Florida attempts to pass open carry.........

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, the removal of inadvertent exposure as a criminal offense is a waste of dollars and oxygen?
Click to expand...

Show me where a Florida CWP holder was successfully prosecuted for inadvertent exposure (IE) or printing...

The "open carry" bill, as it was titled and written was supposed to be about OC. When the anti's started complaining, that is when the sponsors and the NRA said the bill was about IE or printing. They opened the door for the wording that we have now.
If the bill was truly about OC, they would have stood their ground, therefore the original title and wording was designed to mislead supporters and create the opportunity to "compromise", as stated in my above post.

While the bill does show progress, the tactics used to get it, were iffy, IMO, and doesn't sit well with myself and other supporters of OC. It's the right to carry, as we as see fit for the circumstance, that we support.

It's not about a proverbial urinating contest. Although, the tactics used by our leaders seem to reflect that very thing.
 
GoOfY-FoOt said:
Show me where a Florida CWP holder was successfully prosecuted for inadvertent exposure (IE) or printing...

The "open carry" bill, as it was titled and written was supposed to be about OC. When the anti's started complaining, that is when the sponsors and the NRA said the bill was about IE or printing. They opened the door for the wording that we have now.
If the bill was truly about OC, they would have stood their ground, therefore the original title and wording was designed to mislead supporters and create the opportunity to "compromise", as stated in my above post.

While the bill does show progress, the tactics used to get it, were iffy, IMO, and doesn't sit well with myself and other supporters of OC. It's the right to carry, as we as see fit for the circumstance, that we support.

It's not about a proverbial urinating contest. Although, the tactics used by our leaders seem to reflect that very thing.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has ever been prosecuted that, and I'm too lazy to do a google search. Regardless, the lack of prosecution has not stopped our more vocal pro OC brethren from citing "inadvertent exposure" and "printing" as two major reasons why we need OC. There are some legitimate reasons why w need it, but those aren't some of them. The state has rendered that part of the OC argument moot at this point.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tablet using Tapatalk Pro.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoOfY-FoOt
Show me where a Florida CWP holder was successfully prosecuted for inadvertent exposure (IE) or printing...

The "open carry" bill, as it was titled and written was supposed to be about OC. When the anti's started complaining, that is when the sponsors and the NRA said the bill was about IE or printing. They opened the door for the wording that we have now.
If the bill was truly about OC, they would have stood their ground, therefore the original title and wording was designed to mislead supporters and create the opportunity to "compromise", as stated in my above post.

While the bill does show progress, the tactics used to get it, were iffy, IMO, and doesn't sit well with myself and other supporters of OC. It's the right to carry, as we as see fit for the circumstance, that we support.

It's not about a proverbial urinating contest. Although, the tactics used by our leaders seem to reflect that very thing.

I don't think anyone has ever been prosecuted that, and I'm too lazy to do a google search. Regardless, the lack of prosecution has not stopped our more vocal pro OC brethren from citing "inadvertent exposure" and "printing" as two major reasons why we need OC. There are some legitimate reasons why w need it, but those aren't some of them. The state has rendered that part of the OC argument moot at this point.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tablet using Tapatalk Pro.
Click to expand...

Ummm...That's what I said!!!
 
Posted by Goofy-Foot:
If the bill was truly about OC, they would have stood their ground, therefore the original title and wording was designed to mislead supporters and create the opportunity to "compromise", as stated in my above post.

While the bill does show progress, the tactics used to get it, were iffy, IMO, and doesn't sit well with myself and other supporters of OC. It's the right to carry, as we as see fit for the circumstance, that we support.
Click to expand...

Standing their ground would have resulted in the bill not passing at all. “The tactics used to get it”, were the tactics necessary at the time and under the circumstances to avoid a complete loss.

Did the bill give us everything we wanted? No. That’s the way the world works. Our side doesn’t control the actions of those on the other side. When our side loses one, that doesn’t mean the people working on our side lost on purpose or sold out.

As you said, the bill does show progress. The other two pro-gun bills that passed show additional progress.
Congratulating those who are responsible for making that progress is more productive than complaining that you didn’t get exactly what you wanted when you wanted it.
 
Congratulating those who are responsible for making that progress is more productive than complaining that you didn’t get exactly what you wanted when you wanted it.
Click to expand...
Congratulate them for being deceptive and underhanded??? I think not.

