Page 10 of 19 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 182

Thread: Arrested, prosecuted for accidental, 'brief' exposure.

  1. #91
    Distinguished Member Glockinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,460
    Quote Originally Posted by bladenbullet View Post
    that would eliminate glockinators scenario as a "brief" exposure as holstering your gun would not be accidental exposure...i think brief is suitable...much is left to interpretation and if one has their wits about them i would think any exposure would be brief in nature...this guy is just a bad example...period...
    I agree. Brief suits me just fine. If the wind blows or I make some arm movement then the first thing I do is check the shirt. I can't see myself walking around with an exposed gun ever.
    Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your gun and your pepper spray, they comfort me.

  2. #92
    Senior Member ADulay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Punta Gorda
    Posts
    720
    Quote Originally Posted by bladenbullet View Post
    we're still talking about your gun here...right?...
    Hmm, very clever.

    Obviously I'll have to use a better selection of words in the future.

    However, to clarify, the Glock sidearm becomes "technically" briefly exposed once I stop in the parking lot in the time between getting off the bike and putting on a cover garment.

    If the cover garment just happens to be my smelly fishing shirt, then I can get pretty much any seat in the building!!

    AD
    NRA Life Member
    Viet-Nam Helicopter Pilots Assn Life Member
    ABATE and AMA Life Member
    IDPA carry gun shooter
    Full time Open Carry advocate
    Certified Glock Armorer

    You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

  3. #93
    Distinguished Member 45Freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Traveling.
    Posts
    5,983
    Looks like a "Pants on the ground" carry fashion faux pas!
    Next time, dress to carry!
    LIBERTY 0R DEATH, PATRIOT, VETERAN, HARLEY RIDER, FLORIDA CARRY INC. MEMBER!
    https://www.facebook.com/BasicsRangeandGun?ref=stream
    http://store.basicsrangeandgun.com/
    SPECIAL WARFARE TEAMS ROCK, WHO'S NEXT?
    STEP OFF OBAMA!

  4. #94
    Distinguished Member CrackerKen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lakeland, FL
    Posts
    2,699
    One thing for sure - "Briefly" needs to be defined either by the legislature, soon. It's going to get really old and annoying for folks to be spending money and going through the embarrassment of arrest, booking, bad publicity, etc., just because of the ambiguity of this law. This needs to be fixed, since having to have "briefly" adjudicated in court isn't so good.

    I still see now problem with wording in the law such as "...briefly or accidentally..." That pretty covers all basis.

    The easiest "fix" is open carry. It's OK to dream, right?

    The guy on the video doesn't fall into either category. He's in a category all his own.
    An uneducated voter is the politicians friend.

    CAN'T, never did anything.

    FL Native - A rare species.
    NRA Member.
    Retired LEO

  5. #95
    Junior Member ftor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    18
    i could not see the gun exposed in the video very well on my computer. if he did have an exposed gun then he is wrong, however what a way to treat someone they could have looked at his CCP and given a stern warning. so what is this about having to concern ourselves with this kind of treatment, where are the rights of the lawabiding person. i guess we are considered the bad guys.
    If you love your freedom thank a solider, especially Airborne 82 All The Way

  6. #96
    Sponsor brownie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Superstition Mtns, Az
    Posts
    36,735
    Quote Originally Posted by ftor View Post
    i could not see the gun exposed in the video very well on my computer. if he did have an exposed gun then he is wrong, however what a way to treat someone they could have looked at his CCP and given a stern warning. so what is this about having to concern ourselves with this kind of treatment, where are the rights of the lawabiding person. i guess we are considered the bad guys.
    You want stern warnings for violating other laws as well?

    where are the rights of the lawabiding person.

