Florida Concealed Carry banner

Gov DeSantis and Constitutional Carry

9K views 115 replies 34 participants last post by  Riverpigusmc 
#1 ·
Speaking before residents in North Central Florida, Ron DeSantis on Friday promised he’d sign “constitutional carry” gun legislation into law before he leaves the governor’s office.
“We used to be the leader on Second Amendment issues,” DeSantis said, noting that 25 other states have already passed “constitutional carry” laws, which allow people to carry handguns without a concealed weapons license or permit.


In Florida, those applications are processed by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, run by Nikki Fried, the only statewide elected Democrat in Florida. “The official in charge of that doesn’t even support the Second Amendment,” DeSantis said during an event in Levy County.


Fried, who is running for governor this year, denounced his comments as “absurd political pandering,” noting that Florida has experienced several of the worst mass shootings in the country.
“It’s an insult to the memories and families of every victim of gun violence,” she said. “We should be passing laws to prevent gun violence and working to fix our state’s affordable housing crisis, not creating chaos to score political points.

“
DeSantis is up for re-election this year and is heavily favored to win a second term. But he also appears to be setting the stage for a presidential launch in 2024, reaching out to national audiences with his criticism of the Biden administration, which he called “The Brandon Administration” to laughter from Friday’s crowd outside the Ivy House restaurant in Williston.


And he’s been engaging in a battle with the Walt Disney Corp. for its opposition to his Parental Rights in Education bill, which opponents have dubbed “don’t say gay” and supporters have called an “anti-grooming” bill.


The gun issue is another hot topic with conservatives in the Republican party.
DeSantis said it was “one thing I wanted the Legislature to do” but couldn’t say how or when it would happen, without acknowledging the fact that a “constitutional carry” bill from Rep. Anthony Sabatini, R-Howey-in-the-Hills, died at its first committee stop earlier this year without being heard.


“I can’t say if it will be next week or in six months, but before I’m done as governor” it will be signed into law, DeSantis said.


He has set a special session for the week of May 23 for the Legislature to deal with property insurance reform, but the call doesn’t include “constitutional carry” or any other issues. 
That doesn’t mean he couldn’t, as he showed when he expanded April’s special session on congressional districts to include the dissolution of Disney World’s Reedy Creek Improvement District and eliminating an exemption for Disney from his Big Tech bill.


Florida legislators in 2018 passed one of the nation’s toughest gun control laws, much to the surprise of the National Rifle Association, which has successfully fought such attempts in Florida for decades.


But after the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland — which occurred while the Legislature was in session — lawmakers crafted a bipartisan bill that was signed into law by then-Gov. Rick Scott.


The NRA filed a lawsuit challenging the law’s constitutionality because it raised the legal age to buy a gun from 18 to 21, among other things. A federal judge dismissed that challenge last June.

[emoji2398] 2022 Sun Sentinel


Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
 
See less See more
#5 ·
Florida legislators in 2018 passed one of the nation’s toughest gun control laws, much to the surprise of the National Rifle Association, which has successfully fought such attempts in Florida for decades.


But after the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland — which occurred while the Legislature was in session — lawmakers crafted a bipartisan bill that was signed into law by then-Gov. Rick Scott.

That was not bipartisan. All the Republicans (save one I think) voted yea, all Democrats voted no.
 
#7 ·
I'm really not in favor of "Constitutional Carry" in Florida or anywhere.
First there might be the signage, where once was a polite request to leave is now suddenly a crime.
Secondly, I think that anyone who is willing to get off their butts, jump through a few hoops and put out some money for a CCW is more likely to take carry seriously and even get some training.
The idea that any yahoo would be able to strap on a fire arm and go strutting around scares me.
Just my unsolicited opinion.
 
#13 ·
I think that anyone who is willing to get off their butts, jump through a few hoops and put out some money for a CCW is more likely to take carry seriously and even get some training.
The idea that any yahoo would be able to strap on a fire arm and go strutting around scares me.
Ha! The required CCW course is a joke. It meets a bare minimum "standard." And, it's cheap. I don't consider it much of a hoop. So, I've got news for ya... Any "yahoo" can strap on a firearm and go "strutting around" (some very interesting and telling language there), right now.... with a "license."

My ONLY concern about CC is the compromises, such as signs becoming law. It will make concealed carry WORSE in a practical sense.

