Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[florida permitless carry]]>

Open carry amendment introduced for Florida permitless carry bill

by Leave a Comment

There has been significant opposition to Florida’s attempt to get Constitutional Carry on the books, despite Republican supermajorities in the Florida House and Senate, as well as the support of Governor Ron DeSantis–with his repeated announcements that he would sign Constitutional Carry legislation.  As expected, gun control activists oppose any changes to current Florida law, which requires Floridians who want to carry a concealed firearm, to submit to a multi-step process, including a background check, an approved training course and to pay the Florida Department of Agriculture a fee (about $97 for first time applicants) for the privilege of licensing a Constitutional right.  While Constitutional Carry supporters lament the lack of an open carry provision in the bills moving through the Florida House and Senate. Supporters of open carry oppose the current legislation so fervently they refuse to call it Constitutional Carry. Preferring to call it permitless carry instead. Even supporters in the Florida Legislature have resorted to calling the bills permitless carry, in an apparent nod to proponents of open carry.

However just today, Hillsborough County Representative Mike Beltran stepped in to the fray to introduce an amendment to House Bill (HB 543) which includes an open carry provision.  Representative Beltran’s amendment would allow Floridians, “to openly carry a handgun in a level two or greater retention device”.

For those unfamiliar with retention levels, there is a lot of vendor jargon to sort through, but for purposes of discussion on this open carry amendment, a level one retention holster requires the gun owner (operator) to perform a single action to release the weapon, which can be a simple as overcoming friction of the holster’s built in retention. This is sometimes referred to as passive retention and it works great for concealed carry.  However if you are open carrying, you might want to secure your weapon actively.  At level two, the gun owner (operator) must push down on a strap or a button to remove the firearm (2 actions) before the weapon is free. This is called active retention. And the retention levels go up from there.  The point of retention is to secure the weapon in such a manners as to prevent an unauthorized person from taking your weapon.

It’s worth noting, both the House and Senate permitless carry bills have passed their respective committee hurdles and now will be debated and voted on by both chambers.  The open carry amendment will be considered on the House floor when the bill comes up in that chamber.

Assuming the open carry amendment fails, Florida will continue to be one of just a handful of states that would not allow for open carry in any form.  That handful of states includes New York, Illinois and California. (Currently Florida law allows for open carry when fishing, camping or hunting).

President of the Florida Senate, Kathleen Passidomo has previously indicated she is not a supporter of open carry, pointing to the Florida Sheriff’s Association as being opposed to the practice.  However, according to a letter from the Florida Sheriff’s Association (FSA) to the Florida Phoenix, “FSA does not have an official position on Open Carry at this point since there isn’t any formal legislation on Open Carry specifically.”  With Representative Beltran’s amendment there is now formal legislation on the table. We’ll have to wait and see if the Florida Sheriff’s Association takes a formal position. It should be noted that there is no open carry provision currently in the Senate version of the bill (SB 150).

Beyond support by Senate leadership, it isn’t clear if there is enough support generally in the Senate for an open carry amendment. Right now advocates of open carry must hope for a large margin of victory in the Florida House and that the Florida Sheriff’s Association does not publicly oppose open carry.  Permitless carry legislation appears headed for the Governor’s desk. The question is will it include an open carry provision.

Giffords turns to misinformation to attack permitless carry

by Leave a Comment

Yesterday, Bearing Arms called out local Miami station WSVN for irresponsible reporting on Florida’s permitless carry legislation.  While they updated their story to correct their coverage, their original report said that Florida’s permitless carry bill eliminates background checks for firearms purchases. It doesn’t.

If irresponsible reporting weren’t enough, here comes gun control group Giffords to further muddy the waters.

Giffords purchased a full page ad in the Miami Herald in what can only be described as an attempt to mislead the public about Florida’s permitless carry bill.

Florida’s permitless carry bill, Senate Bill 150 (SB 150), sponsored by Florida Senator and former Green Beret Jay Collins (R-Tampa).  [Note: House Bill 543 is the Florida House of Representatives version of the legislation.]

The Giffords ad shows two men, one red and one blue.  Both are carrying firearms.  The headline of the ad asks, “Can you spot the difference?” The two men stand toe-to-toe, and appear to be arguing.

In upside down text that requires the reader to invert the page, Giffords provides their answer.  “The man in red completed a pistol shooting training course, passed a background check, and holds a license to carry a concealed gun in Florida. The man in blue has never fired a gun in his life. He bought his pistol at a bar last week without a background check. He was convicted of a violent felony last year.”

