How can you fault those statements?

Don't get butt-hurt and insult me because I've called you out on your "speculations and insults" to those who were there as you and I were not... it was you who called them overzealous and accused them of not knowing the law...

But hey... no big deal... and for the record, even if it was a LAWFUL arrest, I hope the charges do go away if it ends up being a case of simply not knowing the law...




Link Posted: 1/16/2015 10:58:53 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/16/2015 10:59:17 AM EST by fuzzy03cls]
You just don't like someone, anyone saying some cops are bad, even though it's true, I have read enough of your posts to get it....I don't hate LE, I hate the LE that can't take the time to learn what they are supposed to be doing. You might in this instance I highly doubt they did. Until YOU are on that other side your POV will always benefit LE.
As I said we will see....
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 11:32:09 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By fuzzy03cls:
You just don't like someone, anyone saying some cops are bad, even though it's true, I have read enough of your posts to get it....I don't hate LE, I hate the LE that can't take the time to learn what they are supposed to be doing. You might in this instance I highly doubt they did. Until YOU are on that other side your POV will always benefit LE.
As I said we will see....
View Quote


1. I did not say or insinuate you hate cops.
2. I've posted for YEARS there are bad cops that make it hard on those of us who try hard to do the right thing.
3. I have family and friends who are just as much at risk due to poor LE performance as you are.

What I don't like are posts such as yours that make assertions based on half fact... and then try to justify the comments with so called previous personal experience. That is exactly what you did whether you admit it or not. As far as your "we will see" comment... I have no idea what that's supposed to mean as I've not stated one way or another reference the legitimacy of the arrest... you keep trying to make this into something it is not... that's where we disagree I think.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 5:37:55 PM EST
I went through Chapter 790, Weapons and Firearms, and these were the statutes that I found would need reviewing to discuss this situation. But, as mentioned already, being he was carrying for lawful self-defense based off of being a holder of a concealed carry permit, but "may" have had the weapon where it was and how it was due to not understanding the statutes completely; an education would have been more warranted instead of an arrest.

This is only going off the limited information presented in the article.

790.001 Definitions.
(2) “Concealed firearm” means any firearm, as defined in subsection (6), which is carried on or about a person in such a manner as to conceal the firearm from the ordinary sight of another person.

(16) “Readily accessible for immediate use” means that a firearm or other weapon is carried on the person or within such close proximity and in such a manner that it can be retrieved and used as easily and quickly as if carried on the person.

(17) “Securely encased” means in a glove compartment, whether or not locked; snapped in a holster; in a gun case, whether or not locked; in a zippered gun case; or in a closed box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for access.
View Quote

790.01 Carrying concealed weapons.
(3) This section does not apply to a person licensed to carry a concealed weapon or a concealed firearm pursuant to the provisions of s. 790.06.
View Quote

790.053 Open carrying of weapons.
(1) Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device. 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.
View Quote

790.06 License to carry concealed weapon or firearm.
(12)(b) A person licensed under this section shall not be prohibited from carrying or storing a firearm in a vehicle for lawful purposes.
View Quote

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:

(l) A 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;

(4) CONSTRUCTION.—This act shall be liberally construed to carry out the declaration of policy herein and in favor of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes. This act is supplemental and additional to existing rights to bear arms now guaranteed by law and decisions of the courts of Florida, and nothing herein shall impair or diminish any of such rights. This act shall supersede any law, ordinance, or regulation in conflict herewith.

(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.
View Quote
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 7:32:36 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AR-4C:
I went through Chapter 790, Weapons and Firearms, and these were the statutes that I found would need reviewing to discuss this situation. But, as mentioned already, being he was carrying for lawful self-defense based off of being a holder of a concealed carry permit, but "may" have had the weapon where it was and how it was due to not understanding the statutes completely; an education would have been more warranted instead of an arrest.

This is only going off the limited information presented in the article.

View Quote


I agree... that has been my main point. I've ALWAYS stressed education over enforcement as our state laws are not written well in my opinion. Bottom line... we DON'T know what factors led to the decision to make an arrest... to speculate and insult is what I've taken issue with.

