|
|
|
|
|
||
| Moderated by: jpierce | Topic closed | |
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
smoking357 Banned 
|
I had to default the State under F.S. 120.60, so I just issued myself my license. It feels good to be "official" after waiting 90 days. In honor of receiving my license, I had to do the customary rite of passage: I took the old and famous "Default Walk" around the neighborhood, and I can tell you this: Concealed Carry Sucks, comparatively speaking. This was the first time I've carried fully concealed in many years. With the gun concealed, you're at such a dramatic disadvantage in a real fight. While any gun is better than no gun, getting past the clothing to get to the gun is a disaster waiting to happen. The chances of a clean draw are also severely frustrated because of the clothing covering the gun. Further, the requirement to keep the gun fully covered rules out carrying the most effective guns such as milspec 1911 or a 6" revolver. Open carry is so vastly preferable. |
|||||||||
|
starbuck Regular Member
|
I generally carry a Beretta 92FS in a blackhawk serpa OWB holster, covering it with an unbuttoned second shirt. It's always worked for me. |
|||||||||
|
HankT State Researcher 
|
smoking357 wrote: This was the first time I've carried fully concealed in many years. With the gun concealed, you're at such a dramatic disadvantage in a real fight. While any gun is better than no gun, getting past the clothing to get to the gun is a disaster waiting to happen. The chances of a clean draw are also severely frustrated because of the clothing covering the gun. Yep. It's a real wonder that anyone even bothers to CC. Hell, if all you're gonna do is CC, it's almost better to leave it at home for all the good it'll do ya... |
|||||||||
|
Taco Regular Member
|
It takes alot of practice, being clothing conscious, and the right holster for you get some effective match ups together even with the CC restriction. This is where one of mine typically is: between a tucked shirt with a hawaiian shirt, sports jersey, polo shirt, or larger T-shirt over it. --Oh, the pic is not of me... You'd need to mirror the holster to the left side, add a bunch more hair, and give the guy around 50 lbs. of meatball sandwiches to eat  . |
|||||||||
|
acrimsontide Regular Member 
|
Let us know how that "self issued" license works out if you are stoped by a LEO. |
|||||||||
|
HankT State Researcher
|
acrimsontide wrote: Let us know how that "self issued" license works out if you are stoped by a LEO. I was wondering about that too. What's this "self-issued" bit? Doesn't Florida have over 500,000 CWPs issued to its citizens? How does that stack up to other states? Last edited on Fri Apr 17th, 2009 02:45 am by HankT |
|||||||||
|
acrimsontide Regular Member
|
HankT wrote: acrimsontide wrote:Let us know how that "self issued" license works out if you are stoped by a LEO. The way I understand it is that Florida has some kind of default law that requires them to take action by a certain time or they are in default on licenses. From what I have read, the law had something to do with keeping someone from "sitting" on an application and was passed to protect developers. Some people are trying to carry this over to CCW permits since they are a "license". From what I have read, the guy will likely lose out if he is arrested. I'm not a lawyer however so I could be wrong ont the intent. Last edited on Fri Apr 17th, 2009 03:13 am by acrimsontide |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
acrimsontide wrote: HankT wrote:acrimsontide wrote:Let us know how that "self issued" license works out if you are stoped by a LEO. "Developers?" Who on earth told you such nonsense? The current iteration of 120.60 was a strengthening of the version that existed since the 1970's, perhaps earlier. Until the late 90's, 120.60 imposed a duty to act with "reasonable dispatch," setting the default period at 180 days. Now, thankfully, the State is required to act within 90 days. Period. 120.60 covers all licenses, and is, in no way, license-specific. You know that keeping the government on a short leash works to our favor, right? You remember that we're the pro-gun side of things, and we don't want the State taking forever to let people have their firearm rights? There's only one side of this issue for gun owners to be on. Advocating administrative delay and citizen silence in the face of such delay does not lead us towards freedom. If everyone defaulted the State, we would be in a much stronger position to argue that open carry is necessary to let citizens carry arms about them while awaiting permit approval. Presently, we have no non-permit carrying option, and, according to some, the State can indefinitely deny the right to carry. First, the State can indefinitely fail to approve or deny the application. If the citizen files a default because of this delay, some argue that the default is of no effect, or, alternatively or conjunctively, is not effective until the State issues the actual permit. The latter disjunct is such a tortured tautological exercise that it can only truly be appreciated by a tyrant. As the citizens have no recourse to carry in absence of State permission, it's necessary to inundate the State with default filings to compel it to reconsider its prohibition on open carry. In states where open carry is the basic right, many who carry never trouble themselves with applying for the permit. Under such a scheme, the State would not find itself buried under a crush of applications, and those who truly wish to carry concealed would likely not face such long wait times. I ask you this: 1) Do you believe that the State can, through administrative delay, fail to approve or deny a license, indefinitely? 2) In the above, does the citizen have the right to default the State? 3) If so, when? 4) Is a citizen practice of defaulting the State bad for gun owners? 5) Is it a Patriot's duty to attempt to increase the Liberty of his fellow citizens? |
|||||||||
|
acrimsontide Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: acrimsontide wrote:HankT wrote:acrimsontide wrote:Let us know how that "self issued" license works out if you are stoped by a LEO. Obviously you feel you are in the right on this. As for the developer issue, I read that on another forum and stated that I could be wrong on the intent of the law. Keep us posted on the multiple forums that you are posting ths information on so that we will all know the outcome. Your fellow Floridians don't seem to agree with you on ,as you are being ridiculed on their forum. I'm sure they are looking forward to the resolution of your default "self issued permit" as well. http://floridaconcealedcarry.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=2725 |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
acrimsontide wrote: smoking357 wrote:acrimsontide wrote:HankT wrote:acrimsontide wrote:Let us know how that "self issued" license works out if you are stoped by a LEO. I only talked about this procedure on two forums. I went to that "other forum" first, since it appeared to be devoted to the substance of the discussion, and they all attacked this particular exercise of gun rights with the zeal of Sarah Brady. I then took the discussion here, even though it concerns concealed, not open, carry. Either the "other site" is a front group for those opposed to gun rights, or Florida gun owners are the weakest gun advocates in the Union. I have never seen gun owners be so opposed their gun rights as I have here in Florida. The "other forum" claims that one can only be banned for specific reasons, when their practice is to ban anyone who is smarter than them or is too pro-RKBA. Why, I was permanently banned there almost immediately upon arrival, for doing nothing but responding to and correcting some of the rudest, most ignorant, and most abusive posters I've ever encountered. They openly admit that "attitude" will draw a ban, so you'd better act dumb and be an Amen corner for the cadre of self-importants who monopolixe the place. Frankly, they were highly offended at being upstaged on their home court and for being exposed as grossly uneducated in the very subject in which they profess to be "experts." I mean, really, if you're running a Florida Concealed Carry board, shouldn't you be familiar with the details of the permit process? Promoting as gospel that the date of check cashing is, in any way, relevant to the deadline is really embarrassing when someone comes along and tells you that such a date is absolutely meaningless. These supposed gun advocates have presently threatened to call the police on me, and they gleefully expressed disgusting desires to see me be the subject of police brutality, have my face slammed into the gravel, just for following the law. Even though I'm banned from posting on their site, they despise that the #1 source for Florida CCW information is this board, not theirs. Their reaction to a pro-gun rights exercise is both bizarre and revolting. It is inconceivable for me to consider calling the cops on a fellow gun owner. In America, a powerful and brutal government that is not accountable to the public and need not answer to the public within any specific time is called "tyranny," and those who advocate for such conditions are called "Liberals," "Socialists" and "Communists." Strange days are upon us, my friend. P.S. It's extremely cowardly for them to attack someone whom they've prohibited from responding. That's really quite chickensh... They'll gladly enjoy the rights others have fought to give them, though they attacked the soldiers doing the fighting. Years ago, we'd have called them Tories. Last edited on Fri Apr 17th, 2009 07:05 pm by smoking357 |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Be aware that there is a misguided soul on the "other forum" who knows nothing about 120.60 profferring a crudely cobbled version of the law. Specifically, the misinformed fellow claims: "You can notify them [the agency] that they have exceeded the time frame allowed under Chapter 120 and you want the license issued as a default. If they agree then they send you the license. It doesn't look any different nor does it indicate anywhere it was issued under default." Sigh. So much lack of knowledge and understanding among the untutored. Case law and statute are explicit that there is no requirement that they "agree" to the default, as "agreement," or any discretionary act, on the part of the agency after the deadline gives the State merely another avenue to practice administrative delay and would completely revoke the statutory imperative for timely action. Cites have been posted on this board in other threads. I wish people would read the law prior to spouting wive's tales and complete mistruths. There are, however, opinions that hold that one cannot make a mockery of the by licensing statute by holding no medical training and become a physician by default, so if you're Charles Manson, your default firearms license will not be upheld. In the main, the default procedure is a hard requirement on the State, and the State loses almost all but the most fundamental rights to speak once the deadline has passed. Last edited on Fri Apr 17th, 2009 06:16 pm by smoking357 |
|||||||||
|
Taco Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: Even though I'm banned from posting on their site, they despise that the #1 source for Florida CCW information is this board, not theirs. The #1 source for Florida Firearm information is direct from Gutmacher. The #2 source for Florida Firearm information is Gutmacher's book. The #3 would be from the statutes themselves, combined with a decent online law library for definitions and case law clarifications. A distant #4 would be message boards, and the one you previously mentioned wouldn't even make the top 5 Florida gun boards. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
"I spoke this afternoon with a supervisor in the compliance/enforcement section of DACS Concealed Weapons licensing. He agreed with me that even if he had a case for default that he needs to have an issued license physically on him to not be arrested." "He?" Could it be that persons are committing criminal conspiracy to violate the privacy laws? You know that these applications are no longer public. "He also agreed with me that the criminal court judge that will precide over his case will only be interested in whether he was in violation of Chapter 790.01. Chapter 790.01 says that you are in violation unless you posses a concealed weapons permit persuant to the conditions set in Chapter 790.06." Don't play with sharp edges, kiddo. Once arrested, the presence of a validly served default would create such a massive affirmative defense that no D.A. would want to touch the case. The card requirement presumes timely action by the State. Do you know what an affirmative defense is? 790.06 is not a strict liability statute (do you know what that is?). It's impossible to prove wilful violation in the presence of a knowing belief that one was in compliance with the larger body of statutes and caselaw. "No where does it say that you may carry if DACS is in default of your application." Nowhere does it say that you may carry a black gun upon receipt of your license. "Chapter 790.06 requires that you have the license with your picture on it as issued by the Agency when ever you carry a concealed weapon along with a valid ID (Driver License) and you must present both to a LEO upon his request. There is no provision anywhere in this section for claiming to have a license to carry under default through Chapter 120." Son, you can't see the forest for the trees. |
|||||||||
|
c45man Regular Member
|
Don't know anything about Florida Law. I can post relative to the Poster eluding to the Florida number of licensees. The 500,000 numbered by the poster would be the second highest in the country relative to the data I am aware of. Pennsylvania has 600,000 individuals with licenses or 5.7 percent of the population. This data is a few years old with Pennsylvania continuing to grow in number of licensed carriers. Indiana was second at the time with approx. 300,000 carriers. |
|||||||||
|
OneInThePipe Regular Member
|
Maybe I'm missing something here but it looks to me like this would be an easy issue to solve. Simply take your default permit and approach the nearest LEO. If he agrees and lets you walk away then you are proven right. If he arrests you then perhaps the other forum is right. Either way I would think that a true patriot such as yourself would be willing to do more for the cause than just walk around his neighborhood. |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member 
|
HankT wrote: smoking357 wrote:This was the first time I've carried fully concealed in many years. With the gun concealed, you're at such a dramatic disadvantage in a real fight. While any gun is better than no gun, getting past the clothing to get to the gun is a disaster waiting to happen. The chances of a clean draw are also severely frustrated because of the clothing covering the gun. I don't agree. With practice, you can get to a handgun covered by a shirt, for example, very quickly. An open suitcoat or other jacket which is open isn't much of a problem with a good shoulder rig--or crossdraw. If you're wearing a heavy, buttoned or zippered coat, you're right. But lighter clothes and practice--and the right rig, aren't as bad as you think. |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: I had to default the State under F.S. 120.60, so I just issued myself my license. It feels good to be "official" after waiting 90 days. You "issued yourself" a CCW...good luck with that. Default requires legal action to enforce, such as a writ of Mandamus, not you writing on a slip of paper. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Gunslinger wrote:
Only if I cared about having a hall pass in my wallet. Being "legal" does not demand equitable relief. |
|||||||||
|
HankT State Researcher
|
smoking357 wrote:
I am looking into the crystal ball and see your past.  Much strife....and arguments...and ..... ill will....everyone is against you... Also, the future is ....cloudy... But wait. There is a building. A large gray building....with very odd curtains on the windows... The curtains are made of metal....no, they're not curtains at all....they're bars... It's getting cloudy again... Sorry, I can't see anything more. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
HankT wrote: smoking357 wrote: That's because you're picking up the soap. |
|||||||||
|
OneInThePipe Regular Member
|
OneInThePipe wrote: Maybe I'm missing something here but it looks to me like this would be an easy issue to solve. You answered other posts how about replying to this post? Are you going to keep talking trash or are you going to stand behind your beliefs and be a true patriot? |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
OneInThePipe wrote: OneInThePipe wrote:Maybe I'm missing something here but it looks to me like this would be an easy issue to solve. He's not going to do it. We all know why. |
|||||||||
|
OneInThePipe Regular Member
|
JeepSeller wrote: OneInThePipe wrote:OneInThePipe wrote:Maybe I'm missing something here but it looks to me like this would be an easy issue to solve. I don't expect him to answer either. I wonder if he is a Brady troll. He does live up to his B.S. initials though. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
JeepSeller wrote: OneInThePipe wrote:OneInThePipe wrote:Maybe I'm missing something here but it looks to me like this would be an easy issue to solve. Because, Bob, one's rights do not flow from the police. By the way, the criteria for a "shall issue" permit does not include having an "attitude" that comports to the mores of a hillbilly, so if you attempt to frustrate my civil rights, I'll sue the hell out of you. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
It seems we have some newcomers. Before the newcomers are allowed to proceed, they must answer a simple question: Do you support open carry in Florida? |
|||||||||
|
OneInThePipe Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: It seems we have some newcomers. I support open carry in Florida. Are you or are you not going to test out your default permit? |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
I'm afraid I didn't see your name on this forum, so, I'm not sure how you contend you are in any postion to dictate who can and cannot "proceed" in this forum. However, that being said, and that I'm not afraid myself to answer some simple questions,.. I, personally, do not have any problems carrying concealed, I enjoy the "suprise" element, and I've had no problems with any draw issues. Yet, I also completely support anyone's right to carry openly if that is what they wanted. Currently, Florida does not allow for that though, so, we're stuck with CC for the moment. Live with it or work to change it. I say, instead of spending so much time and energy bashing on other forums and brother gun advocates, and preaching misguided theories about "self issued" liscenses.... Why not put all that energy into working together and getting the laws changed. You'll never change laws by breaking them you know. In the end, the only thing you're doing is bringing the wrong kind of attention to our cause. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
