The single greatest threat to firearm ownership

Legal & Second Amendment
1

Risk Protection Orders
(Red Flag Laws)
Florida Statutes Chapter 790.401

Anything you say can (and may) be used against you!

The single greatest threat to your right to own a firearm is the Risk Protection Order (RPO), otherwise known as Red Flag Laws. An accusation can be made against you without your knowledge that you “pose a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others by having a firearm or any ammunition in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or any ammunition, and must be accompanied by an affidavit made under oath stating the specific statements, actions, or facts that give rise to a reasonable fear of significance dangerous acts by the respondent.”

This post is only directly and factually relevant to the State of Florida, but Florida is not the only State with a Red Flag Law in its statutes regarding weapons.

I obtained a bound printed copy of the Chapter of the Florida Statute pertaining to “Weapons and Firearms” for $10.00 by ordering it from the Florida Legistore online. I also ordered Chapter 776 - Justifiable Use of Force for $5.00 and a bound printed copy of the Constitution of the State of Florida for $10.00, all delivered by mail without additional fees. I don’t know if other States have such resources, but it is worth researching your State.

The section pertaining to RPOs in the Florida Statute covers 5 1/2 pages, and is very informative. Of note is that merely threatening injury with or without a firearm can trigger a Risk Protection Order, and your firearms and ammo can be confiscated until you prove the RPO invalid. The Statutory language leaves plenty of room for interpretation by a Circuit Court judge, who may not be 2nd Ammendment friendly. You will almost certainly need to hire an attorney to get your guns and ammo back, if you ever do.

Be very careful what you say! You might just talk yourself (especially online where your statements never go away) out of your 2nd Ammendment rights.

11 Likes
2

That is why we fought them tooth and nail in WI. :us:

7 Likes
3

Great read, thanks

2 Likes
4

Then the question remains, what makes Florida such a free country?
I thought Florida was going Constitutional?
It’s one of the reasons I keep an extremely low profile/the grey man or in my case the invisible man! I try not to have any human contact, the brief interactions I do have like grocery’s, banking or pharmacy, smile, say thank you, on my way in less than 2 minutes. I got nothing to talk about with an untrustworthy possibly anti American pro criminal society!
Stay low, protect yourself, someday humanity may return! Surely not in my lifetime!

3 Likes
5

Governor DeSantis has openly declared his intent that Florida be an Open Carry State before his first term ends. Personally, I am not a fan of Constitutional Carry only because I believe that everyone needs Firearms Safety training and should have at least an introduction to Use of Force laws in their State.

Florida strikes the right balance. Yes, you need a Permit to carry concealed, and (unfortunately IMO) no Open Carry of firearms. But there is no registration, no duty to inform a LEO you are transporting a firearm which you can do legally as an extension of the Castle Doctrine, and no duty to retreat. Background check applications are not kept locally - you are given the paperwork as soon as it is filed.

4 Likes
6

I see these terms getting confused a lot.

In common usage:

Concealed Carry = carrying a handgun on or about your person concealed from view/observation/nobody should know it’s there

Open Carry = carrying a handgun on or about your person openly visible, not-concealed

Permitless Carry aka Constitutional Carry = legal concealed carry without a permit or license required

IMO, requiring a permit is gun control. IMO, requiring a permit to carry concealed is an outright infringement which turns the supposed-Right to keep and bear arms into a privilege. If you must fill out paperwork, possibly pay money, and wait for the government to issue you prior written authorization (Mommy, May I?) it is no longer a Right.

There is zero evidence, despite decades of millions of people across dozens of states, indicating that required training makes anybody safer.

There is a famous American quote about those who would exchange Liberty for (perceived) Safety. Those that would do that (which is what government mandated training permits turning a supposed-Right into a privilege, is) deserve neither Liberty nor safety.

From a practical sense there are dozens of millions of people who have been able to get Shall Issue carry permits with zero required training for literally decades and it’s not a problem and nobody can demonstrate that required training vs not makes a lick of difference to accident/negligent/injury rates anyway

/end rant against gun control

3 Likes
7

Additionally

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/about/press-room/tim-schmidt-applauds-south-dakotas-constitutional-carry-bill/

"1.30.2019

West Bend, WI –

The President and Founder of the U.S. Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) Tim Schmidt today praised the South Dakota State Legislature for passing “Constitutional carry” legislation that would allow South Dakota residents to carry concealed handguns without a permit and he encouraged Governor Kristi Noem to quickly sign it into law."

““More and more states like South Dakota are looking at implementing constitutional carry laws so that gun owners can freely exercise their natural right to defend themselves without needing a special piece of paper from the government. We do not need permission to exercise our freedom of speech, have due process rights, or practice the religion of our choosing. Why then, should we be compelled to wade through additional bureaucracy only for the 2nd Amendment?” said Schmidt.”

Back to myself speaking, One other thing: Who believes the mall in Indiana would have been better off if the unlicensed, never provided training proof to the government, never got a mommy-may-I permission slip, 22 year old at the mall had not been there when a psycho opened fire with a rifle in the food court?

2 Likes
8

Only a liberal! IDK if malls are separated by class, but one unfortunate day, someone they know and love will be effected. If they want, I can slowly remove my phone and start videoing or dialing 911, or I can take out a mass shooter in 15 seconds, their choice!
However the liberal logic is, if we have no guns you can’t have mass killings! What they don’t understand is Timothy Mcviegh didn’t use a gun. Evil minds will find a way! Are we going to ban rental trucks?

4 Likes
9

Only means one is “allowed” to carry, CC or OC, without the government infringing on that right; though we are still restricted on where we are “allowed” to carry, even with “Constitutional Carry”.

2 Likes
10

Of course, there are always going to be places off limits, if for no other reason than Liberty =/= Freedom. An easy example is other people’s private property where their Rights mean they can tell you not to bring a gun onto their private property.

It’s a bit more complicated with government properties, my stance there is it’s reasonable and allowable to prohibit firearms on government property where every single person who enters goes through full security, backed by armed sworn peace officers, every time, and where armed peace officers shall remain present, such as courthouses, secure areas of commercial airports, jails, etc.

Unfortunately many places make some places off limits that I would say shouldn’t be, like last I checked it’s a felony in TX to carry in a bar which is a silly unnecessary law but there are some of those out there even in permitless carry states

(if anybody thinks making bars off limits is a needed or good law, I would ask that person to look into the states where carrying in a bar is legal, and it has been for decades, but is not a problem at all…)

2 Likes
11

The main problem with all GFZs is that one is not only disarmed in the GFZ, but coming and going.

1 Like
12

For @Dave17 and @Nathan57
Since I teach a USCCA mini-course on Constitutional Carry versus Permit Carry, i did some research on the term. In general there is no “official” definition of Constitutional Carry, or one defined in black letter law (although the term is used without explicit definition in the recent Georgia legislation). Further, depending on the context, some folks informally use Constitutional carry to refer only to permitless concealed carry (Nathan’s usage), while other folks use it to refer to any carry mode, concealed or open (Dave’s mode). I don’t think it worth the time to argue one definition over the other, but instead to work towards universal permitless carry.
I do agree that anyone possessing a gun should go through basic safety and handling instruction but do not hold that such training should be a prerequisite to exercise 2A rights.

4 Likes
13

I use it the way I do, BTW, because a number of states allowed permitless open carry for many years and never did anybody use the term Constitutional Carry for those states. That term basically didn’t exist until permitless concealed carry spread past the original two of AK and VT, with AZ being the first “people noticed” state to do no permit required

The only thing I will say is “wrong” is when people say that “open carry” means you are allowed to carry concealed without a permit, because a surprising number use the terms that way

4 Likes
14

Florida is a Shall Issue State. So completing a Firearms Safety training class doesn’t in my mind constitute “asking permission”, it is just good common sense. Being an Honorably discharged Veteran resident in Florida, I didn’t have to provide proof of training - my DD-214 was sufficient. Nonetheless, the day after I applied for my permit, I attended a Concealed Carry class because it had been decades since I had handled a firearm, and I wanted at least an introduction to the applicable State laws, and, if I ever have to use my firearm in a defensive use of force incident, having proof of training may become useful if I have to defend my actions in a court of law. That other citizens carrying concealed have demonstrated at least a minimum knowledge of safe firearm carry and use does give me a minimal but still tangible degree of comfort that I don’t have any reason to believe Benjamin Franklin would hold in contempt.

I completely understand and support principled stances for liberty, but I also understand the significantly degraded moral and intellectual condition of contemporary society. I choose to adapt and overcome governmental impositions on my liberty by exercising to the fullest the liberty I am afforded within the law. I get it that others see the issues differently. That is what freedom allows, and it is all good to me.

Regarding the Good Guy with a Gun in the mall, I also don’t have any reason to believe he and his firearm would not have been there because a law insisted he get some basic firearm safety training. He obviously got some training somewhere, either before or after he chose to carry. I don’t think the outcome would have been different because a Certificate might have been required before the fact, or because a permit might have been required also. He was demonstrably committed to being a Protector regardless of the cost, which he may be beginning to pay and continue to pay in civil defense of his own liberty, and the lives and well-being of other citizens he didn’t (and may still not) know.

