Tallahassee, FL – -(AmmoLand.com)- Florida Carry has filed another class action lawsuit today against the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) for its ongoing violations of Florida’s firearms background check and preemption laws. In May we sued FDLE for illegally putting background checks into an indefinite “Decision Pending” status. That litigation is ongoing. The new lawsuit was filed on behalf of all holders of Concealed Weapons or Firearms Licenses (CWFL) and Law Enforcement Officers who have purchased a firearm in the past four years.
FDLE has been forcing firearms dealers to collect illegal fees from concealed carry licensees for additional background checks beyond those allowed by state and federal law.
Florida Law exempts CWFL holders and active law enforcement officers from redundant and costly supplemental state background checks in excess of those mandated under the free National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) when they purchase firearms.
CWFL holders and law enforcement officers have already passed all state background checks and their licenses would be suspended or revoked should they become disqualified from purchasing a firearm. Only eight (8) other states charge licensed firearm purchasers fees for pre-purchase background checks (CA, CT, MD, NJ, OR, PA, TN, and VA).
The law is crystal clear that Florida CWFL holders, and law enforcement officers, are exempt from all FDLE pre-purchase background check fees. FDLE has no authority to regulate or tax firearm transfers and only the legislature may enact Florida firearms and weapons laws or procedures. FDLE continues to illegally take it upon themselves to violate the rights of Florida citizens. When law enforcers become law breakers the public trust is eroded and action is necessary.
Over 2 million people hold valid Florida Concealed Carry licenses and Florida has tens-of-thousands of active law enforcement, probation, and correctional officers. Many of whom have purchased a firearm over the past four years.
FDLE owes them their money back.
Anyone with a Florida concealed carry license who has purchased a firearm in the past four years can go to www.FDLElawsuit.com to find out if they may qualify as an additional plaintiff or class member.
About Florida Carry, Inc.: Florida Carry is a Florida nonprofit, non-partisan, grassroots organization founded in 2010. Florida Carry is dedicated to advancing the fundamental civil right of all Floridians to keep and bear arms for self-defense as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Florida. In 2016 Florida Carry was named the Grassroots Organization of the Year by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Florida Carry, Inc. was organized in order to better coordinate activities, effectively lobby the state legislature, and to provide a legal entity capable of filing suit to demand compliance with state and federal law. Florida Carry stands to represent our members, millions of gun owners, and the countless knife and defensive weapon carriers of Florida. We are not beholden to any national organization’s agenda that may compromise that mission. Florida Carry is the state’s largest independent second amendment advocacy organization.
@Usa, Actually a Right and a Privilege are the same thing in the language of the law. The word that you are looking for is authorization, allowance, concession, or grant.
The state is in violation of the Constitution when it imposes restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, as well as other rights enshrined in that contract with the citizens of this nation. Only the enshrined lawyers of the supreme court (who avoid this sort of question like the plague) are the arbiters of ultimate legality. The first ten amendments to the Constitution are limitations on the power of the state, but with rights come responsibilities. “Free Speech” is just that, BUT there are consequences for irresponsible speech. Owning and bearing a gun is a right, With that… Read more »
@Hua, You have your finger on the pulse, but let me make one minor adjustment. You write, ” Only the enshrined lawyers of the supreme court … are the arbiters of ultimate legality.” That is not correct. In a 1958 S.Ct. case styled Cooper v Aaron the S. Ct. all nine justices signed on to the assertion that their view of the Constitution was “supreme in importance …” over the other branches of government. Since that time all three branches have acted as if that assertion were true. But it is not true, and has not been the view of… Read more »
USA is correct. Driving, for example, is a “privilege“ and not a “right.“ Your First Amendment rights are a “right“ and not a “privilege.“ The two are completely different. The Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, specify our “rights,” not our “privileges.”
@Spam, Why should driving a car on a street or highway be a grant of authority from the state? The same liberty thieves from the past that have diminished our Right to Speech, Religion, Arms, Security in our papers and personalty have abridged our Constitutional Right to Travel to walking somewhere other than streets, highways, or even sidewalks. Didn’t you read the cases?
There is no such thing as an absolute constitutional right. Your right of free speech is limited. You cannot defame another individual, for example. You are not free to verbally sexually harass another. You cannot incite others to violence. All Constitutional rights are, and should be, limited. See other comment above.
You can, but you risk being called to account for your actions.
@Spammela, Rights are absolute. You can defame another individual, but you are responsible for the damage you cause.