They conclude, “If Governor DeSantis gets his way, there will be nothing to stop the man in blue from carrying a loaded, hidden gun-no questions asked.”

Can you spot the problems with the Giffords paint-by-numbers scenario?  Well, first they want to scare you because blue guy bought his gun at a bar without a background check. No much is said about the person that sold blue guy the gun, but let’s review Florida law on firearms in bars.  Florida law does not allow you to carry a firearm in any establishment whose primary purpose is the sale of alcohol or any part of an establishment devoted to the sale of alcohol. If you go in to a restaurant with a bar, you cannot carry in the bar area. Blue guy just broke the law. Second, blue guy is a convicted felon who cannot legally purchase or posses a firearm, that includes carrying a concealed firearm.  Blue guy is again breaking the law.

Nothing in Florida’s permitless carry legislation will change the scenario depicted by Giffords. Blue guy is a criminal.  Blue guy doesn’t care about firearms laws. He is going to carry a firearm regardless of Florida law.  Does Giffords want us to believe that blue guy, a convicted felon, who illegally purchased a gun in a bar, would submit himself to the concealed carry licensing process?  Why don’t gun control groups understand that criminals don’t care about gun control laws?

There is only one conclusion.  Giffords is purposely misleading Florida residents, hoping to scare enough Florida residents, to embark on  what can only be described as a fools errand–opposing permitless carry. Despite opposition, Florida’s permitless carry legislation is moving rapidly to the Governor’s desk and on to becoming Florida law.

Since Giffords graced us with this scenario, but doesn’t allow the scenario to play out, indulge me while I do it for them.  Here it goes.  The argument between the two men escalates with blue guy escalating and threatening the life of red guy.  Because blue guy represents a threat to life, red guy presents his firearm, ready to defend himself.  Seeing that red guy has come to the party armed and ready, blue guy decides he’d be better off anywhere but standing at the end of red guy’s muzzle.  Our little story becomes one of hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses in America each year.  Red guy did not become another victim of crime thanks to concealed carry.

Irresponsible journalism in Florida’s permitless carry debate

by Leave a Comment

On Monday, a few Miami area residents held a press conference decrying Florida’s permitless carry bill, Senate Bill 150 (SB 150), sponsored by Florida Senator and former Green Beret Jay Collins (R-Tampa).  [Note: House Bill 543 is the Florida House of Representatives version of the legislation.] Despite the protestations in Miami, this legislation is moving rapidly to the Governor’s desk and to become Florida law.

WSVN reporter, Robin Simmons from the Miami area TV station, covered the press conference and filed a report.

In her opening Ms. Simmons characterizes the group holding the press conference as a group of “local leaders”.  Participants in the press conference included, former Congresswoman Debbie Mucarsel-Powell and Retired El Portal Police Chief David Magnusson. While both previously held leadership roles in the community, they are not currently in office. Let’s come back to their comments in a moment.

Ms. Simmons continues her reporting, “House Bill 543 would allow people in Florida who are over 18 years old to carry a concealed loaded gun in most public locations.”  But here Simmons mischaracterizes the legislation, she continues, “it would also allow people to buy guns with no background checks or firearms training.”  This is blatantly false. Firearms purchases are controlled by both federal and state laws that require a background check to be performed before the transfer of any firearm.  Nothing in SB 150 or HB 543 change the process for Floridians to buy or transfer firearms.

Senator Jay Collins, the bill sponsor was quick to call out the irresponsible reporting.

He was joined by colleague, Senator Blaise Ingoglia (R-Spring Hill).

Earlier in the day, I reached out to WSVN via Twitter and directly on their website to alert them to the inaccurate reporting.  I’ve repeated attempts to call this to WSVN’s attention, but they have not responded.  If they update their reporting, we’ll update this article.

For her part Mucarsel-Powell repeated gun control talking points, citing gun control research indicating increases in crime in states where permitless carry has been adopted.  And why wouldn’t she.  She is a senior advisor to gun control group Giffords Courage. As for Mr. Magnusson, he seems to be one of the only law enforcement officials against the bill.  The Florida Sheriff’s Association and the Florida Police Chiefs Association support Florida’s permitless carry legislation.

As importantly as the inaccuracies in the reporting are, the report was completely one sided.  There was no attempt to reach out to supporters of this legislation nor an attempt to fact-check any of the statistics shared during the press conference.  In fact, it would appear that Ms. Simmons just copied and pasted whatever was said during the press conference.  Ms. Mucarsel-Powell rattled off the same disproven statistics about crime in states with permitless carry and Ms. Simmons included them in her reporting–lock, stock and barrel.  No attempt to research the issue, no attempt to seek alternative research, and no attempt to reach out to the bill sponsors or supporters for comment.  Just repeat whatever the gun control activists say.

