[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Cheapbas

Let’s see what happens when someone lays on their horn at the person in front for taking a split second to long to advance at a stop. People with guns in their golf carts isn’t going to work out well.

Yes, there have been sooo many cases of that happening already...

Wait, what?

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Or.....perhaps those "macho guys" can show off their pretty cars? Oh wait.....did you mean "guns" as in their muscular bodies? I am sure that the thousands of "guys" (and females) that carry concealed in the local area do not consider themselves "macho" but I may be mistaken. Some probably carry for self defense, but I may be mistaken about that also.

It's called "projection"...

[NoMo50]

Originally Posted by bluecenturian

Know your facts.

Retired LEO have to qualify each year to maintain their HR218 which is issued by their retiring agency. This agency will be subject to civil liability in a shooting therefore they require proficiency. CCP have no other agency backing them so the proficiency and liability would be on the individual.

Retired LEO get a retired ID AND a HR218 permit. You are not covered under HR218 without a valid permit which expires annually. I know plenty of retired who choose not to get the 218 and have a CCP instead since they have no plans traveling outside their home state with a firearm.

Yes, you should know your facts.

HR218 is the colloquial reference to the Federal statute known as the Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act (LEOSA), originally enacted in 2004. HR218 was the House bill that started it.

There is no such thing as an "HR218 permit." And, there is no permit issued by an officer's retiring agency. There are a great many factors that go into determining whether or not a retired police officer meets the requirements of LEOSA, but the bare minimums are:

1. Must have retired in good standing from a law enforcement agency with a minimum 10 years of qualified service.
2. Must have been issued, and carry on his/her person an ID card that specifies they are a retired peace officer.
3. Within the past 12 months, must have successfully qualified with a handgun, to at least the standards dictated by the state in which he/she resides. Proof of such qualification must be carried on their person.

So, a retired officer gets a "retired police ID" from their former agency. He gets an annual qualification card from whomever put that retired officer through a qual course. The "retiring agency" has no liability, as the only thing they certify is that the individual has retired from that department. Again, no HR218 "permit" is issued by anyone. You don't need a permit to benefit from the provisions of Federal law. You don't have a free speech permit, do you?

Here in The Villages, the Sumter County Sheriff holds annual qualification sessions for retired police officers, to allow them to satisfy that requirement under LEOSA. The Sheriff's Department just finished those sessions this month, with the shooting sessions being held at Shooters World. Both the Sheriff, and Shooters World, offer this service free of charge to the retired officers. This year, nearly 700 retired police officers took part in those sessions.

Apologies for the lengthy post, but it is important to get your facts straight.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Do you really think that we don't already have many CCW carrying while driving a golf cart or automobile in The Villages? Apparently folks on here think that anyone that carries a firearm are loose cannons (no pun intended) waiting to go off at the slightest provocation. Seems like a lot of hysteria over "what if."

Again, "projection"...

They don't trust themselves with a firearm, so they don't trust anyone else...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Lindsyburnsy

So, explain to me why it's safe to carry weapons anywhere, EXCEPT at an NRA Convention or certain political rallies? Why is that exactly?

Insurance regulations from the rented convention center...

[cjrjck]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I think that carrying a concealed firearm SHOULD require special licenses and training and methods to keep mental patients and recent felons from buying or carrying guns.
......I would be fine with non-concealed carry, BUT..........a big BUT.......if I were in charge of the US, I would require all guns sold to civilians to be SINGLE-SHOT (EVEN including pistols). That way there could be very few MASS MURDERS.
........Everyone knows that the US has the MOST Gun violence and the MOST guns. That is a DIRECT PROPORTION where more VIOLENCE happens because of MORE guns in society. The US bar chart of gun VIOLENCE compared to other countries is COMPLETELY "off the chart".
..........America has to wake up some time from this national NIGHTMARE caused by the ALL-POWERFUL greed and power promoted for the GUN manufacturers by the NRA.

Likely the new law restricts felons and those with certain mental issues from carrying a firearm. If they do so, it would be contrary to the law no different than now. Permit notwithstanding.

[Bilyclub]

Originally Posted by Bilyclub

No, do I want every wacko on the street packing, hell no.
The bigger question is why do retired LEO's have to qualify every year, and CCL holders only every 7 years ?

This was a rhetorical question. I most certainly know why, and most of the answer is politicians.
Some of your replies were so wrong.

[cjrjck]

Many will remember the 18th amendment to the Constitution. Commonly referred to as prohibition. And the 21st amendment that repealed it. As you can see, there is a process to change the Constitution of the United States. The wise founders made sure it would be a difficult process . However, if the desired goal is popular enough, history shows it can be done. For those who think the 2nd amendment needs to be changed, more power to you. But there is a process in place to do it.

[Mrfriendly]

Originally Posted by Two Bills

I always have this vision of a Christmas balloon exploding in a local Walmarts, Publix, Restaurant etc. and about half the geriatrics with guns blasting at anything that moves.
Then the Police arrive and start shooting, adding to the mayhem.
Make a great finale to a film.
"Gunfight at the Golden Coral!"

