Florida Carry Sues City of Miami Beach Over Police Action Against Legally Armed Fishermen

Florida Carry Sues City of Miami Beach

courtesy Florida Carry

As you may remember, Florida Carry hosts a number of public open carry fishing events across the state. They held one in Miami Beach last year during which they were harassed and held at gunpoint by City of Miami Beach police officers.

Attorney Eric Friday of Florida Carry promised that they’d be filing a civil rights lawsuit against the city and the police department. Now Florida Carry has made good on that promise. Here’s their press release . . .

FLORIDA CARRY PRESS RELEASE
March 27, 2019
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Miami Beach, FL – A lawsuit for deprivation of civil rights under color of law and violations of Florida firearms and fishing laws has been filed today against the City of Miami Beach and officers of its police department over an incident where the officers assaulted, battered, and detained law-abiding fishermen at a Florida Carry fishing meetup on the South Pointe Fishing Pier on June 24th 2018. The incident was captured on video (link below).

Dubbed the “South Pointe Six”, six Florida Carry members and supporters were held by police for well over two hours without cause, while the police officers went on a fishing expedition of the own in an illegal attempt to find something… anything… the officers could use in order to charge the “South Pointe Six” with a crime before finally failing and releasing them.

Even after eventually releasing Florida Carry’s members, the Police Department forced the premature end of our First Amendment protected gathering by closing the public fishing pier until all known Florida Carry members and supporters left the area.

“Florida Carry will not allow our members to be abused, injured, held without cause, and have their civil rights violated without the strongest possible response to prevent these types of attacks on the good, law-abiding, citizens of our Great State.” Said Florida Carry Executive Director, Sean Caranna.

“Most police officers and deputies that we encounter are outstanding professionals who have an incredibly tough job to do, we respect that honor that. However, we’ve seen these types of abuses happen far too many times in cities and counties who do not respect the Right to Bear Arms. Every City and County in Florida should already know that proper training about the legal possession and carry of firearms is necessary. These types of abuses will not be tolerated – IT ENDS HERE.”

The plaintiffs are represented by Florida Carry General Counsel Eric Friday.

 

As a Florida gun owner and an active member of the community, I say give ’em hell, Eric!

comments

  1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    I’ve said it before. Open carry should be legal, but isn’t always smart. If I were a Florida Carry strategist I would have established precedent by conducting this event in two or three more rural counties where no one bats an eye. Then organize an event in the more liberal bastions. Pick your battles and build big victories on the backs of small ones. Hasn’t anyone of these guys been in the infantry?

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      They have been doing that for some time. This wasn’t their first event.

    2. avatar WI Patriot says:

      Most people haven’t even served, much less be Infantry…

      1. avatar BigMikeU says:

        I know a lot of people that have served as i did! We are all over 50yrs old now though lol But when we are on the front lines the liberal ladyboys will be running while we stand and fight!Im tired of the left and all i need is a Rally Point!?!

        1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

          Hosford, Liberty County, Florida. The only thing you’ll find there is good ol’ boys with rifles. Maybe a shotgun, or two.

        2. avatar WI Patriot says:

          Just about anywhere in WI, avoid Milwaukee, Madison, and GB, other than that, it’s all good…

    3. avatar Ed says:

      Florida is one of five states that prohibit open carry of weapons but in Florida there are exceptions – while to, from and during hunting, fishing, camping and target shooting.

      https://www.jacksonvillecriminalattorneyblog.com/florida-statute-790-253-allows-open-carry-weapons/

      See Florida Statute 790.25

      http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.25.html

      Remember that ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially for law enforcement officers depriving your civil rights under color of authority.

      1. Correct me if I’m wrong, but when a Law is passed there’s usually a 10 day grace period before it goes into effect. Miami Dude waited less than 24 hours before confronting the Miami Beach Police…

        1. avatar Don says:

          I remember reading about the open carry law in Florida being in force many years ago. I could be wrong and if I am, please somebody correct me but I don’t think this is a new law.

        2. avatar Mark Davis says:

          Open carry has been legal since 1987.

    4. avatar Hannibal says:

      Er, not sure what you think being 11B has to do with this legal maneuver that succeeded in giving the plaintiffs standing to sue. The point wasn’t a shootout.

  2. avatar Gman says:

    There once was a time when men were honorable and openly carried their arms. To hide ones firearm was considered nefarious and dastardly.

  3. avatar Warren Neville says:

    Typical useless cops. They are all over the country.

    1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

      Sigh! I’ll repeat myself again. Was that redundant? Most cops are pro 2A. Back in the ’80s, before Florida issued CCW, FHP issued a memorandum that said if there was any doubt about the legality of carrying a handgun in a vehicle it was to be resolved in favor of the firearms owner. I always gave the firearms owner the benefit of the doubt, unless there was a compounding felony. And, once again, Warren if you can do it better, pin on a badge, strap on a duty belt, (Hey! Open carry!) and show us how it’s done.

