Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question RE: CCW

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Question RE: CCW

    Quick question, mostly academic and furthering my own knowledge.

    Saw something posted elsewhere that a person is under the impression that they do not need a CWL because they are an FFL. I read through 790.01 and 790.06 and see no reference to a FFL being an exemption to the carrying of a concealed weapon without a license.

    Knowing that there are other hidey holes in the statutes, and not being sure where to look, is anybody else familiar with this provision and where I could find it, or is this person full of it and tempting fate?

    ETA: This guy is playing with a timebomb. I found out what part of the statutes he thinks covers him.

    790.25 Lawful ownership, possession, and use of firearms and other weapons.
    —(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:
    (i) A person engaged in the business of manufacturing, repairing, or dealing in firearms, or the agent or representative of any such person while engaged in the lawful course of such business;
    His claim is that as a gunsmith/dealer, he is conducting business at all times. He carries business cards and hands them out to further this.

    I don't think that would hold up.

    Any thoughts (Fellow LE only).
    Last edited by kermit315; 10-04-2014, 07:15 PM.

  • #2
    I have my own thoughts on this, but I want to see what others think. I am a gun guy, and dont sweat stuff too much on non dirtbags, but rules are rules still.

    Comment


    • #3
      He can possess, but not concealed.
      September 11, 2001 - All gave some, some gave all. Never forget -- Never forgive.......... RIP Brothers and Sisters.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by So Fla Cop View Post
        He can possess, but not concealed.
        The part where the law says
        it is lawful for the following persons to own, possess, and lawfully use firearms and other weapons, ammunition, and supplies for lawful purposes
        precludes him from carrying concealed without the permit.

        “Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie.”

        Miyamoto Musashi

        “Life Is Hard, But It's Harder When You're Stupid”

        George V. Higgins (from The Friends of Eddie Coyle)

        Comment


        • #5
          790.25 Lawful ownership, possession, and use of firearms and other weapons.—
          (1) DECLARATION OF POLICY.—The Legislature finds as a matter of public policy and fact that it is necessary to promote firearms safety and to curb and prevent the use of firearms and other weapons in crime and by incompetent persons without prohibiting the lawful use in defense of life, home, and property, and the use by United States or state military organizations, and as otherwise now authorized by law, including the right to use and own firearms for target practice and marksmanship on target practice ranges or other lawful places, and lawful hunting and other lawful purposes.
          (2) USES NOT AUTHORIZED.—
          (a) This section does not authorize carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, as prohibited by ss. 790.01 and 790.02
          .
          My specific thoughts are bolded above. It specifically counters his argument. I just wonder how many people go for this argument (thinking it is legit)?

          Comment


          • #6
            I wouldn't.
            Now go home and get your shine box!

            Comment


            • #7
              Oh, bottom line is I would arrest for it if he tried it with me. At first it was vague (as an FFL, I am exempted from needing a CCW), but then I dug and figured out why he thought that. Yeah, not so much.

              Like I said, I am a gun guy. I will give the benefit of the doubt, and in fact, our gun laws state that we are supposed to liberally interpret the statutes towards that end, but this is a black and white thing, and Florida is shall issue. If he can get a FFL, he can get a CWL.

              Comment


              • #8
                790 is so badly written that you find exception in a lot of other statutes. For instance Statewide Firearm Permit (aka class G license) is not mentioned in 790, but they can legally carry concealed without a CCW (at all time for class C and M holder, when on specific assignment for class D holder).

                Regarding your specific case, I do agree with you that an FFL is not a substitute for a CCW. However as written before, if he was issued an FFL, he will have no problem to get issued a CCW. Now would I arrest him for it or not with the risk of him loosing his FFL and livelihood in the process, I'm not sure, but it will all depend on the circumstances.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by patrick_leo View Post
                  790 is so badly written that you find exception in a lot of other statutes. For instance Statewide Firearm Permit (aka class G license) is not mentioned in 790, but they can legally carry concealed without a CCW (at all time for class C and M holder, when on specific assignment for class D holder).

                  Regarding your specific case, I do agree with you that an FFL is not a substitute for a CCW. However as written before, if he was issued an FFL, he will have no problem to get issued a CCW. Now would I arrest him for it or not with the risk of him loosing his FFL and livelihood in the process, I'm not sure, but it will all depend on the circumstances.
                  I agree with 790 being jacked up. I do like that it says that we are to liberally interpret it in favor of the citizen though. I do that to the ends that I can. IMO, this guy (in particular) takes it too far and is blatantly ignoring black and white law. There is no liberal interpretation of the statutes that can get me to letting him slide on that. Other circumstances might vary, but it would have to be pretty far out there and be a one time thing (and even at that, I am still at a loss as to what those circumstances would be, but won't rule anything out). If I kept hearing the same guys name come up after I knew he had been talked to about it, he is taking a ride.

                  Comment

                  MR300x250 Tablet

                  Collapse

                  What's Going On

                  Collapse

                  There are currently 6003 users online. 337 members and 5666 guests.

                  Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                  Welcome Ad

                  Collapse
                  Working...
                  X