Posted on 02/22/2014 10:51:12 PM PST by Daffynition
I have to retract my post. A friend directed me to some case law that seems to show that the courts have not interpreted that paragraph E literally. They are saying that statutory construction dictates that it must be taken in the context of the overall statute which is in regards to keeping a firearm locked in your vehicle while you are at work.
I owe you guys an apology. Apparently the courts in Florida have decided that this paragraph (e) that I posted does not stand on its own. They only view it as applying in the case where the gun is kept locked in the car while on the employer’s property. That makes sense, since it’s in the context of locked guns in the car, but that paragraph doesn’t make that linkage. The courts have said that it should, so this woman most likely has no case.
Thanks for the clarification RF...as is so often the case, cops don’t know what the law is, and make faulty judgement/s and the citizen is left with the short shrift. This has happened many times here in Connecticut.
*Let’s pass this law and see what is in it*...our FF must be doing back flips in their graves!
We’ll see what her attorney, Noel Flasterstein has up his sleeve, and what he does under the pressure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.