document_title: End of Roman rule in Britain

question_text: who got rid of the romans in britain

question_tokens: who got rid of the romans in britain

text: End of Roman rule in Britain

text: Background[edit]

text: By the early 5th century, the Roman Empire could no longer defend itself against either internal rebellion or the external threat posed by expanding Germanic tribes in Northern Europe. This situation and its consequences governed the eventual permanence of Britain's detachment from the rest of the Empire.

text: In the late 4th century, the empire was controlled by members of a dynasty that included the Emperor Theodosius I. This family retained political power within itself and formed alliances by intermarriage with other dynasties, at the same time engaging in internecine power struggles and fighting off outside contenders (called "usurpers") attempting to replace the ruling dynasty with one of their own. These internal machinations drained the Empire of both military and civilian resources. Many thousands of soldiers were lost in battling attempted coups by figures such as Firmus, Magnus Maximus and Eugenius.

text: The Empire's historical relationship with Germanic tribes was sometimes hostile, at other times cooperative, but ultimately fatal, as it was unable to prevent those tribes from assuming a dominant role in the relationship. By the early 5th century, as a result of severe losses and depleted tax income, the Western Roman Empire's military forces were dominated by Germanic troops, and Romanised Germans played a significant role in the empire's internal politics. Various Germanic and other tribes beyond the frontiers were able to take advantage of the Empire's weakened state, both to expand into Roman territory and, in some cases, to move their entire populations into lands once considered exclusively Roman, culminating in various successful migrations from 406 onwards. The crossing of the Rhine caused intense fear in Britannia, prone as it was to being cut off from the Empire by raids on the primary communications route from Italy, to Trier to the Channel Coast. In the event, this was much more than just another raid.

text: Chronology[edit]

text: In 383, the Roman general then assigned to Britain, Magnus Maximus, launched his successful bid for imperial power,[1] crossing to Gaul with his troops. He killed the Western Roman Emperor Gratian and ruled Gaul and Britain as Augustus (i.e., as a "sub-emperor" under Theodosius I). 383 is the last date for any evidence of a Roman presence in the north and west of Britain,[2] perhaps excepting troop assignments at the tower on Holyhead Mountain in Anglesey and at western coastal posts such as Lancaster. These outposts may have lasted into the 390s, but they were a very minor presence,[3] intended primarily to stop attacks and settlement by groups from Ireland.

text: Coins dated later than 383 have been excavated along Hadrian's Wall, suggesting that troops were not stripped from it, as once thought[4] or, if they were, they were quickly returned as soon as Maximus had won his victory in Gaul. In the De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae, written c. 540, Gildas attributed an exodus of troops and senior administrators from Britain to Maximus, saying that he left not only with all of its troops, but also with all of its armed bands, governors, and the flower of its youth, never to return.[5]

text: Raids by Saxons, Picts, and the Scoti of Ireland had been ongoing in the late 4th century, but these increased in the years after 383. There were also large-scale permanent Irish settlements made along the coasts of Wales under circumstances that remain unclear.[6][7][8][9] Maximus campaigned in Britain against both the Picts and Scoti,[10][11] with historians differing on whether this was in the year 382 or 384 (i.e., whether the campaign was before or after he became Augustus). Welsh legend relates that before launching his usurpation, Maximus made preparations for an altered governmental and defence framework for the beleaguered provinces. Figures such as Coel Hen were said to be placed into key positions to protect the island in Maximus' absence. As such claims were designed to buttress Welsh genealogy and land claims, they should be viewed with some scepticism.

text: In 388, Maximus led his army across the Alps into Italy in an attempt to claim the purple. The effort failed when he was defeated in Pannonia at the Battle of the Save (in modern Croatia) and at the Battle of Poetovio (at Ptuj in modern Slovenia). He was then executed by Theodosius.[12]

text: With Maximus' death, Britain came back under the rule of Emperor Theodosius I until 392, when the usurper Eugenius would successfully bid for imperial power in the Western Roman Empire, surviving until 394 when he was defeated and killed by Theodosius. When Theodosius died in 395, his 10-year-old son Honorius succeeded him as Western Roman Emperor. The real power behind the throne, however, was Stilicho, the son-in-law of Theodosius' brother and the father-in-law of Honorius.