The Supreme Court (S.Ct.), lead by egotists like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, and later the Congress and Executive branch want you to think that Rights are limited so that you can not be the equal to government, by saying NO.
the various classes of harm resulting from speech that you mention do NOT change the FACT that rights are to be unlimited. I can pick up and carry my own money any time and place I choose to.. but I can NOT pick up and carry someone else’s money without their consent. I have the right to walk wherever I choose… UNTIL my walking takes me to a place where I violate someone ELSE”S right to the free use and control of their own property. I can drive and park a 45 foot motor home or bus on the street……… Read more »
Exactly!!! Which means you do not have the “right” to steal someone else’s money, trespass on someone else’s property or engage in child pornography. And yes, you can park your motor home on the street as well as drive it, at least you can drive it as long as you are not intoxicated, which means all of your “rights” are limited, just as you said!
@Tio, She does not even know the extent of what she does not know.
@ Spammela You sure have some confusion going on in your mind. For instance, one comment you state our rights are specified by the first ten amendments to the Constitution, then in the above post you say that all Constitutional rights are limited. Have you been listening to the Progressives too much?
Do you seriously think the First Amendment gives you the right to threaten to kill someone? If so, why don’t you prove me wrong by calling Fox News, tell them about your threat to kill someone and give them your name and address. Let us know how that works out for you
@Spammela Wow, now “Speech” is capable of killing someone. Try this as a perfect example of how the first amendment works. You are a retard. Simply and succinctly stated. Now I’m sure that offends a dumb bimbo like yourself to hear someone say that. In fact, you could say that it is expressly meant to be offensive. However, it is still 100% legal and protected. You don’t have a right to “Not be offended” by the speech of others. So why are you trying to muddy the waters by including physical threats as your metaphor? Simple, as factually pointed out,… Read more »
@Rev, It will do no good because she does not even know the basic language of Constitutional analysis. Perhaps … someday …
@Wild Bill
I know, I’m not doing it because I think she will suddenly transform out of her ugly caterpillar stage and become a butterfly..
She wanted to show off her lack of intelligence, so I’m just having a little fun is all. Strictly for recreational purposes of course. I don’t think puddin’ pop Pam could handle the real deal.
@Rev, You get a gold star. That is the funniest thing that I have read all day.
@Wild Bill
Here all week brother. 🙂
Just channeling Leslie Neilson in Dracula Dead and loving it was all. “She had it coming. Fushta!”
Seriously though, leftist trolls cant handle that kind of sarcasm. You see their bottom lip swell up and start shaking like the San Andreas before that twitch involuntarily hits their right eye. Only thing better is a perfectly brewed cup o’ cowboy coffee in the morning. Glad to have made you laugh.
Rev, Why don’t you and Wild get together, have a few beers, call the nearest news station, exercise your right to “speak” while threatening to kill someone and be sure to give the news station your names and address. Now here is the important part: Be sure to explain your right to “speak” and that it is 100% legal and protected, to the police and let us know how it goes
You don’t seem to understand what they told you. Threatening someone is illegal and you also do not have the “right” to harm others – they have stated that quite succinctly at least several times, but here you are making that same stupid comment, yet, again. I have to agree with TheRevelator’s assessment of you.
@Heed the call-up
She understands, she intentionally lies and pretends she doesn’t then invents situations that don’t exist.
It’s the same tactic they always use because they are too stupid to learn how to do anything else. Makes it very easy to spot.
@Spammela Because A. I don’t drink, and B. Wild Bill to my knowledge, and especially myself never threaten to kill anyone. Funny how you accuse people of doing things that they don’t do. 🙂 So here is what I will offer instead. If you will tell us and verify your real name, I will be more than happy to tell the whole world that you are little more than a brain dead hoe, and that you must suffer from a severe case of self inflicted constipation. Of course, I will also point out that it wouldn’t be near as bad… Read more »
Driving for commerce is a privilege that is constitutional for states to require a license to do. The right to travel, which is the freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution. Also of note, it is unconstitutional for states to impose a license tax for the exercise of a privilege guaranteed by the Constitution. These are all opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court, btw.
Driving requires a driver’s license, which is presumably what you mean by a grant of authority from the state or otherwise known as a “privilege.” And, if you abuse the “privilege” by driving while intoxicated, for example, you will, and should, lose that privilege.
