Florida Concealed Carry banner

Arrested, prosecuted for accidental, 'brief' exposure.

23K views 181 replies 61 participants last post by  Hodawg 
#1 ·
Second case in the last 6mos.

Seems that whole 'briefly' deal isn't the solution some thought it would be.

http://www.allnineyards.com/
 
#49 ·
If he wasn't "saggin' gangsta' style" it wouldn't have been in full sight.
 
#51 ·
I don't see this stop as a simple failure to conceal issue.
The guy knew exactly what to do. 5 officers responded. They had him cuffed on the ground & in the car in a minute. Sounds to me like this guy fit a description of some suspect & was seen as a suspect carrying a gun.
I have to question why they went as far as they did after it was discovered he a a CWFL & knowing about the law about brief exposure was enacted.
He was not acting in any threatening way.
I have to wonder also if race or profiling was a factor.
The statutes says it's only a misdemeanor of the second degree.
There has to be more of this.....
 
#54 ·
I don't see this stop as a simple failure to conceal issue.
The guy knew exactly what to do. 5 officers responded. They had him cuffed on the ground & in the car in a minute. Sounds to me like this guy fit a description of some suspect & was seen as a suspect carrying a gun.
I have to question why they went as far as they did after it was discovered he a a CWFL & knowing about the law about brief exposure was enacted.
He was not acting in any threatening way.
I have to wonder also if race or profiling was a factor.
The statutes says it's only a misdemeanor of the second degree.
There has to be more of this.....
Because that obviously wasn't inadvertent brief exposure. He strapped it on that way and it was visible from the get go.
 
#55 ·
The more I see the video the more I see he was open carrying that gun, and his falling pants didnt help either. That's a big no no.
 
#73 ·
My problem with this man and his weapon is, how did he not notice the holster sagging WAYYYY below his long skin-tight tank top??? I mean, most all of the CWFL newbies we see here and the ones I meet in public are hyper sensitive to their gun being discovered, printing, etc. They check their gun every 30sec (LOL) and worry about the gun showing/printing for a good week or two. Heck I still check my shirt often in public places as I don't like wearing long shirts. Every time I have to bend over to pick up something or reach up, I check shirt.

Anyways, it's really hard to believe this man didn't notice or knew what was happening with his holster and gun. I think he was just confused and thought the CWFL gave him the right to carry in any manner he desired regardless of gun being exposed or not.
 
#74 ·
Thinking about noodling, how are you keeping the firearm from being submerged while you are fishing the cats? More importantly perhaps, who would noodle armed and submerge the firearm to begin with?

Noodling, it's not just for dinner anymore right :rofl
 
#79 · (Edited)
I was being sarcastic in my post, but I guess the answer could be, "I don't have a car and planned on securing the firearm in my buddy's car since he was already at the fishin' hole." Since he was technically going fishing (via stipulation), he could OC.
Though, technically, I believe it is illegal to noodle in Florida.

A stretch. And, I'm by no means saying anything in the defense for the guy. Wasn't there, but from what I could tell, it's pretty obvious to me that he knew the gun wasn't concealed.
 
#75 ·
I'm curious about something I observed in the video. The arrestee was surrounded by LEO's, went to the ground, was properly handcuffed, helped to his feet and escorted several steps to the police car. Only then was his weapon removed from his person. Was waiting that long to disarm a man the police thought was a potential danger a breech in procedure? He wouldn't have lasted long, but he could have reached his gun.
 
#80 ·
IMHO - that dip stick is an embarrassment to the FL CWFL community in FL.

No telling how long he had been walking down the street. Where did he come from? Where did he park? Does he even have a car?

To me, it looks like he just didn't care.

OTOH: I'd just as soon we get OC passed in FL. However, I forsee a coming battle just to keep what we have now, and preserve the SYG law.

I hate it when I go to a gun store that doesn't allow loaded firearms in the store. I try my best to be discrete when unholstering the gun and locking it up - but it can be seen sometimes if someone is looking. However, in a gun store parking lot, nobody cares anyway.
 
#81 ·
Again I come back to the word "Brief". This will be argued in court to what it means. One can take a brief holiday than can last a weekend.
I am not being sarcastic, but I think this is a problem the way this law is written. It leaves alot to ones own interpretation of what brief means. As far as the guy in the video, I dont have all the facts to make a call on his intentions.
 
#82 ·
Logically it would depend on the exposure. If you get off your bike and retrieve the gun from a saddle bag and holster it then 5 seconds would be brief. If you unholtser to go in a post office and put the gun in the trunk then again 5 seconds would be enough. If the wind blows your shirt over the grip or you reach up and the shirt gets caught on your grip, and you don't realize this and walk around for 5 minutes, then who knows how the police or a judge will see this exposure. The law was meant to cover this sort of accidental exposure but their choice of words leaves you vulnerable for an arrest.
 
