Tyber,

As you can see from 7point82's post the CCW is not removed by a "crowd", they are valid anywhere but those specific exceptions. And as always a private property owner can limit them. Interestingly, most places that post, only post a no firearms sign, not a no weapons sign. But then they probably don't know what the law says either.

Izzy,

As you said, the same problem does exist here as in New York, a vague law and officers overstepping their authority. There is no definition of an "ordinary pocket knife" in Florida law. There is also no authority to have a "no knife zone" with limited exception, and on private property.

Doug,

Thanks for your efforts, It is time to get off my duff and join, thank you also for making it possible.

Respectfully,

Jerry

Good job Doug, hope the lawsuit processes expediently and you get it turned around.

I work in NYC and travel the 5 boroughs to all my facilities I carry a small 3" Spyderco folder plus a 1.25" swiss utilty on my keys wherever I go.

I been stopped at several government buildings where the securty guards identified these as "deadly weapons" (yes even the 1" swiss utility . At least I was able to check 'em and enter the buildings to take care of business.

Jerry poses and interesting point. What is "an ordinary pocket knife?"

Years ago (and perhaps to some extent today) it brought to mind a knife something like a case stockman or similar type/sized knife.

Nowadays, a one hand opener often comes to mind.

Is ordinary dependant on geography? Could it be dependant on ones job? I am chained to an office chair every day, so I carry an SAK. My friend (and DS's Cubmaster) works outdoors with heavy equipment and such and carries a large one hand opener. Many people who work around electronics carry Multi-tools.

Point is, ordinary is very much a relative thing. But relative to what else?

There's a reason they made such laws not so precise to begin with, to give cops some wiggle room to let go average joe who's just going about his day, and nab the gangbanger wannabes.

Of course always leave it to the politicians and lawyers to screws it up.

[new post below]

I guess if you can't differentiate between someone who "looks like", and someone who "is", you have bigger problem to deal with.

...and that statement is even more problematic then the law. Everybody is OK with Draconian laws as long as they don't apply to them, but that comes back to haunt.

As Exhibit "A", I give you "may issue" gun permits in California. These laws were originally passed by lawmakers who wanted to give sheriffs some wiggle room to allow permits for average Joe but deny permits for gangbanger wannabes. Today, it turns out the "may issue" law basically means nobody gets a gun permit in California, not even wealthy white people in Orange County. Now, they're crying foul.

Anyway, how many gangbangers do you think are opting not to carry because of this law?

That's a ridiculous argument. First it's not draconian, it didn't say no one can do it. Even you admit it's created with good intention. If used as intended it would be effective. Then you conveniently cut off the 2nd part of my post, which clearly state these law are open to abuse, and have been abused beyond their original intention.

That's not the point now is it. Like I said, if used as intended, a 100% clear law would either require cops to arrest guy with a knife to eat lunch and open letters with, or let go known gangbangers who'll probably use it on someone else. Whereas a little vagueness would allow the former to be let go and latter to be arrested.

Of course that's what would happen ideally, and we don't live in an ideal world.