text: Britain was suffering raids by the Scoti, Saxons, and Picts and, sometime between 396 and 398, Stilicho allegedly ordered a campaign against the Picts,[13] likely a naval campaign intended to end their seaborne raids on the east coast of Britain.[14] He may also have ordered campaigns against the Scoti and Saxons at the same time,[15] but either way this would be the last Roman campaign in Britain of which there is any record.[16]

text: In 401 or 402 Stilicho faced wars with the Visigothic king Alaric and the Ostrogothic king Radagaisus. Needing military manpower, he stripped Hadrian's Wall of troops for the final time.[15][17][18] 402 is the last date of any Roman coinage found in large numbers in Britain, suggesting either that Stilicho also stripped the remaining troops from Britain, or that the Empire could no longer afford to pay the troops who were still there.[19] Meanwhile, the Picts, Saxons and Scoti continued their raids, which may have increased in scope. In 405, for example, Niall of the Nine Hostages is described as having raided along the southern coast of Britain.[20]

text: On the last day of December 406 (or, perhaps, 405[21]), the Alans, Vandals, and Suebi living east of Gaul crossed the Rhine, possibly when it was frozen over, and began widespread devastation.[20][22]

text: As there was no effective Roman response, the remaining Roman military in Britain feared that a Germanic crossing of the Channel into Britain was next, and dispensed with imperial authority – an action perhaps made easier by the high probability that the troops had not been paid for some time.[3] Their intent was to choose a commander who would lead them in securing their future but their first two choices, Marcus and Gratian, did not meet their expectations and were killed. Their third choice was the soldier Constantine III.[23]

text: In 407 Constantine took charge of the remaining troops in Britain, led them across the Channel into Gaul, rallied support there, and attempted to set himself up as Western Roman Emperor.[20] Honorius' loyalist forces south of the Alps were preoccupied with fending off the Visigoths and were unable to put down the rebellion swiftly, giving Constantine the opportunity to extend his new empire to include Spain.[24][25]

text: In 409 Constantine's control of his empire fell apart. Part of his military forces were in Spain, making them unavailable for action in Gaul, and some of those in Gaul were swayed against him by loyalist Roman generals. The Germans living west of the Rhine River rose against him, perhaps encouraged by Roman loyalists,[26][27] and those living east of the river crossed into Gaul.[28] Britain, now without any troops for protection and having suffered particularly severe Saxon raids in 408 and 409, viewed the situation in Gaul with renewed alarm. Perhaps feeling they had no hope of relief under Constantine, both the Romano-Britons and some of the Gauls expelled Constantine's magistrates in 409 or 410.[29][30][31] The Byzantine historian Zosimus (fl. 490's – 510's) directly blamed Constantine for the expulsion, saying that he had allowed the Saxons to raid, and that the Britons and Gauls were reduced to such straits that they revolted from the Roman Empire, 'rejected Roman law, reverted to their native customs, and armed themselves to ensure their own safety'.[32]

text: It has been suggested[by whom?] that when Zosimus records that the natives expelled the Roman civilian administration in 409 he might have been referring to the Bacaudic rebellion of the Breton inhabitants of Armorica since he describes how, in the aftermath of the revolt, all of Armorica and the rest of Gaul followed the example of the Brettaniai. A later appeal for help by the British communities was, according to Zosimus, rejected by the Emperor Honorius in 410 AD. In the text called the Rescript of Honorius of 411, the Western Emperor Honorius tells the British civitates to look to their own defence as his regime was still fighting usurpers in the south of Gaul and trying to deal with the Visigoths who were in the very south of Italy. The first reference to this rescript is written by the sixth-century Byzantine scholar Zosimus and is located randomly in the middle of a discussion of southern Italy; no further mention of Britain is made, which has led some, though not all, modern academics to suggest that the rescript does not apply to Britain, but to Bruttium in Italy.[33][34][35]

text: Historian Christopher Snyder wrote that protocol dictated that Honorius address his correspondences to imperial officials, and the fact that he did not implies that the cities of Britain were now the highest Roman authority remaining on the island.[36] The idea that there may have been larger-scale political formations still intact on the island has not been completely discredited however.

text: At the time that the Rescript was sent, Honorius was holed up in Ravenna by the Visigoths and was unable to prevent their Sack of Rome (410).[36] He was certainly in no position to offer any relief to anyone. As for Constantine III, he was not equal to the intrigues of imperial Rome and by 411 his cause was spent. His son was killed along with those major supporters who had not turned against him, and he himself was assassinated.[37]

text: Interpretative variations[edit]

text: There are various interpretations that characterise the events in a way that supports a particular thesis without taking issue with the basic chronology.