I actually chose education over enforcement TWO TIMES with the SAME GUY some 5 years ago... whereas I should have arrested his hard-headed ass the second time, I cut him more slack... his brother is now a deputy with our agency. So see... who the fuck knows WHY an arrest was made.

I do take offense at folks who just jump to conclusions as to what arrests are good/bad and who does and does not know the law BECAUSE I've actually stopped arrests and educated BOTH the cop and the violator... but as stated above, I've had that break and education dismissed.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 10:10:48 AM EST
The cop who arrested Chris Johnson should be fired as their story doesn't even make any sense. Cop asked for Johnson's consent to search the vehicle, but stated the "handle of the gun could be seen" underneath the seat (bullshit). Why would a cop need consent to search a vehicle if the gun could be seen? Most importantly here Johnson HAS HIS CWFL, therefore the gun can be anywhere in the car so long as it's covered, which it was. If the gun was inadvertently exposed it would also be covered by law. AS SOMEONE WHO WOULD NEVER OPEN CARRY, THIS IS WHY I SUPPORT OPEN CARRY. This is total horse shit! I'm generally supportive of law enforcement but this kind of thing leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/dean-weingarten/self-defense-tip-do-not-consent-to-a-police-search-of-your-car/
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:26:28 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BMad316:
The cop who arrested Chris Johnson should be fired as their story doesn't even make any sense. Interesting... did you get a copy of the report? Do you have more facts to share? Cop asked for Johnson's consent to search the vehicle, but stated the "handle of the gun could be seen" underneath the seat (bullshit) Really? I've seen plenty of items partially under seats, guns, knives, bongs, dope, pipes, etc.. Why would a cop need consent to search a vehicle if the gun could be seen? Because SECURELY ENCASED is a requirement of the law. Just because you can see the butt does not mean you can see if the pistol is in a snapped holster, something actually mentioned in the law as it relates to what is "securely encased". Most importantly here Johnson HAS HIS CWFL, therefore the gun can be anywhere in the car so long as it's covered, which it was. The word "covered" is not used in FSS 790.25(3)(l) or (5)... "securely encased" however is. Big difference. Covered means nothing. If the gun was inadvertently exposed it would also be covered by law. Yes, if securely encased". AS SOMEONE WHO WOULD NEVER OPEN CARRY, THIS IS WHY I SUPPORT OPEN CARRY. This is total horse shit! Interesting position you're taking considering you were not there. I'm generally supportive of law enforcement but this kind of thing leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/dean-weingarten/self-defense-tip-do-not-consent-to-a-police-search-of-your-car/
View Quote


Pistols can be ANYWHERE so long as they are SECURELY ENCASED... "covered" is not a requirement nor is that work even used in FSS 790.25(3)(l) or (5).




Link Posted: 1/18/2015 4:45:11 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bowhntr6pt:



Pistols can be ANYWHERE so long as they are SECURELY ENCASED... "covered" is not a requirement nor is that work even used in FSS 790.25(3)(l) or (5).




View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bowhntr6pt:
Originally Posted By BMad316:
The cop who arrested Chris Johnson should be fired as their story doesn't even make any sense. Interesting... did you get a copy of the report? Do you have more facts to share? Cop asked for Johnson's consent to search the vehicle, but stated the "handle of the gun could be seen" underneath the seat (bullshit) Really? I've seen plenty of items partially under seats, guns, knives, bongs, dope, pipes, etc.. Why would a cop need consent to search a vehicle if the gun could be seen? Because SECURELY ENCASED is a requirement of the law. Just because you can see the butt does not mean you can see if the pistol is in a snapped holster, something actually mentioned in the law as it relates to what is "securely encased". Most importantly here Johnson HAS HIS CWFL, therefore the gun can be anywhere in the car so long as it's covered, which it was. The word "covered" is not used in FSS 790.25(3)(l) or (5)... "securely encased" however is. Big difference. Covered means nothing. If the gun was inadvertently exposed it would also be covered by law. Yes, if securely encased". AS SOMEONE WHO WOULD NEVER OPEN CARRY, THIS IS WHY I SUPPORT OPEN CARRY. This is total horse shit! Interesting position you're taking considering you were not there. I'm generally supportive of law enforcement but this kind of thing leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/dean-weingarten/self-defense-tip-do-not-consent-to-a-police-search-of-your-car/



Pistols can be ANYWHERE so long as they are SECURELY ENCASED... "covered" is not a requirement nor is that work even used in FSS 790.25(3)(l) or (5).






