[Boston-Sean]

Originally Posted by jimschlaefer

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.

A friend of mine was in an advanced class recently and one of the students was in way over his head. It wasn't long before he was politely kicked out of the class. Turns out he was a video game developer and wanted the experience to help him code how people move while shooting guns.

[Boston-Sean]

Originally Posted by jimschlaefer

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.

The basic firearm safety courses give you what you need to get started. Nothing more. It's up to you to get to the range regularly and ideally get more advanced training as your skills progress. One of the biggest mistakes I see people making is purchasing their first gun with the intention of carrying it.

Buy a full size gun that's comfortable to shoot and easy to clean. Learn to shoot with that and then think about what you need in a carry gun.

[donfey]

Originally Posted by wisbad1

Wait till someone shoots their foot, I’ll be nervous around people with no idea how dangerous guns are. It’s not the gun it’s the person holding it. Ask Alex Baldwin

Raise your hand if you believe nervous people, wackos, criminals, felons, or any other definition of undesirables is effectively kept from carrying a fire arm under ANY laws that prohibit them from doing so.

The licensing provision for the Concealed Carry Permit merely adds a pseudo-safeguard that responsible citizens will, initially, be trained to minimal standards. It also makes it easier for them to purchase fire arms. (It does NOT, however, exclude them from undergoing the required background check.)

[ScottGo]

Originally Posted by 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 And the 21st amendment that repealed it.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.

And who would run on this campaign? In this state they would LOOSE in a landslide. Unfortunatly it will not change. Already more mass killings (3+people) than days of this year 2-19-23.

[cjrjck]

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. Not exactly. If the retired LEO wishes to carry concealed, he/she will have to show evidence he met the firearms qualifications within the last year from the date he is carrying concealed. The officer can choose to not qualify for any extended period of time but will not be able to legally carry concealed if he/she did not qualify within the last year. The officer can of course go through the qualification at any point to get back into status

This agency will be subject to civil liability in a shooting therefore they require proficiency. I doubt the agency has any liability concerning retirees. No more than the state has for those who are issued a CCP. The individual in both instances is the one who is held liable for any action deemed contrary to law involving the use of a concealed firearm.

Retired LEO get a retired ID AND a HR218 permit. Retired LEOs might receive the proper credentials from their previous employer. Some agencies do not issue them and cannot be compelled to do so. Those agencies also do not issue an HR 218 permit. There is no such thing. The law stipulates that a qualified LEO, retired or not, with the proper credentials can carry concealed under LEOSA. However, one of the stipulations is that the LEO must show that he/she met the firearm qualification standards of the former agency or that of the state he/she now resides within the previous year of the date that LEO chooses to carry concealed. Some agencies do not offer firearm qualifications to former employees or the employee has moved. So there are usually options. Florida has a state sanctioned LEO qualification standard and firearm qualification is made available to qualified persons at a cost through private state-sanctioned individuals. The state nor the firearms qualifier can be held liable for the actions of those they qualify. Nor do they issue an HR 218 permit. They do issue a card that serves as documentation to allow the retired LEO to show that he or she has met the qualification requirement ; and assuming it was less than a year prior to the date he or she is carrying concealed, then that part of the statute requirements has been met.

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. There is no such thing as a HR 218 permit. The firearms qualification documentation can be a card or letter or such. It is not a permit. Those retired LEOs you know can at anytime meet the firearms qualification again and carry concealed under LEOSA assuming they are otherwise qualified and have the proper credentials issued to them at retirement. Also, a state issued CCP is not always restricted to the state in which it was issued. Many states have reciprocal agreements with other states.

LEOSA can be confusing. There is so much disinformation out there.

[Regorp]

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?

Pretty soon everywhere will be like Dodge City or Tombstone of the old west. Dangerous!

[Boston-Sean]

Originally Posted by Regorp

Pretty soon everywhere will be like Dodge City or Tombstone of the old west. Dangerous!

There are 25 (maybe 26) states with concealed carry now.

Please list the ones that are like Dodge City or Tombstone.

Take your time. We'll wait.

[sallyg]

Nope. Bad idea.

[NoMo50]

Originally Posted by cjrjck

LEOSA can be confusing. There is so much disinformation out there.

Yes, it can be confusing...at least to those who do not fall under its provisions, and actively participate in order to remain current. Which is why, in my previous post, I simply laid out the bare minimums that are required for retired officers to remain "current."