text: The historian Theodor Mommsen (Britain, 1885) said that "It was not Britain that gave up Rome, but Rome that gave up Britain ...", arguing that Roman needs and priorities lay elsewhere. [38] His position has retained scholarly support over the passage of time.

text: Michael Jones (The End of Roman Britain, 1998) took the opposite view, saying that it was Britain that left Rome, arguing that numerous usurpers based in Britain combined with poor administration caused the Romano-Britons to revolt.

text: Factual disputes[edit]

text: Regarding the events of 409 and 410 when the Romano-Britons expelled Roman officials and sent a request for aid to Honorius, Michael Jones (The End of Roman Britain, 1998) offered a different chronology to the same end result: he suggested that the Britons first appealed to Rome and when no help was forthcoming, they expelled the Roman officials and took charge of their own affairs.[39]

text: One theory that occurs in some modern histories concerns the Rescript of Honorius, holding that it refers to the cities of the Bruttii (who lived at the "toe" of Italy in modern Calabria), rather than to the cities of the Britons.[40][41][42] The suggestion is based on the assumption that the source (Zosimus) or a copyist made an error and actually meant Brettia when Brettania was written, and noting that the passage that contains the Rescript is otherwise concerned with events in northern Italy.

text: Criticisms of the suggestion range from treating the passage in the way it was written by Zosimus and ignoring the suggestion,[43] to simply noting its speculative nature,[44] to a discussion of problems with the suggestion (e.g., 'why would Honorius write to the cities of the Bruttii rather than to his own provincial governor for that region?', and 'why does far-off southern Italy belong in a passage about northern Italy any more than far-off Britain?').[45][46] The theory also contradicts the account of Gildas, who provides independent support that the reference is to Britain by repeating the essence of Zosimus' account and clearly applying it to Britain.[47]

text: E. A. Thompson ("Britain, A.D. 406–410", in Britannia, 8 (1977), pp. 303–318) offered a more provocative theory to explain the expulsion of officials and appeal for Roman aid. He suggested that a revolt consisting of dissident peasants, not unlike the Bagaudae of Gaul, also existing in Britain, and when they revolted and expelled the Roman officials, the landowning class then made an appeal for Roman aid.[48] There is no textual proof that that was so, though it might be plausible if the definition of 'bagaudae' is changed to fit the circumstances. There is no need to do this, as any number of rational scenarios already fit the circumstances.[49] There is the possibility that some form of bagaudae existed in Britain, but were not necessarily relevant to the events of 409 and 410. The alleged ubiquity of Pelagianism amongst the British population may have contributed to such a movement if it had existed, not to mention large-scale purges amongst the British elite over previous decades. Among the works that mention but skirt the issue is Koch's Celtic Culture (2005), which cites Thompson's translation of Zosimus and goes on to say "The revolt in Britain may have involved bacaudae or peasant rebels as was the case in Armorica, but this is not certain."[50]

text: Notes[edit]

