Monday, May 2, 2016

2016 Law Day Teen Court Excellence Award

2016 Lake County Law Day
May 2, 2016
By: Zach McCormick

On April 29, 2016 the Lake County, Florida Bar Association hosted its annual "Law Day". The theme was centered around the landmark 1966  civil rights case "Miranda v. Arizona" wherein the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5 to 4 vote, handed down one of the most important decisions in American legal history. Literally one vote was responsible for finally establishing that U.S, citizens have the right to an attorney, to remain silent and that law enforcement must, essentially, explain this fact and others to anyone that they arrest.

2016 Lake County Teen Court Excellence Award Recipient Connor Jenkins flanked by Teen Court Coordinator Stephanie Glass and award sponsor Attorney Zach McCormick
At this year's event, the Lake County Bar handed out several honors, awards and even a $1,000 academic scholarship to worthy recipients. This year, the Law Office of Zach McCormick had the great honor of bestowing the first annual Teen Court Award for Excellence to Ms. Connor Jenkins (pictured center). The award, the first of its type in Lake County, consists both of a special trophy and a $100 appreciation check. The award is intended to provide a small token of gratitude to those that go above and beyond in volunteering their time with the local Lake County Florida, Teen Court program. We here at Zach McCormick, Attorney at Law PLLC plan to continue sponsoring this event well into the future in an effort to help reinforce the value of the program and the efforts of those that run it.




Friday, February 26, 2016

Florida Bans Back-Yard Gun Ranges

Florida Bans Back-Yard Gun Ranges
By: Zach McCormick
February 26, 2016

As of February 24, 2016 it will no longer be be legal to discharge a firearm for recreational purposes in an "area" that is "primarily residential". There are some exceptions but this addition to Florida Statute 730.15 effectively ends what many firearms enthusiasts considered to be a 'golden age' for firearms rights in the Sunshine State.

Here is the precise wording of the new sections of the law:
"Section 1. Subsection (4) is added to section 790.15, Florida Statutes, to read:
790.15 Discharging firearm in public or on residential property.—
(4) Any person who recreationally discharges a firearm outdoors, including target shooting, in an area that the person knows or reasonably should know is primarily residential in nature and that has a residential density of one or more dwelling units per acre, commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. This subsection does not apply: (a) To a person lawfully defending life or property or performing official duties requiring the discharge of a firearm; (b) If, under the circumstances, the discharge does not pose a reasonably foreseeable risk to life, safety, or property; or (c) To a person who accidentally discharges a firearm. Section 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law."

The language in  question appears to have been specifically crafted to thwart the discharge of firearms for purposes of target practice in back-yards. In fact, the November 19, 2015 'analysis' report that came with this new law cites to news articles, primarily out of South Florida, where such concerns were raised. It is worth noting that the law already had provisions that criminalized the actions of individuals who acted in a "reckless and negligent" manner. However, it appears that the legislature was concerned that the wording of the Fla. Stat. 730.15 was not strict enough and that not enough law enforcement officers were enforcing it.

It is reasonable to object to any situation where stray rounds are placing people and property in danger. It is also true that gunshots are loud and almost no one would enjoy having to hear them from the neighboring yard. However, the new language is somewhat vague as to what is legal and a lot of questions are raised. For example, the law says its unlawful to discharge firearms in a primarily residential "area" but it uses ambiguous terms to define that area. Before anyone starts talking about the residential density numbers as being the answer to this question ponder this: Sure, the statute says that recreational firearm discharge cannot occur in an area with more than one dwelling unit per acre but as we all know, communities vary considerably in their size and layout.

So what if a land owner lives in a subdivision and has a one acre lot but there are town houses in the same development that are on a fifth of an acre; is the one acre lot in a primarily residential "area"? What if a landowner with a large tract of land (lets say 10 acres) sets up a range in a safe and responsible manner but a portion of his property abuts a development where there are 5 homes per acre? It would seem that this change will embolden those who seek to deprive their fellow citizens of the use and enjoyment of their 2nd Amendment rights.

The new law has a 'catch-all' exception that exempts actions that would not pose reasonably foreseeable risks to life, safety and property but frankly that language could invalidate the entire "primarily residential" clause. Hence, there seems to be conflicting instruction in this latest version of the statute.

Although there may be some benefits from this new language, it will probably cause a chilling effect on the use of all firearms by responsible Floridians. This is because now, otherwise law abiding people will be in a legal 'grey area' and are vulnerable to prosecution where they were not before. Perhaps this was the intent of the proponents of the bill from the outset.

Whatever the motivations of our lawmakers, any Florida resident who seeks to lawfully operate a firearm should take heed of this profound change to Florida law. For the risk averse, it may be wise to only conduct target practice at a local range.



Sunday, June 21, 2015

Uber's Gun Ban vs Florida's Gun in Cars Protection

Uber's Gun Ban vs Florida's Gun in Cars Protection
By Zach McCormick
June 21, 2015

Uber recently announced a 'no gun policy' that prohibits both drivers and riders from keeping a firearm "of any kind" in a "ride arranged through the Uber platform". The policy goes on to state that anyone found in violation of this policy "may lose access to the Uber platform". The question that has now been raised is whether Uber's stance conflicts with Florida's formidable prohibition on discrimination against gun possession in vehicles.

