Florida CCW

[sitki1]

I am trying to find in the Statutes where it says a student must fire a weapon to qualify to apply for a CCW in Florida and how many rounds. Does any know where to find that information?

 

[Blueshell]

I am trying to find in the Statutes where it says a student must fire a weapon to qualify to apply for a CCW in Florida and how many rounds. Does any know where to find that information?

Handgunlaw.us

Click on your state, scroll down to the permit application process. A link to the class requirements and relevant statutes is available.

 

[bofh]

There is no law in Florida that states the answer to your question. If you would have done your own due diligence and actually visited the Florida Concealed Weapons License Web page, you would know what Link Removed is needed and what the applicable statutes are.

 

[S&W645]

The answer is a minimum of 1 round and it is covered in the laws.

must maintain records certifying that he or she observed the student safely handle and discharge the firearm in his or her physical presence and that the discharge of the firearm included live fire using a firearm and ammunition as defined in s. 790.001

Most instructors use a revolver firing a .22 to meet the requirements.

 

[sitki1]

There is no law in Florida that states the answer to your question. If you would have done your own due diligence and actually visited the Florida Concealed Weapons License Web page, you would know what Link Removed is needed and what the applicable statutes are.

i did my due diligence, thank you, and didn't see the answer to my question thus the question you jerk!

 

[bofh]

i did my due diligence, thank you, and didn't see the answer to my question thus the question you jerk!

Take it easy. Such language can you easily get banned from the forum. And no, you did not do your due diligence. The main Florida Concealed Weapons License Web page has the link to the 2016 Florida Statute Section 790.06 in its very first sentence. S&W645 already pointed out the content of 790.06 (2)(h)7.:

... certifying that he or she observed the student safely handle and discharge the firearm in his or her physical presence and that the discharge of the firearm included live fire using a firearm and ammunition as defined in s. 790.001;

S&W645 correctly pointed out that the minimum is one, as live fire is required. The type of firearm is not specified. According to 790.001 (6), it can be even a starter gun. There is no actual number of shots specified in the law. It can be one.

I guess not reading the applicable law counts as due diligence these days. SMH :no:

 

[Blueshell]

i did my due diligence, thank you, and didn't see the answer to my question thus the question you jerk!

Bofh is one of our resident trolls.

Be sure he's read this thread and declines to apologize for being both a jerk AND wrong.

 

[bofh]

Bofh is one of our resident trolls.

Be sure he's read this thread and declines to apologize for being both a jerk AND wrong.

Why should I apologize? The OP failed to do his due diligence. The Florida Concealed Weapons License Web page has this information is readily available as explained in posts #3 and #6. If the OP really wants to get a Florida Concealed Weapons License, then going to the Florida Concealed Weapons License Web page would be of higher priority, than posting here.

As for being a troll:

troll: One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

I did no such thing. I provided the information that was being asked for. I merely suggested that the OP was asking forum members to do his homework: do a Google search for "Florida Concealed Weapons License", click on the first link and start reading.

Your post above, however, does qualify as a troll post.

 

[Blueshell]

Why should I apologize?

You're being a jerk AND you're wrong. OP made this thread in good faith.

Anyway OP's question has been answerrd so that ends the discussion.

 

[corneileous]

Boff, we all could probably do our own research to avoid gettin' jumped on but what would make the point of the message board?? Everything we want to know about guns or laws, we could have just as easier not even made an account here and relied on other sources of info.

In a way I get your point but dam man, you don't have to be snide about it. S&M645 gave good input and that was it, just as the OP was asking and didn't spout off "due diligence" nonsense basically telling the OP to find his own info all by himself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BluesStringer]

Boff, we all could probably do our own research to avoid gettin' jumped on but what would make the point of the message board?? Everything we want to know about guns or laws, we could have just as easier not even made an account here and relied on other sources of info.

In a way I get your point but dam man, you don't have to be snide about it. S&M645 gave good input and that was it, just as the OP was asking and didn't spout off "due diligence" nonsense basically telling the OP to find his own info all by himself.

S&M?

 

[bofh]

Boff, we all could probably do our own research to avoid gettin' jumped on but what would make the point of the message board?? Everything we want to know about guns or laws, we could have just as easier not even made an account here and relied on other sources of info.