And as far as not getting what "I" wanted, when I wanted it, I beg to differ.
I would have liked to have seen the bill passed as it was originally written. It would have been a boost for not only the RKBA, but for local gun stores and the economy, as well. It would have done alot more for our state than it would have done for "me".
"I" am just one person with a brain and a voice, albeit muted, through this particular venue. No, my vision was much broader than the selfish disposition you seem to want to bestow on me.

As for the ability to voice an opinion, I do believe I am entitled, as well as capable of relating my thoughts and feelings, rather well. Perhaps you should read more of my posts, before passing judgement.

No, the only one who truly displayed testicular fortitude, throughout this ordeal was Rep. Abruzzo, who attempted to amend the bill back to it's original wording. Unfortunately, he didn't do his homework, and was decimated on the House floor. Causing him to withdraw his amendment, and retreat to lick his wounds...
 
Congratulate them for being deceptive and underhanded?
Click to expand...
Those are some very strong words. Are you equating compromise in the service of progress with lying?

Compromise is the cornerstone of politics. Those who don't understand that don't get very far in the field.
 
Posted by Goofy-Foot:
And as far as not getting what "I" wanted, when I wanted it, I beg to differ. I would have liked to have seen the bill passed as it was originally written.
Click to expand...
So would I. So would the rest of us. So what? Our opposition had enough juice to keep the OC part of the bill from getting through. And remember, the OC part only applied to CCW holders, not ordinary citizens as the Framers intended.

Why didn’t the original bill address true OC? Because it wouldn’t have passed. It wasn’t a realistic goal considering the legislators currently in the House and probably the Senate. There was a chance of getting OC for CCW holders, so that was tried. It didn’t work. Our opponents blocked it.

Next year we’ll try again, but remember that our opponents have learned something from this, too. They know what we want and how we plan to get it. They’re not stupid. They got pretty strict gun control in this state a little bit at a time. They’re patient and determined.

Just out of curiosity, how were those responsible for making progress this year, “deceptive and underhanded”?
 
The "open carry" bill, as it was titled and written was supposed to be about OC. When the anti's started complaining, that is when the sponsors and the NRA said the bill was about IE or printing. They opened the door for the wording that we have now.
If the bill was truly about OC, they would have stood their ground, therefore the original title and wording was designed to mislead supporters and create the opportunity to "compromise", as stated in my above post.
Click to expand...
Not to belabor the point, but you're describing what happens when a bill is introduced without enough popular support to pass it.

You can call names, point fingers, rant & rave until the cows come home, but bills don't get passed unless there's enough popular support to make it happen. If legislators have to backtrack to a weaker version of the legislation and a supporter of the original wording ends up getting "decimated on the House Floor" and having to "lick his wounds" that is very strong evidence that there's not enough support to pass the bill in the original form.

Not enough support for a bill means one of two things happens.

1. The bill gets stopped cold and you get NOTHING.
2. The bill is amended and you get SOMETHING that you can try to build on next legislative session. But that only happens if you have very canny legislators who know how to win partial victories even when there's not sufficient support for a full victory.

Now, if you find yourself in situation 2, you can try to punish the legislators who got you SOMETHING instead of the NOTHING that the majority wanted. That can be tempting because it's natural to be disappointed at not getting what you wanted (wanted for yourself, for the community, for the state, for gun rights and gun owners everywhere, for the children, for the good of the nation, for the promotion of liberty, in memory of the founding fathers, in the name of motherhood and apple pie) but that response is not productive. The productive response is to work to raise support so that when your legislators go to work to strengthen the law in the next legislative session that they don't have to worry about getting "blown up" in front of their colleagues.
 
Well stated JohnKSa. Thanks for your input and I must add on it was waisted typing for some who are set in their thinking.
 
Such narrow minds...


If the bill's authors were for open carry, why didn't they start with constitutional carry and mandatory gun ownership for all legal citizens of age?
And then settle for OC with a license?

It wasn't about OC. Hence the deception and underhandedness. They needed the support of the OC crowd to pass this diluted and nearly undrinkable bill, to give the appearance of leading.
If it is common knowledge that this is the way you acheive compromise, why not forego the pomp and circumstance, unless it is just, all about the show...
 
