Florida Legislature Leaves a Mess

As a follow up to yesterday’s post on hospitals and businesses prohibiting carry in the wake of the new constitutional carry law that went into effect in Florida on Saturday, we will address the next two claims:

  • Concealed carry isn’t allowed in police stations, and our hospital contains a “police substation”
  • Concealed carry isn’t allowed in hospitals

First, let’s look at the claim that concealed carry isn’t permitted in hospitals. There are two laws that can be applied here, with the first of them being 394.458:

Except as authorized by law or as specifically authorized by the person in charge of each hospital providing mental health services under this part, it is unlawful to introduce into or upon the grounds of such hospital, or to take or attempt to take or send therefrom, any of the following articles, which are hereby declared to be contraband for the purposes of this section:

1. Any intoxicating beverage or beverage which causes or may cause an intoxicating effect;

2. Any controlled substance as defined in chapter 893; or

3. Any firearms or deadly weapon.

Note that this is uncharted territory. The law as it existed in 2022 specifically says “except as authorized by law” and Florida’s 790.06 does authorize one to carry a concealed weapon, and paragraph (12) gives a specific list of places off limits to carry. The addition of constitutional carry (PDF alert) also states that a person who is otherwise qualified for a permit may carry a weapon under the same conditions as a person with a permit.

The problem here is that one could make the argument that 790.06 authorizes (by law) carry in places except those listed in 790.06(12), and 790.06(15)(c) specifically says:

This section does not modify the terms or conditions of s. 790.251(7).

Meaning that the legislature means for this law to supersede others in restricting carry at certain locations, and when they don’t want it to do so, make it clear in the statute. The issue with this argument is that it can only be made in court after you have been arrested. Since no one has yet done so (as evidenced by the fact that there is no case law spelling out the limits here) this is an issue that has not yet been tested in the courts, so you do so at your own peril.

What is interesting is the second law that affects hospitals: 790.145. That law specifically says:

Unless otherwise provided by law, any person who is in possession of a concealed “firearm,” as defined in s. 790.001(6), or a “destructive device,” as defined in s. 790.001(4), within the premises of a “pharmacy,” as defined in chapter 465, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2) The provisions of this section do not apply:
(a) To any law enforcement officer;
(b) To any person employed and authorized by the owner, operator, or manager of a pharmacy to carry a firearm or destructive device on such premises; or
(c) To any person licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

Since a person who is carrying without a permit under Florida’s constitutional carry law -IS- carrying without a permit, and most hospitals are or contain pharmacies, is it still illegal for a person who is otherwise legally carrying a concealed weapon without a permit to have a firearm while inside of a pharmacy? Is this one of those cases that I mentioned above, where the legislature exempts a law when it intends to? Or has the legislature left a legal mess that the courts will have to deal with later? In my opinion, this is another case where the law is confusing and unclear, and the courts will have to deal with it after someone is arrested and charged with the crime, whereupon his lawyer will have to make this argument.

So to sum up the answer to the claim that you can’t carry in a hospital in Florida: The answer is maybe. It is specifically illegal to carry a firearm into a hospital or pharmacy in Florida, but not if you are authorized by law to do so. The law is unclear on whether or not people can carry into a hospital, or whether those who are carrying under constitutional carry may do so into a pharmacy. This question will not be cleared up unless the legislature cleans up the law, or until the courts rule on this one way or the other.

The legal issues here are quite a mess, and the only people who benefit from what the legislature has done here will be lawyers and those who write books about what the law means (in many cases, lawyers who are also authors). It will be interesting to see Jon Gutmacher’s take on this when my copy of Florida Firearms book gets here later in the week. That book is the bible for those who carry or use firearms in Florida, and there are more than a few judges who have his books on their bookshelf. If you own or carry a firearm in Florida, you should have a copy of it.

We will address the last of the three claims tomorrow when we look at “Concealed carry isn’t allowed in police stations, and our hospital contains a ‘police substation'” I think that this post is long enough already.


Now, the disclaimer: I don’t advertise, and receive nothing for my reviews or articles. I have no relationship with any products, companies, or vendors that I review here, other than being a customer. If I ever *DO* have a financial interest, I will disclose it. Otherwise, I pay what you would pay. No discounts or other incentives here. I only post these things because I think that my readers would be interested.

