Discrepancy found in FLA off limits conceal carry

[jmitchell954]

Can anyone verify the discrepancy found???

The following is a list of places that are off-limits when carrying a concealed weapon in Florida:

any place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05
any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station
any detention facility, prison, or jail; any courthouse
any courtroom
any polling place
any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district
any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof
any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms
any school administration building
any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption

The laws on drinking alcohol while carrying a firearm in Florida are a little unclear. The law states, “It is unlawful and punishable as provided in subsection (4) for any person who is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired, to use a firearm in this state.”

There is no clear definition of what “when affected to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired” means.

USA Carry always recommends not to carry a firearm while drinking alcohol.

You are allowed to carry a concealed weapon in any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose.

Have conceal carry permit out of NC and would like to clarify the discrepancy before traveling to FLA for short term visit.
NC allows conceal carry in all restaurants or establishments licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption.
Can anyone verify?

 

[bofh]

Look up the actual law as it is written - 790.06 (12):

790.06(12)(a) A license issued under this section does not authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm into:

...

12. Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose;

The part I marked in bold means you can carry in a restaurant, but not in a bar or the bar portion of a restaurant. Also see http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/florida.pdf for an interpretation of the law:

Carry in Restaurants That Serve Alcohol

YES 790.06 (12)

Note: A “YES” above means you can carry into places like described below. “NO” means you can’t. Handgunlaw.us definition of “Restaurant Carry” is carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol. Places like Friday’s or Red Lobster unless posted with “No Gun Signs.” This may or may not mean the bar or the bar area of a restaurant. But you can carry your firearm into a restaurant that serves alcohol and sit and eat without consuming. Handgunlaw.us recommends you not sit at the Bar or in the Bar area of such restaurants. In some states it is illegal to be in the Bar area of such restaurants. Handgunlaw.us believes you should never consume alcohol when carrying your firearm. In some states it is illegal to take even one drink while carrying a firearm. If you want further info on carrying in places that serve alcohol check your state laws.

 

[2700]

The statute reads as follows: “Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose”

You may be in the restaurant portion of the establishment, but not the bar area… which includes transitioning the bar area. And we can spend some time on what the “bar area” is, but if it is delineated, I would use that as a guide.

To better understand law, you must look at both statutory and case law. As I understand Florida law, there is nothing to prohibit you from carrying while drinking -790.06 notwithstanding - or even being intoxicated; however, once you touch that firearm, that changes. Nonetheless, I would not drink while carrying... then again, I really don't drink. "No Guns" signs, in locations not prohibited by law, do not have the force of law... you may disregard them.

Now, if you want to have some fun, Federal law prohibits you from possessing (unless under FOPA) a firearm within 1000’ of a school unless you have a permit to carry issued from the state you are in… reciprocity does not provide relief of this. Keep in mind, unless you are on private property, that includes just driving past the school. I do not know of a case where someone was charged with this, nonetheless, it is the law.

 

[RJT CCW]

Can anyone verify the discrepancy found???


The laws on drinking alcohol while carrying a firearm in Florida are a little unclear. The law states, “It is unlawful and punishable as provided in subsection (4) for any person who is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired, to use a firearm in this state.”

There is no clear definition of what “when affected to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired” means.

Many states write their intoxicated with a firearm law this way. Where they do not define exactly what intoxicated means (i.e. - like the DWI laws with a level of 0.08%). As I have heard a lawyer put it, many judges are familiar with the 0.08% but the police are not necessarily going to have you blow for a reading if you used your firearm in self-defense. So this makes it a judgement call.

My take is if you are carrying, don't drink at all. YMMV

 

[vernsimpson]

Many states write their intoxicated with a firearm law this way. Where they do not define exactly what intoxicated means (i.e. - like the DWI laws with a level of 0.08%). As I have heard a lawyer put it, many judges are familiar with the 0.08% but the police are not necessarily going to have you blow for a reading if you used your firearm in self-defense. So this makes it a judgement call.

My take is if you are carrying, don't drink at all. YMMV

Agree with you on this. IMO if you were to have to use your gun and even if the LEO's ruled it a lawful defense, some lawyer could sue you in civil court. Then if it went to trial you could lose big time. The same with driving a car. If you had an accident and someone was hurt or killed and you were under the legal limit, a civil suit could not be good.

I do not drink and carry. My choice. Not trying to impose what I do on anyone!!!

 

[Nightmare45]

As a side note all of these places must not fall under the 2nd amendment

 

[jmitchell954]

Copy that.
Agree.
I choose not consume while carrying.
However, I choose to carry 24/7.
Thank you all for clearing the air.

 

[S&W645]

Most people forget about 790.151

(5) This section does not apply to persons exercising lawful self-defense or defense of one’s property.

So even if you are under the influence, self defense use is still legal. But it will cost you an arm and a leg in court cost.

 

[BC1]

The statute reads as follows: “Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose”

You may be in the restaurant portion of the establishment, but not the bar area…

Makes no sense at all. What if the men's room requires walking through the bar?

 

[Black Dragon]

Agree with you on this. IMO if you were to have to use your gun and even if the LEO's ruled it a lawful defense, some lawyer could sue you in civil court. Then if it went to trial you could lose big time. The same with driving a car. If you had an accident and someone was hurt or killed and you were under the legal limit, a civil suit could not be good.

I do not drink and carry. My choice. Not trying to impose what I do on anyone!!!

In FL if the police rule it a lawful defence you can't be sued in civil court.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use or threatened use of force.—
(1) A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Makes no sense at all. What if the men's room requires walking through the bar?

Unfortunately if that is the case then you can not use the restroom. No one said law makers make much sense.

 

[BC1]

Unfortunately if that is the case then you can not use the restroom. No one said law makers make much sense.

Another reason to buy the "Ronco Popeil's Pocket Peckerman." Or one can use a disposable urinary catheter.

 

[2700]

Makes no sense at all. What if the men's room requires walking through the bar?

You don't walk through it. If the criteria for law in its application is to make sense, you are going to be disappointed with many laws. Like my father says, you don't have to like it, you just have to do it. :smile:

Now, some will argue that not only can you transition the bar area, but you can sit there as well, so long as you are not at the bar itself. Perhaps; however, Mr. Gutmacher does not agree, and also believes that transitioning the bar area is prohibited. I am aware of no case law on this, so anyone who wishes to be a test case, that would be great for the rest of us. :biggrin:

 

[2700]

In FL if the police rule it a lawful defence you can't be sued in civil court.

LE does not have the final say, the State Attorney does. After that, you would have to file for and be granted immunity to be shielded from a civil exposure. And depending on where you live in Florida, that is not a foregone conclusion. In fact, in So. Florida, it is almost assured you will find no relief from any of Florida's SYG laws.

Unfortunately if that is the case then you can not use the restroom. No one said law makers make much sense.

Very true.

 

[BC1]

You don't walk through it. If the criteria for law in its application is to make sense, you are going to be disappointed with many laws. Like my father says, you don't have to like it, you just have to do it. :smile:

Now, some will argue that not only can you transition the bar area, but you can sit there as well, so long as you are not at the bar itself. Perhaps; however, Mr. Gutmacher does not agree, and also believes that transitioning the bar area is prohibited. I am aware of no case law on this, so anyone who wishes to be a test case, that would be great for the rest of us. :biggrin:

A bunch of us have lunch every Saturday at TGI Friday's. We sit at the bar; sober, armed and legal. The Jack Daniels burger is great.

 

[Black Dragon]

LE does not have the final say, the State Attorney does. After that, you would have to file for and be granted immunity to be shielded from a civil exposure. And depending on where you live in Florida, that is not a foregone conclusion. In fact, in So. Florida, it is almost assured you will find no relief from any of Florida's SYG laws.

Can you explain the bolded part please?

 

[2700]

Can you explain the bolded part please?

Sure. Before I begin, let me say that as I was referencing immunity, my comment about Florida's SYG laws could been clearer in detailing that. Hopefully, this will be.

State Attorneys are elected officials at the state and county level. Judges are elected as well. The latter will decide if you will be granted immunity. In areas where there are more liberal ideologies, you will find the same with those elected officials. Let’s look at Palm Beach County for example… the demographics there are mostly from the North East, and as a result are mostly liberal.

