My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/10/1979
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1979
>
10/10/1979
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:43:40 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 11:15:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/10/1979
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
95
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT HISTORICALLY AROUND THE <br />STATE THE BOARDS OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAVE BEEN EMPOWERED WITH <br />AUTHORITY TO ISSUE CONCEALED WEAPON PERMITS; ALSO, HISTORICALLY, <br />THERE HAS BEEN VERY LITTLE CONTROL OR SUPERVISION AND FOLLOW—UP AS <br />TO THE CHARACTER AND ABILITY OF THE PARTICULAR APPLICANT TO HANDLE <br />THE FIREARMS. HE NOTED THAT HE HAS SEEN OUR BOARD FACED WITH MAKING <br />DECISIONS AS TO WHETHER A PERSON SHALL RECEIVE THIS RIGHT WITHOUT <br />HAVING SUFFICIENT INFORMATION AS TO THE INDIVIDUAL S ACTUAL CAPABILITY <br />OF HANDLING FIREARMS, REASONING POWER OR COMMON SENSE, ETC. ATTORNEY <br />COLLINS CONTINUED THAT THE LEGISLATURE PROMULGATED F.S. 790.06 WHICH <br />GRANTED COUNTIES THE RIGHT TO CONTROL ISSUANCE OF THESE PERMITS TO <br />A GREATER DEGREE, AND SOME COUNTIES AROUND THE STATE HAVE IMPLEMENTED <br />AN ORDINANCE SIMILAR TO THE ONE BEING CONSIDERED TODAY. THE ATTORNEY <br />CONTINUED THAT HE CONTACTED. THESE COUNTIES AND COMBINED THEIR ORDI— <br />NANCES INTO WHAT IS BEING PRESENTED TODAY, HE FELT THE INFORMATION <br />REQUIRED OF THE -PETITIONER BY THIS ORDINANCE WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL <br />TO THE COMMISSION IN MAKING A DECISION AND NOTED THAT IT ALSO CON— <br />TAINS A REQUIREMENT THAT THE APPLICANT HAVE TAKEN A TRAINING COURSE <br />PRIOR TO BEING ELIGIBLE EITHER FOR A NEW PERMIT OR A RENEWAL. <br />SHERIFF..JOYCE STATED THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS FAR <br />BETTER THAN WHAT THE BOARD HAD TO WORK WITH BEFORE. HE COMMENTED <br />ON SECTION 2 (F) (2) WHICH RELATES TO A DEMONSTRATED NEED TO CARRY <br />A FIREARM AS A RESULT OF THE APP`LXANfi'5_ OCCUPATION, EMPLOYMENT, PRO— <br />FESSION, ETC., AND.STATED THAT IF THE APPLICANT DESIRES TO PROTECT <br />HIS OWN MONEY,. THAT IS NO PROBLEM. IF, HOWEVER, THEY ARE ON THEIR <br />EMPLOYER S PROPERTY AND THE EMPLOYER DOES NOT KNOW THEY ARE CARRY— <br />ING A FIREARM, THAT IS A PROBLEM, THE SHERIFF STATED THAT A LETTER <br />SHOULD BE REQUIRED FROM THE EMPLOYER ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THEY ARE <br />AWARE OF THE SITUATION. <br />CHAIRMAN WODTKE COMMENTED THAT IF ESCORT OR SECURITY TRANS— <br />PORT SERVICES ARE NOT AVAILABLE, HE FELT THE POLICE WILL SERVE AS <br />AN ESCORT. <br />THE SHERIFF AGREED THAT THEY DO ESCORT SOME, BUT THESE <br />SERVICES ARE MAINLY AVAILABLE IN THE DAYTIME. SHERIFF .JOYCE FELT <br />OCT <br />101979 25 1 P,f cF 653 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.