This OP statement ...
>> Florida House has passed a bill that would allow all gun owners to conceal
>> their weapons in public during hurricane evacuations, toxic events, and riots.
... combined with this OP statement ...
>> Currently, Floridians must have a concealed carry permit to carry in public
>> without the weapon showing.
... suggests that, without such a bill, it would *not* be legal for gun owners who do *not*
have a concealed carry permit to conceal their weapons in public whilst those who *do*
have such a permit are legally able to carry the guns with or without evacuations, riots, etc..
If so, when the non-CC-permitted folks leave their house at present (e.g., to go to work,
a ball-game, for a drink or whatever), what do they do with the weapon that they are not
permitted to carry concealed?
Do they:
a) Carry it concealed anyway?
b) Carry it openly?
c) Leave it behind in a blah-blah-approved gun-safe?
d) Leave it behind somewhere other than in a blah-blah-approved gun-safe?
(Note: If you view the words "a gun-safe" as being specific to a particular product then we are
simply at cross-purposes as I am using it generically, not as a trademark of Brand Whatever.)
Option (c) is obviously the one I had suggested was the behaviour of a "responsible" owner.
I admit I had disregarded (b) initially as that didn't seem to be the point of the
regulation change but hadn't intended that omission to "fabricating a definition".
I did however consider options (a) & (d) to be irresponsible - (a) because it would be illegal
and (d) because having a gun in the house outside a gun-safe without the owner present
under those circumstances (work/pub/ball-game) is no different from having a gun in the
house outside a gun-safe without the owner present under the specified circumstances
(evacuation/toxic leak/riot).
How are you interpreting those two cases differently please?
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read