Snippet from 790.06

"A person licensed under this section shall not be prohibited from carrying or storing a firearm in a vehicle for lawful purposes."

Looking forward to seeing these gestapo tactics get fully repudiated when the state gets open carry.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 5:27:46 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/18/2015 5:33:44 PM EST by Bowhntr6pt]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BMad316:


Snippet from 790.06

"A person licensed under this section shall not be prohibited from carrying or storing a firearm in a vehicle for lawful purposes."

Looking forward to seeing these gestapo tactics get fully repudiated when the state gets open carry.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BMad316:
Originally Posted By Bowhntr6pt:
Originally Posted By BMad316:
The cop who arrested Chris Johnson should be fired as their story doesn't even make any sense. Interesting... did you get a copy of the report? Do you have more facts to share? Cop asked for Johnson's consent to search the vehicle, but stated the "handle of the gun could be seen" underneath the seat (bullshit) Really? I've seen plenty of items partially under seats, guns, knives, bongs, dope, pipes, etc.. Why would a cop need consent to search a vehicle if the gun could be seen? Because SECURELY ENCASED is a requirement of the law. Just because you can see the butt does not mean you can see if the pistol is in a snapped holster, something actually mentioned in the law as it relates to what is "securely encased". Most importantly here Johnson HAS HIS CWFL, therefore the gun can be anywhere in the car so long as it's covered, which it was. The word "covered" is not used in FSS 790.25(3)(l) or (5)... "securely encased" however is. Big difference. Covered means nothing. If the gun was inadvertently exposed it would also be covered by law. Yes, if securely encased". AS SOMEONE WHO WOULD NEVER OPEN CARRY, THIS IS WHY I SUPPORT OPEN CARRY. This is total horse shit! Interesting position you're taking considering you were not there. I'm generally supportive of law enforcement but this kind of thing leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/dean-weingarten/self-defense-tip-do-not-consent-to-a-police-search-of-your-car/



Pistols can be ANYWHERE so long as they are SECURELY ENCASED... "covered" is not a requirement nor is that work even used in FSS 790.25(3)(l) or (5).






Snippet from 790.06

"A person licensed under this section shall not be prohibited from carrying or storing a firearm in a vehicle for lawful purposes."

Looking forward to seeing these gestapo tactics get fully repudiated when the state gets open carry.


You really need to read AND understand the law my friend... a "Snippet" from FSS 790.25(3)

(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:

(l) A 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;

Some of you just seem to want to gloss over that damned securely encased part... don't get me wrong... I think you should be able to have a firearm ANYWHERE in your vehicle in ANY condition, securely encased or not.

I also think you should be able to CC your firearm w/o a license when in your vehicle,,, seeing as your vehicle is an extension of your home under certain legal concepts, why not extend the same rights of home/private property carry to vehicles?
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 6:02:50 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BMad316:
The cop who arrested Chris Johnson should be fired as their story doesn't even make any sense. Cop asked for Johnson's consent to search the vehicle, but stated the "handle of the gun could be seen" underneath the seat (bullshit). Why would a cop need consent to search a vehicle if the gun could be seen? Most importantly here Johnson HAS HIS CWFL, therefore the gun can be anywhere in the car so long as it's covered, which it was. If the gun was inadvertently exposed it would also be covered by law. AS SOMEONE WHO WOULD NEVER OPEN CARRY, THIS IS WHY I SUPPORT OPEN CARRY. This is total horse shit! I'm generally supportive of law enforcement but this kind of thing leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/dean-weingarten/self-defense-tip-do-not-consent-to-a-police-search-of-your-car/
View Quote


The answer could just as easily be "the author of the article should be fired for such a lack of information".

My guess is the charge will be dropped but that's just based on knowing how the local state attorney works.
Top Top