text:
Jump up ^ Snyder 1998:13, An Age of Tyrants. Snyder cites Zosimus 4.35.2-6 and 37.1-3, and Orosius (7.34.9-10), with the latter saying that Maximus was an unwilling usurper.
Jump up ^ Frere 1987:354, Britannia, The End of Roman Britain. Specifically, Frere refers to Wales, the western Pennines, and the fortress at Deva; he then goes on to suggest that the same was true north of Hadrian's Wall, referring to the lands of the Damnonii, Votadini, and the Novantae.
^ Jump up to: a b Higham 1992:75, Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons, "Britain Without Rome".
Jump up ^ Frere 1987:354, Britannia, The End of Roman Britain. Frere notes that excavation of coins dated after 383 suggests that Maximus did not strip the Wall of troops.
Jump up ^ Giles 1841:13, The Works of Gildas, The History, ch. 14
Jump up ^ Laing 1975:93, Early Celtic Britain and Ireland, Wales and the Isle of Man.
Jump up ^ Miller, Mollie (1977), "Date-Guessing and Dyfed", Studia Celtica, 12, Cardiff: University of Wales, pp. 33–61
Jump up ^ Coplestone-Crow, Bruce (1981), "The Dual Nature of Irish Colonization of Dyfed in the Dark Ages", Studia Celtica, 16, Cardiff: University of Wales, pp. 1–24
Jump up ^ Meyer, Kuno (1896), "Early Relations Between Gael and Brython", in Evans, E. Vincent, Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, Session 1895–1896, I, London: Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, pp. 55–86
Jump up ^ Mattingly 2006:232, An Imperial Possession. The Gallic Chronicle of 452 is cited as giving the year 382/383.
Jump up ^ Frere 1987:354, In "Britannia, The End of Roman Britain," Frere suggests that Maximus would return to Britain in 384, after he became Augustus, to campaign against the Scoti and Picts.
Jump up ^ Snyder 1998:13, Age of Tyrants. Snyder cites Sozomen 7.13, and Orosius 7.35.3-4.
Jump up ^ Snyder 2003:62, The Britons. The date is given as 398. Stilicho himself was suppressing revolts in Africa at the time.
Jump up ^ Frere 1987:355, Britannia, "The End of Roman Britain".
^ Jump up to: a b Jones & Mattingly 1990:307, An Atlas of Roman Britain.
Jump up ^ Mattingly 2006:238, An Imperial Possession.
Jump up ^ Snyder 2003:62–63, The Britons. Stilicho had ordered measures for new fortifications in Britain prior to removing the troops.
Jump up ^ Snyder 1998:18, An Age of Tyrants. Snyder notes that the sometimes confused effort of Gildas to relate history may contain references to Stilicho's actions in Britain. In De Excidio, ch. 16-18, he talks of campaigns against the Scoti, Saxons and Picts, and then mistakenly says that that is when Hadrian's Wall was built, followed by the removal of troops.
Jump up ^ Snyder 1998:18, An Age of Tyrants.
^ Jump up to: a b c Frere 1987:357, Britannia.
Jump up ^ Michael Kulikowski, "Barbarians in Gaul, Usurpers in Britain" Britannia 31 (2000:325-345).
Jump up ^ Snyder 1998:18, Age of Tyrants.
Jump up ^ Snyder 1998:19, Age of Tyrants.
Jump up ^ Frere 1987:358, Britannia.
Jump up ^ Snyder 1998:19–20, Age of Tyrants.
Jump up ^ Snyder 2003:79, The Britons.
Jump up ^ Higham 1992:72, Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons, "Britain Without Rome".
Jump up ^ Snyder 1998:20–21, Age of Tyrants.
Jump up ^ Frere 1987:358–359, Britannia.
Jump up ^ Snyder 1998:20, Age of Tyrants.
Jump up ^ Higham 1992:71–72, Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons, "Britain Without Rome".
Jump up ^ Snyder 1998:22, An Age of Tyrants.
Jump up ^ Birley, Anthony Richard The Roman Government of Britain OUP Oxford (29 Sep 2005) ISBN 978-0199252374 pp.461-463 [1]
Jump up ^ Halsall, Guy Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376-568 Cambridge University Press; illustrated edition (20 Dec 2007) ISBN 978-0521434911, pp. 217-18
Jump up ^ Discussion in Martin Millett, The Romanization of Britain, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) and in Philip Bartholomew 'Fifth-Century Facts' Britannia vol. 13, 1982, p. 260
^ Jump up to: a b Snyder 1998:21, Age of Tyrants.
Jump up ^ Snyder 1998:21–22, Age of Tyrants.
Jump up ^ Mommsen, Theodor (1885), "Britain", in Dickson, William P. (translator), The Provinces of the Roman Empire, I, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons (published 1887), p. 211
Jump up ^ Snyder 1998:25, Age of Tyrants.
Jump up ^ Birley, Anthony (2005) The Roman Government of Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press ISBN 0-19-925237-8, pp. 461–463
Jump up ^ Halsall, Guy Barbarian migrations and the Roman West, 376-568 Cambridge University Press; illustrated edition (20 Dec 2007) ISBN 978-0-521-43491-1 pp.217-218
Jump up ^ Discussion in Martin Millett, The Romanization of Britain, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) and in Philip Bartholomew 'Fifth-Century Facts' Britannia vol. 13, 1982 p. 260
Jump up ^ Frere 1987:359, Britannia, "The End of Roman Britain".
Jump up ^ Higham 1992:73, Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons, "Britain Without Rome".
Jump up ^ Snyder 1998:24, Age of Tyrants.
Jump up ^ Woolf, Alex (2003), "The Britons: from Romans to Barbarians", in Goetz, Hans Werner; Jarnut, Jörg; Pohl, Walter, Regna and Gentes, Brill, pp. 346–347, ISBN 90-04-12524-8 . Woolf cites the argument of E. A. Thompson but does not choose sides, saying that the issue is neither provable nor disprovable.
Jump up ^ Snyder 1998:18, Age of Tyrants. Gildas (De Excidio, 18.1) is quoted as saying "The Romans therefore informed our country that they could not go on being bothered with such troublesome expeditions. ... Rather, the British should stand alone, get used to arms, fight bravely, and defend with all their powers their land."
Jump up ^ Snyder 1998:22, Age of Tyrants.
Jump up ^ Snyder 1998:23–24, Age of Tyrants.
Jump up ^ Koch, John T., ed. (2005), "Civitas", Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia, ABL-CLIO (published 2006), pp. 450–451, ISBN 978-1-85109-440-0