JeepSeller wrote: I'm afraid I didn't see your name on this forum, so, I'm not sure how you contend you are in any postion to dictate who can and cannot "proceed" in this forum. Your ilk has "brought the wrong kind of attention to our cause." In fact, nobody else cares. It's only you and yours engaging in histrionics against this exercise of our rights. This forum exists is to bring about open carry in Florida, and that "other board" is openly hostile to open carry, mocking open carry and the other posters here. Seriously, get with the program. It inures to our benefit to have default licenses be legal. I have never seen gun owners work so hard against their own interests or to conceive every imaginable argument against their rights. The scorn that was poured on myself and this legal maneuver was deplorable. So some smart guy figured out how to apply the law in favor of gun owners? Rejoice! Gun owners, everywhere, should be thrilled by, or at least not hostile to, this tactic. Given the derision I've seen on such a simple matter as a default license, the gun owners in Florida are far too weak and internecine to mount a successful campaign to restore open carry. P.S., "Bubby" is not "Bubba." Your fellow travelers were confused on that. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
JeepSeller wrote: You'll never change laws by breaking them you know. Sigh. Following the law is not breaking the law. It's like I'm teaching Calculus to Derek Zoolander. |
|||||||||
|
Glock23-4-Me Regular Member 
|
For those who do not understand it clearly, simply put: 1) There are two defaults the State can make in permitting/licensing. The first is the 30 days to review and ask for additional information. Under this default you can request that they continue the process without the additional information. The 90 days then starts when they received the application. But they can deny the application if they do not have all the information necessary to issue. The second is if they take more than 90 days AFTER they have a COMPLETE application to issue the permit. Let me try to explain. If the application is not complete then the Agency can request additional information. This STOPS the clock on the 90 days, the State calls it tolling the clock, once they have all the information they note the application as complete and the 90 days start from the day that they RECEIVED the information that completed the application. You can notify them that they have exceeded the time frame allowed under Chapter 120 and you want the license issued as a default. If they agree then they send you the license. It doesn't look any different nor does it indicate anywhere it was issued under default. BUT YOU HAVE TO RECEIVE THE LICENSE PHYSICALLY BEFORE YOU CAN EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT UNDER THAT LICENSE. YOU CAN'T JUST START CARRYING CONCEALED AFTER 90 DAYS WITHOUT HAVING A LICENSE IN HAND. The important thing to remember is this: If your application is not complete then they do not have to issue a default license. I guarantee you that if that person does not meet the criteria for receiving the carry license the Agency will fight the default and not issue it even if he is right. They are already under fire for issuing so many concealed weapons permits. They are not going to put themselves in the position to explain why they issued a default license to someone with, let's say a criminal record, or otherwise not qualifying. They will wear him out in court. So here is the scenario, you can wait over the 90 days and cooperate and get your license in 98 days or 120 days, what ever time they need. OR You can claim they have defaulted and fight them for the license if they do not agree. This essentially kills the application because it becomes a legal issue. The application is removed from processing and sent to the Office of General Counsel for the license to be issued under default or denied. This is where the lawyers take over and the fun begins. I spoke this afternoon with a supervisor in the compliance/enforcement section of DOACS Concealed Weapons licensing. He agreed with me that even if you had a case for default that you need to have an issued license physically on you to not be arrested. He also agreed with me that the criminal court judge that will precide over his case will only be interested in whether you were in violation of Chapter 790.01. Chapter 790.01 says that you are in violation unless you posses a concealed weapons permit persuant to the conditions set in Chapter 790.06. No where does it say that you may carry if DOACS is in default of your application. Chapter 790.06 requires that you have the license with your picture on it as issued by the Agency when ever you carry a concealed weapon along with a valid ID (Driver License) and you must present both to a LEO upon his request. There is no provision anywhere in this section for claiming to have a license to carry under default through Chapter 120. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Glock23-4-Me wrote: I spoke this afternoon with a supervisor in the compliance/enforcement section of DOACS Concealed Weapons licensing. He agreed with me that even if you had a case for default that you need to have an issued license physically on you to not be arrested. He also agreed with me that the criminal court judge that will precide over his case will only be interested in whether you were in violation of Chapter 790.01. Chapter 790.01 says that you are in violation unless you posses a concealed weapons permit persuant to the conditions set in Chapter 790.06. No where does it say that you may carry if DOACS is in default of your application. Chapter 790.06 requires that you have the license with your picture on it as issued by the Agency when ever you carry a concealed weapon along with a valid ID (Driver License) and you must present both to a LEO upon his request. There is no provision anywhere in this section for claiming to have a license to carry under default through Chapter 120. This has been explained and debunked earlier in this thread. The DOACS employee, if indeed quoted correctly, has a shallow understanding of the law. The State cannot frustrate 120.60 through other means. |
|||||||||
|
OneInThePipe Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: Glock23-4-Me wrote:I spoke this afternoon with a supervisor in the compliance/enforcement section of DOACS Concealed Weapons licensing. He agreed with me that even if you had a case for default that you need to have an issued license physically on you to not be arrested. He also agreed with me that the criminal court judge that will precide over his case will only be interested in whether you were in violation of Chapter 790.01. Chapter 790.01 says that you are in violation unless you posses a concealed weapons permit persuant to the conditions set in Chapter 790.06. No where does it say that you may carry if DOACS is in default of your application. Chapter 790.06 requires that you have the license with your picture on it as issued by the Agency when ever you carry a concealed weapon along with a valid ID (Driver License) and you must present both to a LEO upon his request. There is no provision anywhere in this section for claiming to have a license to carry under default through Chapter 120. Then take your default permit and approach the first LEO you see. Show him your default license and your concealed weapon. The issue isn't really about OC but rather about legal CC. |
|||||||||
|
Glock23-4-Me Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: This forum exists is to bring about open carry in Florida, and that "other board" is openly hostile to open carry, mocking open carry and the other posters here. What forum to do speak of. I am a member of a few and if its the one I believe you are referring to which you were banned from, they are not openly hostile about open carry. There is a time and a place for everything. Some people would OC sometime and CC at others. You have to be either not for real and only spew this stuff to get someones goat or you really are mentally unstable. Maybe a little of both. It is perfectly fine if you want to break the law but not the nicest thing for you to try and mislead others. Why did you apply for a license in the first place since you dont need the piece of paper anyway. Why don't you just move to a place where OC is legal and where you dont even need a license, then you dont have anything to worry about. |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
OneInThePipe wrote: smoking357 wrote:Glock23-4-Me wrote:I spoke this afternoon with a supervisor in the compliance/enforcement section of DOACS Concealed Weapons licensing. He agreed with me that even if you had a case for default that you need to have an issued license physically on you to not be arrested. He also agreed with me that the criminal court judge that will precide over his case will only be interested in whether you were in violation of Chapter 790.01. Chapter 790.01 says that you are in violation unless you posses a concealed weapons permit persuant to the conditions set in Chapter 790.06. No where does it say that you may carry if DOACS is in default of your application. Chapter 790.06 requires that you have the license with your picture on it as issued by the Agency when ever you carry a concealed weapon along with a valid ID (Driver License) and you must present both to a LEO upon his request. There is no provision anywhere in this section for claiming to have a license to carry under default through Chapter 120. He's not going to do it. As I said before, I think we all know why. He can't even back his arguments up with statute anymore. He has to lower himself to insults. Always a sign of a desparate person who's been backed into a wall and cannot find reasonable escape...  Oh, and by the way, you weren't banned from "that other forum" for your views on OC. It was your aggressive, insulting, offensive attitude. Is it at all possible for you to return to reality long enough to get at least THOSE facts straight? I'm done with this guy. We've done enough damage to his theories, hopefully, no one will be silly enough to follow them now. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Glock23-4-Me wrote: BUT YOU HAVE TO RECEIVE THE LICENSE PHYSICALLY BEFORE YOU CAN EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT UNDER THAT LICENSE. YOU CAN'T JUST START CARRYING CONCEALED AFTER 90 DAYS WITHOUT HAVING A LICENSE IN HAND. You've emphasized this, so it appears you have firm authority in hand on this point. Do you have a case or a DOAH opinion that upholds, affirms, or infers that this is true? |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
JeepSeller wrote:
How many times do I have to cite to 120.60 for it to be enough? Sheesh. |
|||||||||
|
Glock23-4-Me Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: Glock23-4-Me wrote:BUT YOU HAVE TO RECEIVE THE LICENSE PHYSICALLY BEFORE YOU CAN EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT UNDER THAT LICENSE. YOU CAN'T JUST START CARRYING CONCEALED AFTER 90 DAYS WITHOUT HAVING A LICENSE IN HAND. As a matter of fact I can. I think the statute would trump any OPINION you requested. 790.06 License to carry concealed weapon or firearm.-- Any person in compliance with the terms of such license (which you are not) may carry a concealed weapon or concealed firearm notwithstanding the provisions of s. 790.01. The licensee must carry the license, together with valid identification, at all times in which the licensee is in actual possession of a concealed weapon or firearm and must display both the license and proper identification upon demand by a law enforcement officer. Last edited on Tue Apr 21st, 2009 08:56 pm by Glock23-4-Me |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Glock23-4-Me wrote: smoking357 wrote:Glock23-4-Me wrote:BUT YOU HAVE TO RECEIVE THE LICENSE PHYSICALLY BEFORE YOU CAN EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT UNDER THAT LICENSE. YOU CAN'T JUST START CARRYING CONCEALED AFTER 90 DAYS WITHOUT HAVING A LICENSE IN HAND. You should know by now that governing statutes must be read in concert. Doe v. Department of Health, 948 So.2d 803 (Fla. App., 2006) "When the language of a statute conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is usually no occasion to resort to rules of statutory interpretation and construction. Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 219 (Fla.1984). However, a literal interpretation of the language of a statute need not be given when to do so would lead to an unreasonable conclusion. Id. A departure from a literal interpretation of the statute may be merited when there are "cogent reasons" for believing that the letter of the law does not accurately disclose the legislative intent. Id. (citing State ex rel. Hanbury v. Tunnicliffe, 98 Fla. 731, 124 So. 279, 281 (1929)). Further, if a literal interpretation of the language of one statute would lead to an unreasonable conclusion regarding the interpretation of a related statute, the courts are not compelled to assume that the legislature acted unreasonably, especially when doing so would violate the stated legislative intent of one or more [highlight= rgb(181, 208, 224);]statutes. Where possible, courts must give full effect to all statutory provisions and construe related statutory provisions in harmony with one another. Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., 604 So.2d 452, 455 (Fla. 1992); McGhee v. Volusia County, 679 So.2d 729, 730 n. 1 (Fla.1996) ("The doctrine of in pari materia requires the courts to construe related [highlight= rgb(181, 208, 224);]statutes [highlight= rgb(181, 208, 224);]together so that they illuminate each other and are harmonized.")." 790.06 presupposes that 120.06 has been followed correctly. 790.06 was never intended to veto 120.06. Come on, guys. This is basic stuff. |
|||||||||
|
OneInThePipe Regular Member
|
So if this is so basic and legal then why won't you answer my question or take up the challenge I laid down? Take your default license and walk up to the first LEO you find. Show him your license and your concealed firearm. Last edited on Tue Apr 21st, 2009 09:49 pm by OneInThePipe |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
OneInThePipe wrote: So if this is so basic and legal then why won't you answer my question or take up the challenge I laid down? I'm telling you, he won't, no, he can't do it. He knows as well as we all do what the outcome would be. Not only would it land him in jail, but, it would prove him wrong once and for all, and he's not about to do that. He's going to sit on this until he gets his permit in the mail making this whole thing a moot point. Weak. |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
OneInThePipe wrote: So if this is so basic and legal then why won't you answer my question or take up the challenge I laid down? I do agree with the poster though. If you truly believe you are right in issuing yourself a permit in lieu of the State of Florida, then, you've got nothing to lose..stand up for your rights my good man! Isn't that what you've been preaching all along? |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
OneInThePipe wrote: So if this is so basic and legal then why won't you answer my question or take up the challenge I laid down? double post. sorry Last edited on Tue Apr 21st, 2009 10:02 pm by JeepSeller |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
JeepSeller wrote: I'm telling you, he won't, no, he can't do it. He knows as well as we all do what the outcome would be. Not only would it land him in jail, but, it would prove him wrong once and for all, I see you hate everything about America. In America, the cops' action isn't "proof" of anything. It's sad that Americans have turned their backs on the Constitution. Are you so unerudite that you do not know the branches of government and their function? Your proposed lowbrow attention-grabbing stunt flows from a lowest-common-denominator worldview. Further, I see you're a hypocrite. After your protestation regarding a dearth of citation, I gave you some fleshy caselaw to chew on, and it is you who responds with vapidity and insult. |
|||||||||
|
Glock23-4-Me Regular Member
|
JeepSeller wrote: OneInThePipe wrote:So if this is so basic and legal then why won't you answer my question or take up the challenge I laid down? He claims to be a lawyer? I wonder if there is a way to find out who he really is and then contact the bar and let them see what he is telling people to do. I would imagine the bar would not be happy about an attorney trying to mislead people like he does. Maybe he was kicked out of law school because of his attitude. Who knows |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
I knew you can't or won't do it. You're too cowardly to even respond to the challenge. Furthermore, do you live in such a small little world that you can't even see reality anymore? How is it even possible that you can even pretend to have a speck of intelligence, yet, take a comment by someone who opposes your arguments and try to lump them into "hating everything American"?! I never said anything of the sort. And, I'll reiterate one thing I said before, just in case you weren't paying attention. Turning to insults or slander is the crutch of someone who has nothing left to argue with. You really do live in your own little world don't you. I see that intelligent conversation and/or debate is impossible with you. You cannot see any reason. You cannot acknowlage any differing opinons. It's no wonder you've been canned from at least one forum! You don't discuss, you argue and insult. Again, the sign of a weak mind and a worthless argument. I said it once before, and I let you suck me in again. I'm done with you. You're not worth the time anymore. I'm just glad that there are enough of us to keep chasing your posts letting folks know NOT to follow your advice. Between your ill guided views on the law and your blatantly offensive views regarding Law Enforcement, you're dangerous. You're going to get someone hurt or worse one day. |
|||||||||
|
Glock23-4-Me Regular Member
|
I could not have said it better myself JeepSeller |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Glock23-4-Me wrote: JeepSeller wrote:OneInThePipe wrote:So if this is so basic and legal then why won't you answer my question or take up the challenge I laid down? You little crybaby. Are you capable of going through life without someone to tattle to? Are you capable of fighting your own fights, or do you need someone to hide behind? Do you really think that government agencies are just waiting around to settle your pathetic internet grudges? Grow up, Sir. Comment on the law is the most essential and fundamental speech under the First Amendment. Further, I'm not telling anyone to do anything. Here's what I posted on this Board on the subject: "Now, here’s the difficult part. Let’s say you have filed your default letter, and you start carrying. Let’s say further that a cop stops you for Acting as a Freeman (a first-degree felony in the Bible Belt) and demands your papers. You whip out a copy of your letter to DOACS, and the thug in a costume laughs at it like the dimwit he is, arrests you and takes you to jail. See, people who wear costumed power are only impressed by costumed rights, i.e., the CCW Permit. Because of the letter, your attorney has a darn good “affirmative defense,” but these are only as good as the judge, and most judges are outright liars, substituting their own desires and worldviews for the law. A great many of them take orders from connected or powerful people, and you may be convicted in the clubhouse as the judge’s foursome is getting ready for the first tee. Worse, Floridians have little love for freedom, and they make horrible jury members. Floridian juries believe that the judge is the source of the law and is to be believed regarding the law. Gun owners believe no such fairy tales and know that juries sit in judgment of the law, the facts, the judge, the cops, and the entire system. Know that many gun owners are born authoritarians and would love to see you buckle under the State’s lashes. Many gun owners, particularly those East of the Missouri, despise individuality and autonomy and loathe anyone who attempts to lighten his pack, claim his freedom or not act beholden to the will of another. If you carry on a default license, there is a chance, perhaps a high one, that you’ll be convicted and serve time in prison. You’ll be absolutely right under the law, but our jails have thousands of innocent people in them. Prosecutors care only about winning, and never about right and wrong, legal or illegal. Anyone who thinks America doesn’t have political prisoners is naïve and sheltered. Think long and hard before carrying on a default license. In the end, your rights are clear and definable. Whether you can actually access your rights in America is less clear. Insisting on freedom and governmental accountability in America is a dangerous business. Disclaimer to placate any brownshirts who might be peering in: The above is a complete work of fiction and should not be believed by anyone, ever. While Police are entitled to blather about the law, I fully admit that citizens have no right to free speech, free discussion and free opinion regarding the law. The law is not for citizen reading or comment. The law is to be handed to us, and we are duty bound to obey it, without question. I am not admitted to the Florida Bar; these ideas are not offered pursuant to any representation, and you are, in no way, my client. If you want to know the state of the law, contact an attorney licensed in Florida." |