In a way I get your point but dam man, you don't have to be snide about it. S&M645 gave good input and that was it, just as the OP was asking and didn't spout off "due diligence" nonsense basically telling the OP to find his own info all by himself.

Since you insist in continuing this topic, lets dissect the OP, shall we:

I am trying to find in the Statutes where it says a student must fire a weapon to qualify to apply for a CCW in Florida and how many rounds. Does any know where to find that information?

To which my response was:

There is no law in Florida that states the answer to your question. If you would have done your own due diligence and actually visited the Florida Concealed Weapons License Web page, you would know what Link Removed is needed and what the applicable statutes are.

Hmm, let's see. Wouldn't anyone seeking to acquire a Florida Concealed Weapons License go to the official Florida Concealed Weapons License Web page of the state of Florida in the first place? That is what due diligence would be about, but the OP replied with:

i did my due diligence, thank you, and didn't see the answer to my question thus the question you jerk!

To which I replied:

i did my due diligence, thank you, and didn't see the answer to my question thus the question you jerk!

Take it easy. Such language can you easily get banned from the forum. And no, you did not do your due diligence. The main Florida Concealed Weapons License Web page has the link to the 2016 Florida Statute Section 790.06 in its very first sentence. S&W645 already pointed out the content of 790.06 (2)(h)7.:

... certifying that he or she observed the student safely handle and discharge the firearm in his or her physical presence and that the discharge of the firearm included live fire using a firearm and ammunition as defined in s. 790.001;

S&W645 correctly pointed out that the minimum is one, as live fire is required. The type of firearm is not specified. According to 790.001 (6), it can be even a starter gun. There is no actual number of shots specified in the law. It can be one.

I guess not reading the applicable law counts as due diligence these days. SMH :no:

Could my original reply be more polite? Sure, but then the OP could have also just simply done his due diligence.

I provided the OP with the information requested, even though it was easy to find and he should have been able to find it without any assistance. I merely suggested that the OP was asking forum members to do his own homework: do a Google search for "Florida Concealed Weapons License", click on the first link and start reading. In response, I was called a jerk.

The OP simply didn't like to be called out for not doing his own homework, so he resulted to an insult. SMH :no:

 

[corneileous]

S&M?

Really?? You're gonna post over a typo? So, so sorry I typed an M instead of a W. What a way to nitpick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

Since you insist in continuing this topic, lets dissect the OP, shall we:



To which my response was:



Hmm, let's see. Wouldn't anyone seeking to acquire a Florida Concealed Weapons License go to the official Florida Concealed Weapons License Web page of the state of Florida in the first place? That is what due diligence would be about, but the OP replied with:



To which I replied:



Could my original reply be more polite? Sure, but then the OP could have also just simply done his due diligence.

I provided the OP with the information requested, even though it was easy to find and he should have been able to find it without any assistance. I merely suggested that the OP was asking forum members to do his own homework: do a Google search for "Florida Concealed Weapons License", click on the first link and start reading. In response, I was called a jerk.

The OP simply didn't like to be called out for not doing his own homework, so he resulted to an insult. SMH :no:

Coulda been a little nicer about it, that's all I was sayin'. You're actin' like it's such a serious crime that he didn't make a harder effort to find his info on his own first before posting here. Isn't that what we're here for??

I ain't tellin' you what to post or how to post it, just sayin that bein' a smart ass ain't necessary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bofh]

Coulda been a little nicer about it, that's all I was sayin'. You're actin' like it's such a serious crime that he didn't make a harder effort to find his info on his own first before posting here. Isn't that what we're here for??

I ain't tellin' you what to post or how to post it, just sayin that bein' a smart ass ain't necessary.

Well, I am not here for the lazy guy who thinks he is entitled to be delivered everything he asks for on a silver plate. I am also not acting like this is a serious crime, otherwise I would have asked to ban the OP as soon as he called me a jerk. I used my language (asking for due diligence) and he used his language (calling me a jerk). Judge for yourself.

 

[corneileous]

Well, I am not here for the lazy guy who thinks he is entitled to be delivered everything he asks for on a silver plate.

So now he's lazy and asking for everything on a silver platter... wow. Lol. If that's how you feel why didn't you even bother posting?

I am also not acting like this is a serious crime......

Sure kinda sounds that way.