Obviously, most concealed carry permit holders (myself included) won’t allow some not entirely unreasonable degree of accountability to stop us from becoming Protectors. Just my personal opinion here, but if someone chooses not to carry only because they have to attend a class or purchase a permit, I cannot believe they sincerely wanted to carry in the first place. And if they choose to carry in spite of, and disobedience to the law, they have forfeited any moral authority to stand in judgement of those who comply.

15

How is a requiring application for and issuance of a written permit card not asking permission? That is literally what that is. It’s illegal in states like FL unless and until the government grants you permission. Permission you must ask for formally in writing while providing proof of training the government deems acceptable.

Training is great. Everybody should get more training. Absolutely.

But the government requiring proof of it before they will grant you permission to carry does infringe on the supposed-Right to keep and bear arms.

I have personally talked to tons of people who have, despite doing everything perfectly, had to wait months or in some cases a full year to be granted permission to carry, because sometimes governments get behind, be that intentional or an unavoidable result. That is not good and is one thing that is thankfully avoided with permitless carry.

We will have to agree to disagree on how Franklin would consider that exchange of Liberty for perceived safety.

Are we sure he got training? Does everybody who knows how to shoot have to have had formalized training that the government would recognize in order to be a good shot?

I personally don’t really think it’s fair to say that infringing on the RKBA is “what freedom allows”, that’s kind of the opposite of freedom, IMO.

It’s okay that you disagree, a lot of people do, I am used to people telling me I believe in too much Liberty/Freedom and that we need more common sense controls from the government. You are certainly not alone in your opinions, that’s for sure

2 Likes
16

I would like to leave this with the words of Ed Combs in a Concealed Carry Magazine from April 2022 issue

Screenshot_20220418-150232_USCCA
Screenshot_20220418-150232_USCCA766×1172 202 KB

edcombs
edcombs1440×3088 371 KB

4 Likes
17

“What freedom allows” is me to choose whether I want to work within the law and be as effective as I can there, or refuse to exercise what liberty the law does allow because the law infringes on my Constitutional right(s).

Basically, the freedom to choose to play the game by their rules, or sit on the sidelines and pout while criticizing those who are playing.

18

I did not intend to state or imply in any way that one should simply choose not to get a license and choose not to carry simply because they don’t believe they should have to.

But I do believe the gun control laws of requiring permits granting permission to carry need to continue to go away (we are at literally HALF of the states now) as required permits and required training are unconstitutional infringements.

4 Likes
19

For example, I have literally spoken to multiple people just this week who have received government approved training, who have paid their money, filled out their paperwork, and waited months for a permit to carry. And they still can’t carry in the state of Florida, because they didn’t pay money to FL and FL has chosen not to recognize their permit from their own home state.

And they don’t have time to pay Florida’s bribe and paperwork and wait for permit/permission before their trip to FL

So now they cannot legally carry if they visit their family, because of the permit process.

I absolutely believe that is an infringment.

One that permitless carry solves.

Fortunately, 25 states have now passed a permitless carry law so we are well on our way. :slight_smile:

3 Likes
20

So is obeying the law “supporting” it, or is it just “obeying” it? How effective can I be as a Protector from within a jail/prison cell, or when paying fines with money that could be put to better uses, or when having my right to own and/or carry stripped by my own obstinance?

Yes, and I can not only acknowledge the infringement on my Constitutional rights, but also work or support the work of others to effect change. While I am doing that, I am also going to do whatever it takes to be a Protector.

Should anyone anywhere in America have the right without limit to buy and carry a firearm? No. There are reasonable limits. If denying the right to a convicted felon, or a dishonorably discharged veteran, or a minor is reasonable, then other limits may be deemed reasonable too.

Yes our Constitutional rights are not privileges, they are rights. Our Constitutional rights can only be claimed by Citizens of the United States of America. But is Citizenship a right, or a privilege? Can Citizenship be “granted” by our government? Yes it can, within limits and under the compliance with certain reasonable requirements. Should we abolish those limits and requirements? No. Should we repeal our offer of Citizenship to everyone not born in the USA? No.

Compromise is not unreasonable, if it makes good common sense. Personally, I am not so sure people who lack good common sense should be walking around with guns.

This is only my opinion, but it too, I sincerely believe, is reasonable, and meets the “good common sense” test.

But believe whatever you want. This is, after all, America, thank God!