Florida Concealed Carry banner

HB 779 and 849

8K views 63 replies 19 participants last post by  Rick McC. 
#1 ·
Up in House CJ subcommittee tomorrow:

HB 779 - Decriminalization of OC and prohibited places for CC (reduces both to a $25 civil fine). This is the companion bill to SB 646 which was TPd in Senate JU after the Flores tantrum last week.

HB 779 - Bil by our GOOD friend Neil Combee. Says carry in schools is only prohibited when school is in session. Not prohibited when the school is not being used as a school (direly needed).

Meeting begins at 0900 and can be viewed here:

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/HouseSchedule/houseschedule.aspx
 
#2 ·
:popcorn
 
#5 ·
If Negron is going to let Flores get away with putting the kibosh to every gun bill except SB 128 and SB 616 then it seems like nothing else really matters. I don't mean to be a wet blanket, but unless there is some ninja secret legislative maneuver in Steube's back pocket, or unless Negron is particularly interested in proving he's not Gardiner, SB 128 and SB 616 are all she wrote for this session. Am I wrong?
 
#6 ·
Negron is no better than Gardiner. It's all a dog and pony show for the dumb masses. I'm done with them
 
#7 ·
One might even be tempted to decide Negron put Flores up to it if he lets her get away with her little stunt. I really hate feeling the way I do, but I'm pretty damn tired of these politicians telling us what we want to hear and then not following through - even when the power to do so is completely in their hands. I think perhaps the Republicans have had control of the Florida legislature so long maybe they've forgotten it's possible to vote all their sorry asses out and what would happen with the Dems in control.

At least the Dems will tell you to your face that they are going to stick the knife in, rather than giving you a big hug and sticking it in your back.
 
#17 · (Edited)
Up in House CJ subcommittee tomorrow:

HB 779 - Decriminalization of OC and prohibited places for CC (reduces both to a $25 civil fine). This is the companion bill to SB 646 which was TPd in Senate JU after the Flores tantrum last week.

HB 779 - Bil by our GOOD friend Neil Combee. Says carry in schools is only prohibited when school is in session. Not prohibited when the school is not being used as a school (direly needed).

Meeting begins at 0900 and can be viewed here:

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/HouseSchedule/houseschedule.aspx
779 - Yes
849 - Yes
 
#18 ·
Thanks TIITL. It looks like the next stop is the Judiciary Committee. With any luck it clears JU, goes to the full House, and is approved there.

As long as Steube keeps the Senate bills from actually getting voted down in committee (which would kill the entire topic for this legislative session) then Negron could assign the House bill to a friendly committee (NOT JU), or to no committee (safer), and maybe it can make it to the floor for a vote by the Senate and a chance to become law.

I would expect that any committee it goes to Flores will be over there bending the ears of the Republican members trying to get them to kill it.

We'll see...
 
#22 ·
Originally Posted by BrianB View Post
"Who knows. She's female. They have special powers we can't understand."

I completely agree........:dunno:dunno:dunno:dunno
 
#29 ·
Has anyone been in contact with the bill's sponsor. When was the committee substitute adopted. Was it done at midnight by a secret vote.

I missed the very beginning of the hearing, maybe I missed it.
 
#31 ·
I don't know the answer to your question, but here are the members of the House Criminal Justice subcommittee - sorted by party first and then by name:

Altman, Thad [R]
Eagle, Dane [R]
Gonzalez, Julio [R]
Grant, James "J.W." [R]
Harrell, Gayle B. [R]
Latvala, Chris [R]
Raulerson, Daniel D. "Dan" [R]
Rommel, Bob [R]
Spano, Ross [R]
Sullivan, Jennifer Mae [R]

Alexander, Ramon [D]
Moskowitz, Jared Evan [D]
Pritchett, Sharon [D]
Richardson, David [D]
Slosberg, Emily [D]

Assuming all of the Democrats voted for the CS, it would take 3 Republican traitors siding with the Dems to do what was done. I would really like to know who those traitors are.
 
#30 · (Edited)
OK, I just watched the archive video. I looks like the sponsor accepted changes from the committee staff. At least he thanked them for working with him to change the bill.

I understand the amendment process, but I'm a little tired of the bait and switch tactics.