|||||||||
|
OneInThePipe Regular Member
|
http://groups.google.com/group/news.announce.newgroups/tree/browse_frm/month/1999-07/3bc40c17bdf3e484?rnum=11&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fnews.announce.newgroups%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fmonth%2F1999-07%3F |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
JeepSeller wrote: Between your ill guided views on the law and your blatantly offensive views regarding Law Enforcement, you're dangerous. You're going to get someone hurt or worse one day. You read it here, folks. "Views" are dangerous. We Americans really only pay lip service to our Bill of Rights. We're all too eager to restrict Liberty when we don't like its application. |
|||||||||
|
acrimsontide Regular Member
|
If all of us, myself included, would ignore this guy and his advice, maybe he would go away. Obviously he doesn't truly believe what he is spouting OR his is just an internet commando mouthing off about this subject. He complains about others "not standing up for their rights' and being un American, but seemingly lacks the fortitude to openly carry in front of a LEO so he can "stand up for HIS own rights". As someone said earlier, he knows what would happen and that he would be arrested so he will not do it. I would bet some of the LEOs that read this board are licking their chops hoping they will be the one that gets to cuff this guy. If he is arrested, I hope he has the intelligence to hire himself a lawyer to represent him as his own logic and attitude will probably not win him many friends in the judicial system. I think of Brad Paisley's country song "ONLINE" when I read this guy's posts. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
acrimsontide wrote: I would bet some of the LEOs that read this board are licking their chops hoping they will be the one that gets to cuff this guy. I agree. Thank you for proving another point for me. |
|||||||||
|
Glock23-4-Me Regular Member
|
Brian P. Sweeney is this you??? how about this. Is this you http://www.brianpsweeney.com/firearms.html Last edited on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 07:52 pm by Glock23-4-Me |
|||||||||
|
acrimsontide Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: acrimsontide wrote:I would bet some of the LEOs that read this board are licking their chops hoping they will be the one that gets to cuff this guy. And if you are breaking the law, why shouldn't they want to arrest you? By the way, you continually talk about open carry but the main thrust of your argument is about a default Concealed Weapon Permit. Go ahead and play Internet Commando since you obviously have no intention of really putting your "default license" or your theory to a real test. |
|||||||||
|
Glock23-4-Me Regular Member
|
this guy is absolutely rediculous Last edited on Wed Apr 22nd, 2009 02:34 am by Glock23-4-Me |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: JeepSeller wrote:I'm afraid I didn't see your name on this forum, so, I'm not sure how you contend you are in any postion to dictate who can and cannot "proceed" in this forum. There is no such thing as a "default license" you 'issue yourself.' While you have a right to your fantasy, if your post isn't unmittigated bs, do as other posters have suggested: test it with a cop. Once you post bail, you can then write about your experience. You seem to have a hard time separating wishful thinking from legality. |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
I know I've said a couple of times that I was done with this guy, but, I'm also torn by the feeling that we, as LAW ABIDING, conscientious firearm enthusiasts, have a duty to protect our way of life and allowing this nutcase to continue to spill his ilk goes against every grain in my body. I believe we have a duty to make sure that NO ONE follows his misguided fantasies. Oddly enough, it occurred to me that he's awfully quick to accuse anyone who disagrees with his way of thinking as being un American, yet, he's expressed on many occasions his complete disdain for Law Enforcement, Judges, and government in general. I wonder who the REAL anti-American here is.. Listen pal, if you really hate this country and it's systems so much, why don't you go find somewhere else to live. Your lack of patriotism is disturbing. You obviously don't take your 2A rights seriously. You're only goal is to create conflict. Some of us have done some searching. I myself have found a handful of forums you've visited and you end up getting in trouble with your attitude in each and every one of them. Have you ever thought the problem might be with YOU? An intelligent person would have figured this out by now. I guess we all know what a fraud you are now. Thanks for playing. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Gunslinger wrote: You seem to have a hard time separating wishful thinking from legality. When you pass a few more college classes, you'll learn that what the cops think is far from necessarily being the law. You Liberals are so disappointing. From what low ranks do you hail that you seek validation from the government? What socialistic place has formed you into a person who asks the government's permission prior to action and seeks the state's approval for your conduct? Pro-authoritariansim and anti-individual is as Leftists as it gets. Your worldview is anathema to Americanism. Stop being a Commie. Anyway, good thing I'm "official" after issuing myself my license. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
JeepSeller wrote: I know I've said a couple of times that I was done with this guy, but, I'm also torn by the feeling that we, as LAW ABIDING, conscientious firearm enthusiasts, have a duty to protect our way of life and allowing this nutcase to continue to spill his ilk goes against every grain in my body. Weren't you recently lamenting that this discussion had descended into insult? Banish your hypocrisy, and make a compelling legal argument, instead of that vomit of hate that you think passes for an argument. Your argument is reducible to this: suppression of the self / authoritarianism / unthinking obedience = law abiding, while Libertarianism / intelligence / gun rights advocacy = crazy. Your ideology is more at home in Communist China than America. Patrick Henry would have kicked you in your rear. Further, the greatest advancement and preservation of Liberty, today, is found in beating back the frontiers of police power. Equating respect for police power with Americanism is foreign to our beliefs and is the highway to tyranny. America has more people in jail than all other countries in the world, combined. In their daily intercourse, Americans are far from the freest people in the world (Fascists, insert "just move there" here). It's ironic that gun owners have a notable bloc of anti-freedom authoritarians who kowtow to and respect the state's power. Ideologically, this bloc has few differences with Obama and avowed Leftists, but they think themselves bitter enemies with their kindred spirits. Hitler hated Stalinists while admitting that Communists would make good National Socialists. If taken to their logical end, the authoritarian gun bloc has no logical disagreement with the outlawing and confiscation of guns. You're more of an enemy than a friend to gun owners. You need to read some Rand, Bastiat, Rothbard and Paul to get your head screwed on straight. By the way, here's what Jefferson said about "law abiding": "I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual" I ask you these questions: Can the State ever be defaulted on a firearm license? if the State refused to issue licenses, what would be your recourse? If an anti-gun Governor and head of DOACS agreed to stop issuing licenses, would you support those who considered themselves default approved and fit to carry arms? Just how deep does your authoritarianism go? |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
I rest my case. This nutcase won't even respond to valid arguments or challenges. All he wants to do is spill whatever garb he's plagiarizing and continue to spout his anti-American rhetoric. Dude, haven't you noticed a significant void of anyone actually BACKING you up? Wonder why that is. Are you the only TRUE American in all the forums you've been? I guess, by you logic, everyone here on this forum is not a TRUE American, right? They're not agreeing with you, that makes them un-American according to you..right? My guess is that you are all alone in your beliefs and there must be some flaw in your theories for NO ONE to back you...even among SEVERAL forums.. Again, an intelligent person would have figured this out by now. As I say, you are a fraud who's only goal is to stimulate conflict and reaction. We've all seen he's a fraud. His rhetoric no longer has any bite to it. Several people have debunked his misguided theories. We've done our job here. Again, thanks for playing. I've actually enjoyed it. |
|||||||||
|
OneInThePipe Regular Member
|
JeepSeller wrote: I rest my case. This nutcase won't even respond to valid arguments or challenges. All he wants to do is spill whatever garb he's plagiarizing and continue to spout his anti-American rhetoric. I think it is time for the moderators to step in and ban this nutcase. His arguments I can handle but His insistence on doing something illegal and encouraging others to commit illegal acts if something we can do without. It is tough enough to get our views across to the general public without encouraging something that is illegal. I realize that in Florida OC is illegal and that is what this site is about. But I see people expressing their opinions and working to change the laws. Not break the law as smoking357 is advocating. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
JeepSeller wrote: I rest my case. This nutcase won't even respond to valid arguments or challenges. All he wants to do is spill whatever garb he's plagiarizing and continue to spout his anti-American rhetoric. Stop by keepandbeararms.com, every day, and see what the real gun patriots are saying and thinking. Take a look at some of the heavy lifting Alan Gottlieb is doing for free-riders like you. As far as company, quit looking for a crowd to follow, and start thinking for yourself. Know this: the dumb American pickup-driving, cop-loving, soldier-sniffing, gun owner is getting his hat handed to him by his opponents. Ironically, you oppose that narrow group of gun owners that gives you the ammunition to repel your attackers. Your fellow travelers on "that forum" openly mocked my reference to natural law, ignorant that the existence of such law formed the basis for our victory in Heller. Gun owners will not survive as a powerful political bloc if they are seen as dumb, old, bitter white guys who love police, war, and are really uncool. Unless you smarten up and learn what the game is, you will eventually lose, supporting the means of your own destruction, all the way down. "Plagiarizing?" Dear God. It's out, at last. What's really eating you is that you're furious at being an intellectual inferior. Admit it. You hate my "attitude," because you've gone through life hating people like me. Get out of the way of those who are fighting your battles for you. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
OneInThePipe wrote: I think it is time for the moderators to step in and ban this nutcase. You want the cops to attack me; you search far and wide to learn my identity and location, and now, you want the forum to attack me. Do you realize how enraged, scary and violent you appear? If you're so right, make a compelling legal argument, and achieve victory with your mind. I will gladly agree with your position if you have legal authority in hand. Your lament is simply that you don't like what I say, and you have no means of refutation, so you're looking for someone else to help you "win." Madison and Jefferson would have spurned you. |
|||||||||
|
OneInThePipe Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: OneInThePipe wrote:I think it is time for the moderators to step in and ban this nutcase. I simply voiced my opinion which like all the other opinions here that differ from yous seems to not be allowed by you. I don't want the cops to attack you or for someone else to help me "win". I just want you to stop advocating illegal activities as I feel you are doing more harm than good for our cause. |
|||||||||
|
HankT State Researcher
|
smoking357 wrote: Anyway, good thing I'm "official" after issuing myself my license. "Next. You, #357, you're next!"  |
|||||||||
|
acrimsontide Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: When you pass a few more college classes, you'll learn that what the cops think is far from necessarily being the law. OK, Ye of so much knowledge. Based on your comment above, why "issue yourself a license"? Obviously you feel you need some permission from the "government" or you would not have applied for a license in the first place for which you are now claiming default. Why did you apply for a CWL? I guess you did "ask permission" didn't you? Now since you didn't get your answer, you will be a big dog and "issue your own license". Every post that you make is just to create an argument so you are achieving your goal. Your advice is dangerous to anyone who would heed it and your calling people communist, or liberal, or leftist is ridiculous. IF you are such a patriot, (at least of your own defintiion of one) then why not prove your cause. Go stand on the capital steps with your firearm openly displayed. That will get you arrested, provide you with publicity as the media will be all over it, and get you an audience in front of a judge and 12 of your fellow Americans. Then you can go through the entire legal process, maybe all the wat to the Florida Supreme Court or higher. Then we will have an answer to the legality of your position. Isn't it worth this sacrifice for your cause? But you won't do that will you? You had rather spout your BS over an internet forum than to take a real stand on an issue that you so strongly believe in. I think you should change your internet handle from smoking357, to smokescreenbs, it would more fit with all of your words of "wisdom". |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
We're talking about a guy who picked a fight with the folks over at trapshooters.com about the color of "traps".... Come-on folks. He's a troll! His spew is copied from authors even he's mentioned. Very little of his garb is his own words. And it's easy to tell which is his own thoughts and those that he's stolen off the web. He's so transparent, it's almost too easy. 10 seconds with Google and you can have his number. The jig is up dude. You've been exposed as the fraud you are. Give up already. No one believes you. You hide behind the anonymity of the Internet, and thrive on controversy, but, when challenged to actually stand up for your views, you take the cowardly approach by either completely ignoring those requests or futily attempting to turn the tables on your opponents by attacking their "patriotism". You're done. Take your anti-American beliefs somewhere else. No one here is buying the junk you're selling. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
acrimsontide wrote:
Because it really honks off the Nazis. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
JeepSeller wrote:
Not traps, moron, targets. The "trap" stays in the house. The "target" comes out. Do you ever go shooting? Too bad for you that Jacksonville Gun Club and Amelia island are so expensive. when I stopped in JGC, a few days ago, I saw that a round was $9.40. OUCH! That's like twice the price it should be. I just can't see those black-edged targets that well. Some like them and don't want anyone messin' up their good thing. To each his own, but I need the solid orange. I guess that's why they make lots of varieties. I can't wait to try green targets. Unlike you, I'm tolerant of variety and a difference of opinion. Last edited on Wed Apr 22nd, 2009 10:00 pm by smoking357 |
|||||||||
|
acrimsontide Regular Member
|
Smoking357 aka smokescreenbs What is the date and time that you will be standing up for your rights by openly carrying on the capital steps. That would be the American thing to do, right? Don't go off topic on the color of targets, we want you focused on your rights. Last edited on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 01:02 am by acrimsontide |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
I'm the one that took him off topic on the color of targets. I was merely pointing out more evidence that this guy is only out to create conflict. AKA a troll! The boy can't even talk about shooting clay targets without getting folks all up in a fuss. Sorry, I should have known better. Some people's trains of thought are just easier to derail than others. Last edited on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 01:17 am by JeepSeller |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
Seriously, smokescreen, what time and day do you plan to go to the capital steps and start waving your gun around in defiance of the "system". I have some business I've been putting off up that way, I'd like to see that. Now I know who this guy reminds me of....anyone remember or heard of MallNinja? Google it one day when you have some time and really need a good laugh. What we've got here is "carry-ninja" .... noo..."Default-Ninja!!!" Last edited on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 01:24 am by JeepSeller |
|||||||||
|
OneInThePipe Regular Member
|
JeepSeller wrote: I'm the one that took him off topic on the color of targets. I was merely pointing out more evidence that this guy is only out to create conflict. AKA a troll! The boy can't even talk about shooting clay targets without getting folks all up in a fuss. Shame on you.  Stay focused on the goal - when will smoking357 stop his diatribe and take action on his beliefs. He has two challenges now:
Last edited on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 01:26 am by OneInThePipe |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