I have this vision of starting a new club named The Golden Coral Gunfight Club where people angry at one another can “Let’s take this outside” and take care of business. Just not in Hadley area rec centers. 😎

[me4vt]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Well, I don't....... because there are a lot of "Hotheads", uptight seniors, inflexible seniors, and demented seniors locate here. Not to mention the excessive drinking that is prevalent here.

And you fall in that category

[srswans]

Originally Posted by tjlee500

I have a FL concealed carry license. I had to have training and went through background check with fingerprints etc. I think that is the best way to proceed. Training is essential, just like what we all go through in getting a drivers license. I want every person carrying to have basic training. It is necessary. Personally, I go to the shooting range on a regular basis and have taken additional courses. I also keep abreast of FL laws concerning firearms.

Agree totally. Need to practice frequently including not just firing a weapon but also get training on tactical situations and some practice exercises too. (Same goes for driving - take some defensive driving courses at a race track - you’d be surprised at how much it helps,)

[Wondering]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

The Florida legislature is even now considering "constitutional carry" (House Bill 543, Companion Senate Bill 150) for the state of Florida. Briefly stated, constitutional carry would allow any Floridian of legal age and not otherwise forbidden to own a firearm, to carry one in public without having to obtain a permit to do so. The current permitting system would remain in effect however for those who wish to access it, most probably because of reciprocity agreements between Florida and other states.

What many people don't realize is how common constitutional carry is in America. Fully half the states already allow it. Besides Florida, the states of Nebraska, South Carolina, and New Mexico are also considering going that route as well.

I confess to being of two minds on the issue. After all, it is called "Constitutional carry" for a reason. But merely OWNING a gun does not guarantee that the owner will be able to USE it in a lawful and safe manner. The current system in Florida does provide a way to assure that a permit holder has demonstrated at least a minimum knowledge of the law as well as showing he/she has basic skills in how to use a firearm in a self-defense situation.

Is this something we want to see come to The Villages?

Florida and some States are going back to the Wild, Wild West days of our country - pathetic when there are more guns in the US than people and more gun violence and deaths that any other industrialized country in the world. Shame on our politicians!

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by jimschlaefer

I'm a strong supporter of Constitutional Carry. As a former NRA Pistol Instructor, Bullseye competitor and USMC veteran I am also a strong proponent for those who carry to be effectively trained in laws, technique and marksmanship. Firearms are dangerous and, in untrained hands, as much of a threat to innocent bystanders as they are to a threat. Case in point: I attended a licensing class in Texas where they required a practical part of the process to be accomplished on the range in order to qualify for the permit. A young man there was literally unable to hit a man-sized target at 7 yards. That was a dangerous situation. I'm often asked for my opinion on what folks should consider for defense. My personal opinion is that those who are not willing to practice and be effective with a pistol should consider not carrying a sidearm. That's not to define the law to carry, but the individual choice to carry. High stress, high adrenaline situations are no place for "spray and pray" self defense techniques.

Excellent points.

One thing mentioned that I think deserves more discussion is the variance in carry permit classes, state-to-state and even within a state. My wife and I were one of the first to get our permits in Minnesota nearly 20 years ago now, and the qualification class was a two-day affair: the first morning was spent discussing firearms in general, intense classroom discussion on the applicable laws, what is and what is not permitted, etc. The second day included a morning of more discussion, then an afternoon at the range where each of us demonstrated proficiency in loading, proper holstering, firing no fewer than 50 rounds from varying distances--all the hands-on stuff that goes with a permit to carry. The class was taught by an ex-cop who really knew his stuff and made sure we not only learned it but could demonstrate the knowledge when it came to actually handling the firearm. Renewals, done every five years there, were much less comprehensive, though in fairness they WERE renewal classes. Still, I felt that more emphasis on the laws, the do's and don'ts, would have been warranted. That, and each of us were only required to fire ten rounds.

Here in Florida we obtained our permits via an instructor who really knew her stuff. The advantage was that it was a class of two people, my wife and myself, so we got a lot of individualized attention and were able to ask a lot of questions. We each fired about 30 rounds, again from varying distances, discussed various situations that we might encounter, etc.

I would really question any "instructor" who only required students to fire one round as one post indicated. Such a class may fulfill the letter of the law but what can you really gain from that? Not much, I'm afraid.

[srswans]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Good points. All too often it is what a person DOESN'T know about guns that ends up chomping them in the shorts.

Maybe an answer is not to mandate training only if and when someone buys a gun with the intent to carry, but to make gun education mandatory in schools. The odds of that happening today are probably slim and none, given the hysteria and anti-gun bias in today's culture, but back in the day that training was freely available, though in Minnesota not a required class. But the mindset at that time was different: guns were tools, and being educated as to tool use was seen as totally logical, no different in intent than learning how to use a table saw in shop class, or becoming competent with an arc welder.

Knowing about guns goes a long way toward un-demonizing (is that a word) guns.

Growing up in the midwest, the county had a gun safety program for teenagers and most of us attended upon turning 13.

[Rolson08]

So that more six-year-olds can find a gun in the nightstand and shoot themselves in the face, or a 3 year finds a gun under the car seat and shoots gramma in the back. Yup, until gun owners are held completely responsible for what happens with their guns, let's just declare "open season"!!