Florida Concealed Carry banner
1 - 20 of 61 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
There is not very many cases that reference this wonderful exception; the Alexander case helped it along for some time, however the Doughty DCA ruling basically systematically erased this exception...

The case he presented here make a lot of sense:

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2008/1401-1600/08-1441_JurisIni.pdf

Some of the tribunal courts documents -not available online, at court house only- show contradicting evidence & testimony in many instances the prosecution agrees too much of the law except the correct interpretation of it, as does the court, and DCA; the only reason I can see that the DCA sided with making up a way to take this exception away by the use of the "hearsay" involved in the case...

I can get photos of the actually case file too; when I read this post and saw the case referenced I went and read it locally...

Any other peoples opinion on this exception and the application of this law correctly..?
I know I can't be the only person to feel like they keep putting my firearm -even securely encased- further away from me even while inside my car; forget the motorcycle bit but dang this ruling sucks for everyone in the state...
 

· Banned
Joined
·
11,156 Posts
First of all, here are the cases as heard by the 4th DCA and the SCOF:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1062064.html
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/dispositions/2009/02/08-1441.pdf

What you provided was the petitioner's brief on the case, not the decision of the court, either one of them.

In Dougherty, Dougherty was carrying on his person, which is specifically prohibited under 790.25(5). If Dougherty had the weapon in a briefcase tied to the seat behind him or in a closed saddle bag, the result may have been different.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
15,028 Posts
(17) “Securely encased” means in a glove compartment, whether or not locked; snapped in a holster; in a gun case, whether or not locked; in a zippered gun case; or in a closed box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for access.

http://flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2013/790.001
 

· Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Doughty is a horrible case to reference "Securely Encased" to. The Moron had the gun in a "Fanny pack" type bag around his waist w/o a CWFL. Securely encased means "snapped in a holster" but you can't carry the holstered gun concealed on your person in your private conveyance unless you have a CWFL. He only blabbed "Securely Encased" because he thought it would get him out of threatening to shoot two undercover Investigators.
Securely Encased still means the same thing just like the bold, red, underlined portion still means the same thing;

(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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,842 Posts
Securely encased,

I fail to understand your issue with this case. You can't carry c concealed handgun on your person without a license unless engaged in an activity under (3). There really isn't anything to discuss
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,012 Posts
Mr. Dougherty, do yourself a favor and never quit your day job in lieu of persuing a legal career.
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,784 Posts
First of all, here are the cases as heard by the 4th DCA and the SCOF:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1062064.html
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/dispositions/2009/02/08-1441.pdf

What you provided was the petitioner's brief on the case, not the decision of the court, either one of them.

In Dougherty, Dougherty was carrying on his person, which is specifically prohibited under 790.25(5). If Dougherty had the weapon in a briefcase tied to the seat behind him or in a closed saddle bag, the result may have been different.
Yup.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,548 Posts
Doughty is a horrible case to reference "Securely Encased" to. The Moron had the gun in a "Fanny pack" type bag around his waist w/o a CWFL. Securely encased means "snapped in a holster" but you can't carry the holstered gun concealed on your person in your private conveyance unless you have a CWFL. He only blabbed "Securely Encased" because he thought it would get him out of threatening to shoot two undercover Investigators.
Securely Encased still means the same thing just like the bold, red, underlined portion still means the same thing;

(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.
Except 790.25(3)(l) contains no such restrictions, only that it be 'securely encased', and 790.25(5) neither explicitly, nor implicitly repeals it.

The decision in Doughty was flawed.

But that does not mean he is still not a moron. He should have been charged and convicted for aggravated assault, for threatening to kill three LEO, and then reaching into his fanny pack that contained the firearm. Some of the briefs looks like some monkey at a keyboard copied lots of big words and pasted them into some gibberish, combined with language I would expect out of a typical middle school student. All in an attempt to 'justify' unlawful behavior.

ETA: I guess the OP (Mr. Doughty) did not like the responses in the other thread...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,619 Posts
I have an idea, why don't some of you really smart legal capable people re-write the current statutes so that there is no ambiguity and then send copies to every member of the Florida House & Senate? Just a thought since they can't clarify it.
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,784 Posts
And they'd screw it up in committee anyway.
Pretty much....doesn't mean we're not going to try. There's a couple of other things in .25 we need to get fixed, as well.

Seems like this session just ended, and we already have to get things going for March 2015!
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,365 Posts
Pretty much....doesn't mean we're not going to try. There's a couple of other things in .25 we need to get fixed, as well.