    He wasn't law abiding, what rights did you have in mind?
    The mind is the limiting factor

    Stay Sharp

    Brownie

  7. #97
    Distinguished Member 10x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Floral City
    Posts
    3,467
    Quote Originally Posted by CrackerKen View Post
    One thing for sure - "Briefly" needs to be defined either by the legislature, soon. It's going to get really old and annoying for folks to be spending money and going through the embarrassment of arrest, booking, bad publicity, etc., just because of the ambiguity of this law. This needs to be fixed, since having to have "briefly" adjudicated in court isn't so good.

    I still see now problem with wording in the law such as "...briefly or accidentally..." That pretty covers all basis.

    The easiest "fix" is open carry. It's OK to dream, right?

    The guy on the video doesn't fall into either category. He's in a category all his own.
    Bingo!

  8. #98
    Distinguished Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    7,500
    Sorry to get into this so late, but I am still out of town and am not on-line every day.

    This was not a case of a brief exposure, nor was it accidental, unless the man has some mental problem or a drug or alcohol problem. The shirt was not caught behind the firearm, the holstered firearm was hanging completely below the hem of the shirt. It was OC. And, the report indicates that the officers responded to a complaint of the openly displayed firearm. So, I doubt that any judge is going to buy the defense that the weapon was "briefly" displayed under the statute.

  9. #99
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Jax area
    Posts
    524
    Tend to agree with previous commenters. However the arrest affidavit stated he was openly carrying and his skin tight shirt was tucked into his shorts. The video shows the shirt over the holster, the holster was clearly visible but his tank top was NOT "tucked in" to his shorts. He sure needs some education, but don't believe the affidavit was correct.

  10. #100
    This is close to the exact question that made me buy Gutmacher's book, join several forums and do scads of research.

    First, let's address the video. I downloaded it and played it at 300% size plus stepped though it frame-by-frame and I have yet to notice the sidearm, per se. I see where it appears on his body but it is indistinguishable to me from its holster. I guess many others have far better eyesight than I and I don't argue that even while wearing an 8X magnifier during the viewing. I'm old and I do wear computer glasses. I guess I will agree that perhaps the pistol grip part was exposed. Was the athletic shirt tucked in? Possibly. That's iffy at best. Its length could have easily ended at the waist (top of the pants as displayed in the vid.). Let's assume it was tucked. That certainly doesn't make the arrestee a poster child for any cause some here hold dear.

    The issue does beg the question of what defines "concealed."

    Misty posted:
    Quote Originally Posted by Misty02 View Post
    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.
    Then there was a link to Ensor which said "this Court held that for a weapon to be concealed within the meaning of the statute it need not be absolutely invisible." You will find that quote in at least a dozen, if not more, Florida "concealed carry" cases. Trust me on that.

    If a person carrying a pistol on a belt wherein the pistol is secured in a holster and wherein the entire body of said pistol is TOTALLY concealed (by the holster plus clothing) but the holster, itself, is visible or partially visible do we have a lawful concealed carry or not (assuming a CWFL)?

    Let me make it even simpler. I am partial to carrying my Ruger Single Six in an old Navy holster made to carry a Navy Colt pistol. Google that to get picture of what the Army and Navy issued almost a century ago. Ditto for what the RCMP issued to Mounties. It has a flap-over to protect the pistol from weather and when carried no one can actually see pistol except for a small portion of the butt end of the pistol grip and only from the rear and then only visible while viewing straight-on at waist level. Assuming I tossed a rag over what was visible or allowed my shirt to cover same, would I be carrying concealed or open?

    Should we let assumptions come into play?

    When I was six I sometimes had my grandfather's Luger holster on my waist when outside playing. Mostly it (and the attendant ammo pouches) carried my bag of aggies and perhaps a chap stick and my weekly allowance as well. Was I armed for merely having a holster on my hip? Should I have been considered so? Now that I am over 60 (vs. being six years old) does the scenario change just because of age?
    People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate them because they are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well. In their view everyone must submit.

Sposors

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

arrested for accidental exposure

,

number of ccw permit holders arrested for accidental showing in florida

Click on a term to search for related topics.