So what do we have now? Inadvertant exposure removed from being a criminal offense; and printing discarded the same way, leaves for me a cherish moment of sigh, as that has been my main concern carrying. Maybe next year we can build on what has thus far been changed in our favor to open carry. :)
 
Posted by Baccha:
Maybe next year we can build on what has thus far been changed in our favor to open carry.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a shame the original bill address true OC. Because of a lack of support, it wouldn’t have passed. It wasn’t a realistic goal considering the legislators currently in the House and probably the Senate. There was a chance of getting OC for CCW holders, so that was tried. It didn’t work. Our opponents blocked it.

Next year we’ll try again, but remember that our opponents have learned something from this, too. They know what we want and how we plan to get it. They’re not stupid. They got pretty strict gun control in this state a little bit at a time. They’re patient and determined.

You never know, a SCOTUS decision might clear all this up for us and everyone else in the country.
 
If the bill's authors were for open carry, why didn't they start with constitutional carry and mandatory gun ownership for all legal citizens of age?
And then settle for OC with a license?
Click to expand...
If there's not enough support to pass an OC bill then there's not enough to pass constitutional carry. Asking for constitutional carry first won't get you OC if there's not enough support for OC. It might marginalize you entirely and convince people that you don't have a grasp on reality.

By this sort of "logic" you can sell a pack of gum for $100 if you mark it down from $5,000. It just won't work. People aren't going to pay $100 for something worth less than a buck just because you marked it $5,000 to begin with.

In the same way, asking for the moon (constitutional carry & mandatory gun ownership) and then scaling back to asking for OC doesn't buy you anything on the legislative floor. It just convinces people that you aren't serious or that you don't have a clue how the legislative process works.

Bottom line. Again. If there's not enough support for the legislation you don't get the legislation passed. You can blame the lobbyist; you can blame the legislators; you can blame price of bacon in China; but it won't change the fact that the real enemy is the lack of public support.
 
MAN!!! Seems the mods are goin' 'round and 'round far more than with most threads... Seems the same names are the ones makin' them do the roundy round too...

Hasn't this particular thread run the proverbial course yet? A new one can be started if things progress or the blood bath in the streets begins when all these unintentionally exposed/printing firearms are noticed by those who would otherwise actually have had grounds to dial 911...

Brent
 
John...I truly do understand what you keep reiterating, but you haven't addressed my query.

If politics is all about compromise, but it is common knowledge that you start out at one thing just to end up at another, why the dog-and-pony-show???

Couldn't our legislators accomplish much more in their brief work-year, if they would just cut to the chase?

As you put it, everyone already knows whether they have enough support, or not.
 
Last edited:
Couldn't our legislators accomplish much more in their brief work-year, if they would just cut to the chase?
Click to expand...

How much less do we want our elected officials to work with the brief schedule they already have?
 
goOFy foot... (is that a skate boarder term), just like the art of the haggle, you start out offering/asking less or more than you are willing to accept since you know the other party (no political pun intended) is going to JE...errr... haggle you up or down depending on the side you are on.

Why can't you realize the progress, albeit less than some hoped for, and accept it as a good thing?

Heck, I was against this ever since I learned it wasn't an unconditional OC offering for all...

I reckon I will carry my rod and reel and tackle box every where I go so i can OC without a permit.

Brent
 
hogdogs, it could be a skateboard, snowboard, or surfboard term.

Lots of guys who are into one, are into two or all three...

(I'm not one of those guys; road rash sucks.)
 
Posted by GoofyFoot:
If politics is all about compromise, but it is common knowledge that you start out at one thing just to end up at another, why the dog-and-pony-show???
Click to expand...

The "dog-and-pony-show" is the way the process works. When they start on a bill, most of the legislators don't know what's in it, what the issues are, what their party leaders want them to do, etc. They have to get briefed by their assistants, meet with lobbyists, get poll data and figure out how much time they’re going to spend on this bill vs. all the other bills they’re dealing with.

Couldn't our legislators accomplish much more in their brief work-year, if they would just cut to the chase?
Click to expand...

See answer above. It doesn’t work that way. It’s never worked that way.

As you put it, everyone already knows whether they have enough support, or not.
Click to expand...

Not on the details, they don’t. They might know they can’t get open carry for all passed, but have a shot at open carry for CCW holders. That’s what happened this time. They tried and lost. Then they salvaged what they could.

Legislators often “swap votes”, agreeing to vote for a bill that’s important to another legislator if he’ll vote the way he wants. Your bill might not have the highest priority for a guy you were counting on. He might bail on you in order to get another bill passed. That’s the reality of politics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top