Latest Headlines
- Several Inches Of Rain Possible Today, Turning Colder By Wednesday Night
- New Credit Union Location Planned On Nine Mile Road At Milestone
- Former Treasurer Indicted On 36 Felony Counts For Allegedly Stealing From NWE Little League
- Escambia Motorcylist Struck And Killed Sunday Afternoon
- Tate High School Names Students Of The Month
- AAA: Florida Gas Prices Up A Couple Of Cents Over Past Week
- Deputies Arrest Burglary Suspect On Chemstrand Road
- Escambia County EMS Employees Recognized As “Healers” For Helping Circle K Burn Victim
- East Tops West 3-0 In All-Star Volleyball Action (With Gallery)
- Escambia BOCC To Install Four Commissioners, New Chair And Vice-Chair
Bill Would Allow Concealed Weapon Carry With No License During Evacuations
January 9, 2015
After a similar proposal died last year amid a contentious debate, Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg, filed a bill Thursday that would allow Floridians to carry concealed weapons without licenses during times of mandatory emergency evacuations.
Brandes’ 2014 proposal drew criticism from the Florida Sheriffs Association, which raised questions about issues such as how long and where a person could continue to carry a concealed weapon without a license outside an evacuation area.
The National Rifle Association made clear last May it would seek to bring back the issue during the 2015 legislative session and described the sheriffs association as declaring “war on the Second Amendment.”
Brandes’ 2015 bill would make an exception to the state’s concealed-weapons laws. That exception would apply to an unlicensed person “who carries a concealed firearm, on or about his or her person while in the act of evacuating during a mandatory evacuation order issued during a state of emergency declared by the governor … or declared by a local authority.”
The proposal will be considered during the legislative session that starts in March.
by The News Service of Florida
Comments
8 Responses to “Bill Would Allow Concealed Weapon Carry With No License During Evacuations”
Chris in Molino, haven’t you heard some of the things a person does young or old will follow you, as having 28 felonies even @ 15, is no excuse, you probably should still be serving time, there are mistakes but not 28 of them, there is a lot of old people who were mischievous who hasn’t gotten but 1 or 2 if any, & no with that many you shouldn’t be allowed. One with that many would make me look @ them kinda weird. Also, none of my kids would be having any association with you @ all, I bet your kids doesn’t have that many respectable friends. Yes people do change, trying not to convict you but I still would look @ the # & wonder.
@ just listening – thanks for giving your story. Our “removal of rights permanently” is at the least not productive and at worse gives ex-felons a no-win choice. Since police have no duty to protect an individual, an ex-felon must either be a helpless victim or commit additional felonies go have the tools necessary for protection.
The current BC system is not efficient or effective and needs to be reworked. I would like to see a “sunset limit” on all records of say 5 years and automatic review of any denials. Also, we need to prevent people that are not dangerous from being added for non-violent offenses or non-adjudicated actions.
I have often wondered why, since we have the right to bear arms in our Constitution, it is necessary to license people to own guns? It doesn’t keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys. It makes it take longer to buy a gun and gives the government tax revenue I guess.
Boooooo— . I had to take a class and go throught a background check, etc. to be permitted to carry. So should everyone else.
@ just listening
I’m a convicted felon with 28 felonies on my record. All of which were armed robbery and firearm possesions. I was however, 15 years old and the charges are 21 years old. I’ve also had no more felonies. I work on a military base. I don’t agree that i shouldn’t be allowed to legally own firearms, but i love to hunt so…….I also worry not about civil unrest as i am well prepared to protect my wife, children, and neighbors. Although not legally allowed to purchase a firearm, i have the ability to obtain them as if it were legal. So what’s the point in it being illegal? Besides, i prefer it this way. When something goes down (and it’s coming soon) national gaurd and police will come to your home and seize your weapons (by force if necessary) if your a lagal owner. They proved it after Katrina. They dont want you to have a firearm as much as me so get off your high-horse.
What could possibly go wrong? Nobody ever gets angry when they’re stuck in a miles long traffic jam.
Hummmmm. The wording in this article is probably not clear to all the Bill contains. In any case a convicted felon in no way should be allowed to carry a fire arm—Disaster or otherwise. For the ordinary citizen wanting to protect his property and or person during a time of disaster — YES. in the meantime get yourself a permit, man or woman, they are not that hard to get. just saying
reminder. criminals will do what ever they want. so it’s up to each person to decide on how to protect themselves. in a bad situation your will is no security.