• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Waiting periods at gun shows.

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
625
Location
Central Ky.
......SNIP

For purposes of this subsection, the term “sale” means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration for any firearm when any part of the transaction is conducted on property to which the public has the right of access.

That means public property not private property.
Not in Pinellas County.

From the Opinion that you posted, definition section on page 9, in APPENDIX A:


Property to which the public has the right of access means any real or personal property to which the
public has a right of access, including property owned by either public or private individuals, firms and
entities and expressly includes, but is not limited to, flea markets, gun shows and firearms exhibitions.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
As stated someone got a wild hair, proposed the concept, the CRC approved the concept, put it on the ballot, and citizens approved the concept into law.
Finally, the initial constitution portion I cited was from 1991, and the county 'history' portion is telling everyone in 1998 someone got a wild hair and proposed and succeeded in adding this portion under the county's portion of the FL constitution.
I can't help but see a difference between 'someone got a wild hair and added this portion ...' and 'put it on the ballot and citizens voted to approve it.'
Maybe I'm just being hyper-critical... or maybe someone's being disingenuous.

There's a saying that if your argument is good enough, it shouldn't need such tactics.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,911
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Not in Pinellas County.

From the Opinion that you posted, definition section on page 9, in APPENDIX A:


Property to which the public has the right of access means any real or personal property to which the
public has a right of access, including property owned by either public or private individuals, firms and
entities and expressly includes, but is not limited to, flea markets, gun shows and firearms exhibitions.
Apparently you did not read the case. If you did you must not understand it.
In this case, even interpreting the ordinance on its face is not easy. For example, is a gun show that is not open to the general public without a ticket or license a place where the public has the "right" of access?
The court was also suggesting that the Florida Constitution may be in conflict with the Federal Constitution.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,249
Location
here nc
I can't help but see a difference between 'someone got a wild hair and added this portion ...' and 'put it on the ballot and citizens voted to approve it.'
Maybe I'm just being hyper-critical... or maybe someone's being disingenuous.

There's a saying that if your argument is good enough, it shouldn't need such tactics.
Maybe...

There are numerous ‘sayings’ in the naked city and I shan’t lower myself to utter them!
 
Last edited:

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,422
Location
Florida
Why didn't you point this out in the first place. You cite the Constitution, but left out what section. Not helpful. Thanks Fallschirmjäger.

That means public property not private property.
i didn't cite the constitution. i cited the constitution with a direct link to the exact location of the wording i was talking about. you just needed to click it :)
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,911
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Thank you, Hammer, but gutshotII gave me the citation that was needed.
So, you didn't read the case I cited?

The county does not get to define the terms used in the constitution. In other words, the county does not have the authority to define the phrase "property to which the public has the right of access" used in the constitution.
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
So, you didn't read the case I cited?

The county does not get to define the terms used in the constitution. In other words, the county does not have the authority to define the phrase "property to which the public has the right of access" used in the constitution.
In its remand the court asks, " is a gun show that is not open to the general public without a ticket or license
a place where the public has the "right" of access?"
It does not appear to answer that question, but it reverses a prior declaratory judgement and remands the case.

What would have helped, would be the final results of the case rather than an interim step.

I'm tempted to ask, "What is the Florida Constitution's definition of "the right of access"?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,911
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
In its remand the court asks, " is a gun show that is not open to the general public without a ticket or license
a place where the public has the "right" of access?"
It does not appear to answer that question, but it reverses a prior declaratory judgement and remands the case.

What would have helped, would be the final results of the case rather than an interim step.

I'm tempted to ask, "What is the Florida Constitution's definition of "the right of access"?
Per the court of appeals it is not. That is why it was remanded. Lower court do your job.

My question is what happened to the case? Was it settled out of court? The statute is still on the books. Has it been enforced?

"Property to which the public has the right of access." Right versus privilege?
 

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
625
Location
Central Ky.
So, you didn't read the case I cited?

The county does not get to define the terms used in the constitution. In other words, the county does not have the authority to define the phrase "property to which the public has the right of access" used in the constitution.

It appears that the Pinellas County government disagrees. I don't think that they are trying to 'define the phrase "property to which the public has the right of access" used in the constitution'. I think they are defining the phrase THEY used in THEIR ordinance. They might think that THEY can define any words that THEY used in THEIR ordinance and have them mean what THEY want them to mean in THEIR ordinance. The same words might mean something entirely different some other place. I doubt that using words and phrases in the constitution in one way precludes using those same words and phrases in another way in a different document with a different context. The constitution doesn't have exclusive use to the phrase. I have no way of knowing what they think or even if they think at all, so this is just a guess on my part.
 

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
730
Location
MO, USA
Florida's regions have different attitudes to guns, and its courts (and cops) have a reputation for being inconsistent sometimes, so I wouldn't trust a Tampa decision to set any precedent for Broward, for example. Lucky if there's consistency within the same county. If in doubt of the law interpretation or law enforcement, selling to a CCW holder with transaction conducted at a totally private venue would be another route, double checking the most current laws of course.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Per the court of appeals it is not. That is why it was remanded. Lower court do your job.
My question is what happened to the case? Was it settled out of court? The statute is still on the books. Has it been enforced?
"Property to which the public has the right of access." Right versus privilege?
We must be reading different versions of Jeffrey D. Jensen's complaint.
In the one I'm reading nowhere is "right of public access" part of any amended complaint nor is it brought up by Mr Jensen.
In the one I'm reading nowhere does the court address the "right of public access" EXCEPT to pose it as a question "is a gun show that is not open to the general public without a ticket or license a place where the public has the 'right' of access?"

Perhaps your eyesight is sharper than mine and you would copy and past where 'right of access' is a part of the complaint or where the court addresses the question of what the 'public right of access'?

Lastly, the reason the court reversed and remanded the case is not what you have stated.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,134
Location
White Oak Plantation
Sounds like a ticket (lenience?) being required to gain entry means that the event is not open to the general public as a grocery store would be. So, is a gun show that requires permission to enter (a ticket) actually a public place at all but a private event...by invitation only...no?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,911
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
The court did ask itself that question, rhetorically of course, but it gave no answers.
That's correct. The court of appeals remanded the case because the lower court did not do a legal analysis. The lower court supposedly rules for the county granting a declaratory judgment without the court determining the rights of the parties. Declaratory judgments border on prohibited advisory opinions; it is allowed to nip controversies in the bud, usually used in clarifying a phrase in a contract.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,911
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Sounds like a ticket (lenience?) being required to gain entry means that the event is not open to the general public as a grocery store would be. So, is a gun show that requires permission to enter (a ticket) actually a public place at all but a private event...by invitation only...no?
That is what the appeals court is questioning.
 
Top