A simple Google search would have lead Ms. Simmons to a recent report by Rand where they say, “Evidence for the effect of permitless-carry laws on total homicides is inconclusive.”  Rand is no supporter of the Second Amendment, so when they say the data are inconclusive, that should be a sign that the statistics gun control activists cite require some scrutiny.

You might ask, why does this matter?  It matters for several reasons.  First, voters depend on local news for accurate reporting on issues that matter.  Overall, my experience with local journalists has been very positive.  I have been interviewed by countless local reporters and consider most of their work devoid of personal or political bias.  Sure, the local news likes to sensationalize stories. And as much as journalists and newsrooms might protest, the term “if it bleeds, it ledes” is an axiom for a reason.  There is a financial motivation to push stories that generate and feed fear and thus generate views.  Second, distrust of the media, politicians and the political process are at levels that haven’t been seen in decades. Coming off of the misinformation circus during the pandemic, Americans need sources they can trust, not mouthpieces for propagandists.  The press play a vital role, but the level of public trust is a direct result of their adherence to journalistic ethics.  Fair, balanced and accurate reporting are vital to rebuilding trust and to a functioning constitutional republic.  It’s undoubtedly why the first two amendments to the Constitution protect free speech and the right to keep and bear arms.

Gavin Newsom should worry about California

by Leave a Comment

This week I called out Gavin Newsom on Twitter for invoking Parkland in an attack on Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and recently introduced permitless carry legislation in the Florida Legislature.  Well you don’t get a free pass from this father when you try use the memory my daughter and the other victims in Parkland to score political points.  My response invoked a fair bit of online and TV media coverage.  Here’s the Twitter exchange.

Now Gavin is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own set of facts.  First there is the baseless claim that states that allow concealed carry have a higher gun homicide rate.  This is an oft quoted stat that is not backed up by any credible research.  Oh sure, you can find gun control activists groups like Brady and Everytown which cherry pick homicide data in an attempt to shake loose dollars from their contributors, but Gavin’s audience won’t care about any of that. They’re already convinced that law-abiding gun owners are just waiting for an opportunity to shoot at them.

But there’s more.  Gavin also claims that the bill would remove background checks, instruction, training & oversight.  This is simply not true.  Firearms purchases and transfers are governed by federal law which requires a background check and nothing in this proposed legislation changes that.  What Newsom isn’t saying is that wants the additional background checks that often accompany concealed carry permits in previously-“may issue” states like California.  He wants multiple opportunities for government to deny your 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

So why did Gavin do this?  Why does he care about Florida politics?  Well, like many Americans Gavin probably vacations in Florida, so maybe for that reason he taking an unusual interest in Florida politics. A more likely answer is that he has presidential aspirations and sees Governor Ron DeSantis as his most likely opponent.  Good luck with that.  Florida represents a beacon of freedom that stands in stark contrast to authoritarian California.

Gavin is also trying to deflect attention away from a tragic spate of mass shootings in his own state.  California’s gun control regime is a dismal failure and even organizations like Rand have said, “there is ‘limited’ evidence that banning the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines curtails mass shootings.”  Gun control activists promised Californians that they would be “safer” if they limited the 2nd Amendment rights of their fellow Californians.  That hasn’t proved to be true.  It would seem that California is forever just one more gun law away from public safety.

The approach we took in Florida after Parkland was different.  Then Governor Rick Scott commissioned the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Public Safety Commission (I sit on the MSD Commission) and tasked us with investigating why Parkland happened and what the state should do to prevent future tragedies. Despite the media hype around marching kids and gun control activists, state leaders listened to the Commission and its recommendations. None of the Commission recommendations included more gun control.  They did include a placing armed law enforcement and Guardians at every Florida school, including teachers to be trained as Guardians and to carry firearms to defend their lives and the lives of their students.  It included simple measures like locking school doors and marking safe areas in each classroom. And most importantly, we’ve implemented behavioral threat assessment and management programs, just like the U.S. Secret Service uses to protect the President.

None of the measures we took in Florida made the gun grabbers happy because their one and only solution is to disarm all Americans. I doubt Gavin is even aware of the Commission’s work or read our recommendations. Gavin is failing the people of California, but like most politicians of his ilk, he’ll invoke false narratives and the memories of the 17 we lost in order to cover his own failures.  Shame on you Gavin.