#83 · (Edited)
Is there any excuse for not checking that you've not exposed your firearm after some activity like bending over or reaching high for something and letting firearm be exposed for longer than it would take a reasonable person to check that their activity hasn't exposed it?

I would doubt anyone excusing themselves for walking down the street for 10 minutes after leaving a store with it exposed would be considered "brief".

"Brief" may be subjective in nature, but common sense also plays a part in all this. If you haven't got the awareness to check you're not exposing your firearm, you may get to talk with LEO about it in public. How they perceive your actions is indeterminable.

Have to ask yourself "what's reasonable" where brief is concerned.
 
#84 ·
Maybe "accidental exposure" would be good for the law, instead of "brief" exposure?

Of course, the easiest thing to do (at least in our minds) is to allow OC, then all this goes away. But the anti-gunners will go ballistic over the thought of allowing OC, just like last year. As I mentioned earlier, we may have a battle on our hands just keeping what we have (gun and carry rights in FL) at the present time, without going for more. The unfortunate and unjustified fall-out from the Trayvon/Zimmerman mess is going to be a problem for a while.
 
#86 ·
I'm all for open carry. But the problem with this law was that once it became apparent that open carry would not pass and the end of the legislative session was looming, the legislature attempted to cover accidental exposure. Then it was changed to cover deliberate exposure such as moving your gun to/from a trunk. Who knows how much arguing went on behind closed doors? The phrase incidental or accidental(can't remember) was actually in an amendment and then withdrawn which leaves any exposure OK. The word briefy was then introduced because they were unable to actually quantify it. The democrats were happy to be done with the open carry discussion and the republicans wanted something out of all this work. So that's their compromise - an ambiguous law.
 
#87 ·
Maybe "accidental exposure" would be good for the law, instead of "brief" exposure?

.
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...
 
#88 ·
Y'all make sense. I can't disagree with that logic.

Just another one of the several ambiguous firearms laws we have to deal with. No shortage of those. Maybe inclusion of accidental, in addition to (not in place of) "briefly" could work?
 
#93 ·
Looks like a "Pants on the ground" carry fashion faux pas!:thumbsdwn
Next time, dress to carry!
 
#94 ·
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.
 
#95 ·
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.
 
#96 ·
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? :rofl
 
#98 ·
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.
 
#99 ·
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.
 
#101 ·
The subject of those "flap-style" holsters is nothing new. It's come up before.

IIRC, the general consensus is that it's one of those, "you might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride" things.

Meaning, it may very well be legal. (I'm still not convinced myself) However, since it is very obvious that the item is designed to hold a gun, and any reasonable person would expect it to contain a gun, you should most assuredly expect negative attention of some form or another, whether or not it actually does contain a gun.

Of course, since that negative attention is what some appear to want, if that's your goal, that's one way to go about obtaining that attention.

Personally, It's not worth the trouble. I carry a gun to defend myself and my family from harm if I can should the need arise. I don't carry a gun for show.

I believe we have a video here of that open carry "swagger" a few of us have voiced serious concerns over when it comes to open carry. I don't believe this fella attempted to conceal his firearm and he got caught for it. And, in typical "entitlement generation" fashion, now he doesn't want to accept responsibility for his own actions. It's always someone else's fault.

This time, I guess it's his shirt's fault. :dunno

And these kind of stories and video making the news does NOTHING to "normalize" anything other than the stereotypes and misconceptions that the anti-gun agenda uses to push against us. Guys like this do their work for them and that's kind of stupid IMHO.

Even if it WAS an accident, we've already determined that it was an accident that continued well beyond any reasonable understanding of brief. If he truly didn't notice that his pants had fallen down to the point that his gun was showing, for the length of time it took for a citizen to make a MWAG call to 911, call to get dispatched, and LEO's to arrive on scene, well....that still makes him kinda stupid IMHO.
 
#102 ·
After seeing the dash cam video, two things I see here, profiling and stupidity.

I am sure that if someone dressed accordingly happened to print or "accidentally" display their gun, LEO would probably handcuffed him and begin a field investigation without the charade. Unfortunately that didn't happened here. Also, I bet that this guy got his CCW at "CCW Galore" w/o going through proper training. Who in his senses is going to walk the streets with just a regular white undershirt carrying a black handgun that you can spot a mile away? At least use a dark colored one or something with print that can at least "blend" the concealment.

I agree with all that post that this guy have no idea of the meaning "concealed".

Another question, how did the LEO's found out? Someone called 911?

Just curiosity.
 
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