In this case, I have had a relationship with the author of the book that I mention in this post. You can read about it here. I wrote an email to Mr. Gutmacher at the time, letting him know that the property records of Florida showed that the property licensed for explosives manufacture and the resorts were two different pieces of property, as they must be, because under the fire code, you can’t have a hotel on the same property with an explosives factory. He was interested in my point, but I don’t know if he made that point in his legal case or not.

I do not make any money from the book, or from Mr. Gutmacher, but I still want to disclose the relationship, however tenuous it was.

Cops Are Lying in Florida

I was at work last night and the supervisor of security came wandering through the ED. One of the nurses asked him if Florida’s new concealed carry law was going to make his job more difficult. His reply was that many people in Florida don’t realize that concealed carry doesn’t apply to the hospital. When I asked him why the law didn’t apply, his reply was that there were three reasons:

  • Concealed carry isn’t allowed on private property in Florida, unless the owner allows it
  • Concealed carry isn’t allowed in police stations, and our hospital contains a “police substation”
  • Concealed carry isn’t allowed in hospitals

When I told him that most of those statements weren’t what the law says, he told me that he and the police likely know more about the law than I do, so I should just stay in my lane. Let’s tackle his claims one at a time, with this post addressing the “property owner” argument:

The police are the ones circulating the “carry isn’t allowed on private property” trope, and I am not sure where it’s coming from. I searched the social media pages of every sheriff’s office in central Florida, along with a sampling of city police departments. This is what I found:

Hillsboro County and Tampa Police
Lake County Sheriff
Columbia County Sheriff’s Office
Sarasota Police

It’s being pushed by a fair number of law enforcement agencies all over the state. The problem here is that the law says nothing of the sort. The new law says that a person who doesn’t have a permit but would otherwise be eligible for one may still carry a concealed weapon or firearm wherever they could carry that weapon if the DID have a permit. There is a list of places off limits to carry that can be found in 790.06(12). Property owners prohibiting carry is not anywhere on that list.

The only statement that could be construed as allowing a property owner to prohibit carry is the general property rights that any property owner has. If you are in a place not specifically mentioned in the law as being prohibited for concealed carry, but it has posted “no guns” signs, and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged. Even if the property is not posted and you are asked to leave you must leave, but that is different from claiming that the “law doesn’t apply” to private property. If they don’t ask you to leave, it is legal to carry right past a “no guns” sign.

Since this is being widely pushed by some (but no all) police agencies all over the state, I can’t help by believe that this is an intentional misstatement by law enforcement to enforce a law that doesn’t exist.

Next, we will take a look at carry in hospitals and police stations.

Wrong

When I was a teacher, I layered the security for my classroom and my students. First, I installed a Nightlock on my door.

I have Level IV body armor that I kept in my classroom. It had a blowout kit, 4 TQ’s, a huge label on it that said “PARAMEDIC” and a sewn on badge with my blood type. The file cabinet between the door and the blind corner where I planned to shelter my students in the event of a shooter had been modified by me. It has a 1/4″ aluminum plate lining the inside of the sides of the cabinet. With us behind the cabinet, the bullet would have to go through the cabinet, through the first plate, through whatever was in the cabinet, then through the second plate, and the backside of the cabinet.

Dude, use your head.

Senator Terrorist

Have you heard about the Rhode Island state senator that physically attacks people and destroys their property for exercising their right to free speech? No? Well, whatever you do, don’t have a bumper sticker on your car that supports RKBA or opposes Joe Biden.

He keyed a person’s car for having a bumper sticker that said “Biden Sucks” then when the police arrived, he tried to avoid capture by changing his appearance.

This isn’t the first time that he has shown contempt for the rights of his constituents. In 2014, Miller was caught on video at the Rhode Island State House telling a Second Amendment supporter “go fuck yourself.” He then released a statement explaining his actions:

Last Tuesday a vast group of Rhode Islanders gathered peacefully in the State House rotunda to voice their concerns about gun violence in our state and in our country. They also gathered to support sensible gun legislation that would ban the sale of assault weapons, ban the sale of high capacity magazines, ban weapons on school grounds and deny firearm access to individuals who have been convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors.

At the end of a press conference in which I participated, an individual representing a website notorious for conspiracy theories started berating members of the coalition and intimidating elderly veterans, members of the clergy and victims of violence.

It quickly became a highly charged atmosphere, which required the presence of the Capitol Police. The individual in question is not new to the State House and is known for his aggressive and intimidating manner. He also was interrupting legitimate members of the media who were attempting to conduct interviews.

After watching him antagonize an elderly veteran he swung his camera my way, which produced a very human and guttural reaction. I respect both the Second Amendment and the First Amendment. It is important to note that the individual in question was physically removed from a committee room by the Capitol Police later that evening.

Regardless of the emotions and atmosphere of the moment, it does not justify the language I used that day. Out of respect for the decorum of the State House and the constituents I represent, I offer my apologies.

You get his attitude? A website with which he disagrees asks questions, and they are accused of being intimidating and pushing conspiracy theories, as compared to those media outlets that treat him with kid gloves, who are referred to as “legitimate members of media.” He is the arbiter of what is and is not allowed, and anyone who disagrees will be attacked.

I will cheer for any person that fucks him up, and I will donate to their legal defense fund. We all know that this is the only way that this authoritarian tyrant will see justice, because this arrest won’t lead to him seeing a prison cell.

Random Thought on the Second Amendment

The argument that the 2A is only for the militia is still being pushed by the anti-forces, even in light of Heller. If they won’t believe SCOTUS, perhaps they can believe the version of the 2A that was originally passed by the House of Representatives on August 24, 1789:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Note that being a member of the Militia didn’t require that a person be a member of an exclusive, limited membership military. It merely required that you be a part of the body of the people.

Winning

Now that the Second Amendment is a winning issue in court, the left is getting desperate. Gavin Newsom is proposing a 28th Amendment that would add the left’s wish lists to the Constitution. There is precisely zero chance of getting 3/4 of the states to approve such an amendment, at least not in my lifetime.

Others on the left are proposing some pretty wild stuff:

a better proposal would be to repeal and replace the 2nd Amendment through Congress and the states.

By replacing the convoluted language of the 2nd Amendment with a list of specific rules for gun ownership, gun violence can be reduced.

This has the same chances of success as Newsome’s 28th Amendment, and for the same reasons. There is also:

Instead of taking decades to secure approval of two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states, I believe a gun summit at Camp David — with gun-rights advocates, law enforcement and survivors — could hammer out new, commonsense gun safety measures in a matter of days.

I don’t see this being Constitutional. Gun rights organizations are done compromising with the left. Compromise to the left means “We want to take all of your rights. You don’t want to give them up. How about we compromise and only take half of them? Then next year, we can do this again.” No. Just no. The gun control side doesn’t deal in good faith. How about this proposal?

The 2nd Amendment begins with “a well-regulated militia” — not just a militia, but a a well-regulated one. An honest interpretation would be that as long as restrictions do not impede the formation of a regulated state militia, they could be deemed permissible.

My suggestion to Newsom: Allow widespread ownership of firearms, but all such arms (some types of small arms might be exempted) would be held by the California National Guard and could be accessed and used only through the Guard.

This hot take was destroyed in the Heller decision. Apparently, the anti-gun idiots haven’t read it.

No, Just No

They tell us that we are paranoid because no one wants to take our guns.

Jane Fonda says that we need to kill all of the white men in order to save the planet. You see, according to her and the climate change religion, we only have eight years to cut our greenhouse gas emissions in half, or the world is doomed. Of course, they were saying we only had eight years last year. They also said it the year before that. They also said we only had eight years in 2007, sixteen years ago.

She should have been arrested and sentenced to death for treason when she went to North Vietnam and sat on that anti-aircraft gun for a photo opportunity. I am sick of the anti-American left telling me how they are going to come after me to have me killed, fired, deplatformed, or whatever, then telling me that I am paranoid for not wanting to give up my guns.

I am not giving up my guns, I am not getting into the rail car, and if you try, my only hope is that I make the trade an expensive one.

They Did It

Chicago is sending unarmed, yellow vested peacekeepers in to violent scenes, instead of police officers. The idea is that they will deescalate instead of use force.

If there’s unrest downtown or mass shootings elsewhere in Chicago this Memorial Day holiday — often among the year’s most violent weekends — a special team of 30 “Peacekeepers” wearing yellow vests will be mobilized to help calm things down, state officials said Tuesday.