document_title: Al-Mulk

question_text: what page is surah mulk in the quran

question_tokens: what page is surah mulk in the quran

root

text: Al-Mulk

text:
←  Sura 67 of the Quran  →

الملك
Al-Mulk
The Dominion

Arabic text · English translation

Classification
Meccan

Other names
Kingship

Position
Juzʼ 29 Tabāraka -lladhi

No. of Rukus
2

No. of verses
30

No. of words
337

No. of letters
1316

tag: table

text:
Quran

Text[show]

Chapter

List
Meccan
Medinan

Verse
Section
Muqatta'at

Content[show]

Animals
Eschatology
Female figures
God
Legends
Miracles
Parables

Prophets
Science

Reading[show]

Elocution
Memorized
Reciter

School
Speed

Translations[show]

List
English translations
by Ahmadis

History[show]

Samarkand Kufic Quran
Sana'a manuscript
Topkapi manuscript
Birmingham manuscript

Exegesis[show]

Abrogation
Biblical narratives
Esoteric interpretation
Hermeneutics

Persons related to verses

mentioned by name

Revelation

Related[show]

Createdness
Criticism
Inimitability
Quran and tradition
Quranism
Shi’a view

Category
Islam portal
Wikipedia book

v
t
e

text: Sūrat al-Mulk (Arabic: سورة الملك, "Sovereignty, Kingdom") is the 67th chapter (sura) of the Quran, comprising 30 verses.[1] The sura emphasizes that no individual can impose his will on another; he may only guide and set an example (67:26).[2]

tag: p

text: Hadith[edit]

text: The first and foremost exegesis/tafsir of the Qur'an is found in hadith of Muhammad[3][4] and while hadith is literally "speech"; recorded saying or tradition of Muhammad validated by isnad; with sira these comprise the sunnah and reveal shariah and tafsir. Although scholars including ibn Taymiyyah claim that Muhammad has commented on the whole of the Qur'an, others including Ghazali cite the limited amount of narratives, thus indicating that he has commented only on a portion of the Qur'an.[5] In either the case, higher count of hadith elevates the importance of the pertinent surah from a certain perspective. This surah holds special place in the sayings as well as practices of Muhammad, which can be observed by these related ahadith.

