Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

bill aimed to make stun gun possession illegal

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • bill aimed to make stun gun possession illegal

    SB 340 By Senator SiplinA bill to be entitled

    2 An act relating to weapons; creating s.

    3 790.223, F.S.; defining the term "stun gun";

    4 prohibiting the manufacture, display, sale,

    5 repair, or possession of a stun gun; providing

    6 criminal penalties; providing exceptions;

    7 providing an effective date.

    8

    9 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

    10

    11 Section 1. Section 790.223, Florida Statutes, is

    12 created to read:

    13 790.223 Stun gun unlawful to manufacture, sell,

    14 repair, or possess; penalty.--

    15 (1) "Stun gun" as used in this section means any item,

    16 including a Taser, used or intended to be used as an offensive

    17 or defensive weapon capable of temporarily immobilizing a

    18 person by inflicting an electrical charge.

    19 (2) A person may not manufacture, display, sell,

    20 repair, own, possess, or use a stun gun.

    21 (3)(a) Any person who manufactures, displays, sells,

    22 offers for sale, repairs, or delivers any stun gun commits a

    23 misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s.

    24 775.082 or s. 775.083.

    25 (b) Any person who possesses a stun gun commits a

    26 misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s.

    27 775.082 or s. 775.083.

    28 (c) Any person who possesses with intent to use a stun

    29 gun in the commission of a criminal act commits a felony of

    30 the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s.

    31 775.083, or s. 775.084.

    1

    CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.






    Florida Senate - 2006 SB 340
    19-206-06




    1 (4) This section does not apply to:

    2 (a) The possession of any item described in subsection

    3 (1) by any law enforcement agency or by any law enforcement

    4 officer, when possessed in connection with the performance of

    5 his or her duty as a law enforcement officer.

    6 (b) The manufacture or repair of items described in

    7 subsection (1) exclusively for sale or delivery to law

    8 enforcement agencies.

    9 (c) The sale, repair, or delivery of items described

    10 in subsection (1) to law enforcement agencies.

    11 Section 2. This act shall take effect October 1, 2006.

    12

    13 *****************************************

    14 SENATE SUMMARY

    15 Prohibits the manufacture, display, sale, or possession
    of a stun gun. Provides criminal penalties.
    Last edited by bigdog; 01-11-2006, 01:15 PM.
    "Get yourself a shovel cause your in deep Sh*t"

  • #2
    I am glad that is not California. I carry a stun gun, I love 'em.

    Comment


    • #3
      I doubt that'll fly in Florida.
      10-8

      Comment


      • #4
        my company is trying to outfit all security officers with tasers i hope it doesnt pass its good for unarmed officers since they can still take a subject down at a distance . i hope it doesnt pass
        "Get yourself a shovel cause your in deep Sh*t"

        Comment


        • #5
          Definitely. The Taser is a very effective weapon. I have used it on duty and it always has provided the desired affect.
          10-8

          Comment


          • #6
            Welcome to Wisconsin. Since 1982.
            Some Kind of Commando Leader

            "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

            Comment


            • #7
              it wont happen in florida i bet you he tried it last year too it died in first commitee
              "Get yourself a shovel cause your in deep Sh*t"

              Comment


              • #8
                Well, I guess if it passes and only LEO's can use them. The term from "We had to tase your son" to "We had to shoot you son" may change a few minds about how we do things in security and the use of the CCW permits. I would think that in a strange sense a lot of bad guys whould hate to think with the banning of the taser means they are more likely to get a bullet now after all other means of incapacitation have been used. Not that I think that's bad. But I think you get my point.
                Last edited by Echos13; 01-12-2006, 02:18 PM.
                My views, opinions and statements are my own. They are not of my company, affiliates or coworkers.

                -Being bagger at Publix has more respect these days

                -It's just a job kid deal with it

                -The industry needs to do one of two things; stop fiddling with the thin line and go forward or go back to that way it was. A flashlight in one hand and your set of keys in the other

                Comment


                • #9
                  Too bad there is not an exemption for licensed, armed s/o's. Otherwise, I welcome such laws. It's way too easy to buy those weapons on ebay. I know my opinion is in the minority, but unless you are security or LE, I see no compelling reason to be in possession of one.
                  Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mr. Security
                    Too bad there is not an exemption for licensed, armed s/o's. Otherwise, I welcome such laws. It's way too easy to buy those weapons on ebay. I know my opinion is in the minority, but unless you are security or LE, I see no compelling reason to be in possession of one.

