Open Carry In Florida - Page 2

Open Carry In Florida

This is a discussion on Open Carry In Florida within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by 19florida56 Too many problems in Florida already without adding this OC issue. since you are unwilling to elaborate I'm going to guess ...

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 75
Like Tree31Likes

Thread: Open Carry In Florida

  1. #16
    Senior Member Array GoBigOrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Just far enough outside Orlando
    Posts
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by 19florida56 View Post
    Too many problems in Florida already without adding this OC issue.
    since you are unwilling to elaborate I'm going to guess that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

    We don't have any issues here in Florida other than the fact that we can't OC.
    Stubborn and sgb like this.


  2. #17
    Ex Member Array Yankeejib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by FLSquirrelHunter View Post
    We can carry openly in our house and yard, when hunting (duh) and fishing, when at the range ('nuther duh) and when camping. With our CWFL we can carry concealed to most of the other places we go. Would it be better to carry openly at the beach while enjoying the sun? Of course. Or when playing golf? Definitely. Would it make sense to carry openly when clearing felled debris from a storm? Yes. Or when hiking the Florida trail or kayaking? Certainly. It's just more comfortable when it's hot and we're lightly dressed. It's more convenient should we need to face off an intent boar or rabid raccoon.

    I also tend to think that a little OC would go a long way toward helping folks be a bit more kindly toward one another.
    Totally disagree. My first 10 years in FL, I was completely shocked at how little regard most people have for their fellow man. My next 10 years I was completely shocked at how the local natives "prey" on any opportunity to better themselves at the expense of innocent fellow man. I've spent my third 10 years preparing to give the next perp a lethal dose of Karma.

    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.

  3. #18
    Member Array gunsnroses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    America
    Posts
    422
    Quote Originally Posted by 19florida56 View Post
    Too many problems in Florida already without adding this OC issue.
    That was intelligent.

  4. #19
    Member Array 19florida56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    work has me all over the place
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by GoBigOrange View Post
    since you are unwilling to elaborate I'm going to guess that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

    We don't have any issues here in Florida other than the fact that we can't OC.
    You should learn to read profiles before you think someone does not "have a clue".

  5. #20
    Member Array gunsnroses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    America
    Posts
    422
    Quote Originally Posted by Yankeejib View Post
    Totally disagree. My first 10 years in FL, I was completely shocked at how little regard most people have for their fellow man. My next 10 years I was completely shocked at how the local natives "prey" on any opportunity to better themselves at the expense of innocent fellow man. I've spent my third 10 years preparing to give the next perp a lethal dose of Karma.

    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.
    But it is a Constitutional right as a American to bear arms? Is this right only valid for "some" people who you deem not to be a "dirtbag?"

  6. #21
    Member Array gunsnroses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    America
    Posts
    422
    Quote Originally Posted by 19florida56 View Post
    You should learn to read profiles before you think someone does not "have a clue".
    Thats intelligent. x2

  7. #22
    Ex Member Array Yankeejib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by gunsnroses View Post
    But it is a Constitutional right as a American to bear arms? Is this right only valid for "some" people who you deem not to be a "dirtbag?"
    Sigh. I don't deem anything. So many "Constitutional" law experts, so little common sense. Very few people in Florida even recognize that there is a Constitution, give a crap about it, or give a crap about you. I'm all for the right to bear arms, but you have to have the slightest clue about regs and laws, you have to be an law abiding American, and you have to demonstrate some personal responsibility. That instantly eliminates 2/3 of the population. But, I am on your side. I'd love to carry my big .357 on the hip and use my new AR sling more in public. Hell, I'd probably invest in a nice scabbard for my 12 gauge. In the meantime, I'm 100% behind every person getting their permits and legally carrying in a responsible fashion. The average non-gun person is highly uncomfortable with the average fruit loop carrying openly in public. Carry permits do raise the level of responsibility to legally possess weapons and do exclude your common dirtbag, felon, domestic violence offender, and non-citizen from openly displaying weapons in public. How can that be bad?

  8. #23
    Member Array StogieC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Daytona, FL
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by FLSquirrelHunter View Post
    We can carry openly in our house and yard, when hunting (duh) and fishing, when at the range ('nuther duh) and when camping. With our CWFL we can carry concealed to most of the other places we go. Would it be better to carry openly at the beach while enjoying the sun? Of course. Or when playing golf? Definitely. Would it make sense to carry openly when clearing felled debris from a storm? Yes. Or when hiking the Florida trail or kayaking? Certainly. It's just more comfortable when it's hot and we're lightly dressed. It's more convenient should we need to face off an intent boar or rabid raccoon.

    I also tend to think that a little OC would go a long way toward helping folks be a bit more kindly toward one another.


    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.
    Last edited by StogieC; November 10th, 2011 at 05:03 PM.
    sgb likes this.
    I'll have what the gentleman on the floor is having.

    Executive Director, Florida Carry, Inc.
    Founder, Florida Open Carry Movement

  9. #24
    Member Array gunsnroses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    America
    Posts
    422
    +1 StogieC

    This is why I let you guys do the talking.... and I just donate my money!

  10. #25
    VIP Member Array Superhouse 15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    3,055
    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.
    Try not to screw up so bad they name the screw up after you. (Station 15 saying)

    NRA Certifed Instructor

  11. #26
    New Member Array rvrctyrngr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    North Florida
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by StogieC View Post


    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.
    Outstanding dissertation, Sean.

  12. #27
    Distinguished Member Array zamboni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    North of the Line
    Posts
    1,219
    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

  13. #28
    Member Array pappou68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SE Florida
    Posts
    302
    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.

  14. #29
    Ex Member Array Yankeejib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by pappou68 View Post
    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.
    No, there'd just be a whole lot more irresponsible caca-heads totin.

  15. #30
    Member Array StormRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Fort Myers
    Posts
    25
    I wonder if subcompacts would become less popular if OCing was normal practice?

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

can you open carry in florida

,
florida concealed carry laws 2012
,
florida open carry 2012
,

florida open carry law

,

florida open carry law 2012

,

florida open carry law passed

,
florida open carry laws 2012
,

open carry florida 2012

,

open carry florida passed

,

open carry in florida

,

open carry in florida 2012

,
open carry in florida update
Click on a term to search for related topics.