Were the individuals appearing in support of the bill aware of the change beforehand? It certainly appears that Eric Friday was aware but based upon his Q&A I don't think even he understands the new bill. He stated that a temporary open display would be neither non-criminal or criminal and that, in my opinion, is not what the new bill says. (correction: when the changes to 790.053 and 790.06 are read together then Friday is technically correct. Its just a can of worms)

I see now that a cross reference to 790.06 may attempt to cure the defect, but I'm not sure, on a dark and stormy night, that the local LEA is going to look at two different statutes and understand their relationship. 790.053, in and of itself appears to make any display a violation.

ETA: OK, after 5 reads, I can see what they are trying to do, BUT only because I know what they are trying to do. I predict that the abuse of licensees, that has occurred in the past will continue. I think it will be easier to get the charges dropped but the arrests (by anti-gun LEAs) will continue.

And most disappointing, we still have a term as vague as "brief" - the term "temporary."

I just want to pump gas, pay at the pump and be on my way.
 
#42 ·
#32 · (Edited)
OK, this might not be so bad. I just looked up the duration of a temporary Florida licence plate. A temporary plate is good for 30 days. I will assume that temporary means the same thing in 790.06.

I will shut up now until I can put together some rational thoughts.
 
#35 ·
temporary
[tem-puh-rer-ee]
adjective
1. lasting, existing, serving, or effective for a time only; not permanent: a temporary need; a temporary job.

I would say that when one open carries the mode is never permanent - unless perhaps the firearm were surgically implanted into your forehead and still visible.

Applying a more reasonable standard (since the rules of statutory interpretation do not allow an interpretation that is an absurd result), perhaps one might argue that the open carry is not temporary if the carrier has absolutely no means of concealing the firearm. Sort of as they argued was the case for Norman. But even Norman could have taken his tight fitting shirt off and draped it over the gun - effectively (and legally) concealing it.

If the legislature does not define "temporarily" then the courts will do it for them. It's anybody's guess what the hell the SCOF would decide "temporarily" means.

If I'm in uniform and open carrying in a duty belt and holster, and the uniform shirt is too tight to be un-tucked and cover the gun, am I temporarily open carrying?

Honestly I think "temporarily" might be more unconstitutionally vague than "briefly". That said, I like "temporarily" better than "briefly".

I have a feeling this is an ongoing effort by some spineless Republicans to address the "concealed carriers are being arrested" argument rather than giving a straight thumbs up or down to open carry.

If this CS becomes law and people continue to get arrested (or more people get arrested because they are confused about how long "temporarily" lasts) then that case would have to be made again in a year.

Year after year slips by and the Republicans bend us over again and again.

I'm really quite pissed off. I've typed and deleted several sentences that I ultimately had the good sense not to post. I'm going to go ahead and hit "Submit Reply" now before my good sense loses the battle.
 
#34 ·
If open carry is dead, Republican party is dead to me
 
#36 ·
#37 ·
I'm not sure when Eric knew about the CS. I can tell you it wasn't last night. I sure as hell didn't until the bill was introduced.

I know Neil Combee. He ain't happy, that much was plain to see, and if you listen to the other Repubs on the committee like Altman (one of the true believers, like Combee), they were not either.

Need to look higher up the food chain.
 
#38 ·
ACTION # 1: SB-128, the self-defense bill/burden of proof bill was heard by the full Senate on final passage today, Wednesday, March 15, 2017, and PASSED 23-15. The bill will now be sent to the House.

SB-128 Burden of Proof by Sen. Rob Bradley restores the presumption of innocence in self-defense cases by putting the burden of proof BACK ON THE STATE where it belongs. ALL Democrats voted AGAINST the bill. ALL Republicans voted FOR the bill -- except Sen. Anitere Flores (R-Miami) who voted AGAINST the bill. Below is the link to Senate Floor Vote:


Senate Roll Call Vote on SB-128

ACTION # 2 HB-779, the bill to protect concealed weapons and firearms license holders from being charges with a crime for temporary and open exposure of a firearm, was heard in the House Criminal Justice Committee today, Wednesday, March 15, 2017, and PASSED 9-5. The bill now goes to the House Judiciary Committee.

HB-779 Protection of CW License Holders by Rep. Neil Combee removes the criminal penalties for violations of the open carry law and prohibits a person who has a concealed firearms license from being arrested and charged with a crime if their firearm becomes temporarily exposed to sight of another person.