Conceptually, of course, I am a Constitutionalist and therefore support the 2A in literal terms. No license should be needed. We don't need a license for the 1st Amendment.... YET. And, when they try that sh*t... that's when we'll NEED the 2nd Amendment.
 
#9 · (Edited)
Our plan is to return to Florida when we retire in a few years. So, I’m definitely following this. Personally, I don’t support it. We got it here a year ago and it’s pointless IMHO. Thanks to signage, our freedoms can be curtailed by words on a placard placed by a business. I’d hate to see Florida go down that path. From my standpoint, you guys have it pretty good as it stands.

Plus, as I’ve said, since I travel to several states outside of Texas and Florida, I need my license anyway. So constitutional carry really doesn’t benefit me in any way. I’d rather not see the boat rocked.

Not to mention, once I get back to Florida, I like not having to wait to take my purchase home. Anyone really believe they’ll axe the waiting period because they pass constitutional carry? Too many benefits in keeping my Florida license.

I mean, the real question here is this, is there anyone here that supports constitutional carry who plans to give up their license if this passes? If not, what do you gain if passed? What are the risks to the status quo by supporting it?
 
#10 ·
As far as I'm concerned, force of law signage is NOT "Constitutional Carry," period. I do not support anything or anyone that brings force of law signage to Florida!
 
#12 ·
^THIS! Most seem to be expressing that they don't want constitutional carry (cc) because it MAY come packaged with an unwanted statutory force of law sign law. I support the ideal and concept of cc, but emphatically separate that from force of law signage. I do not EVER want force of law signage foisted in Florida. I do not want the package, but I do support and want cc.

*Admittedly, passing cc by itself may not be realistic in this state at this time. But never say never.
 
#11 ·
Flame suit is on and zipped up tight.
Except for the red flag laws that are sometimes abused and need to be gone.
I do "NOT" see any purpose to have people that do not go to a range or have a permit and no instruction at all packing a gun.
What we have with the system in Florida worked very well and really did "NOT" need to be fixed.
Ronnie

PS:
It would be nice if we are allowed to carry in any constitutional carry state but we know that will never happen.

This is gonna bite us in the A$$
 
  • Like
Reactions: Standby
#14 ·
I do "NOT" see any purpose to have people that do not go to a range or have a permit and no instruction at all packing a gun.
"I do not see any 'purpose' to have people that are not highly-educated with a minimal standard set of vocabulary at all speaking freely."

What's the difference?
 
#15 ·
Below are the links to find your Florida state senator and representatives.
It's absolutely vital that you contact them and express your thoughts about Constitutional Carry and signage.
Remember to be as articulate and bold as possible while being polite.

Since I am involved in the political process I can say with absolute certainty these people do respond to pressure from their constituents. Better results are obtained by making a phone call and either speaking to staff member or leaving a voice mail combined with sending an email.

Before you make the phone call it is I strongly recommend you write phrases and talking point to use. If you are not comfortable leaving voice mail you should practice as many times as necessary to sound smooth.

The last thing you want is to come across in writing or verbally as an ignorant schmuck ranting about second ammendment rights and government overreach.

It is much more effective to contact your representative and senator than writing on a forum. As my good friend Steve Bannon says Action Action Action






Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
 
#16 ·
Below are the links to find your Florida state senator and representatives.
It's absolutely vital that you contact them and express your thoughts about Constitutional Carry and signage.
Remember to be as articulate and bold as possible while being polite.

Since I am involved in the political process I can say with absolute certainty these people do respond to pressure from their constituents. Better results are obtained by making a phone call and either speaking to staff member or leaving a voice mail combined with sending an email.

Before you make the phone call it is I strongly recommend you write phrases and talking point to use. If you are not comfortable leaving voice mail you should practice as many times as necessary to sound smooth.

The last thing you want is to come across in writing or verbally as an ignorant schmuck ranting about second ammendment rights and government overreach.

It is much more effective to contact your representative and senator than writing on a forum. As my good friend Steve Bannon says Action Action Action






Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
I've never gotten anything more than an obviously canned and AUTOMATIC (bot) response from my representatives.

I still do it, if for no other reason to counter the argument, "Did you contact your representative???" Yes. Yes, I did. Many times. To no avail, of course.

I don't use form letters provided by organizations like the NRA, GOA, SFA, etc. I dare admit that I'm fairly articulate. I am very comfortable and effective at writing my thoughts or even speaking extemporaneously. I've been in front of large audiences. I've been interviewed on camera on national TV without getting the questions beforehand.