      1. avatar X marks the spot says:

        The 80s are not the 2010s. I see your dinosaur fuddery every other article and it’s like you cannot comprehend times change and the police are not our friends. Congrats that during your career, you weren’t a piece of shit and respected peoples rights. Unfortunately, it’s not like that today.

        1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

          X, Uh, I retired in 2014. Doing math now. Yeah, I think that was the 2010s. Eighties? Let me think. Fudderery? Nope. Didn’t have time. Army was keeping me too busy. Strongly suggest you become an L.E.O. and reverse some the Fuddery yourself.

        2. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

          No? All talk and no ass. Never pushed a weapon through a door. Go home. It’s where theory always works.

        3. avatar Mark Davis says:

          What a piece of carp you are!

        4. avatar Robert Fory says:

          Thank you for your service Flagg

      2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        Most cops are like Dana Scully – unable to see aliens and faking their American accents!;-)

        1. avatar enuf says:

          Yeah but, Gillian Anderson is one fine looking foreigner……… And she acts pretty good too 🙂

        2. avatar Aleric says:

          You know Gillian Anderson is gay, right?

        3. avatar Hannibal says:

          Shame, but for that fact she surely would have fallen madly in love with him.

  4. avatar rosignol says:

    While I am personally skeptical of open carry for tactical reasons, it is encouraging to see people on our side learn to engage in lawfare.

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      Legal open carry is good, even for concealed carriers. That way you don’t get arrested for accidentally revealing your gun when you reach up high or bend over or the wind blows your coat open.

      1. avatar Dave in PTC says:

        Danny, does it matter if you partially reveal that you’re carrying if the state has open and concealed carry?
        Imagine this situation in my local grocery store:

        Officer: You accidentally showed your gun while you reached up to that shelf.

        Me: Nope, I’m open carring.

        Officer: Well then, you are accidentally concealing your gun with your jacket when your arms are down.

        Me: Nope, I’m also concealed carrying.

        (Repeat this scenario 5 times in Abbott and Costello style)

        So, Can you say you are open and concealing at the same time?

        1. avatar Dave in PTC says:

          The scenario I just described is for the state of Georgia, where cc and open carry are legal. So my question is, must you be definitely doing one or the other, or is it a moot point because both are legal.
          My situation is that I want to carry OWB and occasionally wear a light jacket that when unzipped shows my gun. An onlooker would be reasonable to question in his mind as to whether I’m carrying CC or OC. Does anyone know the answer to this?

        2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          It doesn’t make any difference. Do one, the other, or both at the same time. Neither is illegal.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Dave in PTC, in Ohio, there is no requirement to cover your sidearm for concealed handgun licenses. What we tend to do is dependent on where one is. If it is a place that requires a CHL to carry there, we will claim to be carrying under the license. All other places, we claim open carry because it is considered the right whereas licensed carry is considered more of a privilege.

          For example:
          I’m walking down the street and my sidearm is in the open. An officer stops me and asks if I have a CHL. I answer that I do not require one because I am exercising my right to bear arms by open carry. If I were to happen to need one in that place and I was unaware, having a CHL would still cover me because the law simply requires having a CHL issued (and in posession, longer story). There could be an issue with not informing the officer at the time that I am “concealed carrying and have a CHL” if I didn’t know the location required it. For the most part, I and other try to remain aware of that caveat for that reason.

          The short answer in Ohio is… If you are in a location that doesn’t require a CHL and your firearm is in the open then you are open carrying. If you are in a location that does require a CHL and your firearm is in the open then you are concealed carrying. It’s really silly because of the law.

        4. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          John, I think you mean that you are carrying under authority of your CHL, not that you are carrying concealed. One example would be a federal school zone.

          You are probably aware of Michigan laws, seeing as how you live in Ohio. We have additional restrictions. We can OC without a license but must have a concealed carry license to open carry in places that have a liquor license which is basically every gas station, restaurant, and grocery store.

        5. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “So, Can you say you are open and concealing at the same time?”

          In Ohio I can. One of my firearms can be in the open and the other can be concealed. Because I don’t have a good OC holster for one of my BUGs, this has been the case for me from time to time.

        6. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “John, I think you mean that you are carrying under authority of your CHL, not that you are carrying concealed. One example would be a federal school zone.”

          Yep. You got it. It’s silly law all the way around.

          Edited to add: But, in a way what I wrote makes sense under Ohio law. In Ohio, a firearm can be “concealed” when it is in the open; on the dashboard of a motor vehicle or on a motorcycle in plain sight for examples. However, yeah, you clarified it well for the non-Ohioans. Thanks.