ACTION # 3: HB-849 the bill to restore private property rights to churcheswas heard in the House Criminal Justice Committee today, Wednesday, March 15, 2017, and PASSED 10-2. The bill now goes to the House Judiciary Committee.

HB-849 Carry on Church Property by Rep. Neil Combee eliminates restrictions that prevent churches from allowing firearms on church property if church property is ever used for any type of schooling. In other words, if your church, synagogue, or religious institution has a day care program or any kind of private school program Monday through Friday, the church could not allow CW license holders to carry on church property at any time. This bill fixes that.

It was a great day for the Second Amendment and law abiding gun owners today.
NRA sent out an email just now, and singled out Flores for chastisement.
 
#41 ·
I'm learning that with regard to the Florida Legislature, truth is indeed stranger than fiction. And to think I thought the DPRofMD shenanigans were absurd, but it appears they had nothing on Florida legislators. At least one always knew from where the DPRofMD legislators were coming. :doh
 
#44 · (Edited)
BrianB - I was really just addressing the process, not making a value judgment about the change in this particular bill.

Can the bill be amended on the Floor? Yes, by a simple majority vote on 2nd Reading (fairly common, generally to adopt the final passed language from the other chamber's companion bill); and on 3rd Reading/Final passage, but requires a super-majority to "waive the rules" (fairly uncommon, except in the last week or two of Session, when committees other than "Rules" have ceased to meet).

I am working to pass a couple of health care bills, and trying to derail a couple. You'd be amazed how many Legislators have a strong opinion about things they know absolutely NOTHING about. I've spent the last two weeks discussing/arguing the nuances of a bill that we wrote (four distinct parts, three parts of which were written by teams of health care sector attorneys who work in this field every day - combined experience of about 145 years. I wrote the fourth part). Yesterday, we talked an attorney legislator out of filing an amendment that we can demonstrate by case law, violates HIPAA, and we still had to talk him off the ledge... we agreed to an innocuous "pursuant to (statutory reference)" amendment, which Bill Drafting hates, but we had to give him something (even though his premise is incorrect) so he would let go and feel like he influenced the process. It can be maddening. Staff, particularly Committee Staff Directors or topic Policy Chiefs, can also inject their influence. With term limits, staff have become the government's subject matter experts. Before term limits, Legislators were able to become subject matter experts.

Of course, generally speaking, the REAL subject matter experts are association executives that represent various sectors, and the executives that actually work in those sectors, albeit each has a position to advance.

All that to say, there may, or may not be a good reason for them to change "briefly" to "temporarily". It could be defined elsewhere in statute, or there could be case law associated with it. You just never know. If Marion Hammer wasn't up there arguing, "NO,HELL NO!" Then it's likely something she signed off on, or has a plan to mitigate later.
 
#45 ·
BrianB - I was really just addressing the process, not making a value judgment about the change in this particular bill.
Sorry, I wasn't attacking you I was attacking the sponsor, if indeed the sponsor was amenable to this CS.

Can the bill be amended on the Floor? Yes, by a simple majority vote on 2nd Reading (fairly common, generally to adopt the final passed language from the other chamber's companion bill); and on 3rd Reading/Final passage, but requires a super-majority to "waive the rules" (fairly uncommon, except in the last week or two of Session, when committees other than "Rules" have ceased to meet).
Then I guess all that matters is that we get a bill out of committee and hope that once it makes it to the floor it can be turned into something actually useful.

With regard to "temporarily" over "briefly" I'd much rather have "temporarily" than "briefly" because personally I think "temporarily" is pretty much for as long as I want since virtually any duration is less than "permanently" which means it was therefore "temporary".

All that to say, there may, or may not be a good reason for them to change "briefly" to "temporarily". It could be defined elsewhere in statute, or there could be case law associated with it. You just never know. If Marion Hammer wasn't up there arguing, "NO,HELL NO!" Then it's likely something she signed off on, or has a plan to mitigate later.
I don't get the sense that "our side" had any real awareness of the change - certainly it doesn't seem like FC knew about it. If Marion knew about it and was OK with it then I'll have to believe there is a bigger strategy at work (like doing a strike-all when it reaches the floor) and she's just trying to get something out of committee.

As always thanks for sharing your excellent knowledge of this process.
 
#46 · (Edited)
BrainB - I honestly didn't take what you said personally. Was just clarifying and providing context.

The rules require that all amendments be filed in advance, so there are no surprises in the process. Long-gone are the days of "late filed" and "hand written" amendments, though I do remember those days. Case in point, the CS in question was filed on 3/13, so everyone in the process knew it was coming (From LobbyTools):

Bill Text and Filed Amendments
H 0779 Filed on 02/10/17
Amendment 10000 PCS Criminal Justice Sub Filed on 03/13/17
H 0779C1 Filed on 03/15/17 Adopted

The bigger worry, IMHO, is that the companion bill, SB646 was Temporarily Postponed ("TP'd", as in "It is on the calendar, but we're going to pass over it") on 3/7 in a committee that the bill sponsor chairs. Generally a bill is only TP'd when the sponsor does not have the votes to pass the bill. The GOP has a slim 5-4 majority in that committee, so all it takes is for one R to flip, and the bill dies. Steube is smarter than to let his bill die on a vote, because that procedurally kills it for the Session, including prohibiting the language from being amended to another bill. Having said that, it is also politically perilous to flip on the chair's own bill, because it will absolutely affect whether any of your bills make it to the calendar in that committee in future meetings. If you have no bills going to through that committee, then you don't have much to lose. Also, the chair controls the calendar in his committee, so he can put his own bill back up at any subsequent meeting. For someone who is not a chair, being TP'd is often the kiss of death for the Session (sort of a "You had your chance, sorry you couldn't line up the votes, we have limited bandwidth, so better luck next year," kind of mentality).

Let me mention LobbyTools and similar tracking systems, and say they are invaluable. It allows me to sign up for statute/key word alerts (letting me know of any bill filed that amends or references a statute chapter I'm tracking or includes a key word I'm watching), track bills, sends me notices of amendments filed on bills I'm tracking or that include statute or key word references, allows me to insert comments about bills for other members of my team to see, or to insert private comments, sends me committee agendas, download committee packets, allows me to fill out an "appearance card" online if I intend to testify on a bill in committee, and sends me news articles relevant to key words or statutes on my list, and so on. Powerful tools. Almost everyone in the process uses some sort of tool like this. I haven't used it, but understand that the free tracking system provided by the state is actually pretty robust with features (some of my members use it).
 
#50 ·
BrainB - I honestly didn't take what you said personally. Was just clarifying and providing context.
OK, cool - just making sure.

The rules require that all amendments be filed in advance, so there are no surprises in the process. Long-gone are the days of "late filed" and "hand written" amendments, though I do remember those days. Case in point, the CS in question was filed on 3/13, so everyone in the process knew it was coming (From LobbyTools):

Bill Text and Filed Amendments
H 0779 Filed on 02/10/17
Amendment 10000 PCS Criminal Justice Sub Filed on 03/13/17
H 0779C1 Filed on 03/15/17 Adopted
Hmmm. I wonder if this slipped by everyone or if somehow this is part of a grand master plan?

The bigger worry, IMHO, is that the companion bill, SB646 was Temporarily Postponed ("TP'd", as in "It is on the calendar, but we're going to pass over it") on 3/7 in a committee that the bill sponsor chairs. Generally a bill is only TP'd when the sponsor does not have the votes to pass the bill. The GOP has a slim 5-4 majority in that committee, so all it takes is for one R to flip, and the bill dies. Steube is smarter than to let his bill die on a vote, because that procedurally kills it for the Session, including prohibiting the language from being amended to another bill. Having said that, it is also politically perilous to flip on the chair's own bill, because it will absolutely affect whether any of your bills make it to the calendar in that committee in future meetings. If you have no bills going to through that committee, then you don't have much to lose. Also, the chair controls the calendar in his committee, so he can put his own bill back up at any subsequent meeting. For someone who is not a chair, being TP'd is often the kiss of death for the Session (sort of a "You had your chance, sorry you couldn't line up the votes, we have limited bandwidth, so better luck next year," kind of mentality).
Oh, we know all about what's up with SB 646. Senator Anitere "Benedict" Flores (RINO) flipped on pretty much all of the Senate gun bills except SB 616 and Steube is wisely holding them back to keep them from being voted down and killed. Benedict threatened Steube not to try to amend other things onto SB 616 after it makes it out of committee or she'd see to it that he suffered for it (not her words, but that was the gist of it). She's Senate President Pro Tempore so presumably she has some power to follow through on that threat, but I would think that without Negron going along with it there wouldn't be that much she could really do - but what do I know.

