In Plain Sight Inside My Car - Page 5
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: In Plain Sight Inside My Car

  1. #41
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    15
    Wow, we can stop circling the hydrant gents, it was a light sprinkle with no intention of claiming ownership!!


    Quote Originally Posted by TitleIIToyLover View Post
    Intheknow,

    Would you care to address the OP in light of 790.25 (3)(l) and assuming the handgun is "snapped" in a holster?

    (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...
    I'm sure we can all agree, and I'm sure this is not the first time this topic has surfaced, but statutes, specifically this one, can offer some debate on whether one can/can't do one thing or the other. I concede that I did not go into extreme detail with my initial post and to be quite honest I didn't want to bore the readers, or insult the old salts on here with a history lesson so to speak. That said, I still contend not to bore readers with a history lesson on FSS, but if you're truly that intrigued with chapter 790, I implore you to utilize google as there is plenty to offer.

    Moving on, TitleIIToyLover, let me first apologize to you as I did not intend to create a pissing contest with you! You seem to have a decent understanding with statutes. That said, I reference your above post and offer some friendly debate as to 790.25 (3), once known as "exceptions", but now referred to as "Lawful Uses". You cite the provisions of 790.053 and 790.06 do not apply in the following instances as it is written, but I ask you this:

    1. Can we agree the State of Florida is not an open carry state and is a concealed carry state?

    2. Can we agree there are two statutes of enforcement with regards the carry of firearms, open carry (790.053) and concealed carry (790.01)?

    Assuming we agree on the first two questions:

    3. If 790.053 and 790.06 do not apply for the purposes of private conveyance carry, why did the framers of 790.25(3)(l) and 790.25(5) include in their statute/s "securely encased" or "readily accessible"?

    4. Can we agree that if 790.053 does not apply to private conveyance carry, than why not just do that, strap on a holster as if you were going on a fishing expedition like 790.25(3)(h)?

    Last question I promise:
    5. If one who chooses to carry a "handgun" in their private conveyance, openly on or about their person to the ordinary sight of another that doesn't meet the defined criteria of "securely encased" or "readily accessible", what would their violation be, more importantly, what enforcement statute have they violated?

    Respectfully,
    Somewhatintheknow
    Last edited by Intheknow; 01-27-2020 at 09:17 PM.

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    710
    Depends on where you live and what you are doing! I'm out in the woods hunting! Going to and from spots in the woods. Both FWC and a sheriff pull me over! Take one look in the car and see rifle and pistola in the front seat! Asked if I've had any luck and I said, "Nope". They ask for hunting licensee, I oblige and I'm sent on my merry way!

    Cruising around anywhere else, I usually throw something over the pistol in the front seat if heading to the woods. But sometimes forget and have been pulled over by Barney Five! He had to call the in the big dogs because he saw my gun sitting on the front seat with me in full camo! Everyone get's there, they approach and said, what the heck am I doing with the pistol in the front seat in the open. I said, I going hunting and well, I don't have to conceal it. Luckily one guy there knew this and sent me on my way!

    Any other time in the my life, it's concealed!

  3. #43
    Distinguished Member TitleIIToyLover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    East Central Florida
    Posts
    4,778
    Quote Originally Posted by Intheknow View Post
    Wow, we can stop circling the hydrant gents, it was a light sprinkle with no intention of claiming ownership!!




    I'm sure we can all agree, and I'm sure this is not the first time this topic has surfaced, but statutes, specifically this one, can offer some debate on whether one can/can't do one thing or the other. I concede that I did not go into extreme detail with my initial post and to be quite honest I didn't want to bore the readers, or insult the old salts on here with a history lesson so to speak. That said, I still contend not to bore readers with a history lesson on FSS, but if you're truly that intrigued with chapter 790, I implore you to utilize google as there is plenty to offer.

    Moving on, TitleIIToyLover, let me first apologize to you as I did not intend to create a pissing contest with you! You seem to have a decent understanding with statutes. That said, I reference your above post and offer some friendly debate as to 790.25 (3), once known as "exceptions", but now referred to as "Lawful Uses". You cite the provisions of 790.053 and 790.06 do not apply in the following instances as it is written, but I ask you this:

    1. Can we agree the State of Florida is not an open carry state and is a concealed carry state?

    2. Can we agree there are two statutes of enforcement with regards the carry of firearms, open carry (790.053) and concealed carry (790.01)?

    Assuming we agree on the first two questions:

    3. If 790.053 and 790.06 do not apply for the purposes of private conveyance carry, why did the framers of 790.25(3)(l) and 790.25(5) include in their statute/s "securely encased" or "readily accessible"?

    4. Can we agree that if 790.053 does not apply to private conveyance carry, than why not just do that, strap on a holster as if you were going on a fishing expedition like 790.25(3)(h)?

    Last question I promise:
    5. If one who chooses to carry a "handgun" in their private conveyance, openly on or about their person to the ordinary sight of another that doesn't meet the defined criteria of "securely encased" or "readily accessible", what would their violation be, more importantly, what enforcement statute have they violated?

    Respectfully,
    Somewhatintheknow
    As long as we are enumerating stipulations...

    Can we stipulate that the very,very, very, first thing I said was:

    "IANAL!

    Let me begin with a quote that I hate: "Just because you can do something does not mean you should.""


    My post was an academic exercise, based upon the statutes as they currently stand.

    I may come back and address some of your comments/question but I'm busy today. I didn't want you to think that I was ignoring you.

    Maybe Brian B will have some time.
    Last edited by TitleIIToyLover; 01-28-2020 at 12:41 PM.
    There are only 3 colors, 10 digits, and 7 notes; it's how we arrange them that is important.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    FloridaConcealedCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #44
    Distinguished Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    1,803
    To me, "ordinary sight of another person", when said handgun is INSIDE my vehicle, constitutes prowling on the part of said other person.
    They have no business looking in my vehicle.

    I wonder if that "defense", such that it is, would ever hold up in court?

  6. #45
    Distinguished Member Rick McC.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Weeki Wachee, Fl.
    Posts
    7,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Anduril View Post
    To me, "ordinary sight of another person", when said handgun is INSIDE my vehicle, constitutes prowling on the part of said other person.
    They have no business looking in my vehicle.

    I wonder if that "defense", such that it is, would ever hold up in court?
    Based on watching “Live PD;” no way.
    Rick

    "Sights are for the unenlightened."

    http://www.guntipsandtalk.com/

    IDPA Certified Safety Officer

  7. #46
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    15
    Bueller! Bueller!

  8. #47
    Distinguished Member TitleIIToyLover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    East Central Florida
    Posts
    4,778
    Quote Originally Posted by Intheknow View Post
    Wow, we can stop circling the hydrant gents, it was a light sprinkle with no intention of claiming ownership!!




    I'm sure we can all agree, and I'm sure this is not the first time this topic has surfaced, but statutes, specifically this one, can offer some debate on whether one can/can't do one thing or the other. I concede that I did not go into extreme detail with my initial post and to be quite honest I didn't want to bore the readers, or insult the old salts on here with a history lesson so to speak. That said, I still contend not to bore readers with a history lesson on FSS, but if you're truly that intrigued with chapter 790, I implore you to utilize google as there is plenty to offer.

    Moving on, TitleIIToyLover, let me first apologize to you as I did not intend to create a pissing contest with you! You seem to have a decent understanding with statutes. That said, I reference your above post and offer some friendly debate as to 790.25 (3), once known as "exceptions", but now referred to as "Lawful Uses". You cite the provisions of 790.053 and 790.06 do not apply in the following instances as it is written, but I ask you this:

    1. Can we agree the State of Florida is not an open carry state and is a concealed carry state?

    I'm not even sure what that means. See question 2.

    2. Can we agree there are two statutes of enforcement with regards the carry of firearms, open carry (790.053) and concealed carry (790.01)?

    Again, I am not sure what your mean, but I will stipulate that among other statutes that address firearms, 790.053 generally prohibits open carry except as provided in other statutes and with an exemption for a brief and open display of a licenced conceal firearm, and 790.01 general prohibits the unlicensed carry of a concealed firearm.

    Assuming we agree on the first two questions:

    3. If 790.053 and 790.06 do not apply for the purposes of private conveyance carry, why did the framers of 790.25(3)(l) and 790.25(5) include in their statute/s "securely encased" or "readily accessible"?

    Because those are the situations when 790.053 and 790.06 do not apply. Also, the two subsections you enumerated where written at different times in history, by different drafters and approved by different legislatures.

    4. Can we agree that if 790.053 does not apply to private conveyance carry, than why not just do that, strap on a holster as if you were going on a fishing expedition like 790.25(3)(h)?

    That was not the situation addressed in the OP.

    Last question I promise:
    5. If one who chooses to carry a "handgun" in their private conveyance, openly on or about their person to the ordinary sight of another that doesn't meet the defined criteria of "securely encased" or "readily accessible", what would their violation be, more importantly, what enforcement statute have they violated?

    Again, that is not the issue addressed in the OP.

    Respectfully,
    Somewhatintheknow
    Your questions seem somewhat off topic and argumentative. If you want to discuss the history and evolution of F.S.790 and the legislative intent behind various changes, then we need to start a new thread. Might I suggest 1982 as a good starting point.

    Thread drift is a serious problem in many forums and I don't want this thread to become useless.

    Finally, I would like to mention that the original poster had already stated that he had abandoned any plans to carry in the way that was the point of the OP (see post #12), by the time you jumped in, which was why your post was seen by some as unnecessary and even irrelevant in tone and manner.

    I will not comment any further in this thread.
    Last edited by TitleIIToyLover; 02-04-2020 at 06:09 PM.
    There are only 3 colors, 10 digits, and 7 notes; it's how we arrange them that is important.

  9. #48
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    15
    Are you serious? Off Topic? Argumentative?


    Quote Originally Posted by TitleIIToyLover View Post
    Intheknow,

    Would you care to address the OP in light of 790.25 (3)(l) and assuming the handgun is "snapped" in a holster?

    (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...
    Quote Originally Posted by BeerHunter View Post
    Lighten up, Francis! No one said you should just sit down. However, reviving a two month old thread to provide new information or to correct erroneous information is one thing. It's another to revive an old thread to duplicate answers already provided. Of course, TitleIIToyLover did provide a perturbation that perhaps you'd care to address.
    Quote Originally Posted by High Seas Drifter View Post
    I'd like to hear his response.

    Because based on what he wrote about the law, I think he needs to change his handle to NOT-In-the-Know!

    But I could be wrong, too. Wouldn't be the first or the last.



    -on Tapatalk
    Quote Originally Posted by BeerHunter View Post
    I was actually being gentle in my first reply because he actually missed one important detail that makes his answer less correct than already provided earlier in the thread. TitleIIToyLover picked up on it and if he does t go back and edit his "interpretation" of F.S. 790.25(5), then one of us will have to enlighten him so he becomes more "IntheKnow."
    Quote Originally Posted by TitleIIToyLover View Post
    If Intheknow wanted to jump into an old thread and clarify some part of the thread that was left unaddressed/unanswered then I would applaud him for his effort. But that in not what Intheknow did. It appears he ignored all of the previous posts and conclusions and decided for some reason that he would give us a different answer based upon the wrong subsection of the statute AND with no explanations to why AND then get buttt hurt because he got called out.

    I hope Intheknow will explain why he thinks subsection (5) is controlling, notwithstanding (3) and why the provisions of 790.053 apply in the situation described in the OP.

    I have been wrong before and certainly want to know if I am wrong, in my current interpretation.

    And besides it would give him an opportunity to raise his post count up from 9, to 10 and get into the double digits.
    I like the second part of this post!!

    Quote Originally Posted by TitleIIToyLover View Post
    As long as we are enumerating stipulations...

    Can we stipulate that the very,very, very, first thing I said was:

    "IANAL!

    Let me begin with a quote that I hate: "Just because you can do something does not mean you should.""


    My post was an academic exercise, based upon the statutes as they currently stand.

    I may come back and address some of your comments/question but I'm busy today. I didn't want you to think that I was ignoring you.

    Maybe Brian B will have some time.
    Quote Originally Posted by TitleIIToyLover View Post
    Your questions seem somewhat off topic and argumentative. If you want to discuss the history and evolution of F.S.790 and the legislative intent behind various changes, then we need to start a new thread. Might I suggest 1982 as a good starting point.

    Thread drift is a serious problem in many forums and I don't want this thread to become useless.

    Finally, I would like to mention that the original poster had already stated that he had abandoned any plans to carry in the way that was the point of the OP (see post #12), by the time you jumped in, which was why your post was seen by some as unnecessary and even irrelevant in tone and manner.

    I will not comment any further in this thread.
    My commentary was completely "On Topic" and relevant to the OP original post. It is obvious by the above posts several wanted me to come back and explain myself to the fellow forum members or I would be "enlightened", you know, because I was handled gently the first time!! BTW beerhunter, "You just made the list, buddy"

    There was nothing argumentative about my questions, simply objective debate with another forum member on the topic of OC in a PC. You now want to disregard my posts with this, what a cop out!

  10. #49
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    26
    To the moderators: locking this thread might be a good idea

    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

  11. #50
    Super Moderator
    BeerHunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    PBC
    Posts
    25,363
    Yup, this thread has run its course.
    -BH

    Member: Florida Carry, COTEP 766, SAF, GOA, NRA Endowment Life
    FFL 03, NRA CRSO & CI: P-R-S-PPITH
    Former USAF NCO 1980-1984, DoD 1987-Present
    Please consider joining NRA at www.nra.org and Florida Carry at www.floridacarry.org

    “The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution.”
    -- Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States

    "Those who 'abjure' violence can only do so because others are commuting violence on their behalf."
    -- George Orwell


    "The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."
    -- Herbert Spencer

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
  •