Florida Concealed Carry banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
21 - 40 of 50 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,792 Posts
1986 Miami FBI bank robber shoot-out.

The initial collision that forced the suspects off the road caused some unforeseen problems for the agents, as the FBI vehicles sustained damage from the heavier, older car driven by Matix.[SUP][8][/SUP]

Just prior to ramming the Monte Carlo, Manauzzi had pulled out his
service revolver and placed it on the seat in anticipation of a shootout,[SUP][8][/SUP] but the force of the collision flung open his door and sent his weapon flying. Hanlon lost his .357 Magnum service revolver during the initial collision, though he was still able to fight with his Smith & Wesson Model 36 backup weapon.

The collision knocked off Grogan's
glasses, and there is speculation his vision was so bad that he was unable to see clearly enough to be effective (a claim disputed by the FBI's medical director, who stated that Grogan's vision was "not that bad").

More...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

ETA: For what it is worth, I was in a training session in 1987 in which this shootout was covered in detail. We were told, by the credible LEA trainer, that the agent didn't simply lay the gun on the seat but had tucked it under his thigh, but still lost the gun in the collision. Just one of the possible lessons learned from these agent's sacrifice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,219 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,219 Posts
And potentially jamming the flight controls. In a tactical jet, it could even result in an unintentional ejection when that foreign object messes with the ejection mechanism. Had to make a precautionary landing once when a piece of equipment from the guy in the other seat got loose during hard maneuvering and ended up behind the headrest and potentially fouling the ejection seat.
And as a former AME.....I was the monkey that went cockpit diving to find the FOD...or pulled the seat out to look for it!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,537 Posts
Welcome to FCC from Palm Beach County, Big Bore 44! :wave

TitleIIToyLover already answered your question.

Since you've now made you first post to FCC without an introduction, please take the time to post you're own Introduction to FCC so the members will get to know you. You can do that by going to the Introduce Yourself section of The Front Office and start your very own introduction thread. Then you'll find that lots of other FCC members will know to chime in to properly welcome you to the forum, and will be more responsive in answering questions!

In case you weren't aware, you can stay current on pertinent Florida Statutes regarding use of force and firearms law by going right to the source using these links for Chapter 776 - Justifiable Use of Force and Chapter 790 - Weapons and Firearms. I'd also like to suggest you obtain your own copy of FLORIDA FIREARMS Law, Use & Ownership by Jon Gutmacher!

Finally, I would like to recommend you consider joining Florida Carry and join the effort to protect the rights of Floridians to keep and bear arms!

Again, welcome to FCC! :grin


Unless I'm missing something here, I don't think Mr. "Big Bore 44" actually saw your request for an introduction.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,096 Posts
Unless I'm missing something here, I don't think Mr. "Big Bore 44" actually saw your request for an introduction.
It's always followed up with a PM. :dunno :popcorn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter #26
Unless I'm missing something here, I don't think Mr. "Big Bore 44" actually saw your request for an introduction.
Hey Barry, I'm not sure what the point of your post is??? If i'm breaking some protocol or courtesy on this board, God forbid. I'll post an introduction that I hope and trust will satisfy you.

And again, to all who have posted some excellent responses to my OP, thank you all.

Regards, Lance
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,537 Posts
Hey Barry, I'm not sure what the point of your post is??? If i'm breaking some protocol or courtesy on this board, God forbid. I'll post an introduction that I hope and trust will satisfy you.

And again, to all who have posted some excellent responses to my OP, thank you all.

Regards, Lance
Generally, it's a common courtesy to introduce ones self before asking favors (information, opinions, selling items, etc). It's been the norm since before I joined. It's nice to see where everyone is coming from. We get a lot of Trolls on this page. Buy hey, it's very nice to meet you Lance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,331 Posts
To back Barry up Lance, he’s right. Trolls on forums have been a problem since day one. (I’m guessing I’m not the only one here ancient enough to remember the old Usenet days :rolf) That said, given the rather public and controversial nature of this forum’s topic (although it shouldn’t be controversial IMHO) we attract more than our share. I don’t want to say we’re untrusting of new members, but understandably we’re a little wary. We’ve had some real lulus come through. Often, we get folks come through with hidden anti-gun agendas under the guise of innocent sounding questions. Given the more recent wave of anti-gun sentiment in our country, I think we’ve become even more wary. :dunno I’m not normally a by the rules guy myself, but I agree with that one personally...for the above reasons. (Although, I do enjoy thumping trolls tremendously :grin)

Requesting a new visitor take a few moments to introduce themselves isn’t uncommon. But, here it goes along way to helping us identify what I call drive-by posters...those with either no intent to add to the discussion or with less than honorable motives as few “trolls” will take that time. :thumsup

Either way, welcome and I doubt Barry meant any offense.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,096 Posts
^^^^
:thumsup
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter #30
To back Barry up Lance, he’s right. Trolls on forums have been a problem since day one. . . . . . . . snip . . . . . . . . . . Requesting a new visitor take a few moments to introduce themselves isn’t uncommon. But, here it goes along way to helping us identify what I call drive-by posters...those with either no intent to add to the discussion or with less than honorable motives as few “trolls” will take that time. :thumsup Either way, welcome and I doubt Barry meant any offense.
Hello RadTek, Of course you're correct, as was Barry. I have since posted an introduction in the New Members Section and offered apologizes to both, Barry, and, BeerHunter. Clearly my "attitude" was showing. ;-)

Thank you for your welcome, I appreciate it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Hello all. I'm new to the forum but not to firearms and have been a Florida CC licensee for 20 years.

I'm looking for clarification and assurance that having a handgun, holstered for quick access (not on my person... but in the car) "in plain sight" and I'm stopped by state or local LEO for a traffic violation (or, whatever) that I'm not in violation of any state law.

I'm 98% certain that I'm OK but the 2% uncertainty is nagging at my very old brain. :) Can someone comment?
Hey Big Bore,
I know I'm late to the party on this but I felt compelled to provide you with some guidance, that said:

Your concern is, can your handgun be in plain sight within your private conveyance (Motor vehicle) even if it meets the statutory requirement of "securely encased" and "not readily accessible". The answer is no, your handgun may not be plainly visible within the compartment area of your private conveyance, it must be concealed.

Let us examine FSS 790.25 (5):
POSSESSION IN PRIVATE CONVEYANCE.—Notwithstanding subsection (2), it is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license, if the firearm or other weapon is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use. Nothing herein contained prohibits the carrying of a legal firearm other than a handgun anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm or other weapon on the person. This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including lawful self-defense as provided in s. 776.012.

In this statute that specifically governs private conveyance carry, it is specifically mentioned:
"Notwithstanding subsection (2), it is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance,"

The purpose of this statute, and interpretation, is that all "handguns" will be concealed within the compartment of a private conveyance (Motor vehicle). The statute goes on to explain that it is not a violation of 790.01 (Unlicensed carrying of concealed weapons or concealed firearms) nor does it prohibit the carrying of a legal firearm, "OTHER THEN A HANDGUN" anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use.

I hope this helps you out!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,096 Posts
Question already answered on the first page of this thread. Welcome to the Department of Redundancy Department! :rofl
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,792 Posts
That's right, I forgot, once one of the senior salts pipes in we should all just take our seats... Thanks for reminding me!!
Intheknow,

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

(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...
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,096 Posts
That's right, I forgot, once one of the senior salts pipes in we should all just take our seats... Thanks for reminding me!!
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. :dunno
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,883 Posts
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. :dunno
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. :grin

:popcorn

-on Tapatalk
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,096 Posts
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. :grin

:popcorn

-on Tapatalk
:thumsup 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." :popcorn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,792 Posts
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. :dunno
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,607 Posts
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 790.53 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.
You know, one of the things I dislike most about the software this forum runs on is that it doesn't have a "like" button. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
890 Posts
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 790.53 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.
You know, one of the things I dislike most about the software this forum runs on is that it doesn't have a "like" button. <img src="http://www.floridaconcealedcarry.com/Forum/images/smilies/smile.png" border="0" alt="" title="Smile" class="inlineimg" />
count me in on that notion.
 
21 - 40 of 50 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top