What do I get back from my representatives? A bot-generated boilerplate letter.

I WISH I could believe what you say is true. I don't. Not one bit. Yet, I still write to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bladenbullet
#17 ·
It's a matter of numbers, the more phone calls and emails they receive is a very strong indicator of the the importance the issue is to their constituents. They know that for every call and email there are many more that feel the same way but didn't contact them for various reasons. That is why the number of contacts they receive is important. I assure you each and every one of them has a psychological point at which they seriously reconsider in the position they have if it is at odds with the phone calls and emails they receive. This is an election year and certain issues are hot buttons for the voters put the pressure on these people and let them know how you feel.

One point should be obvious but I will state it anyhow, if you have a representative such as I do that is terribly anti-gun do not, I repeat do not use the word sign or signage in your communication. If they have not thought of tying it to constitutional carry to begin with they might now if they think CC will pass

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
 
#23 ·
I don't think it's hard to figure out.

If some scumbag that comes up to you, points a gun at you and speaks to you in a language you don't know, you still understand he wants the money and valuables.

If some uneducated yahoo who can barely speak English shows up at a public meeting he shouldn't be allowed to speak?

It's a pretty poor analogy but the idea does come across

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
 
#24 ·
Ummm... no. It doesn't come across.

I was referring to the 1st Amendment which is far broader than the ability to speak at a public meeting. My point was having an educational requirement or vocabulary standard in order to exercise the 1st Amendment Right... anywhere... any time... Being the same as suggesting a minimum standard to exercise the 2nd Amendment.

I'm even more confused at the analogy of armed robbery vs speaking at a public meeting in the context of Constitutional Rights.

Truly scratching my head.
 
#28 ·
Ha! That NEVER happens here! ;)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Rick McC.
#29 ·
This issue still confuses me. Does every state with Constitutional Carry have force of law signage? If yes, OK, I get the concern. If not, why so much concern that we would have to endure FOL signage if we were to have it here in Florida? If we have enough politicians backing Constitutional Carry why would they want to counteract that with the signage crap, and why would DeSantis even have a signage bill on his desk for a signature for more that 5 seconds?
 
#30 ·
This issue still confuses me. Does every state with Constitutional Carry have force of law signage? If yes, OK, I get the concern. If not, why so much concern that we would have to endure FOL signage if we were to have it here in Florida? If we have enough politicians backing Constitutional Carry why would they try to counteract that with the signage crap?
Because a very significant number of people in Tallahassee are RINOS'

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
 
#33 ·
RINO's, yes, that's a big issue. The other issue is that the FRF and Disney. They make big donations to a lot of politicians. These politicians do not want to shut down the gravy train.

So, in their minds, they probably figure that they can appease the conservative voters by voting for CC, but at the same time keep the gravy train running by a compromise (like signage) that will appease the businesses who are scared witless by the thought that some of their customers might be carrying a gun.

This is just how politics works. This is how it has always worked. Compromise is the name of the game, and giving signage the force of law is an obvious compromise that would very likely be put on the table.

Does anyone know FOR SURE that we won't get CC without signage? No. Of course not. But it is certainly a very logical possibility, given the way that politics are played.
 
#34 ·
You are not correct in saying compromise is how it's always been. Compromise in politics is for wussies and sellouts. If you have the votes you shove it down the oppositions throat. A perfect example is Obama Care

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
 
#35 ·
I think it will be a matter of trying to keep everyone happy. Vote for CC to keep the 2A crowd happy, then vote for signage to have the force of law to keep the Chamber of Commerce and business owners happy. That way the politicos can assure everyone they voted to give everyone what they wanted. It's not as though they are going to carefully weigh these measures one against the other. I could easily see them doing both and hoping to get some political mileage out of it.
 
#36 ·
I think it will be a matter of trying to keep everyone happy. Vote for CC to keep the 2A crowd happy, then vote for signage to have the force of law to keep the Chamber of Commerce and business owners happy. That way the politicos can assure everyone they voted to give everyone what they wanted. It's not as though they are going to carefully weigh these measures one against the other. I could easily see them doing both and hoping to get some political mileage out of it.
Contrary to popular belief politicians are not stupid. They are thieving conniving greedy SOB's. They know that if they pass constitutional carry and signage together they will piss off the majority of Second Amendment supporters that voted for them and would loose supporters and very possibly get primaried

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
 
#45 ·
Always is definitive. Sometimes they have compromise sometimes they don't. When the House and Senate of this state first drew the redistricting maps that was compromise, why because they were a bunch of wussies. Then DeSantis got involved and shoved it down the Democrats throat with a map that he drew. No compromise.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
 
#57 · (Edited)
Racer, I teach what a straw man argument is for a living. Time and time again I've seen you sling that phrase around when it truly doesn't apply and have held my tongue. But not here, since you're teaching exactly what it and false equivalency is NOT. Please consider this professional courtesy, as I'm sure you would do that for me were I to mistakenly spread misinformation about the practice of dentistry.

False equivalence is when a proposition is set forth that makes the claim that A is the equivalent of B. False equivalence is NOT when you use an example of one thing to illustrate the point of another thing, such as a simile. The claim that A is like B is not false equivalence. If I were to say that taking an Uber ride is like (<-key word there) taking a taxi, I am not making the claim that Uber is the equivalent of a taxi, only that it bears similarity, in this case you get a ride and you pay a fee. To claim it's false equivalency is to make the assumption that the writer is claiming they are one in the same, which isn't true. There are obvious differences between the two, such as licensing/permitting, mileage metering, etc. If I said an Uber is exactly the same as a taxi, THAT would be false equivalence. The test for false equivalence is, does the assertion claim they are identical? If so, and they're not identical, it's false equivalence. If it's merely a comparison that demonstrates commonality or similarity, it's not false equivalence. To say that a cat and a dog are alike because both are mammals with fur is not the same as saying a cat is the same as a dog. To compare their behavior - both my cat and my dog like to sleep on my lap - is not to say that both animals are equivalent.

A Straw Man argument at it's essence is a distortion of truth that contains a mistake. Usually, the mistake falls into one of two categories. It either distorts the position asserted in the original argument, or it provides information, either true or false, that does nothing to support or refute the original argument.

If you look back in this thread, I responded to the question of why is there a fee for a license with the argument that those licenses have costs associated with them, and the argument that I believe those who benefit should bear the cost. You answered this with the argument that "There should be no LICENSE AT ALL. It's not that there is a fee. It's that there is a license to assert and practice our Constitutional Rights." So put your statement to the test: Does it distort the position I took? Yes, since I made no comment on whether or not a license is appropriate, I only addressed the license fee. Second, did you answer provide information that supported or refuted what I said about license fees? No. You in effect answered my comment on fees with an answer on the appropriateness of a license in the first place. It's the failure of both of those things that causes your argument to fall into fallacy, in this case, a Straw Man fallacy.

Many times you will hear it commonly stated that the purpose of a Straw Man is to make the original argument easier to attack, but you have to be careful with this because that's only true if the original position IS attacked under this mode of fallacious argument, and most often it isn't attacked, but some other argument never stated is attacked in its place. Our discussion about fees is an example of that. It's also possible to fall into a related fallacy of Steelmanning, which is where the original argument is strengthened before it's refuted. It once again distorts the truth of the original argument.


For what it's worth, I don't think there ought to be a license to practice a constitutional right, per se. But then I have to consider that our justice system routinely takes away some of those rights such as convicted felons not being allowed to possess firearms. If I accept the latter as good policy, I must then contend with the question of how do we sort out the legal ones from the illegal ones, and one schema of doing that is the licensing process. Another way would be to assume everyone is legal, but that would allow those who violate the law to escape culpability. Yet another way would be to assume everyone is IL-legal, and anyone caught carrying is hauled down to the local LEA for it to be sorted out. Neither seems as practicable a solution as licensing, and that's not to say there might not be a better solution out there. Is licensing the best way to go about it? Does the burden of licensing the legal ones become such a hurdle that we stop stripping the right from felons?

Each of those are separate but related questions, and my point in presenting them is to demonstrate that the issue involved is more complex than simply a question of "license to exercise a constitutional right, yes or no?"
 
#59 ·
Racer, I teach what a straw man argument is for a living. Time and time again I've seen you sling that phrase around when it truly doesn't apply and have held my tongue. But not here, since you're teaching exactly what it and false equivalency is NOT. Please consider this professional courtesy, as I'm sure you would do that for me were I to mistakenly spread misinformation about the practice of dentistry.