OneInThePipe wrote: JeepSeller wrote:I'm the one that took him off topic on the color of targets. I was merely pointing out more evidence that this guy is only out to create conflict. AKA a troll! The boy can't even talk about shooting clay targets without getting folks all up in a fuss. I think we're putting too much on the boy. How about if we let him choose just one? Either way, we get to see a show, right?  Last edited on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 01:46 am by JeepSeller |
|||||||||
|
acrimsontide Regular Member
|
JeepSeller wrote: I'm the one that took him off topic on the color of targets. I was merely pointing out more evidence that this guy is only out to create conflict. AKA a troll! The boy can't even talk about shooting clay targets without getting folks all up in a fuss. Ah, no problem. I'm sure he wants to change the subject anyway!!! It's starting to be fun watching him evade the issue that he is calling the rest of us un American over and that's to stand up for his rights. I'm sure we can all think of places in Florida that he can go to get noticed and persue his course of action. Maybe an afternoon at Disney World with his gun on his hip, possibly a walk on a crowded beach, shopping trip to the mall etc. Heck if he goes the capital steps route or a day at Disney, he might even get mentioned by Katie Couric on CBS, that would give him a good start on his publicity. Letterman might even work it into his opening routine. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
OneInThePipe wrote:
You have no cause. Never have. Never will. It ain't in you. And quit lying, saying that I'm advocating anyone follow my footsteps. I'll take the lead, though you and your ilk will surely follow if you see someone has blazed the trail for you. |
|||||||||
|
OneInThePipe Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: OneInThePipe wrote: So when are you going to take the lead? Stop the rhetoric and take up either of the two challenges that have been put before you. |
|||||||||
|
Glock23-4-Me Regular Member
|
Okay, this is starting to get old. What bothers me more than smokin357 running his mouth about things he obviously has no clue about is the fact that this site has admin and moderators. I may get banned from this site for talking negatively about them but I can not believe that someone comes to this site bashing everyone on the forum and giving this site a bad name and rather than ejecting one person for their crap, they would risk loosing many of their 8,000 plus members they have. According to the forum rules, it states "the press and general public do read our postings" and the crap that smokin357 is saying is what this site wants the press to see???? The forum rules also state " While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks ". Personal attacks is all this joker has posted. Next rule up "(7) If you state a rule of law, it is incumbant upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when avaiable, is what makes OCDO so successful.". This guy talks about 1 statute. 120.60 which talks about a default license but it has already been posted that you can not just issue yourself a license. So how does smokin357 spewing crap make OCDO so successful??? Just my .02 BAN THE  ALREADYLast edited on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 02:47 am by Glock23-4-Me |
|||||||||
|
OneInThePipe Regular Member
|
Glock23-4-Me wrote: Okay, this is starting to get old. What bothers me more than smokin357 running his mouth about things he obviously has no clue about is the fact that this site has admin and moderators. I may get banned from this site for talking negatively about them but I can not believe that someone comes to this site bashing everyone on the forum and giving this site a bad name and rather than ejecting one person for their crap, they would risk loosing many of their 8,000 plus members they have. +1 Well said. Shall we take a vote? |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
Deleted by the author. Last edited on Sat Apr 25th, 2009 05:27 am by JeepSeller |
|||||||||
|
Glock23-4-Me Regular Member
|
It may be worth a shot but if the mod are not willing to ban him based on his b.s. alone, why would they listen to how we feel about him? |
|||||||||
|
Glock23-4-Me Regular Member
|
JeepSeller wrote: Brian, AKA smokescreen, or smoking-something... WELL SAID, JeepSeller, WELL SAID |
|||||||||
|
rmodel65 Regular Member 
|
acrimsontide wrote: JeepSeller wrote:I'm the one that took him off topic on the color of targets. I was merely pointing out more evidence that this guy is only out to create conflict. AKA a troll! The boy can't even talk about shooting clay targets without getting folks all up in a fuss. that legal without a license as long as your open carrying and going to fish correct? |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Glock23-4-Me wrote: It may be worth a shot but if the mod are not willing to ban him based on his b.s. alone, why would they listen to how we feel about him? They shouldn't. This isn't mob rule, and the trio of you whining Liberals are ardently anti-gun. Keep this discussion on the law, instead of your bitterness at being defteated over your anti-gun platform. Quit running. Quit hiding. Answer these questions: 1. Can the State ever be defaulted on a firearm license? 2. If the State refused to issue licenses, what would be your recourse? 3. If an anti-gun Governor and head of DOACS agreed to stop issuing licenses, would you support those who considered themselves default approved and fit to carry arms? Don't be chicken, now, boy. Can you manage to stay on topic? Can you answer the questions? |
|||||||||
|
OneInThePipe Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: Glock23-4-Me wrote:It may be worth a shot but if the mod are not willing to ban him based on his b.s. alone, why would they listen to how we feel about him? You are the one changing the topic. You have been asked to respond to the 2 challenges and you keep ignoring them and spewing your garbage. Asking us questions does not change the fact that you aren't answering our questions. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
OneInThePipe wrote:
The topic is Florida law regarding default approval of firearm permits. Pay attention. Don't be chicken, now, boy. Answer the questions. Why the reluctance to engage in a pro-gun discussion? Why the attack on gun rights? Again: 1. Can the State ever be defaulted on a firearm license? 2. If the State refused to issue licenses, what would be your recourse? 3. If an anti-gun Governor and head of DOACS agreed to stop issuing licenses, would you support those who considered themselves default approved and fit to carry arms? |
|||||||||
|
fridaddy Regular Member
|
Sorry Glock you and whoever you talked to at DOACS is wrong. If you are entitled to a default license, of any type, under 120.60, you only need proof of notification to the agency. You do not have to wait for them to send you anything. Fla. Stat. 120.60 is part of the Florida Administrative Procedures Act. While it applies to developers, it is not about developers. The Act is designed to prevent the bureaucracy from sitting on permit applications. It applies to all administrative agencies in the state regardless of subject matter. Once you send the default notice, it is the departments obligation to move to cancel the permit by a hearing before an agency hearing officer. As for the requests to Smoking to put his actions where his beliefs are, I think you are all reacting to his charming manner. If any of you here really trust the police to know and follow the law you are living in fantasy land. As you can read in another thread http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum17/20492-2.html I put my action where my mouth was, and I am doing it again this weekend by OC'ing on a camping trip. Before taking the action, I took steps to educate the local LEO's. Of 4 different LEOs I talked to, only 1 was aware of the law until I showed it to them. I also surprised 3 different Judges when I pointed out the statute to them. Let me tell you, I really had to educate! During the process I learned that the abbreviated statute book given to Florida Fish and Wildlife Officers does not even include the complete version of Chapter 790, firearms crimes. Specifically, it omits 790.25 which says you can carry openly when hunting, fishing or camping. This is the State issued book for Fish and wildlife LEOs. If the state is giving LEOs incomplete books to refer to when making an arrest would you trust them to know the law? Yes Smoking will get arrested when he is caught, but that doesn't mean he is wrong. It just means the cops do not know the law. I wouldn't walk up to a LEO either to be arrested wrongfully. If they knew the law and followed it, I would be out of a job and we would not need a criminal court system. Smoking, I really wish you could discuss these matters without losing your cool. I will probably get flamed for agreeing with your position not because I am wrong but because of your attitude. Until you can discuss these matters in a calm manner you are doing as much harm as those you accuse of not being strong on the 2nd amendment. Please spend more time educating and less agitating. Your initial posts was great and led to a potentially great discussion that instead became completely worthless. THIS POST IS FOR THE DISCUSSION OF LEGAL ISSUES AND IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. NO ATTORNEY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS INTENDED OR IMPLIED. Last edited on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 03:39 pm by fridaddy |
|||||||||
|
acrimsontide Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: Glock23-4-Me wrote:It may be worth a shot but if the mod are not willing to ban him based on his b.s. alone, why would they listen to how we feel about him? Smokescreenbs, (Smoking357) I am not anti-gun but I am anti BS and that is what you are putting forth here on the forum. You remind me of those Islamic idealist that promote suicide bombers. You have this "great vision" of pushing for your cause but obviously you want others to take the risks. Like those who would send suicide bombers, you don't have the guts to put yourself in jeapardy. Why don't you quit spouting off your rhetoric about others being anti gun, un American, etc and step up to the plate yourself? We ahve suggested numerous places where you can start the process but you pefer the safety of an internet forum. You are no patriot, but someone who just loves to provoke others, but only those others from which you can hide. Man up and stand up for those rights that you so strongly believe in. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
fridaddy wrote: Smoking, I really wish you could discuss these matters without losing your cool. I know I'm right. You know I'm right. If they read the law, they'd know we're right. Perhaps they're stupid. Perhaps they're Brady plants. Perhaps they're in too deep in their rage and cannot admit defeat. At this point, it matters little. They're squarely on the anti-gun side. I posted this procedural mechanism on their forum to do them a favor, and they attacked gun rights with disgusting fury. This thread did exactly what I intended it to do. Not only do I find their "Wal-Mart walk to be insufferably white trash, but I know how much they despise the default process and anyone who thinks himself intelligent or fit to act without another's say-so. It's now not enough just to be right, but to punish them for their ingratitude and insolence. If that's petty, so be it, but they deserve it. They're on my line, and I'm jerking the pole. They could go away and strip me of my power over them, but they're drawn to me like moths to a flame. When they finally learn that they're wrong, and they are making inquiries into the subject, I'm really going to enjoy myself. I suspect that on that day they may quietly go away or further hide behind the non sequitur of "attitude." If I tell you "two plus two equals four, you ignorant, revolting, pond-scum, piece of trash," the argument is true. Out of this exchange, and as a result of living here, I can say this with all honesty: Florida has a very weak body of gun owners. They like to own guns, sure, but they lack the fire in the belly you'll find in most other pro-gun states. Heck, Illinois is institutionally anti-gun, but the folks at the Champaign County Rifle and Pistol Association, http://www.gunssavelife.com, positively humiliate the faint hearts here. Perhaps snow sharpens the mind and tempers the soul. Lastly, thank you for having the courage to speak the truth. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
acrimsontide wrote: Smokescreenbs, (Smoking357) I'M THE ONE DOING THE DEFAULT WALK, YOU DOPE! NOT ONLY ARE YOU NOT ENCOURAGING ME, YOU'RE ATTACKING ME FOR STANDING UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS. Now, no more posts until you answer these questions: 1. Can the State ever be defaulted on a firearm license? 2. If the State refused to issue licenses, what would be your recourse? 3. If an anti-gun Governor and head of DOACS agreed to stop issuing licenses, would you support those who considered themselves default approved and fit to carry arms? |
|||||||||
|
OneInThePipe Regular Member
|
fridaddy wrote: Sorry Glock you and whoever you talked to at DOACS is wrong. If you are entitled to a default license, of any type, under 120.60, you only need proof of notification to the agency. You do not have to wait for them to send you anything. Doesn't that just mean that they will have to issue you a license by default? Meaning they are forced to issue it. Doesn't it man that you still have to have them send it to you before you are legal? I see nothing that gives you a "default right" to CC without having the license from the state. Nor does it allow you to print up your own CC license because they defaulted. I'll read the OC carry thread you referenced. That is a slightly different topic that what we have been discussing but it does show the lack of knowledge of the law that some LEOs and state officials have. |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
fridaddy wrote: Sorry Glock you and whoever you talked to at DOACS is wrong. If you are entitled to a default license, of any type, under 120.60, you only need proof of notification to the agency. You do not have to wait for them to send you anything. Now, finally, an actual logical INTELLIGENT way to have a discussion or debate. Now, I'm afraid I still have to disagree with you fridaddy, but, I'm guessing anyway, that you have the ability to either continue to try to convince me civilly, or to just accept that we don't agree. Something your counterpart there obviously doesn't have. He finally admits that his goals are to inflame. Sad waste of energy in my opinion. He's not serious about his gun rights. Sad. But, he does admit to having a problem and admitting one has a problem is usually the hardest step. I applaud him for his progress. Now, to your post. First of all, I don't disagree with points made before. I agree that we shouldn't have to ask permission to carry at all. But, currently, the laws of this state require I do. Just because I disagree with it, doesn't mean I can violate that law. Right? We should be working this hard to change the laws, not debating any action that could be construed as violating them. Right or wrong. It's just not good for our causes. It reflects poorly on our way of life. I don't disagree with your post in the sense that the law, as I understand it, is that if the license isn't issued within the prescribed time period, currently 90 days, then you have the right to request a hearing on the subject forcing the state to either approve or deny at said hearing and back up their decision. But, I still see nowhere, again, as I understand it, that gives you the right to simply strap on your hog leg at the 91 day point simply because you fired off a letter. As your counterpart has pointed out many times, perhaps the cops can't just make up laws, but, neither can we. We have a system in place for that. Good or bad, that's how it is. Violating that system or trying to circumvent it won't help things at all. There are other laws, that have been stated here, that also require a licensed person to have that license on them at all times while exercising that licensed action. A licensed contractor is required to have on their person that license at all times when working in the performance of a contractor. If not, they are in violation of the law. A licensed driver is required to have that card with them at all times. A Private Investigator is required to have it at all times...etc...etc.. One is in violation of the law if any different. And yes, I know.... let's not split hairs here on semantics of rights vs. privileges, all of here know that road well. Currently, the state of Florida requires us to get permission to exercise our right. Right or wrong, That's the law. Just because it's wrong or we don't agree with it doesn't give us the right to just ignore it. That's not cowtoeing to anyone! That's protecting my right to keep and bear by remaining a law abiding citizen. That's being a good citizen and working within the law to exact change, not work against it. I'm also afraid I don't share either of your disdain for LEO's and the judges. While, yes, some are rotten apples. To lump then all into one bad basked is just wrong and there's no excusing it, and it's just another form of bigotry. |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
And, by the way Brian-smoking-something, You've openly mocked and ridiculed the so called wal mart walk as silly. Yet, you eagerly jumped in here to proclaim your default-walk. That was a dumb mistake I can't possibly let slide given your tirades. You've constantly accused others of failing to stand up for their rights and take action. I hardly call a wander around the safety of your own neighborhood any kind of demonstrable "action". You can sit behind the anonymity of your computer screen all day long and spew ilk. But, you can't hide from the facts. You can keep going, but, it's got to sting a bit now knowing that most people here now have your number and can't possibly take you seriously. Last edited on Sat Apr 25th, 2009 05:28 am by JeepSeller |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
JeepSeller wrote: But, I still see nowhere, again, as I understand it, that gives you the right to simply strap on your hog leg at the 91 day point simply because you fired off a letter. 1st Paragraph: And applied for a license, and completed the forms, and mailed in the forms, and paid the fee, and waited 90 days - all per statute. I posted a case on this subject. Did you read it? It's really quite clear. This is exactly what one gets to do. 2nd Paragraph: When you work in this business, you'll see them for what they are. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
JeepSeller wrote: I hardly call a wander around the safety of your own neighborhood any kind of demonstrable "action". How is my neighborhood safe? Walking around the neighborhood is principally where one is in most need of a gun. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
JeepSeller wrote: You can keep going, but, it's got to sting a bit now knowing that most people here now have your number and can't possibly take you seriously. Except for the attorney who said I was right and you were wrong. Still holding your breath on this? |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
OneInThePipe wrote:
