We don't have any issues here in Florida other than the fact that we can't OC.
If you have your CWP, why give up the tactical advantage of surprise. I love guns, but some dirtbag OC'ing anywhere you mention does not give me any warm fuzzies.
The 1987 statewide ban on open carry was blow-back from "Shall-Issue" Concealed Carry and Firearms Law Preemption passing the legislature. Janet Reno lead the change to have OC banned because it was a way to lash out against Florida gun owners for having just won a seven year long fight to pass statewide concealed carry. Read here: Janet Reno's Ban on Open Carry in Florida - Orlando gun rights | Examiner.com
Simply stated, the gun carriers of Florida have proven over nearly 25 years that they are typically responsible, skilled, and law abiding. They can certainly be expected to make their own intelligent choices about their method of carry based on the time, place, and circumstance they find themselves in.
It is also a Constitutional Issue...
Critical to the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Heller was that bans on handguns are analogous to bans on openly carrying handguns in public and are therefore unconstitutional. In Heller, the United States Supreme Court made it clear that bans on open carry are severe restrictions that were rightfully struck down in multiple State Supreme Courts.
“Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the District's handgun ban. And some of those few have been struck down. In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at 251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol "publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances," 50 Tenn., at 187,violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns. See also State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616-617 (1840) ("A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional").
It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed.” District of Columbia v. Heller, U.S., 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008),
In Heller, the United States Supreme Court notably pointed out that:
“in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008)
Deterrence is widely considered to be the first, and most effective, method of self defense. Carrying a concealed firearm presents to a would-be criminal that a person is unarmed and is therefore an easier target for aggression. The requirement that arms be concealed removes all deterrent value that a person is bearing arms, and is therefore likely to be able to effectively defend themselves and those around them. In absence of a uniformed, openly armed, law enforcement officer; only the passive thought that there is a 4% possibility that anyone may be secretly armed remains to deter aggression. The requirement that handguns may only be carried concealed destroys all but the most fleeting thought of consequence to serve as deterrence for self-defence.
Presenting a handgun for immediate self defense from a concealed holster is typically much more difficult, and slower, than drawing a handgun that is not encumbered by layers of clothing or concealing implements. In close proximity to an attacker, drawing from concealment may be impossible to accomplish in time when faced with a dynamic threat to life and limb.
Although the United States Supreme Court indicated that restrictive regulations on concealed carry are presumably constitutional, bans on carrying unconcealed arms are not.
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. ... For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884).” District of Columbia v. Heller, U.S., 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008),
Florida’s unconcealed carry ban is precisely the scenario that the Alabama Supreme Court warned against and the United States Supreme Court used as justification for overturning the DC handgun ban.
“But the court say that it is a matter which will not admit of legislative regulation, and in order to test the correctness of its opinion, supposes one Legislature to prohibit the bearing arms secretly, and a subsequent Legislature to enact a law against bearing them openly; and then asks the question, whether the first, or last enactment would be unconstitutional. Under the provision of our constitution, we incline to the opinion that the Legislature cannot inhibit the citizen from bearing arms openly, because it authorizes him to bear them for the purposes of defending himself and the State, and it is only when carried openly, that they can be efficiently used for defence.” State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616-617 (1840)
It would be nonsensical for the United States Supreme Court to have found such persuasive support for its Heller and McDonald positions in Nunn v. State, Andrews v. State, State v. Reid, and State v. Chandler yet still reject the result of all of these cases that bans on open carry are unconstitutional.
“To be sure, in rejecting the District of Columbia's argument that the Second Amendment provided only a collective right connected to militia service, Heller relied on at least two 19th-century state supreme court cases interpreting the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to carry weapons openly (but not concealed) in public. More specifically, Heller cited approvingly to Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846), in which "the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the `natural right of self-defence' and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly." Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2809 (quoting Nunn, 1 Ga. at 251). The Heller majority described Nunn as "perfectly captur[ing] the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers" the Amendment's purpose. Id. Similarly, Heller's dicta also cited with approval to State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489 (1850), in which "the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly" under the Second Amendment. Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2809 (citing Chandler, 5 La. Ann. at 490).” US v. MASCIANDARO, Dist. Court, ED Virginia 2009
The United States Supreme Court’s dicta in Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 (1897) at 282 pointed out that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;” (emphasis added). If this is so, and a prohibition on concealed carry is at the whim of the legislature, then how are they to be born if not openly?
In Davis v. State the Florida Supreme Court also clearly stated that legislature’s constitutional authority to regulate the manner of bearing arms is limited to preventing the “bearing of weapons by the unskilled, the irresponsible, and the lawless.”
“Doubtless the guarantee ("The right of the people to bear arms in defence of themselves, and the lawful authority of the State, shall not be infringed") was intended to secure to the people the right to carry weapons for their protection while the proviso ("but the Legislature may prescribe the manner in which they may be borne. ") was designed to protect the people also — from the bearing of weapons by the unskilled, the irresponsible, and the lawless.” Davis v. State, 146 So. 2d 892 - Fla: Supreme Court 1962
Florida’s open carry ban goes far beyond a regulation on the manner of bearing arms by unskilled, irresponsible, and lawless people; it completely bans the entire method of carry regardless of time, place, or circumstance except for some narrow exceptions; It was in no way calculated to prevent the “bearing of weapons by the unskilled, the irresponsible, and the lawless”.
“A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional.” State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612 (1840)
“[A] legitimate governmental purpose in regulating the right to bear arms cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle the exercise of this right where the governmental purpose can be more narrowly achieved.” Comeau, 233 Neb. at 910, 448 N.W.2d at 598.
The Open Carry Ban generally prohibits the carry of firearms that are unconcealed even for those people to which the state has issued a license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm. It is therefore overbroad and unconstitutional in all of its possible applications.
This is why I let you guys do the talking.... and I just donate my money!
A wise Florida instructor once told me....
If 1 of every 1000 gun owners open carried in Wal Mart, the soccer moms would scream and rush their kids out the door.
If 100 of every 1000 gun owners open carried, the soccer moms would glare and grumble under their breath.
If 500 of every 1000 open carried the soccer moms would complain about how much cheese cost and look for deals on toilet paper and dog bones.
OC ... Quite a subject to debate = grasp a can opener, pickup a can ah worms, attach opener to can, rotate openers handle
The one disadvantage that first comes to mind is how do you know the OC`ing person isn't a felon and shouldn't have a gun in the first place? Are we going to enlist a group of OC inspectors to check everyone OC`ing out? Is it better to CCW so if some dirt-bag sez give me your money and doesn't know you are carrying because he can't see you are and now he's lookin down the barrel of your gun thinkin OH itsha
I don't care one way or the other, I'd love to OC so I can hear all the ooooo`s and ahhhhh`s when I take my $2500 safe-star out for a stroll instead of having to hid it from plan sight.
So instead of just coping out with a "well we already have enough problems here, or I don't think it's a good idea" post.
Give us a concrete treat as to why you would or why not? I just gave you two; one as to why I would, and one as to why I would not. Next
Would OC be a blanket policy for everyone, or would there be an OC license? I would hope so there's some control like with CC. Even with some controls, I'm afraid too many wannabe cowboys & lawmen would be totin iron.
I wonder if subcompacts would become less popular if OCing was normal practice?