[Adsum]

Hi everyone I am new to the forum and new to concealed carry in Florida, it is great to be part of this community.

I have a Florida CWL and I carry IWB in one of those no clip holsters. I know I am legal in the morning when I transfer my gun from my hip to my car's center console as this happens on my property while still parked in my driveway. The reason I like this is because once I get to my office I simply lock the console before walking in without risk of anyone in my office building seeing me unholster the gun and put it in the console. Now, what happens when I leave the office and want to holster the gun or when I go to a restaurant to have lunch and want to holster my gun to bring it concealed into the restaurant with me? How can I legally holster (or unholster) the gun in my car when not on my property? My concern is the gun will go from being securely encased to being momentarily exposed and in the open before I can holster and conceal it (or viceversa). Special concern because sometimes holstering may take a little longer than I would like as placing a gun in the 4 o'clock position can be difficult when seating in a car. Could I get in trouble for brandishing or illegal display? Common sense dictates I will be careful, probably look for a side of the parking lot that is empty where I will holster or unholster, but my question is not about getting caught but whether I am technically legal even when nobody could see me holster or unholster in my car? Does 790.053 (2) apply here where is says "it is not a violation...to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless..."?

Common sense dictates this is the case but I want to check with those of you with much more experience as common sense and the law are not always the same.

 

[srt 10 jimbo]

Concealed means just that. Concealed

 

[deadeyedick]

If you have a CWFL, there is no requirement for your gun to ever be securely encased. Theoretically, you could legally drive around with your gun in your hand as long as it was concealed from the view of others (though I wouldn't recommend that). :grin

 

[rocketsteve]

Concealed means just that. Concealed

Yeah, what he said... :grin

 

[collegeboy]

C'mon guys just telling the man "Concealed means concealed" is not being very helpful to a new carrier.

Isn't the reason why the law was modified in 2012 was to allow 'brief exposure' to cover just such an activity?

Your answers would mean every one of us violates the law every time we transfer from on-body to off-body!

Every time I make that transfer I look around to see who is in a position to observe my actions (I try to park with situational awareness in mind - but, I don't let it control my actions). I then step out of my vehicle (a large SUV), position my body and door so they shield my actions from any potential observers, reach into the vehicle and retrieve my weapon, and place it in my holster. Since my holster is on my right side at about 3:00, and the vehicle is high enough that my hip is about at seat level, it is not very difficult to keep these actions very covert.

I also carry my cell phone and wallet in the cup holders in my center console. It is very good cover for such activity that when I complete the gun transfer, I make it very obvious that I just reached into the vehicle to retrieve my wallet and cell phone and then put them in their respective pocket/holder.

Entering the vehicle is basically the opposite. Look around, identify potential observers, siddle up to the car seat sideways, slip the gun out of the holster, set it on the seat, then very openly pull out the cell phone and wallet and reach in and set them in the cup holders, as I step up into the vehicle I pick up the gun in my right hand (shielded by my body) and transfer it into the holster mounted in the car.

Now, would it be better if I slipped off holster and gun as a single unit and put it in the car?
Of Course! (The gun is safer still holstered!)
However, I have holsters permanently mounted, in both vehicles, to carry the gun while driving.
Plus, I normally carry in a Crossbreed Super Tuck - not something easy to remove and re-install without being obvious.

 

[mscott327]

I've heard of people sticking the gun under their leg when driving( doesn't seem safe to me but to each their own). I unholster/reholster inside the car sitting in the seat. I keep my gun in a lock box on the floor while driving. I feel its easier to reach down instead of reaching into the console.

 

[Barry45ACP]

Keep it concealed (out of site).
The debate over inadvertent exposure can be rather long. While you're not likely to be convicted, don't invite trouble with an unwanted 911 call about "a man seen with a gun". It's not that difficult to be discrete when rearming or stashing. And never let anyone see you stash a firearm in your car, since it can become a very tempting target for break-in. These routines just become second nature after a little while.

 

[Qman]

Main thing is to not overthink this. Just like printing, most people are paying exactly zero attention to what you are doing. It is difficult to see into most vehicles unless you are quite close, and actively looking.
People sit in their vehicles and mess around in the glove box, console, etc all the time. You are one among many.
Just do it.

 

[notalawyer]

C'mon guys just telling the man "Concealed means concealed" is not being very helpful to a new carrier.

Isn't the reason why the law was modified in 2012 was to allow 'brief exposure' to cover just such an activity?
{SNIP}

2011, but no, not at all. The bill was intended to be an open carry bill. Due to the shenanigans of the Florida Sheriff's Association and the Florida Retail Federation and of course the media; and the complete lack of spine of the NRA and certain Florida Legislators, the bill was lobotomized into this undefined 'brief' exposure crap we have now.
Prior to that mess, it was not illegal to openly exhibit a firearm in Florida, unless it was done in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner - or you were in fact open carrying the firearm outside of the limited circumstances provided for in 790.25(3). Now it is (presumably) unless it is 'brief', whatever that means.

 

[Barry45ACP]

I've seen too many reports in Florida where a citizen inadvertently exposes his holstered firearm and has to explain it downtown. Usually in urban areas, but still an unnecessary inconvenience. The law as written, is crap! Printing in really nothing, but there's no excuse to "expose" your firearm to the 'sheeple' nearby, unless you're careless.

 

[MrScott]

I don't see any questioning of why you don't just carry into your office. Do they have a policy against it? Is it one of the state or federal restricted areas?

 

[Mac45]

Quote Originally Posted by collegeboy View Post
C'mon guys just telling the man "Concealed means concealed" is not being very helpful to a new carrier.

Isn't the reason why the law was modified in 2012 was to allow 'brief exposure' to cover just such an activity?
{SNIP}


2011, but no, not at all. The bill was intended to be an open carry bill. Due to the shenanigans of the Florida Sheriff's Association and the Florida Retail Federation and of course the media; and the complete lack of spine of the NRA and certain Florida Legislators, the bill was lobotomized into this undefined 'brief' exposure crap we have now.
Prior to that mess, it was not illegal to openly exhibit a firearm in Florida, unless it was done in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner - or you were in fact open carrying the firearm outside of the limited circumstances provided for in 790.25(3). Now it is (presumably) unless it is 'brief', whatever that means.

Re: The bolded: Is this what you actually meant to say? If so, you are incorrect with regard to it NOT being illegal to openly exhibit a firearm in Florida. It has been illegal to openly exhibit a firearm, in Florida, since 1901, except in certain circumstances.

The change in the law, in 2011, actually allows for exactly what the OP is discussing, briefly exposing a concealed weapon without violating the law.

 

[Denverd0n]

Wow. Didn't anybody (other than collegeboy) read the question!?!

What the OP is asking is, can he get in trouble for briefly exposing the gun when he is sitting in his car, taking it out of his console, and putting it into its concealed location on his body? The short answer is, no.

The long answer is that you need to keep the gun concealed from the "ordinary sight" of others. That's pretty easy to do while you are still sitting in your car. Not particularly difficult, as collegeboy explained, even when standing with the car door open. Of course, if people are walking by, looking into your car, then you should probably wait until they have passed before you holster-up. Other than that, though, no worries.

 

[Barry45ACP]

Wow. Didn't anybody (other than collegeboy) read the question!?!

What the OP is asking is, can he get in trouble for briefly exposing the gun when he is sitting in his car, taking it out of his console, and putting it into its concealed location on his body? The short answer is, no.

The long answer is that you need to keep the gun concealed from the "ordinary sight" of others. That's pretty easy to do while you are still sitting in your car. Not particularly difficult, as collegeboy explained, even when standing with the car door open. Of course, if people are walking by, looking into your car, then you should probably wait until they have passed before you holster-up. Other than that, though, no worries.

Obviously you haven't read the other posts here.
Your short answer is also incorrect. You absolutely can get in trouble for exposure, but likely won't. There's too much subjectivity in the law and the way it's written and when combined with the lack of proper training & judgement on the part of some officers, you could be explaining your actions in handcuffs if you're not careful, especially in Palm Beach & Broward Counties.

 

[notalawyer]

Quote Originally Posted by collegeboy View Post
C'mon guys just telling the man "Concealed means concealed" is not being very helpful to a new carrier.

Isn't the reason why the law was modified in 2012 was to allow 'brief exposure' to cover just such an activity?
{SNIP}


2011, but no, not at all. The bill was intended to be an open carry bill. Due to the shenanigans of the Florida Sheriff's Association and the Florida Retail Federation and of course the media; and the complete lack of spine of the NRA and certain Florida Legislators, the bill was lobotomized into this undefined 'brief' exposure crap we have now.
Prior to that mess, it was not illegal to openly exhibit a firearm in Florida, unless it was done in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner - or you were in fact open carrying the firearm outside of the limited circumstances provided for in 790.25(3). Now it is (presumably) unless it is 'brief', whatever that means.

Re: The bolded: Is this what you actually meant to say? If so, you are incorrect with regard to it NOT being illegal to openly exhibit a firearm in Florida. It has been illegal to openly exhibit a firearm, in Florida, since 1901, except in certain circumstances.

The change in the law, in 2011, actually allows for exactly what the OP is discussing, briefly exposing a concealed weapon without violating the law.

Yes that is exactly what I meant to say. And I think it covers the state of the law pretty well.

It has been and still is illegal to Openly carry a firearm in Florida (except in circumstances provided for in 790.25(3).

If it was illegal to exhibit (openly of course - otherwise no one else would see it) a firearm generally, - outside of the circumstances in 790.25(3) - it would be completely unnecessary and redundant for the legislature to enact 790.10.

So illegal to openly carry, but not to exhibit unless it is done in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner.

The change in the law, in 2011, actually allows for exactly what the OP is discussing, briefly exposing a concealed weapon without violating the law.

No, what the legislature did was to ensure more folks get arrested for no violation of the law (due to their incompetence, lack of intestinal fortitude, and general ignorance methods of firearms carry in general) with their failure to define the word 'brief'.
Now we have to wait until this all gets sorted out in the courts which can take many years, just to understand what the word 'brief' means.

Their stupidity has caused a great disservice to the citizens of Florida and has unnecessarily caused some folks to suffer inappropriate arrest, embarrassment, lose of income, possible lose of employment, payment of bond and attorney's fees, etc.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

Heck, Carnac the Magnificent could have foreseen the problems that have resulted from the legislature's stupidity!

 

[Mac45]

Yes that is exactly what I meant to say. And I think it covers the state of the law pretty well.

It has been and still is illegal to Openly carry a firearm in Florida (except in circumstances provided for in 790.25(3).

If it was illegal to exhibit (openly of course - otherwise no one else would see it) a firearm generally, - outside of the circumstances in 790.25(3) - it would be completely unnecessary and redundant for the legislature to enact 790.10.

So illegal to openly carry, but not to exhibit unless it is done in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner.

No, what the legislature did was to ensure more folks get arrested for no violation of the law (due to their incompetence, lack of intestinal fortitude, and general ignorance methods of firearms carry in general) with their failure to define the word 'brief'.
Now we have to wait until this all gets sorted out in the courts which can take many years, just to understand what the word 'brief' means.

Their stupidity has caused a great disservice to the citizens of Florida and has unnecessarily caused some folks to suffer inappropriate arrest, embarrassment, lose of income, possible lose of employment, payment of bond and attorney's fees, etc.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

Heck, Carnac the Magnificent could have foreseen the problems that have resulted from the legislature's stupidity!

OK, I see what you did here. That was pretty slick. By saying it is legal to EXHIBIT the firearm without adding the attendant phrase "IN NECESSARY SELF DEFENSE", you make it appear as though the change in the wording of 790.053 allowing for brief exposure somehow changes the meaning of 790.10. Unfortunately it does not. To state that the 2011 change in the law will cause more people to be arrested for unlawful OC is intellectually dishonest. The change actually made it less likely that a person would be charged with a violation of 790.053 for a brief exposure of a concealed weapon, as, prior to that, any exposure, in a public place, could constitute a violation of that statute. The main ambiguity with the statute is not the failure to fix an exact time of the allowed exposure, but in the wording who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner. This is problematical as it may limit the legal exposure to that of a firearm which was being carried concealed prior to the exposure. The term brief will be defined by the courts, but this will only be necessary in the case where a common sense application of "brief" will not be made by the carrier, not law enforcement. And, historically, almost no one was arrested for a "brief" exposure of a concealed firearm prior to 2011.

As to your contention what exhibition of firearms was legal, at the time of the passage of 790.10, you are correct. However, that statute, in its original form, was enacted in 1897. This predates much of the state prohibition against public open carry of firearms which occurred shortly there after. The timeline is important here.

 

[Barry45ACP]

:deadhorse Is it dead yet? :grin

 

[notalawyer]

OK, I see what you did here. That was pretty slick. By saying it is legal to EXHIBIT the firearm without adding the attendant phrase "IN NECESSARY SELF DEFENSE", you make it appear as though the change in the wording of 790.053 allowing for brief exposure somehow changes the meaning of 790.10. Unfortunately it does not. To state that the 2011 change in the law will cause more people to be arrested for unlawful OC is intellectually dishonest. The change actually made it less likely that a person would be charged with a violation of 790.053 for a brief exposure of a concealed weapon, as, prior to that, any exposure, in a public place, could constitute a violation of that statute. The main ambiguity with the statute is not the failure to fix an exact time of the allowed exposure, but in the wording who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner. This is problematical as it may limit the legal exposure to that of a firearm which was being carried concealed prior to the exposure. The term brief will be defined by the courts, but this will only be necessary in the case where a common sense application of "brief" will not be made by the carrier, not law enforcement. And, historically, almost no one was arrested for a "brief" exposure of a concealed firearm prior to 2011.

As to your contention what exhibition of firearms was legal, at the time of the passage of 790.10, you are correct. However, that statute, in its original form, was enacted in 1897. This predates much of the state prohibition against public open carry of firearms which occurred shortly there after. The timeline is important here.

I never said the change in 790.053 did anything - other than of course subject folks to improper arrest, based on a LEOs necessarily subjective definition of the word 'brief'.

Not slick, simply a very reasonable explanation of the law. You may exhibit a firearm in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner only if in necessary self defense, otherwise such exhibition is unlawful.

prior to that, any exposure, in a public place, could constitute a violation of that statute.

Incorrect. Open carry of a firearm was/is unlawful, generally. Not the exhibition, unless it is in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner

To state that the 2011 change in the law will cause more people to be arrested for unlawful OC is intellectually dishonest.

It's actually happening.

The main ambiguity with the statute is not the failure to fix an exact time of the allowed exposure, but in the wording who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner. This is problematical as it may limit the legal exposure to that of a firearm which was being carried concealed prior to the exposure.

While I disagree with your assertion of the main problem with the revised statute, you are correct that the other problem is with prior concealed requirement. It would be nearly impossible for a LEO to know if an individual had previously concealed the firearm - again leaving the poor citizen at the mercy of terrible bill writing and requiring more proof on his/her part at trial.

The term brief will be defined by the courts,

Yes it will, due to the legislature's incompetence. Forcing folks to get arrested, convicted and appeal - possibly involving years of stress and hundreds of thousands of dollars. All because the legislature was too stupid or lazy or incompetent to define a simple term.

but this will only be necessary in the case where a common sense application of "brief" will not be made by the carrier, not law enforcement.

Common sense has no place in legal matters as it is an opinion. For a law to be constitutional, it must be clear enough for a person of reasonable intelligence to understand the exact nature of the proscribed activity. This revision did not accomplish this. What it did was introduce ambiguity where none existed previously.

And, historically, almost no one was arrested for a "brief" exposure of a concealed firearm prior to 2011.

Because it was not illegal! Now something more than 'brief' is.

Perhaps Florida Carry has some stats on the matter?

 

[Huckleberry]

Main thing is to not overthink this. Just like printing, most people are paying exactly zero attention to what you are doing. It is difficult to see into most vehicles unless you are quite close, and actively looking.
People sit in their vehicles and mess around in the glove box, console, etc all the time. You are one among many.
Just do it.

:thumsup

 

[RadTek]

The bill was intended to be an open carry bill. Due to the shenanigans of the Florida Sheriff's Association and the Florida Retail Federation and of course the media; and the complete lack of spine of the NRA and certain Florida Legislators, the bill was lobotomized into this undefined 'brief' exposure crap we have now.

Hold the phone...there are those around here who claim the Retail Fed had little to nothing to do with those events. :dunno