No. It means by their inaction they have issued it. |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: JeepSeller wrote:You can keep going, but, it's got to sting a bit now knowing that most people here now have your number and can't possibly take you seriously. With all due respect to said attorney. What makes them guaranteed right? What holy power makes them always correct? Besides, the lawyers only make arguments based on their own understanding of the law and any cases that pertain to that law. They don't MAKE the law, they don't ENFORCE the law, and they don't make decisions based on the law. They don't hand down the penalties for violation. I'm sorry, but, they just aren't in charge here. They don't regulate my actions. The LAW does! Sorry. Just as you may have encountered a few bad apples in Law enforcement, I've run across a handful of bad apple lawyers. They're not above reproach either you know. Lawyers are far from infallible. I chose not to be a bigot about it myself. Some doctors make mistakes, are all doctors rotten? Some truck drivers make mistakes, are all truck drivers rotten? Some McDonald's employees are...well, you get my point. Even if you don't like it. What do you do? I'll bet you have co-workers who've made mistakes. Does that mean YOU are rotten? Try again. |
|||||||||
|
Glock23-4-Me Regular Member
|
what he said Last edited on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 06:52 pm by Glock23-4-Me |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
JeepSeller wrote: With all due respect to said attorney. What makes them guaranteed right? What holy power makes them always correct? O.K. Have it your way. Just stay out of mine. |
|||||||||
|
acrimsontide Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote:
Tell you what dude, when you become a moderator, you can control when I post, but not before. I will agree to answer your questions when you actually do the "default walk" as you call it in a location where it matters, not just on an internet forum or in some location where you are unlikely to be confronted by LEOs. You have done nothing but resort to name calling. As for "not encouraging" you, that is pulely and simply a lie as many here have told you to stand up for your rights in a public place, not just a forum. Don't use "not encouraging me" as an excuse for your lack of fortitude to practice what you preach. Quite frankly, you were fun for a while, but you are starting to be boring. Last edited on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 08:09 pm by acrimsontide |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
acrimsontide wrote: I will agree to answer your questions when you actually do the "default walk" as you call it in a location where it matters, ...to whom? I bear arms for my benefit, not yours. Last edited on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 08:34 pm by smoking357 |
|||||||||
|
acrimsontide Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote:
Well, I have to admit, that's the first think that you have posted that I agree with. Having said that, the same applies for the rest of us and just because we don't do things your way does not make us anti gun or un American. Last edited on Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 08:57 pm by acrimsontide |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: Gunslinger wrote:You seem to have a hard time separating wishful thinking from legality. I've "passed" enough college courses to have a JD. You need to seek professional help. Statutory laws aren't "validation from the government." Act anyway you like. Then get 'invalidated' into the joint. As I and others have said, show you're not a complete BS troll and go up to a cop and show him your block printed, self issued "license" and concealed weapon. Then when mommy comes to bail you out, let us know how it worked for you. |
|||||||||
|
acrimsontide Regular Member
|
Gunslinger wrote: smoking357 wrote:Gunslinger wrote:You seem to have a hard time separating wishful thinking from legality. His mommy might not get him out, she might let him stay so he can get an education and meet new "friends". |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Gunslinger wrote: Statutory laws aren't "validation from the government." OH. MY. GOD. Dude, do you realize what you just said? Do you realize the implications of that statement? Just what is the law, if not the law? |
|||||||||
|
fridaddy Regular Member
|
OneInThePipe wrote: fridaddy wrote:The reference to the other thread was and attempt to prove my cred. I regularly advise clients of the option to default carry and explain the risk.Sorry Glock you and whoever you talked to at DOACS is wrong. If you are entitled to a default license, of any type, under 120.60, you only need proof of notification to the agency. You do not have to wait for them to send you anything. The state waives the right to require you to have a license on your person under 790.06 when they fail to follow the APA, 120.60. I would argue that you do have to carry proof of your default notice on you. Any arrest would be unlawful. The APA is specifically designed to keep an administrativve agency from sitting on an application for anything, thereby denying you your right, whether to carry or to engage in a licensed ocupation, contractor, electrician, whatever. If they want to remove your license after a default they could issue an injunction and set your case for hearing before an administrative judge, which would invalidate your default license until a hearing. THIS POST IS FOR DISCUSSION OF LEGAL ISSUES AND IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. NO ATTORNEY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS INTENDED OR IMPLIED. Last edited on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 02:28 am by fridaddy |
|||||||||
|
fridaddy Regular Member
|
JeepSeller wrote: fridaddy wrote:Jeep, it is not a matter of disdain, it is a matter of their are entirely too many laws and they can't know them all. The disdain was the stupidity of the state/ LEO administration printing such an incomplete book for the LEOs to do their jobs with. Some of the judges are personal friends and are excellent lawyers.Sorry Glock you and whoever you talked to at DOACS is wrong. If you are entitled to a default license, of any type, under 120.60, you only need proof of notification to the agency. You do not have to wait for them to send you anything. There is no provision in the APA for requesting a hearing. The default action is to force the agency to take action not you. There is a provision at common law for a writ of mandamus, but the APA is designed to short circuit that and force the agency's hand. Have you read 120.60 yet. If not, I think it might answer some of your questions. It applies to give coontractors or PIs their license as well when thhe agency fails to act. I am not arguing the right or wrong of the law, only what the law is and holding the agencies to what the legislature has ordered them to do. NOT LEGAL ADVICE, DISCUSSION ONLY, I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER |
|||||||||
|
OneInThePipe Regular Member
|
fridaddy wrote: OneInThePipe wrote:fridaddy wrote:The reference to the other thread was and attempt to prove my cred. I regularly advise clients of the option to default carry and explain the risk.Sorry Glock you and whoever you talked to at DOACS is wrong. If you are entitled to a default license, of any type, under 120.60, you only need proof of notification to the agency. You do not have to wait for them to send you anything. Thanks for the well reasoned out reply. It is refreshing compared to some of the other rhetoric being thrown around on this thread. Has anyone made a test case out of the default license? Any precedents? |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
Again, fridaddy, the logical, unemotional presentation is refreshing and what's required. I'm not disputing that the law, as written, may possibly allow for an applicant to push for a default ruling and liscense after a given time. What I've questioned and desputed all along, is the practice, or even the proposed practice of simply strapping on your concealed weapon on day 91 and "issuing yourself' a permit or even carrying concealed without that permit on your person. It's still my feeling that you are not approved by the State to carry without it. First of all, I have read the statutes. And to begin with, what junior here has ignored from day one and failed to mention in regards to "issuing himself a permit" is that 120.60 also states... "Any applicant for licensure seeking to claim licensure by default under this subsection shall notify the agency clerk of the licensing agency, in writing, of the intent to rely upon the default license provision of this subsection, and shall not take any action based upon the default license until after receipt of such notice by the agency clerk.." Meaning, by my read, one cannot just strap on their weapon of choice and walk around their neighborhood simply because it's day 91. There's still a bureaucratic process, like it or not. What I see here is, maybe the possibility of a simple black hole in the state laws because I do not see or read anywhere that 120.60 trumps 790.06. In fact I don't see how the two can get along at all. 790.06 states very clearly.."The licensee must carry the license, together with valid identification, at all times in which the licensee is in actual possession of a concealed weapon or firearm and must display both the license and proper identification upon demand by a law enforcement officer" No where does it state "Unless operating on a "default" license" And no where in 120.60 does it state "A default license is exempt from 790.06. So, again, based on MY read of it, while there may be a provision in the law to push for a default approval of a application, one is still required to abide by the provisions of 790.06, meaning, even if there is a provision in 120.60 for any kind of "default" action on teh part of the applicant, he or she will still have to wait for the actual PERMIT to be legal thus proving our contention that Junior's "default walk" is in violation of the law and should not be promoted, endorsed, and is dangerous to our second amendment rights as every time some goof ball screws around and gets caught doing something stupid with a firearm, with THIS administration and THIS media? We all lose in the end and it's our duty to protect that right at all costs, even if it means waiting those stupid extra few days to get our permit. Last edited on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 03:52 am by JeepSeller |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
JeepSeller wrote: Again, fridaddy, the logical, unemotional presentation is refreshing and what's required. (1) You still don't get it. There is no "default ruling." Default occurs in complete absence of any ruling. If you don't feel that this statute provides pocket approval, that speaks to your worldview and political philosophy, not the law. (2) The agency WAS NOTIFIED, and I have the FedEx tracking number to prove it. I keep it with me when I default walk, along with the other papers that evidence that the default is official. Review the first post in this thread. The notification perfects the default. It's done. Official. (3) I've already explained the canons of statutory interpretation. Review earlier posts in this thread. The only way the two statutes can be harmonized is to presume that the State issues licenses in due course, and upon such issue, the State document must be carried to ease record-keeping verification by police officers. All the other licenses that can be defaulted also have a requirement in their enabling statutes requiring that the state document be kept about the person of the applicant, yet courts see no tension, and no State attorney would even dare to raise the issue of the documentary requirement, because it is so obviously inapposite. You absolutely must start reading what is provided. It's polemically impolite to ignore the other person's statements and then claim that the statements were never made. Such tactics are propaganda, not argument. (4) One does not "push" for default approval. One Is default approved by taking the necessary steps under the statute. I've done them. I'm official, and I'm default walkin'. Let's be honest about this: you don't like the default walk because it doesn't comport with your ranking of the individual in juxtaposition to the state. You're of the authoritarian "ask permission first" political bent, while I'm of the "all things are legal until made illegal" bent. People like you occasionally say things such as "people can't just do what they want." You probably didn't vote for Ron Paul. It's now time for you to change your mind. Please don't post, again, until you have a compelling citation or you're apologizing. Last edited on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 01:31 pm by smoking357 |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Henry, Your letter inquires into matters not of public record, and I will defend my rights if you come anywhere near violating my privacy, which it appears you are doing or have done. Further, I am not encouraging anyone to carry in any particular fashion. Additionally, your letter is false as a matter of fact, since I refuse to post to your forum, so I have not said that I am carrying in any fashion in your forum. It is good that you are issuing such a letter, but redraft your letter in the abstract, and redact all personal references that are overt or stated by implication and innuendo. Further, you people need to get your mind around the law. An agency does not issue default licenses. The people issue their own default licenses. You should, however, bear in mind that the Attorney General's Opinions bind state agencies. The AG has already spoken on this matter in AGO 077-41. Be sure to remind DOACS that there is a dispositive AG opinion on file. I have posted it below for your reference (emphasis added). Fridaddy, take note of the substantive due process rights conferred by default licenses. Number: AGO 77-41 Date: May 2, 1977 Subject: Waiver of time limits by licensee Joseph W. Landers, Jr. Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Tallahassee QUESTION: Are the 30-day or 90-day time limits in subsection 120.60(2), F. S. (s. 10, Ch. 76-131, Laws of Florida), subject to waive by an applicant for a license? SUMMARY: The 90-day time limitation prescribed by s. 120.60(2), F. S. (s. 10, Ch. 76-131, Laws of Florida), for the approval or denial of license applicants is subject to waiver by the applicant for an environmental license. However, the 30-day time limitation and 30-day period cannot be waived by the applicant or the licensing agency. You state that the staff of the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Procedure has suggested that these time limits are jurisdictional limitations on an agency and thus cannot be waived by the licensee. You suggest that these time limits establish certain rights for the benefit of license applicants to ensure an expeditious decision by the regulatory agencies and, therefore, may be waived by the applicant. Further, an applicant may find such waiver advantageous in a case involving a project where the licensing agency determines that the project cannot comply with applicable standards and the applicant desires to discuss any modifications with the licensing agency in order to avoid a denial of the application. You state that in complex cases there might not be enough of the 90-day time period left for the applicant and the licensing agency to discuss and evaluate possible modifications of the proposed project. Section 120.60(2), F. S. 1975, provided that:
This provision, which operated on the agencies subject to s. 120.60, F. S., contained no specific time limitations for agency action and instead only required that proceedings be conducted with 'reasonable dispatch.' In 1976, the Legislature significantly amended s. 120.60(2), F. S., by s. 10, Ch. 76-131, Laws of Florida, and imposed the following specific limitations upon licensing agencies subject to the requirements contained therein:
The effect of s. 10, Ch. 76-131, Laws of Florida, is to require the licensing agency to do certain things and to make certain decisions by a time certain. The law deems or considers the failure to so act the equivalent of an approval of the application and requires the issuance of the license forthwith. Section 10, Ch. 76-131, does not repose or vest any discretion in the licensing agency with respect to the issuance of the license in the statutorily specified circumstances. An examination of s. 120.60(2), F. S., as amended by s. 10, Ch. 76-131, Laws of Florida, reveals that the 90-day time limitations contained therein are directed against the licensing agency and in favor of and for the benefit of the applicant for the license. However, s. 120.63, F. S., as amended, permits licensing agencies to avoid the requirements of s. 120.60(2) by applying to the Administration Commission for an exemption as provided for at s. 120.63. However, each exemption granted by the commission shall be for a single application only and shall not be renewable. Section 120.60(6), F. S. (1976 Supp.). The obvious legislative intent in rewording s. 120.60(2), F. S., to impose additional requirements and time limitations associated therewith upon licensing agencies was to ensure that said agencies acted in a prescribed manner upon applications for licenses within specified time limitations or their authority to deny the license, subject to the designated exception with respect to the satisfactory completion of any required examination for licensing, would be foreclosed and, upon the agency's failure to so act, to require the license to be issued forthwith. This is apparent from the title of Ch. 76-131, Laws of Florida, which states in pertinent part:
Thus, as to the applicant, the limitations imposed upon the licensing agencies have the effect of also creating a substantive right for the benefit of the license applicant, and as to him the statute is a substantive law. Cf. Johnson v. State, 336 So.2d 93, 95 (Fla. 1976); In re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 272 So.2d 65 (Fla. 1972) (Adkins, J., concurring); AGO 077-10. However, the precise issue raised by your inquiry is whether the 90-day time limitations contained in s. 120.60(2), F. S., which seek to expedite the rights and privileges of the applicant can be intelligently, freely, and voluntarily waived by a beneficially interested applicant. This, of course, presupposes that no coercion or pressure, direct or indirect, will be placed upon the license applicant by the licensing agency to induce the waiver by the applicant. The Department of Environmental Regulation issues a variety of environmental permits and licenses, dealing with such matters as pollution of the air and water by stationary installations and weather modification, see ss. 403.061(16), 403.087, 403.088, and 403.301, and regulation, disposal, and recycling of solid wastes, s. 403.707, F. S. Such permits and licenses involve the conduct and operation of commercial and utility businesses, manufacturing, mining, exploration and exploitation of natural resources, and recovery of natural resources. The privilege to develop and use property in order to conduct business or operate commercial and utility facilities involves certain property rights or interests which, while subject to reasonable regulation, may not be totally divested by the state. The situation which your letter discusses is one in which the environmental licensing agency has the application under consideration during the course of the prescribed 90-day period and has provisionally determined that the project, as proposed in the application, cannot comply with the applicable and lawfully established standards, and, therefore, should be denied by the licensing agency unless modifications are made in the proposed project and the application for licensing thereof. In this circumstance, the waiver of the prescribed 90-day time limitations by the applicant is for the purpose of giving the applicant and the agency time to evaluate modifications to the proposed project and to negotiate and agree upon the requisite modifications so as to avoid a denial of the license or permit which would force the applicant to reapply for the license or permit or seek judicial review of the agency's final denial thereof. As a general proposition, a person may waive any matter which affects his property or any alienable right which he owns, which belongs to him, or to which he is legally entitled, whether secured by contract, conferred by statute, or guaranteed by the Constitution, provided such rights and privileges rest in the individual, are intended for his sole benefit, to not interfere with the rights of others, and are not forbidden by law or public policy. Gilman v. Butzloff, 22 So.2d 263 (Fla. 1945); 92 C.J.S. Waiver, at 1066-1067. Since an obvious purpose of s. 120.60(2), as amended, with respect to the 90-day time limitation for the approval or denial of the license application, is to create beneficial rights for the applicant, it would appear that, in conformity with the general rule, such rights can be waived when the applicant intelligently, freely, and voluntarily determines that such waiver is in his best interest. In circumstances such as those outlined by your letter, such waiver would serve the ultimate purpose of the statute, which is to expedite administrative environmental licensing and permitting procedures. A contrary conclusion would frustrate the legislative intent of attempting to more expeditiously and fairly deal with licensing procedures in environmental matters by encouraging denials and reapplications or litigation when certain circumstances are present. The 30-day time limitation, however, does not appear to raise the denial and reapplication problems which could exist under the 90-day time requirements and apparently instead was intended to operate on the agency to either perform certain functions and give certain notices to the applicant within 30 days or be estopped in the future from asserting such matters as grounds for the denial of the license applied for. It is not evident that the waiver of the 30-day requirement would in any way benefit an applicant or further the purposes of the statute. Therefore, the 30-day time limitation or requirement prescribed by s. 120.60(2), F. S. (1976 Supp.), cannot be waived by the applicant for a license or the licensing agency. Accordingly, unless judicially interpreted to the contrary, an applicant for an environmental license may intelligently, freely, and voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion by the licensing agency waive his rights under the 90-day time limitation prescribed by s. 120.60(2). F. S., in order to suspend the operation of the 90-day time limitation prescribed therein. Prepared by: Sharyn L. Smith Assistant Attorney General Last edited on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 03:29 pm by smoking357 |
|||||||||
|
fridaddy Regular Member
|
Exactly Jeep, once the clerk receives the notice that you are relying on their failure to act, you may take your action. If they want to stop you, they have to get off the pot and get a court order, or institute an administrative revocation proceeding. This is the same thing they would do to revoke your license if you committed a crime that made you ineligible for a CCW. It didn't really issue himself a CCW, but he sent notice to the DOACS that based on their failure to act he was going to act as if they had issued it. Once he had proof of their reciept he was good to go. There is nothing in the statute requiring him to take action against the agency beyond giving notice of his intent to rely on the default The part about being required to carry the issued license doesn't apply until they actually send you the license. The state is the state. One part of the state cannot punish you for the failure of another part of the state. World Bank v. Lewis 425 So.2d 77 In the statute we construe, the legislature has made its intent as to the consequence of a violation abundantly clear: the application “shall be deemed approved ....” Approval by default has the effect of placing the applicants in the same position they would have enjoyed had the Department granted approval on the merits within the 180-day period. Teacher could not be denied opportunity to pursue master teacher certification on basis that she failed to write her social security number on designated line in her application, where Commissioner of Education failed to notify her of reason for her rejection within 30 days, as required by this section. Lanier v. Turlington, App. 1 Dist., 488 So.2d 612 (1986) THIS POST IS FOR THE DISCUSSION OF LEGAL ISSUES AND IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NO ATTORNEY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS INTENDED OR IMPLIED. Last edited on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 03:32 pm by fridaddy |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
Secondly, I base MY views and points on REAL FACTUAL data. Not what you or anyone else SAYS! Got it? I don't blindly believe everything I'm told, even by an attorney, as I've already established that there is no magical powers they hold that makes even THEM correct at all times. What is correct and easily referred to, is the actual written law. That's where I base my opinion. I've already cited where I get my information. I copied directly from the statute as listed on line. And, 790.06 clearly states that any one who is carrying a concealed weapon MUST have their credentials on them at all times. There is no disputing this. It's clear as black and white. There is no stipulation in there that says "OH, but, Brian can carry concealed since he defaulted us". A home printed piece of paper saying "default license" isn't going to cut it, and since FedEx isn't an authority to issue licenses in the State of Florida, my guess is that won't either. And 120.60 does not make any statements making any default issued license that trumps 790.06. It's plain and simple. It is YOU who now has the burden of citing where you get your information that, and pay attention, this is important, that SPECIFICALLY STATES ANY THING RELATING TO A DEFAULT LICENSE BEING EXEMPT FROM 790.06. I want written statute! Not what my so-and-so said. Last edited on Sat Apr 25th, 2009 05:23 am by JeepSeller |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
JeepSeller wrote:
Nothing can help you. |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: JeepSeller wrote: I neither need nor want your help. But, thank you for offering. Now, about that apology or STATUTE citing how you can skirt 790.06 by using anything in 120.60....I'm still waiting. That's STATUTE, not so-and-so-says-so..remember? Straight up, black and white LAW! Not hair brain interpretations, not stories about teachers or developers or what ever. Clear cut written LAW that can be pointed to, cited, and stood upon in a legal defense. 790.06 clearly states that anyone carrying a concealed weapon MUST have on their person their license at all times. It's very specific regarding concealed carry of a weapon. Nothing to do with teaching or developers, etc. It SPECIFICALLY makes carrying a concealed weapon without being in possession of a concealed weapons license a criminal offense and there is nothing that addresses your FedEx issued default license. The facts here are without dispute. The law is clear. End of argument unless you can specifically cite to me where the state of Florida has any thing within it's law books that allows you to carry a concealed weapon without that license on your person. Period! |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
I tell you what, the more I think about this, the more weary I've grown of it. I've said all I'm going to say for the moment. Until I see citation of book law that somehow superseedes the criminal violation of carrying a concealed weapon without an issued concealed weapon permit on your person, I'm done and I won't be swayed. I've done what I set out to do here. I've done my part to make sure that no one ever follows your advice on this. People come to places such as this looking for information. Hopefully, we've placed enough doubt in your ideas that no one, regardless of how naive will follow you. Apparently, there is a very good letter being drafted by a group on another forum. If, by chance they get an answer from the authorities there in lieu of any citing of LAW here, confirming your claims, then, and only then, will I concede you are right and apologize for being wrong. Last edited on Sat Apr 25th, 2009 05:38 am by JeepSeller |
|||||||||
|
OneInThePipe Regular Member
|
According to the Jack Hagler Self Defense Act:
Doesn't that imply that other provisions such as the "default license" don't apply? |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
. Last edited on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 10:30 pm by smoking357 |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
OneInThePipe wrote: According to the Jack Hagler Self Defense Act: It means the exact opposite, actually. The Legislature is keeping DOACS on a short leash. Read it, again. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
JeepSeller wrote: 790.06 clearly states that anyone carrying a concealed weapon I have a question about your philosophy. No insult, just a fair question. Since there appears to be two statutes which, at first blush, appear in contradiction, and since neither statute is ambiguous, why do you find the prevailing statute to be the one that works against Liberty? You could have chosen the other statute. It's just as clear. Given your level of training, it should be a coin flip. Why did you take 790.06, which restricts the individual, instead of 120.60, which restricts the government? |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: JeepSeller wrote:790.06 clearly states that anyone carrying a concealed weapon You're right, that is a fair question which deserves an answer. To begin with, I won't go on a big long tirade about my philosophy of laws. But, I do find it curious that you would ask about ONE law in general. What I mean is.... a very large portion of our laws could be looked upon as restricting freedom. Laws against stealing, for instance, could be construed as an infringement. I want that TV you own, a law that says I can't take it restricts my "freedom" in a manner of speaking. I know, it's a stretch, but, hear me out. Virtually all of our "laws" restrict something or other. Restrict our movements, restrict our actions, restrict our speeds on the highway. stopping for that stop sign is a restriction of my freedom, right?.....all of them restrict "freedom" in some form or another, even if the law could be considered "common sense" such as murder laws. What if I really WANTED to kill someone. Doesn't the "law" restrict my freedom to do so? Like I say, I know I'm stretching here, I realize that there is protection of other's rights that have to built in to the system, but, I hope I'm making sense. (PS...it's a point of order folks...I'm not proposing that we kill anyone here and no, I really don't want to kill anyone.....some people take things to literally ya know) So, why is it that folks seem to get upset when one law restricts a "freedom" that's important to them, yet, accept the ones that don't affect them or bother them? Just a curious observation. I guess my point is that laws are laws. Like em or not, we have to follow them or we become the criminal. Regardless of how we personally feel about that particular law. The only way to legally regain that lost freedom, even if it is just perceived freedom, is to change the law. Now, to answer your question....it's simply an opinion. Not based on any law in this case. I work for a company that does business with all the prisons in the state and a good deal of the county level jails. So, for me, given my personal experiences, criminal violations have a personal level impact on my life. Every day I see the scum of the earth as well as good people who just made mistakes and are honestly attempting to pay their "due". But, as a general rule, I work each and every day with people who care little for themselves, much less society and even less for our personal rights, freedoms, and lives. While, again, some just made mistakes, a vast majority of them would just as soon shove a shank in my back as look at me. So, in summary, for several years now, I've been front and center to one the scariest, disturbing shows of human nature on earth. Criminal behavior, regardless of how small has changed my look on the world and how people interact. I love my job, but, it does have it's "issues" to deal with on a psychological level. So, a law that may or may not allow one to "default" on a right or a privilege, to me anyway, doesn't have the impact on society as a law that stipulates a criminal violation. Even something as simple or "safe" to society as a default license. A criminal act, any criminal act, based on my own personal experiences, is the worse of the two evils. We have enough criminals, believe me, business is GOOD. *Edit* Ok, so it was a long tirade after all. Sorry. Last edited on Sat Apr 25th, 2009 03:41 am by JeepSeller |
|||||||||
|
acrimsontide Regular Member
|
Last edited on Sat Apr 25th, 2009 04:38 am by acrimsontide |
|||||||||
|
Glock23-4-Me Regular Member
|
Okay, okay. I am sure I will get flamed for this but....... I am aware that smokin357 has ruffled some feathers with some comments that have been made and I am not sure if he had an epiphany when it came to his treatment of others on this site or if it was the moderators that spoke to him about his posts, but if you have looked at his posts since this one, and I quote "OH. MY. GOD. Dude, do you realize what you just said? Do you realize the implications of that statement? Just what is the law, if not the law?" He has been somewhat civil and it sems to have gotten better ever since. So I think as adults we need to put the past behind us and hope that he has as well. After all, one of the rules of this forum state "While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks " I think we need to give him one more chance to be civil but that requires that we do the same. Smokin357, I hope that I am right on my observation and hope that you will treat everyone respectfully. You stand a better chance at convincing someone of your point by treating them with respect and then if they still dont listen....... well you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.  Last edited on Sat Apr 25th, 2009 04:46 am by Glock23-4-Me |
|||||||||
|
cvickers Regular Member 
|
I thought the whole idea of this website was to promote open carry and to try to change the laws. But here you have seven pages of bitching at each other. NO WONDER THE MOVEMENT IS DYING IN FLORIDA. |
|||||||||
|
Glock23-4-Me Regular Member
|
cvickers wrote: I thought the whole idea of this website was to promote open carry and to try to change the laws. But here you have seven pages of bitching at each other. NO WONDER THE MOVEMENT IS DYING IN FLORIDA. IMHO if the SOLE purpose of this site was open carry, then because it has been illegal in florida for many years and getting laws passed takes forever, this would be a pretty boring forum (the florida one anyway) |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
cvickers wrote: I thought the whole idea of this website was to promote open carry and to try to change the laws. But here you have seven pages of bitching at each other. NO WONDER THE MOVEMENT IS DYING IN FLORIDA. Shhhh....it's our secret agenda to infiltrate open carry groups and convert them all to Concealed carry.... Sorry, I couldn't resist. Come-on, got anything better to do? I mean, it's not like the open carry folks are having to spend all their time practicing their draw without hanging their stupid shirt tail in the process... Last edited on Sat Apr 25th, 2009 05:10 am by JeepSeller |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
Glock....I agree. The thread has deteriorated and I'm not too proud to take at least some of the blame on myself. I've even gone back through and attempted to edit a few of my more "biting" remarks as a show of faith. As I said, I've stated my peace. I've got no problem continuting to debate the subject, in fact, a spriited CIVIL debate is one of my passions. But, short of concrete evidence contrary to my views, I'm pretty much reserving final judgement for the answer, if they ever get one, of the letter being sent to the proper authorities who, in my opinon have the final word on the subject, good or bad. Last edited on Sat Apr 25th, 2009 05:32 am by JeepSeller |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
JeepSeller wrote: Glock....I agree. The thread has deteriorated and I'm not too proud to take at least some of the blame on myself. By the way, DOACS is not the final authority, far from it. They're just an agency. A final opinion binding on state agencies can only come from the Attorney General, or the courts. The AG would most likely decline to accept a request for an Opinion from DOACS, as there is already a dispositive Opinion on file. DOACS' attorneys would know better than to ask the AG about what the AG has already said. The Courts can't help DOACS, since the opinions are completely clear. By the way, are you aware that your reference to 790.06 is a bit of lawyering? The plain reading of the statutes stops at 120.60. You propose going beyond plain reading to a second-order consequence found in the law of a specific license. It thus follows that proving how 120.60 does not apply to 790.06 utterly misses the point; it is first necessary to prove how 790.06 is exempt from 120.60. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
JeepSeller wrote: We have enough criminals, believe me, business is GOOD. And America is the worse for it. Most of our "criminals" are incarcerated for mala prohibita. This is America's shame. |
|||||||||
|
rmodel65 Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: JeepSeller wrote:We have enough criminals, believe me, business is GOOD. +1 |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
It really doesn't matter to me how it's worded. All I want to know is how the laws based in 790.06 that specifically makes carrying a concealed weapon without proper license a criminal act can in any way be superseded by, really ANY other law. As I've said before, the picture I'm beginning to discover here is that, yes, there is the "possibility" to interpret 120.60 meaning that one could take a default position regarding an application with the state. As I say, I'm still holding out on my final judgement on that subject pending word from a much higher up authority than any of us. I'm not convinced that the true purpose of any default license policies would apply to CWP. The only case law that seems to come up deals with teachers and developer permits. Again, I'm not here to debate the right or wrong of "permitting" what amounts to a constitutional right. We all here know that road well. All I can say is that, under the current system, we must be granted permission by the state to carry concealed. You and I both know that if backed into a corner, there is no one in this State that would be willing to stand behind anything that might allow a possibly unqualified person to carry around a firearm and/or without proper documentation. That would be political suicide. If for any reason there really is the provision to simply send a letter and "default" issue yourself a concealed weapons permit, it's a hole that was never intended to be left open. Construction and teaching permits are a whole different animal than us crazy gun toting folk being able to walk around in public "strapped" and we all know it. Right or wrong. (by the way, sarcastic attempt at humor of how the current political climate views us...not a stab at us gun toting crazies)  Florida law, as per 790.06, makes carrying a concealed weapon without proper license a criminal act that virtually any officer can legally act upon and any judge could legally punish. Again, I see two laws that could be in conflict of each other at best to even come close to seeing your side of the coin. But, I do not see any stipulations in anything I've seen yet that gives either law any trump value over the other. And, as the justice system deals in criminal law, that's likely to be the one they adhere to. I'm not saying that there might be the opportunity to create precedence that forces the state to address the conflict between the two. But, we all know how that'll end up. They're likely to close your little default loophole in favor of the criminal law. Even if it's PR or politically driven. And no, I'm not an attorney, all my previous statements are based soley on my personal opinon and beliefs and based on my own personal read of the statutes. By no means is anything I state meant to be regarded as legal advice or "lawyering". Just taking pare in a "debate" that many of us obviously feel very strongly about. Last edited on Sat Apr 25th, 2009 06:40 am by JeepSeller |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: JeepSeller wrote:We have enough criminals, believe me, business is GOOD. Oh, don't even get me started on that ****!!! I just don't have it in me to do that much typing in one sitting. I said business is good. I didn't say it's a good thing..... While I agree with you on that one...*shocker..right?*..., there are plenty of inmates I encounter that are incarcerated for mala in se as well. those are the ones that's helped to shape my views on criminal activity and the laws that pertain to it. Last edited on Sat Apr 25th, 2009 06:52 am by JeepSeller |
|||||||||
|
OneInThePipe Regular Member
|
JeepSeller wrote: It really doesn't matter to me how it's worded. All I want to know is how the laws based in 790.06 that specifically makes carrying a concealed weapon without proper license a criminal act can in any way be superseded by, really ANY other law. Well said. What we have is a dichotomy where the 2 laws appear to be in contradiction. Which law trumps the other? That is for the courts to decide and when it comes to the courts (and juries) it can go either way. |
|||||||||
|
Glock23-4-Me Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: By the way, DOACS is not the final authority, far from it. They're just an agency. A final opinion binding on state agencies can only come from the Attorney General, or the courts. The AG would most likely decline to accept a request for an Opinion from DOACS, as there is already a dispositive Opinion on file. DOACS' attorneys would know better than to ask the AG about what the AG has already said. The Courts can't help DOACS, since the opinions are completely clear. I would have to respectfully disagree. You may feel that the opinions are completely clear but as I hope you will agree, most of us don't. I searched and searched and found no case about 120.60 as it pertains to 790.06 IMHO people are concerned about that, myself included. Thankfully I have my CCWL. I believe you smokin357. 120.60 is not a figment of your imagination. It is a real statute and there is something to it. Maybe the statute applies to every license that can be issued in the state of Florida and maybe there is nothing more required than sending a note to the state. But I think there is concern amongst people on this site and they don't feel like getting arrested. Just because it may be legal does not mean you wont be arrested and have to hire an attorney and pay for attorney fees so that you can try to get the charges dropped. But it does not matter if you print out f.s. 120.60 and keep it with you and carry a receipt of where your letter was sent to dacs. The police officer is not responsible for interpreting the law, he will arrest you and let the judge decide. Point is, you will loose time from work which means you will lose money. You maybe even will lose your job. I don't think w/o case law pertaining specifically to 120.60 & 790.06 that people are willing to take a gamble. Maybe more people would be willing to take a risk if it took 9 or 12 months to get their license but, we are talking about it taking an extra 10 or 15 days and I don't think people are willing to take a gamble. You certainly can and obviously have, and you could very well be the only one besides fridaddy who actually understands the law and thats fine. Congrats to you for standing up for your beliefs and I truly hope you don't get in trouble for it.  |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
JeepSeller wrote: If for any reason there really is the provision to simply send a letter and "default" issue yourself a concealed weapons permit, it's a hole that was never intended to be left open. Construction and teaching permits are a whole different animal than us crazy gun toting folk being able to walk around in public "strapped" and we all know it. Right or wrong. (by the way, sarcastic attempt at humor of how the current political climate views us...not a stab at us gun toting crazies) It is absolutely disgusting to see gun owners advocating closing pro-gun "loopholes." There is not such thing as a "loophole." There are only laws. "Loophole" is merely a statement that one does not like the law. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Glock23-4-Me wrote: I would have to respectfully disagree. You may feel that the opinions are completely clear but as I hope you will agree, most of us don't. I searched and searched and found no case about 120.60 as it pertains to 790.06 Did you find any cases relating to beauticians, crane operators or commercial saltwater fishermen? Does 120.60 not apply to these licenses? When do we have law? When the law is passed by the Legislature, or when a court applies the law? You are aware that the laws are supposed to be self-executing, and the State agencies are supposed to comply with the law, as written, not to ignore the law and test the waters in a court case? Think about where your argument leads. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Glock23-4-Me wrote: I believe you smokin357. 120.60 is not a figment of your imagination. It is a real statute and there is something to it. Maybe the statute applies to every license that can be issued in the state of Florida 120.50 Exception to application of chapter.--This chapter shall not apply to: (1) The Legislature. (2) The courts. 120.52 Definitions.--As used in this act: (1) "Agency" means: (a) The Governor in the exercise of all executive powers other than those derived from the constitution. (b) Each: 1. State officer and state department, and each departmental unit described in s. 20.04. 2. Authority, including a regional water supply authority. 3. Board, including the Board of Governors of the State University System and a state university board of trustees when acting pursuant to statutory authority derived from the Legislature. 4. Commission, including the Commission on Ethics and the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission when acting pursuant to statutory authority derived from the Legislature. 5. Regional planning agency. 6. Multicounty special district with a majority of its governing board comprised of nonelected persons. 7. Educational units. 8. Entity described in chapters 163, 373, 380, and 582 and s. 186.504. (c) Each other unit of government in the state, including counties and municipalities, to the extent they are expressly made subject to this act by general or special law or existing judicial decisions. This definition does not include any legal entity or agency created in whole or in part pursuant to chapter 361, part II, any metropolitan planning organization created pursuant to s. 339.175, any separate legal or administrative entity created pursuant to s. 339.175 of which a metropolitan planning organization is a member, an expressway authority pursuant to chapter 348 or transportation authority under chapter 349, any legal or administrative entity created by an interlocal agreement pursuant to s. 163.01(7), unless any party to such agreement is otherwise an agency as defined in this subsection, or any multicounty special district with a majority of its governing board comprised of elected persons; however, this definition shall include a regional water supply authority. . . . (10) "License" means a franchise, permit, certification, registration, charter, or similar form of authorization required by law, but it does not include a license required primarily for revenue purposes when issuance of the license is merely a ministerial act. 120.60 Licensing.-- (1) Upon receipt of an application for a license, an agency shall examine the application and, within 30 days after such receipt, notify the applicant of any apparent errors or omissions and request any additional information the agency is permitted by law to require. An agency shall not deny a license for failure to correct an error or omission or to supply additional information unless the agency timely notified the applicant within this 30-day period. An application shall be considered complete upon receipt of all requested information and correction of any error or omission for which the applicant was timely notified or when the time for such notification has expired. Every application for a license shall be approved or denied within 90 days after receipt of a completed application unless a shorter period of time for agency action is provided by law. The 90-day time period shall be tolled by the initiation of a proceeding under ss. 120.569 and 120.57. Any application for a license that is not approved or denied within the 90-day or shorter time period, within 15 days after conclusion of a public hearing held on the application, or within 45 days after a recommended order is submitted to the agency and the parties, whichever action and timeframe is latest and applicable, is considered approved unless the recommended order recommends that the agency deny the license. Subject to the satisfactory completion of an examination if required as a prerequisite to licensure, any license that is considered approved shall be issued and may include such reasonable conditions as are authorized by law. Any applicant for licensure seeking to claim licensure by default under this subsection shall notify the agency clerk of the licensing agency, in writing, of the intent to rely upon the default license provision of this subsection, and shall not take any action based upon the default license until after receipt of such notice by the agency clerk. 790.06 License to carry concealed weapon or firearm.-- (1) The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is authorized to issue licenses to carry concealed weapons or concealed firearms to persons qualified as provided in this section. Each such license must bear a color photograph of the licensee. For the purposes of this section, concealed weapons or concealed firearms are defined as a handgun, electronic weapon or device, tear gas gun, knife, or billie, but the term does not include a machine gun as defined in s. 790.001(9). Such licenses shall be valid throughout the state for a period of 7 years from the date of issuance. Any person in compliance with the terms of such license may carry a concealed weapon or concealed firearm notwithstanding the provisions of s. 790.01. The licensee must carry the license, together with valid identification, at all times in which the licensee is in actual possession of a concealed weapon or firearm and must display both the license and proper identification upon demand by a law enforcement officer. Violations of the provisions of this subsection shall constitute a noncriminal violation with a penalty of $25, payable to the clerk of the court. * * * * Quite clearly, 790.06 creates a "permit...required by law" as mentioned in 120.52. Quite clearly, DOACS is an agency. Id. I really don't see how this is, in any way, confusing. Can you see how my opponents would look like Bradys? Last edited on Sun Apr 26th, 2009 12:35 am by smoking357 |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
OneInThePipe wrote: Well said. No. A question of law is not a triable issue, as juries sit in judgment of disputes of fact, not law. |
|||||||||
|
Glock23-4-Me Regular Member
|
You very well could be right but as I mentioned, your default license wont keep you from getting arrested and your default license will cost you attorney fees and loss of income and possibly a loss of job.  I will concede there is a default license if you concede that using said license would result in your arrest and possibly a lot of money to defend yourself. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Glock23-4-Me wrote: Maybe more people would be willing to take a risk if it took 9 or 12 months to get their license but, we are talking about it taking an extra 10 or 15 days and I don't think people are willing to take a gamble. You are aware that going unarmed is a gamble, right? On what day are you going to need a gun? If you're good at knowing the future, I need to take you to Gulfstream. Seriously, this is how we talk in pro-gun America. The RKBA movement is like the ACLU for guns. The government puts a burden on us, and we put it right back on them. We fight every battle, and we back them up, every chance we can. The citizen is supreme, and the government is the enemy when it suppresses a citizen's rights. This is elementary. This is dogma. Your talk would draw boos and jeers amongst RKBA folks up North and out West. We don't collaborate. We don't compromise, and we don't surrender. Many innocent people have been killed in incidents that would not have occurred if one person had been armed. I don't know what the future holds, and I don't want to be the person saying "only if...." You absolutely need to go to the Fall Machine Gun Shoot at Knob Creek, talk to the folks there, and get your mind right. By the bye, you'll have an awesome time, and it's pretty country. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Glock23-4-Me wrote: I will concede there is a default license if you concede that using said license would result in your arrest and possibly a lot of money to defend yourself. Abso-freaking-lutely. I'm not advocating this course for anyone. Period. I would hope the cops would call the Prosecutor and/or City or County Counsel for an opinion on the matter, but there is no guarantee that the cops would do this, and the citizen has no protection against the typical brutality and torture that accompanies an arrest. |
|||||||||
|
Glock23-4-Me Regular Member
|
Fair enough. Default licenses for everyone then. (just kidding) Just curious though, why would you say that you are walking around your neighborhood under the "default license" when you also state that you would not recommend anyone do it????  |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Glock23-4-Me wrote: Fair enough. Default licenses for everyone then. (just kidding) 'Cause I ain't lookin' for followers. And because of stories like this: http://www.540wfla.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=227698&article=5374669 "CRESTVIEW, Fla. (AP) -- It happened around 1 p.m. Saturday when the two Okaloosa County deputies went to Shoal River Sporting Clays and Shooting Center in response to a call, said Michele Nicholson, a sheriff's spokeswoman.Authorities say the suspect shot both deputies and took off toward neighboring Walton County, where he was shot and killed by sheriff's deputies. The deputies went to the shooting range while following up on a domestic violence call from Cartwright's apartment in Fort Walton Beach, authorities said. Investigators from the Florida Department of Law enforcement and the sheriff's office did not immediately release other details about the call. A man who answered the telephone at the shooting center near Crestview said he had no comment on the shooting. Deputies Burt Lopez and Deputy Warren "Skip" York were pronounced dead after being airlifted to Sacred Heart Hospital in Pensacola, about 45 miles away, the sheriff's office said. A news release from the sheriff's office identified their killer as Joshua Cartwright, 28, of Fort Walton Beach. Mark Illich was near the DeFuniak Springs intersection where deputies shot and killed Cartwright and witnessed the shooting. "It must have been like 30 or 40 shots," Illich told The Northwest Florida Daily News. Illich said he saw one officer putting down spikes at the intersection and knew "something's about to happen." Then, "(Cartwright's) truck, he started coming. And we saw him, and he seemed calm as a cucumber," Illich said. Cartwright veered around the spike strip, and an officer opened fire at the back of his truck, Illich said." * * * People are innocent until proven guilty, and the cops don't get to open fire absent an immediate lethal threat. Florida cops have a horrible reputation, nationwide. Last edited on Sun Apr 26th, 2009 02:41 am by smoking357 |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
Oh well...... I TRIED to be nice! And althought it appeard that he was too at one time, I guess bonehead just can't. Too bad, I do enjoy a good debate. Althought, it's much more fun to have a battle of wits with someone who's actually armed! Last edited on Sun Apr 26th, 2009 03:51 am by JeepSeller |
|||||||||
|
fridaddy Regular Member
|
OneInThePipe wrote: JeepSeller wrote: The Courts have decided. The statement that the purpose of default is to put the person in the same position as if the state had approved the license. It is not your fault that you cannot comply with the statute. It is the State's. I.e. the case where the cops pulled the drunk guy out of his house and charged him with public intoxication. It wasn't his fault he was out of the house. Case was dismissed. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
JeepSeller wrote: Oh well...... I TRIED to be nice! Knock off the personal attacks. Calling me "bonehead" is completely out of line. |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member
|
Smoking--as was written supra, you toned down your personal attacks, e.g., (me) "taking a few more college courses..." 200 plus hours probably being enough. You have some good points, but are still wrong on your initial post about a 'default' which really means de facto, NOT de jure, license. There are a lot of people on this forum who possess a lot of knowledge. Engage with them in a civil manner, and they will return the favor. You didn't start out very well. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Gunslinger wrote: Smoking--as was written supra, you toned down your personal attacks, e.g., (me) "taking a few more college courses..." 200 plus hours probably being enough. You have some good points, but are still wrong on your initial post about a 'default' which really means de facto, NOT de jure, license. There are a lot of people on this forum who possess a lot of knowledge. Engage with them in a civil manner, and they will return the favor. You didn't start out very well. They aren't you. They earn their retort on their words, and you, yours. Don't lump your hostile and misinformed words with those of the great posters here. I'm absolutely correct, and you should mind your tone and your content around me, because I will call you out on each score. I will not abide attacks on gun liberty. To that point, and in reference to the instant matter, show me a Florida case that has bifurcated the matter as you posit and has held as you suggest. Further, accepting your classification, arguendo, show us how each would lead to a different result. |