Seems like this session just ended, and we already have to get things going for March 2015!
If y'all are asking, the top thing on my list is to see preemption (.33) clarified for knives and the other items that are also covered by the licenses.
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,784 Posts
If y'all are asking, the top thing on my list is to see preemption (.33) clarified for knives and the other items that are also covered by the licenses.
Full 'weapons' preemption added to 790.33 is my personal priority. Licensees are preempted already under 790.06, though this has not been tested in court.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Doughty is a horrible case to reference "Securely Encased" to. The Moron had the gun in a "Fanny pack" type bag around his waist w/o a CWFL. Securely encased means "snapped in a holster" but you can't carry the holstered gun concealed on your person in your private conveyance unless you have a CWFL. He only blabbed "Securely Encased" because he thought it would get him out of threatening to shoot two undercover Investigators.
Securely Encased still means the same thing just like the bold, red, underlined portion still means the same thing;

(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.
I like your red bold portion of the statute but I helped you finish reading the next sentence in bold for you... I will quote it as well for you all:

"This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons,"

Lawful uses please see 790.25(3)

As much as people call the guy a moron his logic on the law being applied is correct... even if he supposedly said these things to these out of state officers... the guy was carrying a "securely encased" weapon; the sentence prior to the red one also clearly says "if the firearm or other weapon is securely encased OR is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use." it does NOT say "and" "and/or" "also" nothing like that... I think people for the most part forget how certain words shold be used... Also this portion of the law only addresses the "IN" a private conveyance when you read the transcripts of the trial courts hearing on the motion to dismiss the SA admits that had he been in a car Daughty would be correct... but because a motorcycle has no interior it doesnt meet the requirements of being a private conveyance which is obsurd; and even though the firearm is securely encased and on the person it still isnt a "concealed weapon" because there is no way one can get a hand gun out of a zippered holster faster than one can pull a revolver from the waist band which is a concealed weapon; as mention in the underdash thread...

I like that some folk on this site use a sense of logic; when I read the actual documents of this guys case you find serious logic in the officers depo's one officer says he hears a horn from behind the other officer says he pulls up along side of them... these 2 points are seriously inconsistant of each other... also had the guy pulled up along side a car in traffic that means the motorcycle is along side of the car and the guy is on the bike standing over their windows and now logically the guy on the bike has a better view and also the motorcycle is blocking the 2 passenger side doors where the offices say they exited the car; but how if the guy is there on the bike..? If one is on a motorcycle and you see 3 guys going for guns and yelling police and your have a gun and are on the side of them stuck in traffic why not just drive off forwards..? logically i have to say this guy was behind the car and on a "hunch" like he states in appeal's these officers jumped out on him pissed cause he honked his horn and gave them the middle finger; these officers just happened to get lucky and catch a guy who had a "securely encased" firearm on him who was traveling by private conveyance from point A to point B legally under his understanding of the law...

this goes back to the idea of being car jacked in the 90's your gun is useless locked up in the glove box when a car jacker has a gun to your face telling you to get out of your car; now they have your car and your gun; great right..! this is where the logic of 790.25(5) comes in to confuse the masses with its skim over usages of "concealed weapon" and "securely encased" together in the same section to confuse the masses including the courts to be able to rule various ways for as long as WE the masses let them get away with it for...

however I have to agree with Mac in the sense that have asshat legislatures re-write some of this chapter could make more restrictions than already are; however no matter how moronic the guy in this case seems he interpetation of the law is on line with many others... I find i funny and odd how so many people can say yea that guy is a moron for what the cops claim as truth BUT hes right about the securely encased part and it was a bad ruling...

I do think that an over turn in this case is due and not for whatever other unjustices might have taken place but for the simple fact the system didnt rule as the law is clearly written and notalawyer goes well into many cases that support what would constitute a reversal in the daughty case...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Except 790.25(3)(l) contains no such restrictions, only that it be 'securely encased', and 790.25(5) neither explicitly, nor implicitly repeals it.

The decision in Doughty was flawed.

But that does not mean he is still not a moron. He should have been charged and convicted for aggravated assault, for threatening to kill three LEO, and then reaching into his fanny pack that contained the firearm. Some of the briefs looks like some monkey at a keyboard copied lots of big words and pasted them into some gibberish, combined with language I would expect out of a typical middle school student. All in an attempt to 'justify' unlawful behavior.

ETA: I guess the OP (Mr. Doughty) did not like the responses in the other thread...
Did you see the photos posted of the actual trial courts documents where in the states traverse they deny #2 in which the officers removed the firearm from him prior to local PD being on the scene but then 2 pages later in the same traverse clearly admit in the officers written testimony "removed the full loaded handgun from the zippered pouch" so how did these officers and SA manage to get this story pulled off 3 different ways; the guy is behind us, no wait hes on the side of us, he reached for the gun, we took the gun, what way is it towards the truth..?

i find it odd how notalawyer can call this guy all these things but then agree with exactly what the guy is trying to point out as the flaw of the law; that is exactly why I posted a link to his filing and not the courts rulings because well at least he tried to stand up for himself and the masses on this botched ass law and you sit behind your computer screen agreeing with a guy you call a moron but dont seem to be doing anything to help make a change to change situations like that... I give the gu credit for going solo up against the system for the rest of us...

