Politics
More States Allow Guns Without Permits; Florida Fires a Blank on Weapons
Around the State
Credit: Guy J. Sagi - Shutterstock
Four states -- Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming -- allow their residents to "conceal carry" without a permit. Twelve more states are considering legislation to join that group. But Florida is not among them.
Florida remains among the leaders in safeguarding gun owners' rights. For example, it bars physicians from asking patients if they own a gun, while visitors to hospitals and nursing homes are allowed to carry in their weapons.
Florida also liberally interprets the "Castle Doctrine," which makes it legal for homeowners, and even car drivers, to shoot in defense of their property if they feel "threatened."
Such laissez-faire laws have alternately earned praise or elicited condemnation for the "Gunshine State."
But this year, other states are gaining ground on gun rights.
South Dakota will be the fifth state to go permit-less if Gov. Dennis Daugaard signs enabling legislation. Under the newly passed law, anyone 18 or older with a valid state driver's license could carry a concealed weapon as long as they don't have a background that would otherwise prohibt them from getting a permit, USA Today reported.
"Our viewpoint is, a good person will always be a good person. They don't need a [permit] to be a good person," said Andrew Arulanandam, policy director for the National Rifle Association.
In New Hampshire, permit-free legislation has cleared the House. Republican Rep. J.R. Hoell, said the recent school shooting in Cardon, Ohio, was a deadly reminder of the ineffectiveness of supposedly strict gun enforcement.
"Gun-free zones kill people," Hoell told USA Today.
Ohio and Virginia -- the site of the 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech -- are among the states weighing permit-free legislation. Others are Colorado, Iowa, Georgia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and South Carolina.
Gun-control advocates say the legislation is a prescription for tragedy
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says it would be foolish to allow people who have never even shot a firearm to carry one in public.
"This is just a recipe for disaster," said Brian Malte, Brady's director of state legislation.
Florida, which has issued 2.1 million conceal-carry permits -- 800,000 of which are "active" -- has generally offered a friendly climate for gun owners.
Last year, the Legislature prohibited local governments from passing their own patchwork of gun laws that could vary from one part of the state to another. Gun-rights advocates hailed the bill as an important piece of legislation that prevents unfair prosecutions as individuals travel from one part of the state to another.
"Of all the permitted gun holders in Florida, only 168 have done something wrong with a firearm necessitating revocation of their license to carry," Caranna said. "It is by far the most law-abiding segment of the population -- even more than law enforcement."
"Issuing permits doesn't do anything to curb crime," he said.
Caranna said his group will open up another gun-rights front in Florida when it pushes for an "open-carry" law next session.
"Right now, you cannot open-carry a gun unless you're hunting, camping, fishing or shooting at a gun range, or at your home or business. Technically, you can be cited for open-carrying at a friend's house," he noted.
Reach Kenric Ward at kward@sunshinestatenews.com or at (772) 559-4719.
Comments (41)
The NRA didn't go "wild over teflon bullets" - the language of the law (referring to "cop killer bullets") would have banned any ammunition capable of penetrating Level II police vests.
That include pretty much all rifle calibers, in case you didn't know.
Nobody's talking about fully auto AK's when they're discussing "consitutional carry", and someone "looking at you" isn't a justification in any of the states that allow CCW.
I'm glad you claim to own "multiple rifle and handguns", but the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting, and the behavior you exhibit is called "projection".
If a person feels "threatened", then they are not defending their property - they are defending themselves. The purpose of Castle Doctrine is to allow a person to defend themselves if they have reasonable fear of an imminent threat to their personal safety. Property itself is not defensible under any version of Castle Doctrine that I'm aware of, and that's a very important item to note.
After the Supreme Court sided with the citizens right to own firearms in Washington D.C. and Chicago violent crime decreased. In fact, it decreased 34% in Washington and 17% in Chicago.
Personally, I believe those in The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence are there just to collect a paycheck because they cannot prevent anything unless they wish to stand guard at our doors.
If you want to rely only on the cops to protect you, that is your right, but you have no right to tell me how or where I may protect myself.
Are you really that stupid? Permission slips? Then let's do away with all road signs, traffic lights, rules that make kids go to school. Let's not have any from of identification in this country. You really aren't a critic...you're a moron. TRY TO LOCATE YOUR MISSING BRAIN.
What a sexist mind you have. I am woman. Does it ever cross you mind that we express our opinions also? There is nothing in my post that would indicate that I am a man. As usual, you see what you want to see and invalidate the rest of us. And since when is Progressive a bad thing. It would seem like you have more in common with the Taliban than with the American public.
Yet, you call yourself "orlandorepublican" on here but tacitly admit you're actually a "Progressive..."
Why misrepresent yourself? Or are you really a man who's just claiming you're a woman?
And you clearly know nothing of firearms....
Methinks you should go back under the "Occupy Whatever" rock you crawled out from under...and, on the way back to your section * housing, why don't you pick up your taxpayer-funded food stamps, get your free Methadone and birth control pills, and don't forget to tithe part of your George Soros-funded "online community activist" salary to the Re-Elect Obama Fund...
Also, I believe that you are a Orlando democrat.........
The right of self-defense is a corollary to the right to life; to deny one is to deny the other. The purpose of government is to insure our rights, not to infringe on them.
The fact is that governments should not be involved in permitting the carriage of weapons, either openly or concealed, by anyone.
Our constitution states that the right of the people to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed. Marbury v. Madison (1803) decided that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that any law that contradicts the Constitution is null and void. "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void." (16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 178)
The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
In Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) the Supreme Court stated that a constitutionally-protected right may not be licensed, nor a fee charged.
In Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama (1962) the Supreme Court decided that “If the state does attempt to convert a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” (That means they can't punish you, folks!)
To paraphrase an oft-quoted movie line, "Permits? We don' need no steenking permits!"
The only way to save this nation is to return to the Constitution as the Law of The Land. Time for the federal and state governments to take off all their unconstitutional laws off their books. This includes restricting citizens of their right to protect themselves and their families from those who would do harm to them.
Little old ladies would not be considered easy targets if they were allowed to carry a gun in their purse.
Unfortunately, in this now politically correct and anti-Christian society, the cops at times are the criminals. It does not surprise me that citizen that carry are more law abiding than cops. We need to carry because of them also.
You clearly live in a fantasy world. You also have this incredible bias against the word "progressive". Do things like ATM's and cell phone scare you? Did you have a children's book that was "progressive" and shep the dog died in the end? Have you ever been thought about seeing someone about your obsessive compulsive need to label men progressive? Since you clearly don't think women are even capable of writing comments. I hope the automatic transmission in your car isn't too progressive, or that new darn fangled things called traffic lights. What happened to a good old horse & buggy? Let's play your game of 'what if" with every crime scenario....it's an absurd waste of time.
Leave a Comment on This Story