New Bills Introduced In Florida

[Don P]

Here is a list of new bills introduced in Florida by Senator Steube, 2/1/2017 all bille currently on the agender can be found here,
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bi...utError=False&PageNumber=1&ExpandedView=False

The magazine round limitation bill has moved into commitee.

SB 610: Firearms
GENERAL BILL by Steube

Firearms; Requiring a business, organization, or entity that prohibits a concealed weapon or firearm licensee from carrying a weapon or firearm onto its property to assume certain responsibility for the safety and defense of such licensee; providing a cause of action for a concealed weapon or firearm licensee who incurs injury, death, damage, or loss as the result of certain acts or attacks occurring on the property of such business, organization, or entity or on other specified properties, etc.

SB 616: Concealed Weapons or Firearms
GENERAL BILL by Steube

Concealed Weapons or Firearms; Authorizing a concealed weapons or concealed firearms licensee to temporarily surrender a weapon or firearm if the licensee approaches courthouse security or management personnel upon arrival and follows their instructions, etc.

SB 618: Concealed Weapons and Firearms
GENERAL BILL by Steube

Concealed Weapons and Firearms; Authorizing a concealed weapons or concealed firearms licensee to carry a concealed weapon or firearm into any area of an airport excluding the sterile area, etc.

SB 620: Concealed Weapons or Firearms
GENERAL BILL by Steube

Concealed Weapons or Firearms; Authorizing a concealed weapons or concealed firearms licensee to carry a concealed weapon or firearm into any meeting or committee meeting of the Legislature, etc.

SB 622: Concealed Weapons or Firearms
GENERAL BILL by Steube

Concealed Weapons or Firearms; Prohibiting a concealed weapons or concealed firearms licensee from carrying a concealed weapon or firearm into any athletic event for a K-12 school, college, or university which is not related to firearms; deleting an exception authorizing a student, employee, or faculty licensee to carry specified nonlethal weapons, etc.

SB 626: Concealed Weapons or Firearms
GENERAL BILL by Steube

Concealed Weapons or Firearms; Authorizing a concealed weapons or concealed firearms licensee to carry a concealed weapon or firearm into any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district, etc.

SB 640: Concealed Weapons or Firearms
GENERAL BILL by Steube

Concealed Weapons or Firearms; Authorizing a concealed weapons or concealed firearms licensee to carry a concealed weapon or firearm into any career center, etc.

SB 644: Openly Carrying a Handgun
GENERAL BILL by Steube

Openly Carrying a Handgun; Authorizing a concealed weapons or firearms licensee to openly carry a handgun, etc.

SB 646: Weapons and Firearms
GENERAL BILL by Steube

Weapons and Firearms; Providing that a person licensed to carry a concealed weapon or firearm who is lawfully carrying a firearm does not violate certain provisions if the firearm is temporarily and openly displayed; authorizing each member of the Florida Cabinet to carry a concealed weapon or firearm if he or she is licensed to carry a concealed weapon or firearm and does not have full-time security provided by the Department of Law Enforcement, etc.

 

[steve4102]

Here is SB 610.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2017/0610/BillText/Filed/PDF

I have some question concerning this Bill.

An act relating to firearms; creating s. 768.38, F.S.;
3 providing legislative intent; requiring a business,
4 organization, or entity that prohibits a concealed
5 weapon or firearm licensee from carrying a weapon or
6 firearm onto its property to assume certain
7 responsibility for the safety and defense of such
8 licensee; providing that the responsibility of such
9 business, organization, or entity extends to the
10 conduct of certain people and animals; providing a
11 cause of action for a concealed weapon or firearm
12 licensee who incurs injury, death, damage, or loss as
13 the result of certain acts or attacks occurring on the
14 property of such business, organization, or entity or
15 on other specified properties; authorizing a licensee
16 to recover attorney fees and specified costs;
17 specifying a statute of limitations for bringing such
18 action; requiring a business, organization, or entity
19 with such prohibition to clearly display specified
20 information; specifying requirements that a plaintiff
21 must prove to prevail in a cause of action; providing
22 an effective date.

Business organization or Entity?

Does this include the State of FL Gun Free Zones, such as schools, airport terminals and Bars, or is this bill only forcing liability on the private sector and not themselves?

(2) A business, organization, or entity, including, but not
35 limited to, a private business or a not-for-profit entity, which
36 prohibits a concealed weapon or firearm licensee from carrying a
37 weapon or firearm onto the property of such business,
38 organization, or entity assumes absolute custodial
39 responsibility, when the licensee is prevented from carrying a
40 weapon or firearm due to the prohibition, for the safety and
41 defense of the licensee against any unlawful or reckless act by
42 another person, or any attack by a vicious or wild animal, on
43 the owner’s property or on any property that the licensee is
44 required to traverse in order to travel to and from the location
45 where the licensee’s weapon or firearm is stored.