text:
Imam Ahmad recorded from Abu Hurayrah that Muhammad said,"Verily, there is a chapter in the Qur’an which contains thirty Ayat that will intercede on behalf of its reciter until he is forgiven. (It is): ‘Blessed be He in Whose Hand is the dominion. (Surat Al-Mulk 67)’"[6][7][8]
Muhammad said, ‘There is a surah in the Qur’an which is only thirty verses. It defends whoever recites it until it puts him into Jannah’[9]
Anas ibn Malik reported Muhammad as saying, “There is a Surah which will plead for its reciter till it causes him to enter paradise.”[10]
Muhammad said, ‘Surah al Mulk is the protector from the torment of the grave’[11]
Jabir said it was the custom of not to go to sleep until he had read Tabarakalladhi Biyadihil Mulk(Al-Mulk) and Alif Laam Meem Tanzeel (As-Sajda).[12]
He used to recite Surah As-Sajdah and Surah Al-Mulk (in Arabic) before sleeping.[13]
Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbas reported that Muhammad said, ‘It is my desire/love that Surahtul Mulk should be in the heart of every Muslim’[14]
Ibn Abbas said that one of Muhammad’s companions set up his tent over a grave without realising that it was a grave and it contained a man who was reciting the Surah Tabarakalladhi Biyadihil Mulk up to the end. He went and told Muhammad who said, ‘It is The Defender; it is The Protector which safeguards from Allah Ta’ala’s Punishment’[15]
Khalid bin Madam said about surat Al Mulk and As-Sajda that these two surahs will fight for their reciter in the grave and will say, ‘O Allah! If we belong to Your book, accept our intercession in his favour. In case we do not, get us obliterated. These surahs will spread their wings like birds and will save the person from the torment of the grave.’[16]
It was narrated that Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud said: Whoever reads Tabarakalladhi Biyadihil Mulk [i.e. Surah al-Mulk] every night, Allah will protect him from the torment of the grave. At the time of the Messenger of Allah, we used to call it al-mani’ah (that which protects). In the Book of Allah it is a surah which, whoever recites it every night has done very well.[17][18]
Abdullaah ibn Mas’ood is reported to have said, 'A man will be approached in his grave from his legs and from his chest and then from his head. And each time this Surah will defend him by saying, 'You cannot do anything to him, he used to recite Surah Mulk'.'
Abdullaah ibn Mas’ood further states, 'It is called, 'Al-maani'ah'. For it protects from the punishment of the grave.'[19]
Ibn Umar said that once that Muhammad recited verse 2 (the One Who created death and life so that He may test you as to which of you is better in deeds) and when he reached the words "better in deeds", he stopped and explained that 'better in deeds' is the person who abstains most from the things Allah has forbidden and is always ready to obey Him."
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that Humayd ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn Awf had told him that Surat al-Ikhlas (Sura 112) was equal to a third of the Qur'an, and that Surat al-mulk (Sura 67) pleaded for its owner.[20]

tag: ul


document_title: Gun laws in Florida

question_text: where am i not allowed to carry a concealed weapon in florida

text: Gun laws in Florida

text: Summary table[edit]

text:
Subject/Law
Long guns
Handguns
Relevant Statutes
Notes

State license to Purchase?
No
No
None

Firearm registration?
No
No
Chapter 790.335
It is a felony under Florida law to create, maintain or publish any list, record or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners.

Owner license required?
No
No
None

Assault weapon law?
No
No
None

Magazine Capacity Restriction?
No
No
None

Concealed Carry license required?
N/A
Yes
Chapter 790.06
Allows concealed possession of handguns, electronic weapons or devices, tear gas guns, knives, or billies, but not long guns or machine guns per Chapter 790.06(1).

Open Carry?
No
No
Chapter 790.053,
Open carry of firearms is generally banned except open or concealed carry is allowed for without a license under 790.25 for certain protected places and activities. Exceptions include in the home, place of work, hunting, fishing, camping, or while practice shooting and while traveling to and from those activities.

State Preemption of local restrictions?
Yes
Yes
Chapter 790.33

NFA weapons restricted?
No
No
Chapter 790.161
Making, possessing, throwing, projecting, or discharging any destructive device, or any attempt to do so is a felony in Florida.

Peaceable Journey laws?
No
No
None
Federal rules observed.

Duty to inform?
No
No
None
Florida law does not require one to disclose one's possession of a firearm on contact with Law Enforcement.

Background checks required for private sales?
No
No
None

Red flag law?
Yes
Yes
SB 7026
The police can get judicial approval to confiscate, for up to a year, the firearms of a person deemed a danger to themselves or others.

Waiting period?
Yes
Yes

The state requires a three-day waiting period between purchasing and taking possession of a firearm. Individual counties can require a waiting period of up to five days.

text: Preemption[edit]

text: Florida law prohibits localities from regulating firearms, other than with regards to zoning laws (i.e., for restricting where gun sellers may locate their businesses). The Florida Legislature has since 1987 occupied the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition, including the purchase, sale, transfer, taxation, manufacture, ownership, possession, and transportation. Due to a lack of penalties associated with violating the preemption statute, it was almost universally ignored by city and county authorities until, on December 7, 2010, Representative Matt Gaetz introduced a bill to the Florida Legislature adding penalties for violating the existing preemption statute. It was signed into law by Governor Rick Scott on June 2, 2011.[3] Penalties may include fines, removal from public office, termination of employment and other punishments.[4]

text: Concealed carry[edit]

text: Firearms regulations are uniform throughout Florida, and a carry license is valid everywhere other than in a few specially-defined areas. These prohibited places include any police station, prison, courthouse, polling place, government meeting place, airport, seaport, or tavern.[5] Concealed carry is also prohibited in any school, except for authorized security personnel or armed marshals.[6][7]

