State v. Commons

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Commons

592 So. 2d 317, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12899, 1991 WL 276883

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 31, 1991

DocketNo. 90-1934

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 592 So. 2d 317 (State v. Commons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Commons, 592 So. 2d 317, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12899, 1991 WL 276883 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The state appeals from an order granting a Rule 3.190(c)(4) sworn motion to dismiss an information for carrying a concealed firearm in violation of section 790.01(2), Florida Statutes (1989),¹ based on the un-traversed showing

that on June 14, 1990, he was inside his place of business, Zhara Supermarket, where he is employed as a grocer, when the police observed a bulge on the Defendant, searched the Defendant, and arrested him for carrying a concealed firearm.

The trial court concluded that the statute did not apply to the appellant because of the exception contained in section 790.-[318]*31825(3)(n), Florida Statutes (1989),² which insulates a person “possessing arms at his ... place of business.” We affirm.

This result is mandated by our decision in Cockin v. State, 453 So.2d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), in which we held that section 790.25(3)(n) must be read in pari materia with section 790.01(2) and, thus read, makes it lawful for a person to carry a concealed firearm in his home. Accord Facion v. State, 290 So.2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); French v. State, 279 So.2d 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). But cf. State v. Bryant, 373 So.2d 708, 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (§ 790.25(3)(Z) no defense to carrying a concealed weapon). The same holding obviously applies to the other exception in § 790.25(3)(n), which applies to the defendant’s “place of business.”

Moreover, this language is not, as the state contends, confined to a place of business owned by the defendant himself. To the contrary, it includes, as in this case, premises where the individual is employed by another. Idelett v. State, 14 Ga.App. 501, 502, 81 S.E. 379, 380 (1914) (“Certainly it cannot be contended that, even though one is a mere farm laborer, he should be left defenseless (at the place of business where he is compelled to work) against an unlawful and felonious attack which he might have good reason to apprehend, unless he sees proper, and likewise has the opportunity, to obtain a license to carry his pistol, and yet the more favored landowner not be subjected to such a requirement.”); Miller v. State, 12 Ga.App. 479, 77 S.E. 653 (1913); Poston v. State, 132 Tex.Crim. 317, 104 S.W.2d 516 (Tex.Crim.App.1937). See generally Peoples v. State, 287 So.2d 63 (Fla.1973).

Finally, the appellant claims that one is protected from criminal responsibility under these circumstances only if he obtains the permission of his employer to carry a concealed gun. There is no statutory authority for such a requirement and we have no power to create one ourselves. See Jones v. State, 589 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The state appeals from an order granting a Rule 3.190(c)(4) sworn motion to dismiss an information for carrying a concealed firearm in violation of section 790.01(2), Florida Statutes (1989),¹ based on the un-traversed showing

that on June 14, 1990, he was inside his place of business, Zhara Supermarket, where he is employed as a grocer, when the police observed a bulge on the Defendant, searched the Defendant, and arrested him for carrying a concealed firearm.

The trial court concluded that the statute did not apply to the appellant because of the exception contained in section 790.-[318]*31825(3)(n), Florida Statutes (1989),² which insulates a person “possessing arms at his ... place of business.” We affirm.

This result is mandated by our decision in Cockin v. State, 453 So.2d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), in which we held that section 790.25(3)(n) must be read in pari materia with section 790.01(2) and, thus read, makes it lawful for a person to carry a concealed firearm in his home. Accord Facion v. State, 290 So.2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); French v. State, 279 So.2d 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). But cf. State v. Bryant, 373 So.2d 708, 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (§ 790.25(3)(Z) no defense to carrying a concealed weapon). The same holding obviously applies to the other exception in § 790.25(3)(n), which applies to the defendant’s “place of business.”

Moreover, this language is not, as the state contends, confined to a place of business owned by the defendant himself. To the contrary, it includes, as in this case, premises where the individual is employed by another. Idelett v. State, 14 Ga.App. 501, 502, 81 S.E. 379, 380 (1914) (“Certainly it cannot be contended that, even though one is a mere farm laborer, he should be left defenseless (at the place of business where he is compelled to work) against an unlawful and felonious attack which he might have good reason to apprehend, unless he sees proper, and likewise has the opportunity, to obtain a license to carry his pistol, and yet the more favored landowner not be subjected to such a requirement.”); Miller v. State, 12 Ga.App. 479, 77 S.E. 653 (1913); Poston v. State, 132 Tex.Crim. 317, 104 S.W.2d 516 (Tex.Crim.App.1937). See generally Peoples v. State, 287 So.2d 63 (Fla.1973).

Finally, the appellant claims that one is protected from criminal responsibility under these circumstances only if he obtains the permission of his employer to carry a concealed gun. There is no statutory authority for such a requirement and we have no power to create one ourselves. See Jones v. State, 589 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

592 So. 2d 317, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12899, 1991 WL 276883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-commons-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack