[henryher]

NOT!!

I sent a letter to the Office of General Counsel in April requesting information on the 90 day clock and default permits. I can't find the thread where I posted the letter. Maybe the Moderators or Administrator can find it and post it here. Well, after visiting my Representative they finally sent me an anwer to the letter. Or I should say a non answer.

Not that I am not surprised by their NON response. I did comment at one time that the OGC is not obligated to answer questions from the General Public but I was hopeful that they would take the time to clarify something that could be a very contentious issue for them in the future.

I am going to visit my Representative again and voice my displeasure at DACS non response and get them directly involved in getting a response from the DACS so I don't go spinning my wheels again. I guess they are also overwhelmed by the number of letters they have to answer because they sat on my letter for almost four months. But when the Representative called it only took them a week to answer it. I guess I better go the political route so I can get an answer quicker this time.

Page 1

Page 2

 

[MPDC66]

LOL, thank you Jubilation T. Cornpone! We expected nothing less!:rolf
"When we fought the Yankees and annihilation was near,
Who was there to lead the charge that took us safe to the rear?
Why it was Jubilation T. Cornpone; Old "Toot your own horn - pone."
Jubilation T. Cornpone, a man who knew no fear!

"When we almost had 'em but the issue still was in doubt,
Who suggested the retreat that turned it into a rout?
Why it was Jubilation T. Cornpone; Old "Tattered and torn - pone."
Jubilation T. Cornpone, he kept us hidin' out!

"When it seemed like our brave boys would keep on fighting for months,
Who took pity on them and ca-pit-u-lated at once?
Why it was Jubilation T. Cornpone; Unshaven and shorn - pone.
Jubilation T. Cornpone, he weren't nobody's dunce!"

 

[Mac45]

NOT!!

I sent a letter to the Office of General Counsel in April requesting information on the 90 day clock and default permits. I can't find the thread where I posted the letter. Maybe the Moderators or Administrator can find it and post it here. Well, after visiting my Representative they finally sent me an anwer to the letter. Or I should say a non answer.

Not that I am not surprised by their NON response. I did comment at one time that the OGC is not obligated to answer questions from the General Public but I was hopeful that they would take the time to clarify something that could be a very contentious issue for them in the future.

I am going to visit my Representative again and voice my displeasure at DACS non response and get them directly involved in getting a response from the DACS so I don't go spinning my wheels again. I guess they are also overwhelmed by the number of letters they have to answer because they sat on my letter for almost four months. But when the Representative called it only took them a week to answer it. I guess I better go the political route so I can get an answer quicker this time.

I'm sorry, but in my opinion, the only definitive legal opinion you are going to obtain from the state concerning default licensing after 90 days, is no. The failure of the state to meet a legislated deadline does not, automatically, grant you license to indulge in the activity for which you are seeking license. If the state does not meet the deadline, you may sue them to force swift compliance and may be able to obtain damages if you suffered some loss due to their failure to provide the license within the specified period. But, you are not entitled to a license until the state has verified that you meet the requirements for the license.

Good luck on your quest.:thumsup

 

[mikesid]

You might want to white out your address on the letter. its still visible.

 

[henryher]

I'm sorry, but in my opinion, the only definitive legal opinion you are going to obtain from the state concerning default licensing after 90 days, is no. The failure of the state to meet a legislated deadline does not, automatically, grant you license to indulge in the activity for which you are seeking license. If the state does not meet the deadline, you may sue them to force swift compliance and may be able to obtain damages if you suffered some loss due to their failure to provide the license within the specified period. But, you are not entitled to a license until the state has verified that you meet the requirements for the license.

I know, I was permitting supervisor for the State for 15 years in another agency. But I still want them to address the issue because no matter how many times I tell folks that the default does not mean they can carry without a permit not everyone believes me. And there are those that keep saying you can carry if they are in default. I don't want someone in this forum to be led into noncompliance by the uneducated. I figure that if I can get an answer from DACS on it then the folks in this forum will have something in writting from the Agency itself telling them what they can and can not do. I have my permit already and while my son just put in for his I am sure he won't have a problem getting it and he knows not to carry until he has the permit in hand. He is stationed in Fort Hood and will patiently wait till the permit arrives before he carries concealed.

I am doing it for the rest of the guys here that are waiting for their permits and being told by some aholes that it is ok to carry if they go over the 90 days mark. I am also trying to get DACS to understand that if they continue to permit in this high stress situation they are going to sooner or later make a mistake and give someone a permit that does not qualify and then we will all loose when the anti-gun lobby have a field day with it. That is one thing I want to point out to my legislator also.

 

[henryher]

You might want to white out your address on the letter. its still visible.

Thanks, I will fix it. I didn't notice that it was still visible.

 

[Glock23-4-Me]

thanks henryher for taking the time to write DOACS for us. The knuckle head who was running his mouth about running around carrying a gun w/o a license is no longer here. I am not going to mention what his name was (smokin357) but I am happy he is gone. I doubt anyone here would be such a bone head to do what it is that the unknown person (smokin357) suggested.

 

[mikesid]

Thanks, I will fix it. I didn't notice that it was still visible.

No worries. Just didn't want you getting any strange knocks on your door. can't be too careful nowadays. :drinks

 

[capngeo]

The failure of the state to meet a legislated deadline does not, automatically, grant you license to indulge in the activity for which you are seeking license. If the state does not meet the deadline, you may sue them to force swift compliance and may be able to obtain damages if you suffered some loss due to their failure to provide the license within the specified period. But, you are not entitled to a license until the state has verified that you meet the requirements for the license.

Dead on target:thumsup

 

[RadTek]

thanks henryher for taking the time to write DOACS for us. The knuckle head who was running his mouth about running around carrying a gun w/o a license is no longer here. I am not going to mention what his name was (smokin357) but I am happy he is gone. I doubt anyone here would be such a bone head to do what it is that the unknown person (smokin357) suggested.

+1 on all of that! I was going to say pretty much the same thing..

First of all..Thank you for the hard work and time you've put into this henryher. We all know you're right about the subject, but, as we do get a good number of new folks around here, I've always felt it's our duty to make sure they get TRUTHFUL information and not "dribble". Well done! :thumsup

Glock23, let's not flame bonehead too hard...he's given this forum some very valuable free advertsing on other forums for us...we have alot of new carriers out there armed with TRUTH now as a result of the new membership he's sent our way! :rolf:rolf

Everytime he flames this forum on another forum, people there come here to see for themselves. Then, we get the opportunity to prove just how wrong he really is and properly educate folks, and since he doesn't have the stones to return here, we get to do it without his "dribble" and attitude.

It's a good system! :laughing

 

[fridaddy]

Sorry guys but I cannot let this pass. The statute says

Any application for a license that is not approved or denied within the 90-day or shorter time period, within 15 days after conclusion of a public hearing held on the application, or within 45 days after a recommended order is submitted to the agency and the parties, whichever action and timeframe is latest and applicable, is considered approved unless the recommended order recommends that the agency deny the license.

Any applicant for licensure seeking to claim licensure by default under this subsection shall notify the agency clerk of the licensing agency, in writing, of the intent to rely upon the default license provision of this subsection, and shall not take any action based upon the default license until after receipt of such notice by the agency clerk.

I know we are:deadhorse, and that many of you disagree, but I think people should be aware that there is by no means full agreement on this issue.

I have not advised anyone to carry on a default, but I have encouraged everyone eligible to spend the 6 bucks to send a certified letter and claim their rights to try and encourage movement by the legislature and DOACS

The courts have specifically upheld this procedure.

World Bank v. Lewis, App. 1 Dist., 425 So.2d 77 (1982).

Naples Community Hosp., Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, App. 1 Dist., 463 So.2d 375 (1985).

Tuten v. State of Fla., Dept. of Environmental Protection, App. 4 Dist., 819 So.2d 187 (2002)

 

[Mac45]

Sorry guys but I cannot let this pass. The statute says

Any application for a license that is not approved or denied within the 90-day or shorter time period, within 15 days after conclusion of a public hearing held on the application, or within 45 days after a recommended order is submitted to the agency and the parties, whichever action and timeframe is latest and applicable, is considered approved unless the recommended order recommends that the agency deny the license.

Any applicant for licensure seeking to claim licensure by default under this subsection shall notify the agency clerk of the licensing agency, in writing, of the intent to rely upon the default license provision of this subsection, and shall not take any action based upon the default license until after receipt of such notice by the agency clerk.

I know we are:deadhorse, and that many of you disagree, but I think people should be aware that there is by no means full agreement on this issue.

I have not advised anyone to carry on a default, but I have encouraged everyone eligible to spend the 6 bucks to send a certified letter and claim their rights to try and encourage movement by the legislature and DOACS

The courts have specifically upheld this procedure.

World Bank v. Lewis, App. 1 Dist., 425 So.2d 77 (1982).

Naples Community Hosp., Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, App. 1 Dist., 463 So.2d 375 (1985).

Tuten v. State of Fla., Dept. of Environmental Protection, App. 4 Dist., 819 So.2d 187 (2002)

That is FSS 120.06, that you are quoting. The quote is accurate. But let's be realistic here. For anyone who might even consider carrying without a license being issued, please consider the following: If you are going to carry a firearm on the basis of a letter that you ran off on your computer, with no way to immediately verify that anything in the letter is true and accurate and you have come into contact with law enforcement during which your carry becomes an issue, what do you think is going to happen? Is it likely that the officers will send you home with a promise to look into the matter? Or is it more likely that you will find yourself attempting to make bail and then dealing with the State Attorney's Office and possibly a trial judge and jury?

This is a lawyer's dream. But is the average citizen's nightmare. It is going to cost you a lot of money to resolve and it is not assured that you will ever recoup that outlay, nor that your action will be vindicated. Personally, I don't need the aggravation. I would wait for the arrival of a license.

Now, there is a positive to the information provided by fridaddy. Sending such a letter, quoting statute, may serve to expedite the issuance of your license. Or you might just be :deadhorse

Oh, by the way, this little provision in FSS 790, could cause you additional problems, should you be arrested:

(3) The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall deny a license if the applicant has been found guilty of, had adjudication of guilt withheld for, or had imposition of sentence suspended for one or more crimes of violence constituting a misdemeanor, unless 3 years have elapsed since probation or any other conditions set by the court have been fulfilled or the record has been sealed or expunged. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall revoke a license if the licensee has been found guilty of, had adjudication of guilt withheld for, or had imposition of sentence suspended for one or more crimes of violence within the preceding 3 years. The department shall, upon notification by a law enforcement agency, a court, or the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and subsequent written verification, suspend a license or the processing of an application for a license if the licensee or applicant is arrested or formally charged with a crime that would disqualify such person from having a license under this section, until final disposition of the case. The department shall suspend a license or the processing of an application for a license if the licensee or applicant is issued an injunction that restrains the licensee or applicant from committing acts of domestic violence or acts of repeat violence.