      2. avatar Jay in Florida says:

        Nor should you here any longer as long as its not unpurpose or for an overly long period of time. I carry IWB and always wear a t-shirt. Most days tucked in. But today Im lazy and its untucked. Personaly even if Im reaching for an item in a store and my gun grip shows. Im not going to loose a minutes sleep about it. I have been next to deputies and I know its shown. I know because most ask what it is Im carrying or they have just grinned.

        1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          The Florida law states that accidental or brief showing of a concealed firearm is not against the law. The legislature rewrote the law a while back because cops were abusing the old law, so the legislature wanted to make the point crystal clear. Unfortunately Florida Carry, which I follow from afar (MI) still reports that some departments are arresting people anyway.

        2. avatar Binder says:

          WFT is wrong with Florida, is it the heat or something? I have been spotted by Chicago cops without an issue. But then again, middle age, and clean cut, so that may have something to do with it too.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      California banned loaded open carry in 1968. IN 2012 and 2013, open carry advocates started staging events in southern California and one in San Jose. Although no one got hurt, the police response was ugly. So the Legislature, in its infinite wisdom, banned open carry in all urban areas. (Open (loaded) carry in state and federal forests, on private land with the permission of the owner, and on BLM land remains legal.)

      In Peruta v. Gore, the Ninth Circuit concluded that concealed carry was a privilege and not a right, and therefore the state’s “may issue” concealed carry law was a valid exercise of the police power. Which painted them into a corner: if concealed carry is not a 2A right, that means that open carry is a right, right? There are two cases pending raising precisely that issue, but the court is trying like hell to avoid deciding it. Both are currently stayed until SCOTUS decides the NYC transporting firearms out of city limits case.

      1. avatar Niko says:

        Mark ,I am 4th generation American from the multicultural cesspool of NYC. I have a premise license for many many years. Truthfully i have not had an incident with any coppers taking my guns to the range, never been stopped , never asked any questions. If i wanted a CCP I certainly could get one, all it takes is the right words and making them look like fools which would be enormously easy. It dumbfounds me sometimes because out of the 19,000 in uniform only 4,000 might be worth any spit… Hopefuly the spectacle court can come to their senses and do the right thing. On a personal note, the Heller decision was one of the most egregious forms of stupidity and vile disregard fur all legal gun owners. The spectacle court left open a back door for libretard states like mine that says that they will look at your application but since NYS is a scum filled reservoir of morons – may issue equals no issue. Just one mans perspective…

  5. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    The Miami police were even notified of the event. Even if Im wrong about this event. May have been in Tampa. Any dumbass LEO in Florida should know open carry is legal while hunting and fishing.

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      I believe in this case FC mistakenly called Miami PD instead of Miami Beach PD which is a different department. Still, yes, they should have known OC while fishing is legal, especially since FC has been ding this for a while.

  6. avatar Michael says:

    I live in Arizona. -30-

  7. avatar John Boch says:

    Good job.

    Bad call on the cops’ behalf.

    All they had to do was walk up, be cool, and ask what’s up with the open carry. A cursory search of FL law shows that OC while fishing is perfectly legal.

    But nooooooo… we gotta put decent people at gun point and treat them like felony child molesters.

    So yeah, let Miami Beach write a big check to make this go away. Hopefully some of the money will go to the people who had guns pointed at them.

    And why stop there? Why not a 1983 action against the individual, gun-pointing coppers? Nothing gets the attention of LEOs quite like the potential for personal liability for violating people’s civil rights.

    1. avatar LKB says:

      +1. The law is clear, so no qualified immunity for Sgt. Stedenko. I hope they also go after the hairballs personally.

      OTOH, it’s Florida, so rotsa ruck collecting a judgment against the individuals.

    2. avatar rosignol says:

      Yeah, there is that. Pretty much everyone has a smartphone these days, googling the relevant statute to verify what is and isn’t in-bounds is an option now, even while out on patrol.

      1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

        Yeah, you Google a statue while you’re on a felony stop. I’m sure he won’t mind while he’s trying to kill you. Are you an idiot? It’s a really dangerous job. Really. Go out there and try it. Not just second guess those men and women that are doing it while you sit in your recliner.

        1. avatar chiguy says:

          Gadsden Flag

          Thank you for your service as a cop.

          We know that you were a cop; we know that being a cop is incredibly dangerous (though not in the top 10 of dangerous professions); we know that all non-cops are incredibly ignorant of how difficult and dangerous your job was; and we know that non-cops are sadly lacking in gratitude for the efforts of cops.

          Now please stop putting everybody down. They are entitled to their opinions even if you don’t like them.

