TexasCHLforum.com

"Dale Norman has a valid Florida Concealed Carry License but was arrested on February 19th, 2012 by the Fort Pierce, FL Police Dept. while otherwise lawfully carrying a handgun because it accidentally became exposed."

When you watch the video it looks like to me that his gun is exposed at the 0.36 mark and if that is his gun it doesn't look like his shirt rode up, it looks like he never made an honest effort to conceal it. A wife beater t shirt is not concealing enough

http://www.allnineyards.com/2012/06/arr ... d-handgun/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

barstoolguru wrote:"Dale Norman has a valid Florida Concealed Carry License but was arrested on February 19th, 2012 by the Fort Pierce, FL Police Dept. while otherwise lawfully carrying a handgun because it accidentally became exposed."

When you watch the video it looks like to me that his gun in exposed at the 0.36 mark and if that is his gun it doesn't look like his shirt rode up, it looks like he never made an honest effort to conceal it. A wife beater t shirt is not concealing enough

http://www.allnineyards.com/2012/06/arr ... d-handgun/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good thing the Texas law is worded "Intentionally"...

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /PE.46.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

According to the affidavit his permit was issued 5 days earlier. Hard to tell from the dash am, but if that was a belt and holster on his right hip it the shirt was no way long enough to cover the firearm so he was intentionally carrying exposed

Keith B wrote:According to thevaffidavit his permit was issued 5 days earlier. Hard to tell from the dash am, but if that was a belt and holster on his right hip it the shirt was no way long enough to cover the firearm so he was intentionally carrying exposed

Here's the Florida Statutes:

790.053 Open carrying of weapons.—(1) Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device. It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.
(2) A person may openly carry, for purposes of lawful self-defense:
(a) A self-defense chemical spray.
(b) A nonlethal stun gun or dart-firing stun gun or other nonlethal electric weapon or device that is designed solely for defensive purposes.
(3) Any person violating this section commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

...he had a "Toyota moment"...he asked for it...he got it...in no way was he concealing that gun...

speedsix wrote:...he had a "Toyota moment"...he asked for it...he got it...in no way was he concealing that gun...

The title and content of the article seem to support the theory that Dale accidently exposed his handgun.

I looked at the video again to see if it may have been accidental due to his pants being too low rather than his shirt being too high. That doesn't seem to be the case. It appears that he should have paid more attention in his CWP class.

Am I the only one that thinks he didn't appear to be too awfully surprised that he was being stopped and arrested? That, along with the number of police called to the scene makes me think that there is more to this story than what we're seeing at first glance. Maybe there's more to the story, and this is all they're charging him with for now, with more to come later.

WildBill wrote:

speedsix wrote:...he had a "Toyota moment"...he asked for it...he got it...in no way was he concealing that gun...

The title and content of the article seem to support the theory that Dale accidently exposed his handgun.

I looked at the video again to see if it may have been accidental due to his pants being too low rather than his shirt being too high. That doesn't seem to be the case. It appears that he should have paid more attention in his CWP class.

...this source is a radical rag...more than a little biased and none too interested in the facts...the video shows he wasn't dressed for concealment of an OWB at all...

I lived just north of there for 3 years. Had a good friend that we'd visit on the weekends to grill steaks and play cards. One of the comments on the site says it's a redneck area and the arrest was because he was black. Apparently that person has never been there. There's a huge black population in that area. I might buy the racist part if it was a little to the south (Palm Beach) or more to the north (Vero Beach) but not really in that area.

ScooterSissy wrote:Am I the only one that thinks he didn't appear to be too awfully surprised that he was being stopped and arrested? That, along with the number of police called to the scene makes me think that there is more to this story than what we're seeing at first glance. Maybe there's more to the story, and this is all they're charging him with for now, with more to come later.

I thought that same thing. Five officers responding to an "accidental exposure"? Maybe it was a slow day for the local PD.

I hope this guy doesn't think he's going to be a "test case" or another "Trayvon Martin" and win a large settlement from a lawsuit against the police. If he thinks that, he's in for a big surprise.

Here are some thoughtful comments from various concealed carry websites:

"if you are legaly carrying concealed and your clothing accidentaly exposes your weopon, and you are in a non open state, are you in trouble from a leagle stand point? "

"Apparently in Florida a law has been passed whereby accidental exposure is not illegal. This law apparently covers you in case of many common accidental breif exposure situations."

It seems the biggest argument is if the holster is considered to be part of the firearm? There are many saying that in Florida, it is not illegal to have the holster exposed, only the firearm itself, sort of like a fanny pack or one of those square holsters for a pocket gun that hangs on your belt.

It's not illegal to wear an empty holster.

I think this may be a precedent setting case for Florida.

flb_78 wrote:It seems the biggest argument is if the holster is considered to be part of the firearm? There are many saying that in Florida, it is not illegal to have the holster exposed, only the firearm itself, sort of like a fanny pack or one of those square holsters for a pocket gun that hangs on your belt.

It's not illegal to wear an empty holster.

I think this may be a precedent setting case for Florida.

Well... That might depend a LOT on the caliber of attorney representing him.

flb_78 wrote:It seems the biggest argument is if the holster is considered to be part of the firearm? There are many saying that in Florida, it is not illegal to have the holster exposed, only the firearm itself, sort of like a fanny pack or one of those square holsters for a pocket gun that hangs on your belt.

It's not illegal to wear an empty holster.

I think this may be a precedent setting case for Florida.

You raise an interesting point.

From the resolution of a dash cam, it's difficult to see what the LEOs at the scene or actual person reporting the alledged crime witnessed.

Obvious a holster is not part of the firearm, but when lacking all of the information the human mind tends to "fill in the blanks". By definition, a "reasonable person" might associate a "normal looking holster" with a gun. If there was a call to the police "man with a gun" then the responding officers would be predispositioned to see a gun, even if only the holster was visible.

If the bottom of the holster looked like a tool belt, then a "reasonable person" might think the person is a carpenter carrying the tools of his trade.

If it does end up as a precedent setting case, the results could be far reaching. 8000

will be interesting to know the source of the complaint... if it was a call from a citizen re: 'MWAG' then what was the verbiage used to make the complaint?

if it was an officer who spotted the issue (didn't look to me like it was coincidental, 5 cops showing up at once) then it must have been adequately exposed to be spotted from a patrol vehicle and therefore, pretty darned exposed.