text: Anyone lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, may briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.[8]

text: Currently, Florida's Concealed Weapon License is one of the most widely recognized, state-issued concealed weapon license. The resident Florida Concealed Weapon License is recognized in thirty-five different states, while the non-resident Florida Concealed Weapon License is recognized in thirty states.[9]

text: "Concealed firearm" is defined in F.S.S.790.001(2) as "any firearm, as defined in subsection (6), which is carried on or about a person in such a manner as to conceal the firearm from the ordinary sight of another person."[10]

text: Unlicensed concealed carry is allowed during a mandatory evacuation as a result of a state of emergency.[11]

text: As of 2018, some school employees may choose to receive special training in order to carry a firearm at school.[12]

text: Open carry[edit]

text: Open carry when on foot in a public area is generally illegal, but is permitted in certain circumstances, as defined by Florida statute 790.25(3). For example, open carry is permitted while hunting, fishing, camping, gun shows, or while shooting, and while going to and from such activities.[13] The open carry ban statute was challenged in court[14] but the ban was upheld.[15]

text: Vehicle carry[edit]

text: Vehicle carry without a license when the weapon is not immediately accessible/available for use is permitted.

text: Handguns must be either "securely encased" -F.S.S.790.25(3)(l) Some cite this as a grey area or risky- or not immediately available for use.[16] "Securely encased" means in a glove compartment, whether or not locked; snapped in a holster; in a gun case, whether or not locked; in a zippered gun case; or in a closed box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for access.[17] Carry of a Handgun on one's person inside a vehicle without a license is not permitted (except in the case of open carry in accordance with the law outlined above). Once a handgun is securely encased, it can be stored anywhere inside the vehicle and is not limited to just the glove compartment/center console.

text: Long guns may be anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use.[18]

text: As of July 1, 2008, Florida became a "Take your gun to work" state (F.S. 790.251). This law prohibits most businesses from firing any employee for keeping a legal firearm locked in his or her vehicle in the company parking lot. The purpose of the new law is to allow citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights during their commutes to and from work. Exceptions listed in F.S. 790.251(7) include school property, correctional institutions, nuclear power plants, national defense facilities, facilities for explosives or combustible materials, or a motor vehicle owned, rented, or leased by a person's employer.

text: A case was filed against Walt Disney World Resort by a former Disney security guard who was fired, despite having a CWL, for having a firearm locked in his car on July 1, in violation of Disney's pre-existing no weapons allowed policy. The case was later dropped by the plaintiff citing personal and financial reasons. Disney claims that they are exempt from the new state law, on the basis of their having a fireworks license for conducting nightly fireworks shows at Disney World.[19][20]

text: Castle doctrine and "stand your ground"[edit]

text: "Castle doctrine" refers to the generally accepted common-law principle that one is not required to retreat when in one's own dwelling. Eliminating the requirement to retreat outside the home (i.e. in public) is generally referred to as a "stand your ground" law. As of October 1, 2005, Florida became a "No Duty to Retreat" (i.e. Stand Your Ground) state. Florida Castle Doctrine law establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder. With the passage of Florida's Stand Your Ground law, this principle now also applies in any other place where a person "has a right to be." Essentially, that person has "no duty to retreat" if attacked and may "meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony". Note that all of the generally accepted common-law principles of self-defense must still be followed.[21]

text: A person who uses force within the parameters of the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful. If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune under the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

text: Firearm sales[edit]

text: As of 2018, one must be at least 21 years old to purchase any firearm in Florida.[12] Florida law does not restrict private firearms transfers between Florida residents.

text: The Florida Constitution, Art VIII Sec. 5(b), permits counties to enact ordinances that require a criminal history records check and a 3 to 5-day waiting period when any part of a firearm sale is conducted on property to which the public has the "right of access",[22] such as at a gun show conducted on public property. These local option ordinances may not be applied to holders of a concealed weapons license.[23] As of 2018, this waiting period applies to all counties, with exceptions for concealed weapons licensees, hunters, military, and law enforcement.[12] Prior, only Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Hillsborough, and Volusia counties had enacted such ordinances.

text: Other laws[edit]

text: Under Florida's red flag law, the police can get judicial approval to confiscate, for up to a year, the firearms of a person deemed a danger to themselves or others.[12][24]

text: The possession of a bump stock is illegal. This is a gun stock that can be used to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle.[25][24]