.....otherwise I would have asked to ban the OP as soon as he called me a jerk. I used my language (asking for due diligence) and he used his language (calling me a jerk). Judge for yourself.

Yeah, it was kinda harsh but you did kinda try to make the guy out to look like an idiot with your post.

You judge for yourself on that one.

It ain't that hard to pass up a thread and just leave it be if you can't just answer the person's question and be done with it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bofh]

Well, I am not here for the lazy guy who thinks he is entitled to be delivered everything he asks for on a silver plate.

So now he's lazy and asking for everything on a silver platter... wow. Lol. If that's how you feel why didn't you even bother posting?

I responded with the correct information, especially since other forum members often don't get it right. Yes, that means for example you in that air travel thread. The point of my response was to make the OP aware of the fact that the correct information is readily available if he is willing to do a simple Google search. The alternative, asking random people on an Internet gun forum, can lead to the wrong information.

I am also not acting like this is a serious crime, ...

Sure kinda sounds that way.

The only one acting here is you. Is it such a crime to tell someone to do his own due diligence? According to you it seems. Otherwise, why are you continuing with this off-topic discussion. I let it go after Blueshell's post, but you had to pile on.

... otherwise I would have asked to ban the OP as soon as he called me a jerk. I used my language (asking for due diligence) and he used his language (calling me a jerk). Judge for yourself.

Yeah, it was kinda harsh but you did kinda try to make the guy out to look like an idiot with your post.

You judge for yourself on that one.

It ain't that hard to pass up a thread and just leave it be if you can't just answer the person's question and be done with it.

Many forum members look like idiots once in a while, some every single day. I call them out when I see it. Get over it. This isn't a microagression-free safe space.

 

[corneileous]

I responded with the correct information, especially since other forum members often don't get it right.

Good.

Yes, that means for example you in that air travel thread.

Hardly the same thing pal. I posted what I said more as a misguided and uneducated question. It's not my fault you and one other took what I said as I was saying it as my opinion when I wasn't. Keep beatin' THAT dead horse to an even more bloody pulp.

The point of my response was to make the OP aware of the fact that the correct information is readily available if he is willing to do a simple Google search. The alternative, asking random people on an Internet gun forum, can lead to the wrong information.

Again, good.

The only one acting here is you. Is it such a crime to tell someone to do his own due diligence? According to you it seems.

No, it's not. Just sayin people who respond don't need to be a snide about it.

Many forum members look like idiots once in a while, some every single day. I call them out when I see it. Get over it.

Yeah, I agree. I just didn't think this person deserved the same treatment but whatever.

This isn't a microagression-free safe space.

Then don't get all defensive when someone calls you a jerk over it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bofh]

Hardly the same thing pal. I posted what I said more as a misguided and uneducated question. It's not my fault you and one other took it as I said what I said as I was saying it as my opinion. Keep beatin' the dead horse to an even more bloody pulp.

Sometimes, people with zero knowledge about the topic will respond and send the OP in the completely wrong direction. That's why one should go for the original source of information when it is easily available. This one was easily available, hence my "due diligence" reply.

No, it's not. Just sayin people who respond don't need to be a snide about it.

So, telling someone to do his own due diligence is now being snide. Got it, Mr. Sensitive.

Yeah, I agree. I just didn't think this person deserved the same treatment but whatever.

The OP can speak for himself and did. You do understand that you made it worse by continuing this farce, right?

Then don't get all defensive when someone calls you a jerk over it.

I didn't! You apparently didn't read my post #6. I let the jerk statement slide. I politely stated why the OP did not do his due diligence.

 

[corneileous]

So, telling someone to do his own due diligence is now being snide.

Lol, it wasn't what you said, it was the way you said it.

Got it, Mr. Sensitive.

Sensitivity ain't got a darn thing to do with it. If I was that thin-skinned or that sensitive I would never joined up.

Nice assumption though.

The OP can speak for himself and did. You do understand that you made it worse by continuing this farce, right?

How did I make it worse? I just simply said you coulda been a little nicer and not try to make people out to sound like a dumbass for asking a question here.

Didn't he say he looked before hand and said he came up empty??

I didn't! You apparently didn't read my post #6. I let the jerk statement slide. I politely stated why the OP did not do his due diligence.

Again, it was how you came off. Why can't you accept that?

But whatever, there's no sense arguing any further.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk