“Florida Statute 790.25 (3)(h) permits the use and possession of a firearm while engaged in fishing, camping, target shooting, or hunting or going to and from lawful hunting, fishing, target shooting or camping expeditions.” If the firearm was visible from the waistband it by definition would not be ‘concealed’. I hope the charge for concealment is not a claim the magazine was the concealed firearm (a magazine is not a firearm by any reasonable definition). If the firearm was concealed how did the officers know it was a firearm and not any number of objects that are similarly shaped? I hope they didn’t just assume it was and ask to see a permit. That would be colossal intrusion into the lives of law abiding citizens who do have a permit and lawfully carry concealed, or open carry within the limits of the State law. It’s especially interesting in this case with ‘a dirt road’ dirt path near Perdido Bay’ and ‘A Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission officer’ mentioned in the report.

I wonder if the meth and other charges will get tossed out as ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ if it is found there was no ‘concealed weapon’ (if it was visible in his front waistband). If so, that would be a colossal waste of tax payer money and time.