False equivalence is when a proposition is set forth that makes the claim that A is the equivalent of B. False equivalence is NOT when you use an example of one thing to illustrate the point of another thing, such as a simile. The claim that A is like B is not false equivalence. If I were to say that taking an Uber ride is like (permitting, mileage metering, etc. If I said an Uber is exactly the same as a taxi, THAT would be false equivalence. The test for false equivalence is, does the assertion claim they are identical? If so, and they're not identical, it's false equivalence. If it's merely a comparison that demonstrates commonality or similarity, it's not false equivalence. To say that a cat and a dog are alike because both are mammals with fur is not the same as saying a cat is the same as a dog. To compare their behavior - both my cat and my dog like to sleep on my lap - is not to say that both animals are equivalent.

A Straw Man argument at it's essence is a distortion of truth that contains a mistake. Usually, the mistake falls into one of two categories. It either distorts the position asserted in the original argument, or it provides information, either true or false, that does nothing to support or refute the original argument.

If you look back in this thread, I responded to the question of why is there a fee for a license with the argument that those licenses have costs associated with them, and the argument that I believe those who benefit should bear the cost. You answered this with the argument that "There should be no LICENSE AT ALL. It's not that there is a fee. It's that there is a license to assert and practice our Constitutional Rights." So put your statement to the test: Does it distort the position I took? Yes, since I made no comment on whether or not a license is appropriate, I only addressed the license fee. Second, did you answer provide information that supported or refuted what I said about license fees? No. You in effect answered my comment on fees with an answer on the appropriateness of a license in the first place. It's the failure of both of those things that causes your argument to fall into fallacy, in this case, a Straw Man fallacy.

Many times you will hear it commonly stated that the purpose of a Straw Man is to make the original argument easier to attack, but you have to be careful with this because that's only true if the original position IS attacked under this mode of fallacious argument, and most often it isn't attacked, but some other argument never stated is attacked in its place. Our discussion about fees is an example of that. It's also possible to fall into a related fallacy of Steelmanning, which is where the original argument is strengthened before it's refuted. It once again distorts the truth of the original argument.


For what it's worth, I don't think there ought to be a license to practice a constitutional right, per se. But then I have to consider that our justice system routinely takes away some of those rights such as convicted felons not being allowed to possess firearms. If I accept the latter as good policy, I must then contend with the question of how do we sort out the legal ones from the illegal ones, and one schema of doing that is the licensing process. Another way would be to assume everyone is legal, but that would allow those who violate the law to escape culpability. Yet another way would be to assume everyone is IL-legal, and anyone caught carrying is hauled down to the local LEA for it to be sorted out. Neither seems as practicable a solution as licensing, and that's not to say there might not be a better solution out there. Is licensing the best way to go about it? Does the burden of licensing the legal ones become such a hurdle that we stop stripping the right from felons?

Each of those are separate but related questions, and my point in presenting them is to demonstrate that the issue involved is more complex than simply a question of "license to exercise a constitutional right, yes or no?"
THIS ^^^^ TIMES 10

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
 
#58 · (Edited)
TLDR.

I'll just leave this here, Teach.

Font Art Rectangle Circle Number



I did not overstate your argument in order to defeat it. Instead I made a SEPARATE argument that a fee / tax to exercise a Right is unconstitutional.

The end.

Do you think I went to a "tech school?" That my education is limited to the very specific tasks that are part of my work? I'm therefore unqualified to opine about ANYTHING else, by your estimation? That's BS. Maybe you're not aware of the education involved... that goes WAY beyond the technical side of my work.

That's not to include the 30+ years of continuing education, much of it self-directed in various subjects.

BTW, I hear opinions from laypersons on my field ALL THE TIME. ALLLLLLLL the time. DAILY! LOL! It goes with the territory.

But, anyhooo... carry on. I shall bow my way out. But, any time anyone attacks our Rights, I'll be there. You don't like it? Tough sh*t.

Oh... here's another logical fallacy to call on you: Appeal to Authority. :)
 
#62 ·
So many cynical answers:

1.) It's free to vote.
But if you want your vote to count, then that costs money.

2.) If you vote five times in a single election, how much is "free divided by five"?

3.) Dead people vote. How much money do they have?

4.) Yes. Voter registration cards are free.
But they are printed on very thin paper.

5.) Wait. You need a voter registration card to vote!?
 
#61 ·
OHEng

Thanks for the explanation, that’s kind of what I always believed. I just didn’t want to jump into an argument that would last until 9 mm ammo is back down to $.11 a round or obsolete. I’m certainly not right every single time and appreciate learning things from you and others as life moves forward.
 
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