Let me mention LobbyTools and similar tracking systems, and say they are invaluable. It allows me to sign up for statute/key word alerts (letting me know of any bill filed that amends or references a statute chapter I'm tracking or includes a key word I'm watching), track bills, sends me notices of amendments filed on bills I'm tracking or that include statute or key word references, allows me to insert comments about bills for other members of my team to see, or to insert private comments, sends me committee agendas, download committee packets, allows me to fill out an "appearance card" online if I intend to testify on a bill in committee, and sends me news articles relevant to key words or statutes on my list, and so on. Powerful tools. Almost everyone in the process uses some sort of tool like this. I haven't used it, but understand that the free tracking system provided by the state is actually pretty robust with features (some of my members use it).
Sounds cool. I wish they had some info on pricing structure on their website. Like so many tools of this type they seem to be mum about what it costs and in order to find out you have to register for a free demo request.
 
#47 ·
substratum,

Thanks for taking the time and effort to "educate" many of us who have very little understanding of just how the legislative processes actually work.

I've been involved with this for many years and just reading your comments makes me realize that I really don't have a clue as to how the whole thing works in the world you have to work in.

AD
 
#48 ·
Happy to share what I know. This is my 22nd Session working on the private sector (association) side of the process as a registered lobbyist. I worked on the government agency side before that for close to 8 years, and actually got to rewrite a substantive section of statute in one of those roles. I learn something new (or weird) about the process every single day. AND, the House and Senate rules change a little every two years when a new Speaker and new President are sworn in, so anyone working in the process must stay abreast of those changes (which affect how bills, amendments, etc. flow through the process... a lot of procedural stuff that can trip up the unwary). It's like anything you immerse yourself in, you figure out the nuances of most of it after a while. Failure is a powerful tool in this sort of process education, too, LOL!
 
#53 ·
I know my way of thinking is not seen eye to eye with in here, but I think expectations of the Florida Republicans in office, and what they actually feel about gun rights is coming to light as a few in here has said. So many gun owners...especially in here, want to believe the entire state population (including all the republican members in office) are 100% pro gun and have no reservations about any laws that may restrict anything to do with guns. Little by little we are seeing the general population....Democrats AND Republicans are NOT in agreement with gun owners in the state. Unfortunately like it or not, WE are the minority on caring and wanting to preserve gun rights....most citizens of this state do not care about the Second Amendment, and most elected officials are going to start to cater to their wishes and not ours. Now add this to the Tourist Bureau of Fl and like it or not ....we are not going to gain rights , but losing what we have is a real possibility. Vote them out of office? Good luck in the long run....a few are gone, but more and more crap head politicians are gaining control of the Republican party.
 
#56 ·
Ever since Thrasher flipped, I have been telling my republican delegations that I will work as hard to vote them out as I do to vote them in. Thrasher didn't care, he was going to play president of FSU and watch college football. I voted for him because he was a vet who said he supported the 2A. I didn't even have the pleasure of campaigning against him.

Some of them don't even know what it is they say they are are supporting. It is just lip service and lies.

None of them seem to care.

I'm getting to old for this.
 
#57 ·
For the last few years there has been a steady trend downward in party affiliation in FL for both parties. Currently 38% registered Dem, 36% registered Rep, and 26% NPA or others. The largest loser in registrations in the last few years has been the Dems, with the largest gainer being NPA. It makes me wonder what the political landscape will be like when the NPA folks, like me, manage to get to, or close to, the level of one or more of the two traditional parties. I would submit that our own current politicians seem to be hellbent on driving their constituents away from their traditional party affiliation.
 
#58 ·
I will tell you what will happen......The NPA will encounter the same BS no cooperation and road blocking tactics that President Trump is encountering from both the Democrats and quite a few so called Republicans.
 
#59 ·
Just keep in mind while you're hating on Sen. Flores (LOL!), that she won a seat formerly held by Sen. Dwight Bullard, and Black Democrat - son of longtime Senator Larcenia Bullard and her husband (a House Member - forgot his name). Her's is a swing seat. Maybe she read a poll or something and it scared her. Also, keep in mind that many of those south Florida Cuban legislators over the years have scored in the high 70s to low 80s on conservative report cards. There are just some issues they see differently from other Republicans - particularly social issues. Florida truly is an incredibly diverse place.
 
#61 ·
I hope the wench chokes on a pickled frog's ass
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top