Dear Spammela, You are not the only one that misuses the word privilege. To wit: Priviledge- A right, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class against or beyond the course of law. Please see p 1077, Black’s Law Dictionary, Ed Fifth. For a practical example please see Constitution of the United States, at Amend. XIV, Section 1. Privileges or Immunities clause. Oh, and lest I forget, driving a car on a federal highway, state highway, county road, or city street should not require a license from a state. It was another elitist court, that believed people had… Read more »
Dear Wild Bill. Your reliance on Black’s law dictionary is misplaced and has simply served to increase your confusion. The Constitution uses the word “right“ as well as “privilege,“ and does not use them interchangeably. You yourself seem to state that although I am not sure that you understand the difference. The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution are the Bill of Rights. Those are “rights“ and not “privileges.“ There is also the privileges and immunities clause. But, that is a completely different section of the constitution. Were the terms interchangeable, the founding fathers would’ve used one word over and… Read more »
@Spam, So you understand the language of the law better than the authors of Blacks? Sure you do. I doubt that you know what the founding fathers would have done. You are mixing actions with conclusions of law. I have the Right to speak. If I use that Right in a way that a jury concludes that I harassed someone, then I am responsible and liable. There is no Right to violate the law, if the thing that you violate is indeed law. If the thing is unconstitutional it is not law. It is a nullity, and you will have… Read more »
Hi, wild bill. I am afraid you are mistaken. You do not have a Constitutional right to “speak.” You have a constitutional right to express your opinion. That is what the First Amendment states. If you think you have a constitutional right to speak, why don’t you go into a crowded theater and yell “fire” as loudly as possible. And when the police arrive, be sure to explain your right to “speak” and let us know how that turns out. Good luck!
@ Wild Bill You have spent a lot of time trying to explain some simple facts to the spam can but, I don’t know about you, I think you are trying to educate a brick wall with a mind that is boiler plate steel, nothing gets in and nothing gets out.
Why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and prove me wrong? Threaten someone, get yourself on the 6:00 news and prove to the police what a genius you are! Make sure the cameras are rolling so that all of us can be dazzled by your intelligence.
It’s funny that Spammela the liar still insists on creating a make believe scenario.
What she doesn’t want you to pay attention to is the fact that Gun Owners are not the ones threatening to kill people, its the anti-gun left doing that. On top of that, she doesn’t want you thinking about how she will push for you to be murdered if you dare to oppose or not comply with how she thinks your rights need to be forfeited.
Then again she is too busy being a retard to notice that herself. Henceforth why she must push a lie.
What an amateurish attempt at manipulating another person. You have no ethics or morality. Shame on you!
@Spammela I think you may be arguing with the wrong person. Regardless, here is something that must be called into question about your comment. What would you define as “Sexual harassment?” I’ll start there since your concern for the constitution is about as facetious as pinnochio’s nose is long. Recently in the news, a world famous opera singer has been “#MeToo”d by a female costar. His crime, the sexual harassment of having asked her out to dinner. The costar, when asked if the singer pushed it further, or became irate when she told him no said that “No, he remained… Read more »
Hey, Rev! If you don’t know what sexual harassment is, you are right up there with Harvey Weinstein! I guess that puts you in good company. Or at least some kind of company. Not necessarily good, though
@Spam, Well, if you can not define it (are refuse the authority of a legal dictionary, then you can not prove it. I am beginning to think that this one is merely a troll seeking responses for which they get paid.
You couldn’t find the definition in Black’s law dictionary or a legal case? And you fancy yourself some kind of legal expert? The equal opportunity commission defines workplace sexual harassment as “unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature…..”. Have you and Harvey been living under a rock for the past thirty years? In Meritor savings v. Vinson, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the basic premises of the EEOC‘s guidelines as well as the EEOC’s definition. And it wasn’t in dicta! I don’t mind telling you just how disappointed I… Read more »
Notice again, here this time to Wild Bill, how she fails in here attempt to distract. Wild Bill pointed out that Spammela does not want an actual defined crime for Sexual harassment, instead wanting it to be an accusation based mob vengeance scheme. So what does she do? Simple, instead of defining the crime, she questions him like she originally challenged him to find a definition. Only she didn’t, and she’s a brainless idiot for displaying it here. So here again, she turns to the Supreme Court, citing it as if it has the power to create law. As already… Read more »
@spammela Aww puddin’, I already figured you were a snowflake who likes to make accusations without proof. Personally, never liked ol’ Harvey since he was too busy cowtowing around with Gun Control proponents like Bill and Hillary. Or was it John Edwards, perhaps Al Franken, Joe Biden, Al Gore, and Elliot Spitzer. Come to think of it, it would seem that it is mostly the company you keep as a supporter of Gun Control that seems to be an issue. @Everyone else Since the brainless Bimbo decided to show off again, please note how I did describe what sexual harassment… Read more »
And you think you are?
He is more so than you, and I can tell you just how much more.
If you added one to the amount of authority or knowledge on the constitution that you have, and then multiplied it by ninety to figure hot how much more qualified @wjd is than you, he would be exactly 90 times more of an authority on the constitution than you are.
You ain’t hard to surpass sweetheart…
Your comment has nothing to do with this story. However, if you want to compare driving laws to firearms laws and only allow for firearms what is allowed for motored vehicles, you might not like the result. I have listed several points that show how lax laws on vehicles are compared to firearms. Motor vehicles – there are no restrictions on size nor power of the vehicle, comparing that to firearms, we would have no restrictions on size and power of firearms, meaning the ban on full-auto would be lifted, and any other restrictions on their capacities, etc.. You do… Read more »