What is "custodial responsibility"?

I thought it was established that a business or private property owner cannot be held liable for the Illegal Acts of a third party.

Can a bill like this that changes that even hold up under the Constitution?

 

[5whiskey]

Holy cow, go Florida! I hope they can turn these proposals into laws.

Does this include the State of FL Gun Free Zones, such as schools, airport terminals and Bars, or is this bill only forcing liability on the private sector and not themselves?

Interesting thought. FWIW, I don't particularly care for allowing business owners to be sued because they don't allow firearms on premise. It shifts the focus off of the directly responsible (the criminal who shot or injured someone during the commission of a crime) and gives the already vague concept of indirect liability (which already exists) an even broader meaning. No thanks.

 

[steve4102]

Is there legislation that says a business cannot be sued for posting a No-Guns sign?

If not, why the need to pass legislation that says a business can be sued when they already can be sued?

 

[spacecoast]

Seems like a shotgun approach, would like to see it more focused on a bill or two that would have a chance of passing.

SB 622: Concealed Weapons or Firearms
GENERAL BILL by Steube

Concealed Weapons or Firearms; Prohibiting a concealed weapons or concealed firearms licensee from carrying a concealed weapon or firearm into any athletic event for a K-12 school, college, or university which is not related to firearms; deleting an exception authorizing a student, employee, or faculty licensee to carry specified nonlethal weapons, etc.

Isn't this already prohibited? Is deleting the exception the operative part of this proposal?

SB 610: Firearms
GENERAL BILL by Steube

Firearms; Requiring a business, organization, or entity that prohibits a concealed weapon or firearm licensee from carrying a weapon or firearm onto its property to assume certain responsibility for the safety and defense of such licensee; providing a cause of action for a concealed weapon or firearm licensee who incurs injury, death, damage, or loss as the result of certain acts or attacks occurring on the property of such business, organization, or entity or on other specified properties, etc.

In the case of a business, since the prohibition doesn't carry the force of law, can't the business just say "If you were worried, you should have just ignored our signs?"

 

[ShootistPRS]

The law states that if a concealed weapon is not allowed on public access property the the owner or manager of that property assumes the liability of protection for those people.

In effect if a store or other business removes the ability of someone to defend themselves they have to take the responsibility of protecting them. That is only fair. If I don't allow you to defend yourself on my property then I must assume the job for your personal protection.

It is not charging you with a crime that someone else commits it is just paying for the injury that occurred on my property. Just like if you slip and fall the property owner is liable.

 

[steve4102]

Does the State of FL put the same liability upon themselves? If not, then this law is rather hypocritical dontcha think.

If there is no Law stating that a person injured in a Gun-Free Zone cannot sue, why is there a need for a law saying that they can sue?

People sue all the time for everything from soup to nuts, why do we need a law telling the Permit Holders of FL that they can sue, when there is no legislation stopping them from suing without this law?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I thought it was established that a business or private property owner cannot be held liable for the Illegal Acts of a third party.

If that has been established, it would have been established pursuant to some law or laws. If this law passes, it would change any such pre-existing determination.

That said, this proposed law doesn't make the business responsible for the illegal acts of third parties. It makes the business responsible for defending disarmed customers against the illegal acts of third parties if the business chooses to not allow lawful carry of firearms by customers.

 

[Don P]

I have some question concerning this Bill

I can't answer your question and if it needs answering maybe contact the senator who introduced the bill. All his info is on the web site.
Folks I just put these out there being I follow all firearm related bills in the Florida legislature and as a side note the magazine capacity bill has moved to committee.

 

[steve4102]

That said, this proposed law doesn't make the business responsible for the illegal acts of third parties. It makes the business responsible for defending disarmed customers against the illegal acts of third parties if the business chooses to not allow lawful carry of firearms by customers.

Does it?

Does it impose liability and force "responsibility" on a business owner, or does it just say that said business owner can be sued in a Civil Court?

 

[porkchopper]

I thought that a Florida business open to the public (say Publix or Walmart as an example) could not prohibit its customers from lawfully carrying a concealed weapon on their premises and that any signage to that effect could be ignored?

 

[TomNJVA]

It varies by state, but in Virginia a "No Firearms" sign does not carry the force of law and it is not illegal to ignore the sign and enter the premises. If the property owner or representative discovers that you are carrying a weapon in violation of their policy they can ask you to leave. If you do not comply you are guilty of trespassing, not a firearm violation.

Tom

 

[spacecoast]

It varies by state, but in Virginia a "No Firearms" sign does not carry the weight of law and it is not illegal to ignore the sign and enter the premises. If the property owner or representative discovers that you are carrying a weapon in violation of their policy they can ask you to leave. If you do not comply you are guilty of trespassing, not a firearm violation.

It's the same in Florida.