|||||||||
|
cvickers Regular Member
|
Sorry to burst your bubble 357 but the Attorney General opinions are not binding on courts. Per the info section of the Florida State AG: Opinions of the Attorney General, however, are not law. They are advisory only and are not binding in a court of law. Attorney General Opinions are intended to address only questions of law, not questions of fact, mixed questions of fact and law, or questions of executive, legislative or administrative policy. see at: http://myfloridalegal.com/pages.nsf/4492d797dc0bd92f85256cb80055fb97/dd177569f8fb0f1a85256cc6007b70ad!OpenDocument |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
cvickers wrote: Sorry to burst your bubble 357 but the Attorney General opinions are not binding on courts. Whoever said they were? If you need help understanding some of my writings, simply ask a question. |
|||||||||
|
cvickers Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: JeepSeller wrote:Glock....I agree. The thread has deteriorated and I'm not too proud to take at least some of the blame on myself. Sorry I misquoated you. But they aren't binding on state agencies either. They are only guidelines. |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote:
Well....isn't THAT the pot calling the kettle black.... There really is something wrong with you...... |
|||||||||
|
OneInThePipe Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: Glock23-4-Me wrote:Fair enough. Default licenses for everyone then. (just kidding) According to Fox News and the local Sheriff (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518093,00.html)
|
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
OneInThePipe wrote:
Riiiiight. http://xs138.xs.to/xs138/09181/flipped_cartwright826.jpg Note the Sheriff's car with a smashed nose parked under the pickup bed. The Sheriff's car is pointed perpendicular to the direction of travel, while Cartwright's is pointed parallel to travel. Yeah, he really "came out shooting." Hahahahaha. * * * http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/chase_16948___article.html/crestview_shooting.html CRESTVIEW - A gunman shot and killed two Okaloosa County sheriff's deputies Saturday afternoon as they tried to arrest him for an earlier domestic violence incident. The gunman then fled in a pickup truck to DeFuniak Springs, where he was killed in a shootout after lawmen rammed his truck. (See photos from the shootout scene here.) Joshua Cartwright, 28, a U.S. Army Reserve soldier, shot 45-year-old deputies Warren "Skip" York and Burt Lopez just before 1 p.m. at the Shoal River Gun Club, according to the Sheriff's Office. The deputies were pronounced dead at Sacred Heart Hospital in Pensacola a short time later. (See photos from the scene in Crestview here.) "We did lose two very fine men today," said interim Sheriff Ed Spooner. "I don't think anybody anticipated this would get to the level it did as quickly as it did." The deputies, both of them wearing bulletproof vests, were at the gun club responding after a domestic violence call from Cartwright's home at Consul Apartments on Monahan Drive in Fort Walton Beach. Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Michele Nicholson said Cartwright's wife went to the emergency room at Fort Walton Beach Medical Center after the 10 a.m. incident at Consul. Sheriff's deputies learned Cartwright was at the gun club and went there to arrest him shortly before 1 p.m. The deputies Tased Cartwright before he shot them, Spooner said at a press conference Saturday night. Not long after the gun club shooting, Cartwright was killed in what witnesses described as an intense firefight in DeFuniak Springs. "It must have been like 30 or 40 shots," said Mark Illich, who was there near the intersection of U.S. Highways 331 and 90, where he said he saw Cartwright drive into a shootout. Walton County Sheriff Mike Adkinson later said that closer to 50 or 60 rounds may have been fired. About 1 p.m., Illich said he saw an officer putting down spikes at the highways' intersection and knew "something's about to happen." Then, "(Cartwright's) truck, he started coming. And we saw him, and he seemed calm as a cucumber," Illich said. Cartwright, Illich said, veered around the spike strip, and an officer opened fire at the back of his truck. Then two patrol cars ran Cartwright off the road, where his truck overturned. Cartwright fired at Walton County lawmen before he was killed, deputies said. Adkinson said the State Attorney's Office on Saturday already had determined that all use of force was justified. York and Lopez became the second and third Okaloosa County sheriff's deputies to be killed in the line of duty in the county in less than a year. The first was Tony Forgione, who died in July as the agency's Special Response Team entered the home of an armed man wanted for mental health evaluation. Forgione was the first deputy to die in the line of duty in the county. "Every day, you're just trying to stay out of the line of fire," said sheriff's Lt. Bobby Maloney, who responded to the scene Saturday in Crestview. "It's just devastating ... They're great deputies, great family men." Nicholson said Lopez and York were patrol deputies in the north county who had families with children. Lopez joined the agency Oct. 5, 2003. York joined Feb. 11, 2007. Asked if the shootings would hamper an agency already affected by suspended Sheriff Charlie Morris' alleged scandal, Spooner said, "It sure doesn't make it any easier, I'll tell you that." All lanes of U.S. 90 near the gun club were closed after the deputies were shot. Only one lane of U.S. 90 was open near U.S. 331 in DeFuniak Springs after the shootout there. Records show Cartwright was arrested in November 2008 on a domestic battery charge. He also had accumulated a number of driving violations over the past eight years. * * * Be honest. He was executed. Further, look up "Hope Steffy." There's good reasons for smart people to steer well clear of cops. |
|||||||||
|
OneInThePipe Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: OneInThePipe wrote: Uh, that is the back of the car not the nose and it doesn't look damaged to me. A static image like that doesn't give much information to what happened. Did you link to the correct image? Witnesses are often confused in what they think they saw. That may be the case here (or it may not). Neither of us were there so jumping to a conclusion that he was "executed" is unwarranted. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
OneInThePipe wrote: Uh, that is the back of the car not the nose and it doesn't look damaged to me. A static image like that doesn't give much information to what happened. Did you link to the correct image? I know. It's weird to see such a deliberate crop on that photo. Look around for the one that includes the front of the car. Anyway, the cops admit to ramming it. Cops are witnesses, too, by the way. The conclusion is completely warranted. |
|||||||||
|
mavidal Regular Member
|
Hello all: Been lurking on this board as this is a subject I am interested in (open carry). I honestly feel that this would deter a lot of the criminality with the robberies and rapes that do happen. On another note, watching and reading this thread, I have to agree with smoking357's assertion that 120.60 is the operating document under which DOACS should be operating and they are not following the rules. Case in point: I applied for my permit on Jan 13, it was received by Jan 16th as per the USPS tracking system. I did not get my green return receipt back till Feb 19th and it was dated on the receipt Feb 17th. I just received a letter from DOACS dated Apr 17th that until I submit proof of citizenship, or they will have to deny my application. Note that this is within the 90 day windows of them receiving it. This whole process is flaunting 120.60 as the intent of the law is to make sure that state agencies do not sit on there rears when it comes to processing licenses etc. I have spoken to my brother in law and friends that have also had this happen to, and it seems that DOACS waits to send these letters out on the 90th day, instead of doing it within the 30 day window as required by statute. Now I am only referring to paperwork etc, not the rest of the process such as background checks etc. DOACS must have figured that 60 days would be enough for them to complete this. Now I will admit it is my bad, in not including proof of citizenship, as it is clear in the instructions which I did not bother to read since I became a citizen by default in 1967 when my parent became citizens. I never really gave this a thought. I would really like to hold the DOACS feet to the fire on this issue. In closing, the founding fathers of this country I think were geniuses in crafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights the way they did. Pity that we have let our government get the better of us in many aspects. This has to stop. Mike V. |
|||||||||
|
Glock23-4-Me Regular Member
|
Be honest. He was executed. ====================== Rightfully so. I know I may get crap for it but I am glad they took care of him. Sure beats him getting arrested and going to jail. Sitting there for years and years at taxpayers expense or maybe he could have gotten off like O.J. Justice Served in my book |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: Gunslinger wrote:Smoking--as was written supra, you toned down your personal attacks, e.g., (me) "taking a few more college courses..." 200 plus hours probably being enough. You have some good points, but are still wrong on your initial post about a 'default' which really means de facto, NOT de jure, license. There are a lot of people on this forum who possess a lot of knowledge. Engage with them in a civil manner, and they will return the favor. You didn't start out very well. I go back to my original post: you need professional help. A FL case that has 'bifurcated'? Maybe you'd better look up the definition while looking for intellectual sounding words that mean nothing in context. "Arguendo." Excellent word to describe your whole 'unsubstantiated and still to be proven' positions. Did mommy buy you a legal dictionary for your birthday? Last edited on Mon Apr 27th, 2009 09:38 pm by Gunslinger |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Gunslinger wrote: smoking357 wrote:Gunslinger wrote:Smoking--as was written supra, you toned down your personal attacks, e.g., (me) "taking a few more college courses..." 200 plus hours probably being enough. You have some good points, but are still wrong on your initial post about a 'default' which really means de facto, NOT de jure, license. There are a lot of people on this forum who possess a lot of knowledge. Engage with them in a civil manner, and they will return the favor. You didn't start out very well. You need to learn some manners. Your ad hominem, vapid, irrelevant, and incorrect responses are clearly violative of the strictures of this Board, and your lack of legal reasoning is not occluded with your fog of insult. |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
Glock23-4-Me wrote: Be honest. He was executed. Amen brother! I guess there are some here who would submit that the police officers should have just stood there and let the dirtbag shoot or drive over them I guess! This bozo shot and killed two men in cold blood. THEY were the ones executed here. They were responding to a complaint about this guy, and he shot them when they tried to investigate a complaint against him. We weren't there. we don't know that the dirtbag didn't swerve toward the officers and threatened their lives after murdering two of their fellow officers. I'd have drilled the scum too in that situation, and rightfully so. Not a jury in the world would convict me either in the "stand your ground" state... It's always easy to judge from that armchair. One less scumbag on the street as far as I'm concerned. Last edited on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 05:43 am by JeepSeller |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: Gunslinger wrote:smoking357 wrote:Gunslinger wrote:Smoking--as was written supra, you toned down your personal attacks, e.g., (me) "taking a few more college courses..." 200 plus hours probably being enough. You have some good points, but are still wrong on your initial post about a 'default' which really means de facto, NOT de jure, license. There are a lot of people on this forum who possess a lot of knowledge. Engage with them in a civil manner, and they will return the favor. You didn't start out very well. Wow, really digging into that dictionary today, aren't we? Last edited on Mon Apr 27th, 2009 10:24 pm by JeepSeller |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Glock23-4-Me wrote: Be honest. He was executed. Wrong. Someone always wants someone else dead, and the government is not to be an assassination squad. Further, it appears he had a great defense. As he was on the ground, writhing in pain, as the cops were trying to kill him with their Tasers, he shot back. He wasn't in a clear state of mind when he fired, and he had an excellent defense of temporary insanity. The cops killed a potentially innocent man, and the cops fired first, in both instances. I'd much rather see my government not execute citizens and presume them innocent until proven guilty. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
JeepSeller wrote: Wow, really digging into that dictionary today, aren't we? I sure did when I was young. My parents insisted that I not grow up a moron. |
|||||||||
|
acrimsontide Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: JeepSeller wrote:Wow, really digging into that dictionary today, aren't we? And how's that working for you? Not saying you are one, just wondering how the process is going. It seems that every time you post, no matter which forum, you are trying to create friction. Do you get your jollies by provoking people? Last edited on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 01:04 am by acrimsontide |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
acrimsontide wrote: smoking357 wrote:JeepSeller wrote:Wow, really digging into that dictionary today, aren't we? Only the bad people are provoked by rectitude. Last edited on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 02:25 am by smoking357 |
|||||||||
|
Glock23-4-Me Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: Glock23-4-Me wrote:Be honest. He was executed. You take the fun out of everything dont you. That was a retorical question. I dont want to hear about how bad the cops are. I tried to stick up for you but it seems no matter what anyone says about something, you tend to go the other direction most of the time. "the government is not to be an assassination squad." I would not be sad if the government took out a few people on this site. Last edited on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 04:04 am by Glock23-4-Me |
|||||||||
|
Glock23-4-Me Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: acrimsontide wrote:smoking357 wrote:JeepSeller wrote:Wow, really digging into that dictionary today, aren't we? Only the bad people are provoked by rightousness??? Are you saying you are "rightous"??? |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
Smoking.... Seriously, I'm not trying to insult you or be sarcastic. I'm quite sure that everyone here really doesn't want to continue to beat on someone with a diminished mental capacity or handicap of any sort. I'm pretty much beginning to think that's the only explaination for you. If I'm right, then, all your rantings would make "some" sense and we might start taking it a little easier on you. Honest. Obviously, you have your right to keep that private if you so choose, but, it really would help us to understand you a little more if you'd be more candid with us regarding your mental capabilities. Last edited on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 05:45 am by JeepSeller |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Glock23-4-Me wrote: You take the fun out of everything dont you. That was a retorical question. I dont want to hear about how bad the cops are. 1. The Board doesn't typically concern itself with "fun" topics. Our Liberty is under immense attack, and the power of the state is almost boundless. There is no more relevant discussion to the necessity of gun rights than the temperament of the armed agents of the state. 2. I'm fully aware of your desires. This proves the above. |
|||||||||
|
Glock23-4-Me Regular Member
|
There are some really unstable people in this country and it is scary |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: JeepSeller wrote:Wow, really digging into that dictionary today, aren't we? Too bad their insistence went unheeded. I'm through with this troll. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Gunslinger wrote: smoking357 wrote:JeepSeller wrote:Wow, really digging into that dictionary today, aren't we? I kicked you out of here a while back. I see you know to run away before I get over there. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Glock23-4-Me wrote: There are some really unstable people in this country and it is scary Hey, class act, why don't you tell everyone here how you hope I get swine flu, like you did on that "other site," where your comments went completely without sanction, criticism, or removal? You hope I get a deadly disease because I win my arguments, and I advocate smaller government, accountable government, a servile government, a non-confrontational government, and the fullest possible civil rights for all Americans? You're cut from the same bitter, hateful, cloth that sees cops murder people for daring to assert their rights. Obama was right about a great many of you.  Last edited on Wed Apr 29th, 2009 05:17 pm by smoking357 |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
Edited by author. Point made. Last edited on Wed Apr 29th, 2009 07:49 pm by JeepSeller |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
JeepSeller wrote: Hey Brian... You're an evil, hateful, and dangerous person. |
|||||||||
|
JeepSeller Regular Member
|
You're right. That was mean and spiteful. I have no desire to embarass you further. I've answered my questions about you and I've shown you that there is plenty of proof of the fraud you are out there. Based on that story, I'd guess you could never qualify for a CCW in any state. Your motives are crystal clear now. Last edited on Wed Apr 29th, 2009 07:51 pm by JeepSeller |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
JeepSeller wrote: You're right. That was mean and spiteful. I have no desire to embarass you further. You really have no clue. You're a hateful, bitter, liar. I already printed your post. Editing it won't save you. You should have thought before you posted. Last edited on Wed Apr 29th, 2009 08:21 pm by smoking357 |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member 
|
smoking357 wrote: JeepSeller wrote:You're right. That was mean and spiteful. I have no desire to embarass you further. You may be right about the default permit. You may not be right about it. This thread is not how any advocate of the 2nd Amendment should be presenting themselves. Whether you are correct or not, the discussion methods in this thread are a disgrace. |
|||||||||