        2. avatar Bob999 says:

          Hmm, that shows you the difference between military law enforcement and civilian law enforcement, I guess, or maybe times have changed. In my time, we were required to know the laws and lawful orders we were enforcing, and we were held accountable for mistakes, even small mistakes. The “I didn’t have time to study the UCMJ, host nation laws, or whatnot before taking action”’ excuse would not fly back then, for you were expected to know the job before being on the job. Times have changed, I presume.

        3. avatar AD says:

          Why are you doing a felony stop on a harmless, legally armed fisherman? I think you missed the point.

      2. avatar John in Ohio says:

        If I am remembering correctly the video that I saw at the time, the OCers had the law printed out already. Officers refused to read it. Also, there were more than enough officers and no problems from the open carriers that they could’ve read it, googled, or even called dispatch. It was an obvious abuse of power on the part of the officers.

        1. As I recall, they were also within 1,000 feet of a Day Care Center and that Beer Cooler was opened and Dip-shit even offered a Beer to Police Officers…

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          So what?

          (Even if true… because when they were at gunpoint, they were on a pier fishing. I’m not so sure there was a daycare out there unless you mean a school of fish.)

        3. Yet State Law prohibited Firearms within 1,000 feet of a Day Care Center, that Dip-Shit seemingly couldn’t get through his Thick Skull…

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Yet State Law prohibited Firearms within 1,000 feet of a Day Care Center, that Dip-Shit seemingly couldn’t get through his Thick Skull…”

          Again, so what? Apparently, you are pointing at the wrong dipshit. Perhaps try a mirror?

        5. South Pointe Pier only extends ~522 feet from the end of the Broad Walk. Well within 1,000 feet of the restriction. I don’t recall that the Open Carry Law in 2015, nullified that particular restriction…

        6. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Yet State Law prohibited Firearms within 1,000 feet of a Day Care Center,

          Slowpoke, a) please cite the state law that forbids licensed carriers from carrying a handgun within 1,000 feet of a day care center, and b) please list the day care center that was within 1,000 feet of the carriers.

  8. avatar GS650G says:

    What’s amazing is open carry is perfectly legal in Delaware but not Florida

    1. avatar Tom T says:

      Weird, isn’t it? FL is not the 2A place it used to be.

    2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      Open carry is even legal in MN. I saw it occasionally in the rather progressive Twin Cities area. I carried concealed but not very concealed. Any gun person could have spotted the large guns I carried easily. Oddly I have yet to spot a gun on a person after my move here in Riverton Wy.

    3. avatar UpInArms says:

      Good luck trying to get CCW in Delaware, though. First there is the required class with range time (though, IMHO, the class is a good idea, though it shouldn’t be mandatory). Then you gotta go get 2 passport photos and make an appointment with the State Police to be fingerprinted. Then you have to find 5 people, not relatives, who live in your county who will sign a statement of your moral character. Then you have to put an ad in the newspaper that states you intend to file for a CCW. Then you send in all the paperwork, pay the fee, and MAYBE the State of Delaware will give you a CCW.

      And all of this bullshit is made possible by open carry. As long as we are allowed open carry, nobody can claim that the State is denying us the right to keep and bear arms (so the State’s reasoning goes). Since our rights are not being denied, then the State figures it can do whatever the hell it wants about denying concealed carry.

      So, being able to legally open carry definitely has some downside to it.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        “And all of this bullshit is made possible by open carry.”

        Nope! You cannot blame that on open carry.That’s government’s excuse to get away with infringement. Please, blame the right thing.

        What do you suggest, no open carry?

        1. avatar UpInArms says:

          Read more closely. I was pretty clear that the reasoning is the State’s, not mine.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Help me out here… Did you type, “And all of this bullshit is made possible by open carry”?

          and

          “So, being able to legally open carry definitely has some downside to it.”

          Those are clearly declaratory statements made by YOU.

          And again… What do you suggest, no open carry?

      2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        UpInArms, so then open carry.

        1. avatar UpInArms says:

          Some people around here do. Personally, I think it’s the equivalent of hanging a target on you back, but I have no problem with those that choose to do it. Hang out by the Wal-Mart in New Castle and you’ll see several people casually go in and shop with a 9 strapped on their hip. Nobody seems to care much about it.

          The point I was after, which everyone seemed to miss, is that the State of Delaware has open carry only because it’s a way around being a shall-issue state, which makes it all more than just a little bit disingenuous.

        2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Really? So you are saying that Delaware recently legalized open carry so they wouldn’t have to issue CC licenses? Or has open carry been legal since Delaware became a state in 1787, as it is in Michigan?

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Yes, UpInArms, it is disingenuous of government. But, it is not because of open carry that government did this. Government could’ve chosen other ways around the RKBA. That was just one government choice out of other possibilities. You are posting that this is a downside to open carry when it is really only a downside to government.

          Lastly, this government trickery isn’t the ONLY reason for open carry. Keeping and bearing arms is an unalienable right of the individual that has been protected by the Constitution.