Officially titled "Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicle's Act of 2008" this law is colloquially known as the 'Guns in Cars Act" and can be found within Fla. Stat. 790.251. With some exceptions, this law allows a "worker" (including a contractor) with a concealed weapons permit to store their firearm in their vehicle while it is in a parking lot owned or controlled by their employer. Not all employers are subject to the rule and so places such as prisons, certain school property, national defense contractors and a few others are exempt. Also, if the employer owns (or leases) the vehicle, then the employer is allowed to prevent the worker from keeping a gun in it.The statute grants the Florida Attorney General the authority to initiate legal inquiries into prospective violations of the law and gives a worker the right to sue an infringing employer.

Because the phrasing of the Florida act mostly focusses on vehicles that are in a parking lot, the question of whether a ride sharing driver would be entitled to the 'Guns in Cars" protection while on the road is, as yet, unanswered. However,  the drafters of the final bill included a statement of legislative intent that seems to unequivocally assert a commitment to protecting Florida workers' rights to keep their guns in their cars.

As an interesting aside, the portion of the law that also protected customers' rights was essentially neutered by a federal inunction in Florida Retail Federation, Inc v. Attorney General of Florida, 576 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (N.D.FL 2008). The language relating to customers can however, still be found within the statute.

It would seem that Uber's new policy is all but certain to conflict with Florida's gun law and we shall have to wait to see how it all shakes out.



Saturday, June 13, 2015

Top Five Questions About NFA Trusts

Top Five Questions About NFA Trusts
By: Zach McCormick
June 15, 2015

One of the reasons that I take so much time to sit down with my NFA trust clients is that there is a lot of critical information to know when it comes to such matters. I find that many people have very similar questions during the process. Below is a list of the most common questions that I get asked about my NFA trusts (AKA gun trusts).

1. "How does an NFA trust work?"
It is a legal entity that is able to legally hold property that is assigned (given) to it. An NFA trust (if properly crafted) can help a law abiding gun owner acquire NFA items such as suppressors, short barreled rifles and machine guns without having to jump through administrative hurdles such as convincing a chief law enforcement officer to approve of the transfer.


2. "What can I put in my trust?"
The short answer is: Anything you want. The long answer is: Only put NFA items in an NFA trust. The reasons for this are many but the most important reason is that a gun trust's primary purpose is to protect NFA items and not other property. This means that the protections may not be applicable to the property being held in trust. Further, for those concerned with maintaining privacy, the inclusion of non-NFA property in the trust risks exposure of the property to prying eyes

3. "Do I need a new trust for each NFA item?"
No you do not unless you want to. However, one trust is capable of holding a virtually limitless inventory of property. However, there are some reasons why a person might wish to have separate trusts such as lawful asset protection strategies or when contemplating the gift of an NFA item to another eligible person.

4. "How many beneficiaries can I designate?"
As many as you want but just like the old adage says; "just because you can, doesn't mean you should". The more people you give the titled of beneficiary to, the greater the possible complication from misplacement or mistake. It is my position that a beneficiary should be a very trusted person and this by definition tends to limit the number of beneficiaries a small handful of people for my clients

5. "Can I take my suppressor to another state?"
Yes but you must receive prior written approval from the ATF for the specific date range and destination you have in mind. Generally you will be able to secure permission for transport for up to a year at a time but you will need separate forms for each state. What is more,  you will need to ensure, prior to transport, that your destination state allows possession and use of the NFA item in question. 
You can download the form you will need here: (ATF Application to Transfer Interstate 5320.20)



Monday, June 8, 2015

Bill to Stop ATF Rule 41P Passes House

Bill to Stop ATF Rule 41P Passes House
By: Zach McCormick
6/6/15


According to an article posted on the American Suppressor Association Blog a recent funding bill passed the House of Representatives with an amendment that would block the much-reviled "41P" ATF proposed rule change. Naturally, this is merely the first step towards protecting the status quo as it pertains to NFA trusts (aka gun trusts) and there is still a long way to go before such protections become law.

 As a brief refresher, the 41P proposal would, if enacted, created the title of "responsible person" and require that such a person be fingerprinted and would require that a chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) sign off on each trust.

This CLEO provision may be the most offensive term due to the tremendous discretion that it places on these individuals. In areas where CLEOs are opposed to NFA ownership they simply refuse to approve any application. This has the effect of creating a total ban on what would otherwise be lawful possession of suppressors, short barreled rifles and the like.

What is more, contrary to some rumors, it is not permissible for a criminal to use the current trust framework to unlawfully acquire a firearm or NFA item due to the requirement that the FFL conducting the transfer complete an NICS background check immediately prior to the transfer. In fact, the notion that a criminal would go through the hoops of getting a trust to accomplish his criminal intent is so implausible as to be ridiculous.




Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Florida Says "Yes" To Hunting Suppressed

By: Zach McCormick
11/25/14

It is now legal to hunt using a suppressor in Florida according to the NRA's recent press release. With this change in the law, hunters may finally take advantage of a responsible and respectful method of protecting their hearing.

Someone might argue this is something that should never have even been prohibited in the first place...those people would be correct.

Sunday, November 16, 2014

Bill Murray's "St. Vincent" = Time Well Spent

By: Zach McCormick
11/16/14

My Wife and I used to go to the movies all the time but frankly we haven't been drawn to anything lately. That changed last night when we saw "St. Vincent" where Bill Murray and his co-stars really hit a heartwarming little tale out of the park. Everyone did a good job and it all felt "real".

Good writing, cheerful at times but definitely echoing events that could've actually taken place.

Worth the price of admission in my opinion.