Between 2006 and 2011 there were 6 self-defense cases in Palm Beach County. Each of those individuals were charged. Each sought immunity, and each were denied. After they all went to trial, 4 were acquitted... all charges were dropped on one, and one was convicted of a lesser charge of discharging a firearm from a vehicle.

Under the current climate, do not expect SYG immunity in Palm Beach County (or similar areas e.g, South Florida), even if it is clear it was a lawful self-defense.

 

[2700]

A bunch of us have lunch every Saturday at TGI Friday's. We sit at the bar; sober, armed and legal. The Jack Daniels burger is great.

Just not in Florida. Whatever your state, it likely has some silly laws regarding firearms as well.

 

[BC1]

Just not in Florida. Whatever your state, it likely has some silly laws regarding firearms as well.

Not too bad on handguns but they're hard on AR's. yesterday I had to meet with a judge in the county surrogate's court to get some documents signed. While most states don't allow handguns in a courthouse at all there's a sign on the door in Orange County, NY Surrogate's Court that says "all handgun licensee's are required to check their gun with the court officer." He locks-it up for you and you pick it up on the way out. In liberal NY!

 

[Black Dragon]

Sure. Before I begin, let me say that as I was referencing immunity, my comment about Florida's SYG laws could been clearer in detailing that. Hopefully, this will be.

State Attorneys are elected officials at the state and county level. Judges are elected as well. The latter will decide if you will be granted immunity. In areas where there are more liberal ideologies, you will find the same with those elected officials. Let’s look at Palm Beach County for example… the demographics there are mostly from the North East, and as a result are mostly liberal.

Between 2006 and 2011 there were 6 self-defense cases in Palm Beach County. Each of those individuals were charged. Each sought immunity, and each were denied. After they all went to trial, 4 were acquitted... all charges were dropped on one, and one was convicted of a lesser charge of discharging a firearm from a vehicle.

Under the current climate, do not expect SYG immunity in Palm Beach County (or similar areas e.g, South Florida), even if it is clear it was a lawful self-defense.

Thanks for explaining it. At first I thought you were going to say that different areas of FL had different laws but you cleared it up.

Although a DA may try to charge you and it goes to court if you are found "not guilty" you can't be sued civily. This is why George Zimmerman wasn't able to be sued civily after he was found "not guilty", his case wasn't a SYG case.
But you are right, depending on the DA and pressures from the media if they want to hold you up as an example you are going to go for a ride, especially if you are white and your attacker was black.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use or threatened use of force.—
(1) A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

 

[BC1]

Thanks for explaining it. At first I thought you were going to say that different areas of FL had different laws but you cleared it up.

Although a DA may try to charge you and it goes to court if you are found "not guilty" you can't be sued civily. This is why George Zimmerman wasn't able to be sued civily after he was found "not guilty", his case wasn't a SYG case.
But you are right, depending on the DA and pressures from the media if they want to hold you up as an example you are going to go for a ride, especially if you are white and your attacker was black.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use or threatened use of force.—
(1) A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

It is my understanding that you may be sued in federal court notwithstanding (in spite of) FL law.
.
If you have state claims and file in federal Court, the Court will kick your case back to the state. In order to sue someone in federal Court, the federal Court must have jurisdiction over the issue and/or the parties to the suit. The federal Courts have jurisdiction over issues involving federal law, including bankruptcy, civil rights, and interstate commerce, and federal crimes. It is my understanding that the federal court may accept a suit for violations of civil rights in cases of homicide where the state either refused to prosecute or prosecution was blocked by law, such as FL. Federal courts are not generally bound by state law.
.
In a widely publicized case in 1964, three civil rights workers were murdered in Mississippi by a group of 18 people. Since Mississippi didn't investigate or prosecute the assailants in state court, the federal government charged the 18 men with conspiracy to violate the civil rights of the workers Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney. I don't believe the state of FL has the power to block a federal civil rights suit for murder, the ultimate in violations. Thus Eric Holder pursued an investigation of the violation of civil rights in Ferguson, MO when the state failed to indict officer Darren Wilson. Had they found cause he would have faced trial in federal court. Morris Dees and the SPLC have used this strategy often when state charges weren't brought.