However, at its core, LEOSA is just another Federal statute. Like all statutes, it has elements that comprise its workings. Under the Federal statute, a retired police officer is authorized to carry concealed in any state, along with all U.S. territories and possessions, as long as he/she meets all of the elements laid out in the statute.

As you correctly state, there is no HR218 (LEOSA) permit. Should a retired officer, carrying concealed under LEOSA, ever be challenged by law enforcement for carrying, he/she merely needs to show a Retired ID card, along with a current qualification certification. Those two documents are their "permit."

Those who do not know the elements of LEOSA should refrain from offering opinions or "facts" about its workings. One of the main components that led to the original passage of HR218 (LEOSA) was its prominence as a "force multiplier." Giving retired officers, who were highly trained and had worked with firearms for most of their working life, the ability to carry weapons anywhere in the country was an idea with merit. It still is. I, for one, have absolutely no problem with retired police officers continuing to carry weapons while they are amongst us.

[JP]

Until they get all the illegal guns out of the hands of criminals law abiding citizens deserve to carry.

[MrFlorida]

So, most of you would rather only criminals have guns?

[Hardlyworking]

Originally Posted by sallyg

Nope. Bad idea.

You do realize that criminals when carrying a firearm are probably doing so without a permit? How do you feel about that?

[MandoMan]

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?

While The Villages has an extremely low crime rate, Florida—including some of the surrounding towns—has a very high rate of violent crimes, one of the highest in the country. I’ve never seen a Villager carrying either open or concealed, but I know a very large percentage of Villagers have guns. If more of them started carrying them, I would feel a bit nervous, but it wouldn’t scare me.

However, arresting people for illegal concealed carrying of firearms is one of the major ways that law enforcement officers get the Criminal Element off the streets and into prison where they belong, at least for a day or two. There are certainly parts of Florida that will have more gun-carrying criminals on the street if this were passed, and it would be harder to get them off the street. If they want to shoot each other, I don’t care, good riddance, but I don’t want them shooting at the rest of us.

[Sabrina&Bill]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

What is someone going to do if the low life thug has a knife , not a firearm, and is intent on doing harm? If your body is as broken down as mine, you sure as Hades aren't going be able to fight him and take his knife. You aren't going to out run him either. Even a healthy 20 something stud is going to be in a hurt against a knife wielding thug. Do you really think a young 100 lb woman is going to fare any better? Sure, you could carry a knife yourself but just how effective are you going to be? I'll answer that, you are going to be on the losing end. There have been may incidents where multiple low life scum bags without a weapon have beaten a person to death with their fists and feet. The only thing a cop can do for you is call for an ambulance or the coroner and hopefully find a witness to the crime.

I will get to Number 10 GI's post in a minute but just wanted to address the OP's statement about the possibility of Constitutional Carry here in FL, specially, in TV. Personally, in my opinion, I don't think it would make much difference here in TV. I have my FL CCW and never carry while here in TV and only carry when I plan to travel beyond "the bubble". I feel very safe here and have the opinion that there are others, like myself who have made the decision to leave their weapon locked up at home. Again, just my opinion. I always carry pepper spray and a knife with me 100% of the time.
I just wonder about the folks from states like NY where carrying (or ever owning) a gun is near to impossible? I wonder if you obtained your FL CCW and enjoy concealed carrying while in TV?
As for the person I quoted above; what you said really resonated with me. I am in my sixties now, I am not as strong as I once was and nor am I as fast on my feet. These days, I read of too many stories of innocent people walking the street and are robbed of their belongings and then beaten senseless often times left in a coma barely hanging on to life. I don't want that to happen to me (or anyone)! I hope that makes sense to most of you? I try to train as often as I can, usually a class every two years. I also read a lot of articles about justified shoots and questionable ones. I am supporter of the 2nd Amendment and in the same breath, I hope I never have to shoot someone.
I could go on but just want to end up with this final thought; there's a lot of murders/killings taking place all over the US and "yes", a majority of them take place in big cities, and "yes", often times a bullet is used, but not always. I think it's time to just agree that there is a lot of violence in American Culture, for whatever reason. Does it matter if someone is killed by a bullet, a knife, baseball bat, pipe, cars, trucks, bombs etc but there's always more focus when the bullet is used. What about all the serial killers who abduct men, woman and/or children and torture and abuse them till death? My point is, there's a lot of "people" out there who are not right in the head (for lack of a better word). For me, I carry because I refuse to be a victim. I carry to protect myself, my family, and friends.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by JP

Until they get all the illegal guns out of the hands of criminals law abiding citizens deserve to carry.

Who is they?