                    Well that is perhaps true to some reason. But when you start surpressing defensive abilities to the citizen could it lead to more? I am not a gun advocate or even a member of any hunting club or go around beating the right to bear arms thing in the air. But I think the reason most people are not over run by the criminal element is because of thier right to carry a weapon of chioce. None leathel weapons can perhaps be a good chioce for those who wish it. Just as there are those who prefer the firearm, impact or chemical weapon. Allowed only by permit or state law for CCW, LEO or Securtiy? I suppose so.
                    My views, opinions and statements are my own. They are not of my company, affiliates or coworkers.

                    -Being bagger at Publix has more respect these days

                    -It's just a job kid deal with it

                    -The industry needs to do one of two things; stop fiddling with the thin line and go forward or go back to that way it was. A flashlight in one hand and your set of keys in the other

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Echos13
                      Well, I guess if it passes and only LEO's can use them. The term from "We had to tase your son" to "We had to shoot you son" may change a few minds about how we do things in security and the use of the CCW permits. I would think that in a strange sense a lot of bad guys whould hate to think with the banning of the taser means they are more likely to get a bullet now after all other means of incapacitation have been used. Not that I think that's bad. But I think you get my point.
                      well said... I agree
                      "To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the highest skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the highest skill." Sun-Tzu

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        This is an interesting suggestion, as except for California, I know of very few states (if any) that allow private citizens working in the security field the priveliage of carrying dangerous weapons such as batons, on duty.

                        Most legislatiors and law enforcement lobbists will remind those adding such riders that "security guards are private citizens, and if your going to ban it for private citizens, why do security guards get it?"

                        Looking at the Senator's bill, there are many anti-taser and taser-modification requirements for law enforcement in his docket. Such as laws requiring police to use alternate methods in schools (No tasers), uniform reporting requirements for taser armings (Not deployments), etc.

                        I still find it strange that California bans batons, but allows a certain class of private citizen (licensed security guards) to possess them.

                        Oh, on the "licensed and armed," I see no reason that an unarmed security guard/officer should be prevented from having a taser, if trained to a set standard by the Manufacturer (In lieu of a state mandated training program.) Many clients use unarmed officers in dangerous situations due to the simple fact that the client's insurance company specifically told them: You will not put armed contractors on your property, or we will raise your insurance policy and require a rider against negligent homicide.
                        Some Kind of Commando Leader

                        "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
                          .....I still find it strange that California bans batons, but allows a certain class of private citizen (licensed security guards) to possess them.

                          Oh, on the "licensed and armed," I see no reason that an unarmed security guard/officer should be prevented from having a taser, if trained to a set standard by the Manufacturer (In lieu of a state mandated training program.) Many clients use unarmed officers in dangerous situations due to the simple fact that the client's insurance company specifically told them: You will not put armed contractors on your property, or we will raise your insurance policy and require a rider against negligent homicide.
                          Connecticut allows batons for private security as well. Also, we have countless posts on this forum and O.com about the inadequate training given to some unarmed s/o's. That's why I suggested "armed" because the training requirements are generally higher and documented better than for unarmed security. As long as it requires a specific endorsement on the guard's license to prove competency, then fine. Otherwise, standby for problems.
                          Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Granted, keep in mind that very few states require a State Sign Off on training. Most require only training to manufacturer standards, given by a competent Subject Matter Expert, as defined by the manufacturer.

                            Ie: California requires you be certified in the PR-24 with a Monadnock PR-24 Instructor, to California POST requirements. California will then issue you a certification for your baton, and allow you to carry it on duty, legally.

                            Other states have no requirements for such licensing, but DO have requirements for the certification to a set standard, usually by the manufacturer of the weapon (ASP, Monadnock, etc). This comes back to you when you use it improperly, and you are charged with aggarvated battery because the force was unreasonable according to case law and the POST standard set by the manufacturer.

                            ASP states you may never strike above the shoulders. You strike above the shoulders without a certification, you are obviously not using reasonable force (unless your TRYING for deadly force and are justified), and you were negligent to use a weapon without proper training. Your employer has vicarious liability in arming you with a weapon which you were not trained in its proper operation and tactics.

                            Taser International has both a LE and civilian course. It does not require a state authority to manage the security and LE industries personnel taking and passing this course. If it is found that security officers are using these weapons without training, and they use them in ways that the training says are NOT to be used, they will find themselves and their employers sued to bankruptcy. Why? The training is THERE. The company failed to use it.
                            Some Kind of Commando Leader

                            "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                            Comment

                            Leaderboard

                            Collapse
                            Working...
                            X