        4. avatar UpInArms says:

          Danny Griffin:

          It’s a pointless question to ask when it was legalized.

          There have been attempts to turn Delaware in to a shall-issue state. They have failed. The primary argument of the opposition is that all the constitutional requirements are met by allowing open carry, and, therefore, denying a CCW is not an infringement of rights. That argument has carried the day, even though it is patently bogus.

          So before anyone jumps around and yells “Hooray, we got open carry”, I’m suggesting that they look behind the curtain first and see if there might be some ulterior motives at work. They certainly are here in Delaware.

        5. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          It’s not a pointless question to ask when it was legalized when you plainly stated that the State of Delaware has open carry only because it’s a way around being a shall-issue state. You make it sound like they legalized OC so they could legally prevent CC and that isn’t the case at all. The entire “OC or CC, at least one must be legal,” is a relatively new ruling. Seems to me they didn’t allow widespread CC even before the ruling, so what excuse did they use then?

          You want shall issue CC? Then get every gun carrier to OC. Maybe that will make the pearl clutchers vote to change the law so they don’t have to see the guns. You’ve got to do something, either force their hand or gain a conservative majority and governor. If the gun owners won’t even do that, then don’t complain.

          And don’t count on liberals obeying any laws or court rulings anyway. Example, you can’t CC or OC in NYC or most of California.

        6. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “You make it sound like they legalized OC so they could legally prevent CC and that isn’t the case at all.”

          Exactly. That’s what his posts appear to convey to me as well.

        7. avatar UpInArms says:

          Danny Griffin:

          OK, I concede that point– I did say that DE has OC only to deny CC. That was the little conspiracy bug making some rattling noises in the back of my head.

          So I’ll take this opportunity to retrench and restate: The opponents of concealed carry are using open carry to justify not going over to shall-issue concealed carry.

          I feel much better now. And no, I don’t off-hand know when Delaware passed its open carry laws, but I’ll see if I can find out.

        8. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “So I’ll take this opportunity to retrench and restate: The opponents of concealed carry are using open carry to justify not going over to shall-issue concealed carry.”

          I agree with your restatement and have said similar myself. I’ve even expanded it to the effect that the root of licensing concealed carry (or even banning one form of carry) springs from the notion in political and judicial minds that as long as one form of carry remains unencumbered, government is not infringing on the RKBA.

    4. avatar UpInArms says:

      Oh, by the way… the Delaware Constitution has it’s own version of the 2A that is even better than the 2A:

      Article I, Section 20. A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. (4-16-87)

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        “Oh, by the way… the Delaware Constitution has it’s own version of the 2A that is even better than the 2A:

        Article I, Section 20. A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. (4-16-87)”

        Are you a fudd? If not, how in the hell can you consider that “even better”?!?!

        A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

        VS

        A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

        It’s very clear that the Second Amendment is more broad and protects the People’s right to throw off tyranny.

        Dear Lord, I hope you are trolling or being sarcastic!

        1. avatar UpInArms says:

          Dear Lord, I hope you find a way to engage your brain before you run your yap.

          In my view, the DE version is much more tightly worded and gives the clever little lawyers less wiggle room. Article I of the DE Constitution is titled “Bill of Rights”. We all know that a right is, implicitly, something that cannot be infringed, even though gubmints at all levels happily ignore that part. Section 20 first of all guarantees the right, and, second, explicitly states that it is there for self-defense, hunting and recreation. All the bases are covered.

          Certainly the US version is tightly worded, at least the final portion of it. “Shall not be infringed” is very clear and direct, and it’s astonishing how many people can’t seem to comprehend it.

          The flaw in the US version is the first part about a well-regulated militia. Had this been left out, the 2A would be rock solid. But since it is there, the clever little lawyers have hammered it into (or tried to hammer it into) a “collective right” and not an individual right. I myself have no idea why that part of the 2A was left in there– a right is a right and need not be further justified. But it is there, and it has provided a back door for all sorts of legal mischief.

          So I stand by my opinion– the DE version is much more tightly worded and, consequently, more iron-clad than the US version.

          Of course, either one will do if only the people’s representatives in gubmint would take the time to read them and abide by them. Hope springs eternal.

        2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          UpInArms, I’m going to pick on you a little bit.

          If I wrote, “A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to read and write books shall not be infringed,” would you think that only the well educated people should be allowed to read and write books or everyone?

          If I wrote, “A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed, ” who has a right to keep and eat food, the people or a well balanced breakfast?

          Finally, “Every late-19th-century legal scholar that we have read interpreted the Second Amendment to secure an individual right unconnected with militia service.” — U.S. Supreme Court, June 26, 2008

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Dear Lord, I hope you find a way to engage your brain before you run your yap.”

          My brain is engaged. You are simply wrong. It is apparent that you do not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment.

          Please, allow me to break it down for you…

          “A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.”

          You have the right for defense of self.
          You have the right for defense of family.
          You have the right for defense of home.
          You have the right for defense of State.
          You have the right for hunting.
          You have the right for recreational use.

          See anything missing?

          “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”

          The militia is necessary. (NOT a flaw. It is essential to the power of the Second Amendment.)

          “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

          Government cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
          You have the right for defense of self.
          You have the right for defense of family.
          You have the right for defense of home.
          You have the right for defense of state.
          You have the right for hunting.
          You have the right for recreational use.
          You have the right to collect.
          You have the right to let it rust.
          You have the right to fight enemies, foreign or domestic; ie tyranny.
          Etc.

          If the government cannot infringe upon your right to keep and bear arms then all of these things can be protected. However, if SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is ignored, how in the hell do you expect Delaware’s puny limited statement to stand? Under that nonsense, you cannot even fight tyranny. The “flaw”, as you call it, is an essential part of what make it better.

          Clearly, the Delaware statement is weaker and NOT “better” than the plain language of the Second Amendment.

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “and, second, explicitly states that it is there for self-defense, hunting and recreation. All the bases are covered.”

          Are all bases covered, boss? What about the right to overthrow a tyrannical government? That’s kind of one of the most important reasons to protect the exercise of the unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms.

          How does the Delaware version protect your right to form a militia and train with that militia? Do you think that’s not necessary to liberty?

        5. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “I myself have no idea why that part of the 2A was left in there– a right is a right and need not be further justified.”

          It’s glaringly obvious that you have no idea why.

          “a right is a right and need not be further justified.”

          Let’s use that lens and look at Delaware’s statement on the subject.

          “A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.”

          Why doesn’t this just have, “A person has the right to keep and bear arms”? Why does it go on? Well, let me tell ya. The continuation means that you can exercise that right ONLY for: “the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.” FULL STOP. See anythings missing? If not then you are definitely well into fudd territory.

        6. avatar UpInArms says:

          Danny Griffin:

          I’m not really sure what your point is here, or even that we have some disagreement.

          I am aware that the Supreme Court, in the Heller and MacDonald decisions effectively relegated the militia part of 2A to merely a prefatory comment. And I wholly agree with that stand, and I’m happy that it’s been put in its proper place.

          For now. The collective right argument will never go away, just like the anti-gun mafia will never go away. And it’s the militia part of 2A that gives the collective right argument the doorway. Better, in my humble opinion, that it wasn’t there at all. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is all that is needed. No confusion over who or for what purpose or in what manner or where. It’s clean, it’s clear, it’s concise. It requires no further commentary nor leaves much room to wiggle around with “collective rights” nonsense. It’s the people, it’s a right, and it shall not be infringed. Case closed.

        7. avatar Leslie says:

          There is no Militia! The Bureau of Militia was dissolved in June 1916 in accordance with the “Dick Act” of 1903…

          ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_Bureau )

        8. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          There are two militias now in the US, the Organized Militia and the Unorganized Militia. The Dick Act split it up into two. The Unorganized Militia consists of every able-bodied American male between 17 and 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. Unorganized Militias receive no funding from state or federal governments. Members have no responsibility whatsoever, until the President makes the decision to use the manpower for military purposes (or maybe they decide to act on their own if necessary).

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

          Why do I have to explain the law you cited to you?

        9. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          it’s the militia part of 2A that gives the collective right argument the doorway

          Immaterial. 200 years of legal scholarship agrees that it is in individual right. The founding fathers own writings show it is an individual right. Do you think that if the preface clause had been omitted that the problem of the Left not liking the Second Amendment would suddenly vanish? No. Why do you think there is a movement to eliminate the Second Amendment altogether? It is because that is the only way they can get what they want. The militia clause is just one way for them to chip away toward their end goal, it doesn’t change their goal. They’ll keep coming up with arguments either way. Don’t get distracted.

        10. avatar Hummm says:

          Must get tiring “Cherry Picking” the US Constitution, as often as you do it…

          https://web.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgi-bin/?p=559

        11. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Must get tiring “Cherry Picking” the US Constitution, as often as you do it…

          What kind of drugs are you on and where can I get some?

        12. avatar Hummm says:

          English spoken at the time of the US Constitution in 1787, “ISN’T” the same English spoken today in 2019 or when “Heller” was being disputed in 1934…

        13. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Hope springs eternal.”

          I appreciate that you have hope. I sincerely do. However, only force will secure liberty.

          My desire is that you will eventually see that the scope of the Second Amendment is crucial to liberty. To accept something so limited as the current Delaware statement in place of the Second Amendment would be a gigantic mistake.

        14. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “I am aware that the Supreme Court, in the Heller and MacDonald decisions effectively relegated the militia part of 2A to merely a prefatory comment. And I wholly agree with that stand, and I’m happy that it’s been put in its proper place.

          For now. The collective right argument will never go away, just like the anti-gun mafia will never go away. And it’s the militia part of 2A that gives the collective right argument the doorway.”

          The Supreme Court didn’t do it. The rules of the English language did it. That clause cannot be legitimately used for a collective rights argument without changing the rules of the English language. If they are going to do that then nothing can be certain, regardless of how it is worded. Please see Danny Griffin’s excellent post at https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2019/03/luis-valdes/florida-carry-sues-city-of-miami-beach-over-police-action-against-legally-armed-fishermen/#comment-4224362

  9. avatar possum says:

    Well I’m afraid the guy is fcked, he’s a fisherman, they have a tendency to fabricate….. Did I ever tell you about the one that got away?

    1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

      I fish, therefore I lie.

  10. As I recall, for the Video over a year ago, the Video Bragger called Miami Beach Police before leaving the Town where he lived. There would haven’t have been a Police Incident if he never called in the first place…

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Seems like that should have given the police plenty of time to examine the law and determine it was legal.

  11. avatar Frank says:

    Yeah you go Miami, Drug Capital of the east coast. …We need no stink’in carry permit 😜

  12. avatar Frank says:

    Yeah you go Miami, Drug Capital of the east coast. …We need no stink’ncarry permit 😜

  13. avatar Just Sayin says:

    Second Annual Open Carry Fishing Adventure is scheduled for Ocala, Fl next Saturday, 4/6/19, from 10am until ??
    Meet at 504 SE Broadway St, Ocala, Fl.
    Park downtown, strap up & grab your fishing gear, then walk about 1.25 miles to Tuscawilla Park as a group. A family event that I would like to see grow.
    Sending our RINO friends a message while promoting a just cause the right way.
    The NE US corridor liberal cancer that has spread here needs to know, in a sane political way, that “we don’t care how you did it up north”. (Although my use of the word sane is in fact an example of the saying, “A man can dream, can’t he?”)

    More info: email Kevin at: [email protected]

    Gonna be a beautiful Florida Saturday!!

  14. avatar Doug says:

    You should be able to conceal carry in ANY state. No permit….

  15. avatar george burns says:

    47 years of carrying in NY and FL, and the only time I got hassled was by a Rookie when while stopping a fight, between my drunk doorman in NYC, and a police officer, my gun was exposed. Two years and 13 court appearances later, I got my license back. When I went before a Captains Hearing at 1PP, the dummy didn’t even remember the case. After he said I pulled a gun on my ex-wife, I interrupted and said I was never married. The Captain didn’t go any further, he excused me, and two days later I got my guns back at the local precinct along with my license and an apology. I can still hear the Captain screaming at this “now” police officer, you dumb f—, you have the wrong case.
    You think they are bad here, NYC hates guys who somehow managed to get a carry.

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      You had a valid carry permit for NYC?!

  16. avatar Alan says:

    This department and it’s offending employees needs to be sued into oblivion. That said, while Open Carry, where it is legal presents problems, no few of them vested in and among what are sometimes described as The Forces of Law and Order, if a particular act has the blessings of the law, them interfering with that action is unacceptable, especially when it is the police who are interfering.

  17. avatar Victor G Chamoun says:

    It’s legal in Florida to open carry if you are fishing, hunting or camping!!

  18. avatar WhiteDevil says:

    Citizens should tell cops, I.e government employees, whether or not they can be armed. Not the opposite. It’s disgusting that a group of men with firearms can walk up and threaten someone else’s life because they don’t like the fact that the the other men have firearms. If there were justice in this country, every one of those cops would have been shot and killed.

  19. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    Right behind you White Devil. Even though I was L.E.O. You kill the first cop. I’ll start killing them too.

    1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

      Do I hear crickets chirping?

      1. avatar WhiteDevil says:

        On point, just like I thought. I don’t know, do you? So you have an issue with the fact that citizens should be able to defend themselves with deadly force against an unjustified and unlawful use of deadly force, regardless of who it is? Also, considering the fact that if it had been the men fishing who then proceeded to walk and threaten the cops with deadly force, they would have been shot and all would have been well, right? What’s egregious is the fact that a cop doing such a thing is viewed as admissible, when in fact it is even more wrong. Maybe you should just tell everyone to become a cop and for them to do it better, as though them not being an LEO disqualifies them from offering an analysis of the situation. Also, I didn’t say that I was going to kill cops. Don’t try to put those fucking words in my mouth. I was saying that a government employee should be held to a much higher standard and should only be allowed to operate within an extremely narrow set of boundaries. That’s not the case today as master and slave has traded places.

        1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

          White Devil, maybe you’ve never heard my mantra. Fuck the government! I hate the Federal Government. I also don’t care much for those sniveling little shits that piss and moan about law enforcement that don’t have the balls to go out there and do it themselves. You know you’re scared.

        2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          And people shouldn’t complain about the federal government if they don’t have the balls to run for office themselves. Or complain about a bridge falling down if they aren’t civil engineers themselves, or complain about incompetent and biased judges if they aren’t judges themselves, or…

        3. avatar WhiteDevil says:

          You’ve seriously lost all credibility with that absolutely asinine statement. I actually have applied to become an LEO. Also, what in the actual fuck does my becoming a police officer have to do with police officers threatening to MURDER citizens for open carrying? I have to be an officer before I offer an opinion on blatantly unconstitutional and unlawful activities? I attempted a rational discussion with you, but I can see you’re having none of it. Thanks Danny, there’s absolutely no purpose in continuing a conversation with this individual. How dare we question his authority on the subject. After all, he was a cop.

        4. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          How dare we question his authority on the subject. After all, he was a cop.

          Yep, we can’t question the entire SWAT team that lied and tried to frame an innocent family in Colorado, entire PDs like New Orleans that have been sanctioned by the federal government for civil rights abuses, the shootings, beatings, planting of false evidence, theft, drug dealing, bank robbery, perjury, covering up evidence, and murder for hire that the Ramparts cops participated in, the deputy sheriffs that smuggled contraband into prisons, the LEOs that lied in their reports or planted evidence, and all the other LEO abuses because we aren’t cops.

          LOL

    2. avatar Bob999 says:

      Stop and think about what you may be saying. Sure, it is legal to defend yourself against an agent of the government performing an unlawful arrest or assault, but guess what, a dozen lawyers will argue that point for months and a jury of know-nothing armchair experts will make the final decision. Oh, and the press will paint you as the bad guy to the point where you couldn’t get a fair trial anywhere on earth. If this happens, consider yourself the moral superior and help de-escalate the situation. If that means allowing yourself to be arrested, do it. After everything is done, it is your duty to sue the bajesus out of them. See, the bureaucracy behind the curtains is the only place this behavior can be changed, and secretly, they care more about their budgets than their employees. Dead officers make for great political theater for ambitious bureaucrats, but losing lots of money in court will hurt their ambitions. Also, consider that some of the officers may simply be responding to a call for backup with no clue that someone else screwed up. Give those other officers a chance to be a witness for you. Again, be their moral superior, and help de-escalate. If you want to affect change, fight the injustice in court. It will have a bigger impact than some 15 second clip on the evening news about an officer involved shooting.

  20. avatar Hannibal says:

    Miami, like several other cities (NYC, Chicago, etc) likes to imagine that it is a law unto itself I guess.

  21. avatar GlockMeAmadeus says:

    Meanwhile, a Dominican boat filled with cocaine and sex slaves floated by that pier while the cops were busy with more serious matters………

  22. avatar Leslie says:

    Very well and fine, but still doesn’t override the Dick Act and the Disolvement of the Bureau of Militia in 1916. Unless your one of those that “Cherry Picks” favorites in the Constitution and discards the rest…

  23. avatar raptor jesus says:

    Open Carry should be legal, so the bad guys always know to shoot that guy (and not me) first.

  24. avatar Dave G. says:

    It is interesting to note that in Michigan, where open carry is strictly legal and does not require a permit, some (if not all) of the gun shops around my neck of the woods have “No Open Carry” signs in their front windows.

  25. avatar MAC says:

    Freedom must be a continous battle or struggle…allowing freedom to be cheapened, shrunk, restricted, or regulated allows the tyrants to think they are the power of a country…bullies must be confronted and stopped in strong vigorous action by citizens…..see as our border is made a joke by the would be dictators…February 76000 illegals released into our country….see as 100,000 are released into our country during March 2019 Yesterday President Trump said he will stop the border crossingby CLOSING THE BORDER. Congress and other presidents have lied to us every day since 1986 when President Reagan surrendered to a ” deal ” with Congress…amnesty today…and we will fix the problems with immigration and this will never happen again…..yet every yearsince 1986 someone tries to squeeze through another amnesty …DO YOU WONDER WHO IS BUYING THESE LIARS ? Always more regulations to reduce our freedom and our money…always more laws against the USA Citizen…and the invaders, drug movers, people traffikers, and Drug money continue to flood through our country….whey will you STOP ELECTING TREASON DOGS ? iF TRUMP DOES NOT BECOME RE-ELECTED, YOUR FUTURE IS BLEAK SOCIALISM UNDER TYRANTS AND DICTATORS… IT IS IN FRONT OF YOUR DOOR AND THE WOLF IS HOWLING FOR YOUR TO BRING YOUR CHILDREN TO BE EATEN…

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email