An example of the stupidity of Gun Free Zones during GRPC 2012

 

Seriously, we need to update Florida’s Gun Laws. I’ll give you that past the TSA checkpoint, you must go unheeled so the agents feel they are earning their perv dollars. Check the elevators above the bank of monitors on the top right of the pic. You press fourth floor, you are OK because you arrive at the hotel lobby. But if you press three or lower and the elevator goes down? Yup… you are breaking the law.

UPDATE: More pics showing the idiocy. But first the appropiate section from the Florida Statutes (790.06 12):

No license issued pursuant to this section shall authorize any person to carry a concealed weapon or firearm ……inside the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport, provided that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, which firearm is encased for shipment for purposes of checking such firearm as baggage to be lawfully transported on any aircraft

Apologies for the bad pic. The elevator on the left is on the hotel lobby area, cool to carry. But if you press the wrong button and go down one miserable floor, you are breaking the law.

View from the Terminal area (I was not carrying at the time, thank you.) Red line denotes the hotel lobby floor level.

16 Replies to “An example of the stupidity of Gun Free Zones during GRPC 2012”

      1. Well that sucks! As I said above about state laws. Didn’t realize it was in Florida too.

        Thankfully if you ever find me in an Airport in Florida I’m arriving or leaving.

        Scary that in Massachusetts it 100% legal to help arriving guests with their bags or see them off to the security point while legally carrying a firearm.




        0



        0
        1. We do need an overhaul in Florida. It’s been happening piecemeal but to try and dismantle all at once and rebuild better is risky. Do remember that these laws are from 25 years ago and had enormous opposition. The Governor at that time vetoed the bill but it had enough supporters in the legislature to override the veto.




          0



          0
          1. The main problem with the carry laws as passed is, there were for whatever reason, those with in the legislature that were willing to capitulate to the anti-gunners both within the legislature, and from the NRA (Marion Hammer). Which is why open carry was outlawed with the passing of the concealed carry law. The NRA, bringing you anti-gun laws for 78+ years. I will not join the NRA for just that reason. I will instead put my money where it will actually help expand, not constrict our freedom, The Second Amendment Foundation, and likely Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

            http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/nra-supported-nfa34.htm




            0



            0
            1. For whatever reason no, because otherwise it would have never passed otherwise. Pundits gave it a 0% of passing and they were shocked when it did and it was because the compromises. One of those compromises was the keeping of statistics which the Antis were ready to use against the law because they were sure it would prove the Wild West/ Blood on the Streets narrative; it backfired on them. And by the way, this was in time when we were this close to have all guns ban at a national level and in Florida, the Cocaine Cowboys were doing their killings.
              If back then we would have demanded only a no-compromise & perfect law, we would have not gotten it and neither other states would have started their own movements to get concealed carry.

              The No Compromise movement has achieved exactly no gains for the Gun Culture. But they sure know how to rack the money in.




              0



              0
  1. If you consider SAF part of the “no compromise movement” then I should point out it was SAF, not NRA that got handgun bans struck down in both Chicago, and D.C., sound like pretty good results to me. The only thing the NRA did was attempt to derail the cases. And when they realized they could not, only then did they file their amicus briefs. When was the last case in which the NRA had successfully challenged any firearms law?




    0



    0
    1. SAF is not a part of the No Compromise Movement as they have smart people in it. The NRA felt that Heller was a very big gamble (as it indeed it was) so yes, they were not happy about it. Alan Gura himself was scared crapless about a bad decision right before presenting the case in front of SCOTUS.

      When was the last case in which the NRA had successfully challenged any firearms law?

      The bulk of the NRA work is at the state executive and legislative levels, but two cases from top of my head”
      Jennings v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. (challenging the federal ban on dealer sales of handguns to persons under 21)
      Shepard v. Madigan (NRA is funding the case)

      They are also involved in Multiple Sales Reporting Requirement lawsuit with both monies and backup. What else? Shit, they back a boatload local lawsuits that do not make it to the papers. There was the one where the kid had gone hunting early in the AM and then went to school leaving his car parked OUTSIDE school property, security found the shotgun & notified school authorities. The kid was expelled and the NRA local stepped in getting the kid back in school.




      0



      0
      1. What were the kids feelings on being forced to go back to school? 🙂 Hell, I always enjoyed every second I could get away from school. Maybe the NRA is on the way back from the dark side (although I’m not holding my breath). The fact remains, we wouldn’t even have two most egregious gun control laws (NFA1934, GCA1968) if not for the NRA. Without either of these two violations of the Constitution to get the ball rolling, we would not likely have the mass of other violations that followed. I understand that English may not be your first language but, successfully means winning. Shepard v. Madigan, is still ongoing, as far as I know, therefore outcome can not be declared. As a result carrying of firearms is still illegal in Illinois. And Jennings v. B.A.T.F.E. was a loss, granted they are appealing. So, it is still illegal for anyone under 21 to buy a handgun.




        0



        0
  2. There is no such thing as a successful “no compromise” gun-rights strategy. Saturday’s GRPC Q&A had several inquiries along those lines, and some said that SAF needs to work at no-compromise initiatives.

    Alan Gottlieb set a ground floor for the gun-rights movement he is heading. Simply put, they think that floor will allow permits, some fees and background checks. Also, we will see some restrictions on where we can carry (back to the topic of this post).

    This is not an ideal world for some people, but it is the one we will probably inhabit in the next ten years or so. We don’t get to define that world completely, and some of this “floor” is a pretty simple recognition of how far the courts will let us go.

    If you want more, you need to continue to work with your legislatures. State groups and the NRA have the ball there. I am sometimes disappointed in the NRA and its incoherent strategies, but frankly they are human. In many cases, there are lot of behind the scenes data points that force that compromise. Many of us suspect it, but I have seen it first hand. It’s not always fun out there.

    Pushing past that “floor” will require citizen involvement. Nothing in the Constitution says we cannot go “Constitutional Carry” nationwide, but every analysis of the courts nationwide says that they won’t do it for us. If we want it, we need to elect people who will represent us and make it happen.




    0



    0

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .