On June 28, 2023, a post on Facebook asked whether the photo depicted a lawful transport of a long gun in a passenger car in Florida in 2023, after the passage of the new law. There were some disagreements on this from some very knowledgeable folks. Most notable on the side saying it was OK was a reply by Richard Nascak stating his belief it was lawful:
My reply to Richard was that my prior interpretation in previous editions of my Florida Firearms books agreed with him, but due to the 2023 changes in the law, I was urging a more cautious approach as I believe the courts might interpret the revised subsection as requiring either securely encased or not readily accessible as being the law. Here’s a copy of what the new law says:
(4) POSSESSION IN PRIVATE CONVEYANCE
(a) Notwithstanding s. 790.01, a person 18 years of age or older who is in lawful possession of a handgun or other weapon may possess such a handgun or weapon within the interior of a private conveyance if the handgun or weapon is securely encased or otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use. A person who possesses a handgun or other weapon as authorized under this paragraph may not carry the handgun or weapon on his or her person.
(b) This subsection does not prohibit a person from carrying a:
(1). Legal firearm other than a handgun anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use; or
(2). Concealed weapon or concealed firearm on his or her person while in a private conveyance if he or she is authorized to carry a concealed weapon or concealed firearm under s.790.01(1).
(c) This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including lawful self-defense as provided in s. 776.012.
So — what do we know for sure from this new law?
1. It is lawful to transport a handgun or other weapon in a private conveyance so long as the handgun or weapon is not on his or her person.
2. All other legal firearms other than handguns can be carried anywhere within the private conveyance — if for a lawful purpose [the historical significance of this was 790.25 originally only applied to handguns and repeating rifles] However, if not lawfully concealed, the law could be interpreted to require those firearms and weapons to be either securely encased or not readily accessible.
3. If you are authorized to carry concealed — concealed carry on your person is lawful. This applies to any type firearm or weapon. Handguns included.
4. The entire section shall be liberally interpreted by the courts in favor of lawful use, and self defense.
What does all this mean on closer analysis???
1. The bad drafting from prior versions of the law is still with us. The stuff about handguns really can be confusing.
2. If you are not a prohibited person but still do not qualify to carry concealed [usually not yet 21 years of age, or not a citizen of the United States, or are subject to a legally required waiting period before you could get a CWL] you can still transport legally if the firearm or weapon is not on your person, and is either securely encased or not readily accessible.
3. As for everyone who has a CWL or could qualify for it — all types of firearms can be carried/transported anywhere within the private conveyance including concealed on your person — and yes — that includes handguns, however, there is also a possible interpretation of the new statute that unless lawfully concealed, the firearms or weapons must be securely encased or not readily accessible.
4. The courts should interpret this section as broadly as possible in favor of lawful carry and self defense.
SO WHY DO I DISAGREE WITH RICHARD NASCAK???
Well . . . as I tried to say earlier, I really don’t. His interpretation is a “possible” one. He could be correct. Especially, if the courts recognize the long standing issues in the drafting of this section, and take seriously that it must be “liberally” interpreted. But, in my opinion — it is a “test case” waiting for an answer. And here’s why:
First — it is clear that while a “firearm” is normally referred to by its specific type in the statutes and case law — all firearms are “weapons”. The case law has many examples of that, and even 790.001 makes that clear in several subsections. So, while the subsection in F.S. 775.25(4)(b)(1) says you can transport a “Legal firearm (other than a handgun) anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use” — it does NOT say “how” that firearm or weapon must or should be transported. Only subsection (4)(a) says “how” — and that subsection says either securely encased or not readily accessible. And the only other subsection in this new law is about concealed carry on the person — which has nothing to do with open carry, and is pretty much “anyway you want to carry” — as long as concealed, and you have either the CWL or qualify for it.
So — maybe you can transport your AR on the seat next to you. But, maybe not? Do you want to be the “test case”, or take the chance that if you are wrong, and involved in a self defense situation you have now committed “criminal conduct”, and your Stand Your Ground defense has disappeared or required the retreat rule, or whatever??? That’s why I “disagree”. It’s not that he is wrong — he isn’t — but we don’t know if he is “right”. We need a court to make that decision somewhere down the line.
And yes — I’m all for open carry of my AR in a private vehicle being lawful, and not “Open Carry”, but I don’t see anything in the statute that resembles the protections for concealed carry in 790.01. Likewise, nothing in the new statute alludes to any changes in the interpretation of Open Carry in F.S. 790.053.
That’s the problem! And since I’m charged with giving you advice you can rely on — that’s why I say (at least for now) — Don’t do it! (unless you’re fishing, hunting, camping, going to a shooting range, or the other exceptions for open carry in 790.25). For me — I’d rather play it safe. Your choice!
A LITTLE HISTORY: For those with earlier versions of my book you might remember I went into the history of F.S. 790.25. Prior to its creation open carry of most rifles and shotguns was the law in Florida with permits required only for handguns and Winchester type repeating rifles. When 790.25 was created the then legislative intent was it applied only to handguns and repeating rifles – but with the addition of 790.25(5), court cases extending 790.25 “securely encased”, and the 1987 CWL changed all that. Likewise, F.S. 790.25 (5)was really intended for everyone but CWL holders carrying concealed. Non-licensed and lawful open carry of non-repeating rifles and shotguns was still pretty much recognized until around 1987, and then underwent changes with the CWL law coming in in F.S. 790.06, and the addition of subsection (5) [now subsection (4)] in 790.25. (sorry if this is getting confusing) Anyway, the historic basis of the law has pretty much been forgotten at this point in time [ie: 2023], but knowing the historic basis does help in understanding this very poorly drafted section of the law.
Hoped this helped. If so, please pass it on so others can take a look, and decide for themselves. And please remember — I pay my retirement bills by selling my book. It’s still considered the “bible” here in Florida — and if you don’t already own it — you can purchase an autographed copy right off this website, and if you really want to make my day — buy the “two fer” with my new cowboy poetry book added in for only an extra five bucks — just about what it cost me to produce. It has 22 original stories about the West, and 24 archive photos from the late 1800’s. Just use this link: https://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/stories-of-the-old-west/
thanks — jon gutmacher
Thans Jon, I shared it with the Florida Carry Group.
Thanks, Rich. I hope this makes the issue clearer.
You say in the purple section “3. As for everyone who has a CWL or could qualify for it — all types of firearms can be carried anywhere within the private conveyance including on your person — and yes — that includes handguns.” But later you say that if someone does it, they might be the test case (for an AR type weapons). This is a contradiction regarding handguns. Am I correct in thinking that section 3 in purple is what you wrote? I’m even more confused now!
I see the problem you were talking about, and I have made a correction to my post that I hope clarifies it. The statute really has some confusing drafting, and lacks clarity in some areas as I’ve tried to point out. But, thanks for the response – since it lead me to clarify and redo the post.