I dont believe the cops story and I feel that this ruling against him is based solely on that prejudice... I bet if the guy had money and a better legal backing he'd take it back into court... I found enough inconsistancies to make me raise my eyebrow...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,548 Posts
Did you see the photos posted of the actual trial courts documents where in the states traverse they deny #2 in which the officers removed the firearm from him prior to local PD being on the scene but then 2 pages later in the same traverse clearly admit in the officers written testimony "removed the full loaded handgun from the zippered pouch" so how did these officers and SA manage to get this story pulled off 3 different ways; the guy is behind us, no wait hes on the side of us, he reached for the gun, we took the gun, what way is it towards the truth..?

i find it odd how notalawyer can call this guy all these things but then agree with exactly what the guy is trying to point out as the flaw of the law; that is exactly why I posted a link to his filing and not the courts rulings because well at least he tried to stand up for himself and the masses on this botched ass law and you sit behind your computer screen agreeing with a guy you call a moron but dont seem to be doing anything to help make a change to change situations like that... I give the gu credit for going solo up against the system for the rest of us...

I dont believe the cops story and I feel that this ruling against him is based solely on that prejudice... I bet if the guy had money and a better legal backing he'd take it back into court... I found enough inconsistancies to make me raise my eyebrow...

Did you see the photos posted of the actual trial courts documents where in the states traverse they deny #2 in which the officers removed the firearm from him prior to local PD being on the scene but then 2 pages later in the same traverse clearly admit in the officers written testimony "removed the full loaded handgun from the zippered pouch"
This is exactly why you should have hired a lawyer.....

They denied #2, but admitted #3.

#3 Matches, exactly, the sworn statement made by one of the LEO.

#2 mentions the 'witnesses' "already removing the carry bag". They were denying that particular fact. Perhaps they should have been a little clearer...but in the big picture it's really an inconsequential and harmless editorial issue.

It's really bad form (and denotes a crappy attorney) to included disputed facts in a Statement of Undisputed facts.. :dunno


I give the gu credit for going solo up against the system for the rest of us...
Perhaps if he would not have made so many errors in his filings (and sounding like a moronic middle schooler) the DCA may have taken it in a different light.)


i find it odd how notalawyer can call this guy all these things but then agree with exactly what the guy is trying to point out as the flaw of the law; that is exactly why I posted a link to his filing and not the courts rulings because well at least he tried to stand up for himself and the masses on this botched ass law and you sit behind your computer screen agreeing with a guy you call a moron but dont seem to be doing anything to help make a change to change situations like that...
You don't know me from Adam and have no idea of what I do, so relax Junior.


I dont believe the cops story
The jury did. :dunno

The court's decision is wrong related to 'securely encased'. (He actually should have been charged and convicted of aggravated assault and resisting an officer) But if the dumb-ass did not drive like a moron and then threaten to kill someone, then try to run away (based on the evidence provided at trial), he probably would not need to try to justify this illegal activity by fighting a particular nuance of the law.


I bet if the guy had money and a better legal backing he'd take it back into court
He tried, he failed.


BTW, the discussion we are having here is related to: 790.25(3)(l) vs 790.25(2) and 790.25(5) and the alleged restriction against 'securely encased' on-body carry. Not about how you feel the cops lied in your case.


ETA: This post will be my final contribution to the episodic discourse of Mr. Doughty's self-imposed plight.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
You don't know me from Adam and have no idea of what I do, so relax Junior.


The jury did. :dunno

The court's decision is wrong related to 'securely encased'. (He actually should have been charged and convicted of aggravated assault and resisting an officer) But if the dumb-ass did not drive like a moron and then threaten to kill someone, then try to run away (based on the evidence provided at trial), he probably would not need to try to justify this illegal activity by fighting a particular nuance of the law.


He tried, he failed.
So you all of a sudden know the Doughty guy too..?
Trial..? What Trial..? You obviously do not know all the details of the case; the case NEVER WENT TO TRIAL!!! LoL
That is stated right on the first page of his appeal... He took a plea and retained his rights to appeal... Thats not something I have ever seen or heard a Public Pretender do or tactic used...

You keep saying the guy doesnt know what he was doing and it was written bad; but when i was going over the transcripts of the hearings and calender calls for this case, the judge says:
"Mr. Doughty I have been following your case and all your pleadings; you write very well" and then the judge sets the next court date... If the judge is giving the guy credit for his efforts & pleadings written well, i think i will side with the judge...

You state that "he should have" been arrested for these other things, don't you think that if the guy had did all those supposed things the cops would have had a field day with him..?

I get your a logical person... so lets do some science... put a motorcycle next to your car doors and then tell me if you can get out... I believe I pointed this out in one of the other posts it is physically impossible to open the car door with a motorcycle along side of it; and if a person was poising a criminal act like the officers claimed the guy logically would have drove off forward; motorcycles dont have reverse... I believe the guy was behind their car and honked the horn and got flak for it; then told them to **** off and they went gun ho po po on him...

FACT: In NYC you can NOT honk your horn in the city..! Maybe that is why those NYC cops got pissy cause where they are from if you honk a horn they choke slam you and give you a $500 fine for it... Did everyone miss the video of the fat black guy getting killed..? I mean these NYC cops are nuts; period...
 
1 - 20 of 61 Posts
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