CHARLES BOSWINK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Boswink appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss charges for carrying concealed weapons, arguing his rifles and shotguns stored in a gun case in his truck were not "readily accessible for immediate use" under Florida law. The court reversed, holding that as a matter of law, the guns' position and length made retrieval impractical and therefore did not violate the concealed carry statute.
The court held that the undisputed facts required the trial court to decide as a matter of law that the guns were not "readily accessible for immediate use." Because the guns' length and position made retrieval impractical—requiring the driver to open the door and awkwardly reach behind the seat, likely necessitating exit from the vehicle—they could not be retrieved "as easily and quickly as if carried on the person," and Boswink's possession was lawful.
[1] A firearm is not "readily accessible for immediate use" when it is carried in a private conveyance in such a manner that it cannot be retrieved and used as easily and qui…
[2] The determination of whether a firearm is "readily accessible for immediate use" is a question of law for the court when the undisputed facts do not present a factual dis…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a firearm or other weapon [that] is carried on the person or within such close proximity and in such a manner that it can be retrieved and used as easily and quickly as if carried oh the person”
The statutory definition of "readily accessible for immediate use" that Boswink's firearm storage must meet to violate the concealed carry statute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBoswink was arrested for carrying a 44-inch rifle and 28-inch shotgun in his truck. Both weapons were partially enclosed in a professionally made gun …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Securely Encased Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Chief Judge.
Charles Boswink, after a nolo plea, has appealed the reserved question of whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss charges of carrying concealed weapons in violation of section 790.01, Florida Statutes (1991). The case stemmed from a rifle and a shotgun Boswink was carrying in his truck at the time of his arrest. The rifle was 44 inches long, the shotgun was 28 inches long, and both were partially enclosed in a professionally made gun case attached to the back of the truck’s seat cover. The butt ends of the guns were visible when the driver’s door was opened. The distance between the seat and the driver’s door was eight inches.
Boswink claimed that his possession of the firearms in his truck was lawful because, under section 790.25(5), Florida Statutes (1991), a person can legally carry a concealed firearm in a private conveyance, without a license, if the weapon is “securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use.” Section 790.001(15), Florida Statutes (1991), defines “readily accessible for immediate use” as “a firearm or other weapon [that] is carried on the person or within such close proximity and in such a manner that it can be retrieved and used as easily and quickly as if carried oh the person.” Cases deciding whether the particular firearm at issue comes within the definition of “readily accessible” are intensely “fact specific.” See Ashley v. State, 619 So. 2d 294 (Fla.1993). The trial court, unable to fit this situation within a precedential fact pattern, decided that it was up to the jury to decide whether the guns were “readily accessible.”
Contrary to the trial court’s view, the undisputed facts imposed upon it the task of deciding as a matter of law whether the guns were “readily accessible.” Because of the length of the weapons and their position behind the driver’s seat, Boswink could only retrieve the guns by opening the door and awkwardly reaching behind the seat. In all probability, he could not accomplish the feat without actually exiting the truck. As a matter of law, the guns could not have been retrieved “as easily and quickly as if carried on the person,” and Boswink’s possession of them in his truck was not illegal. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for the entry of an order dismissing the firearms charges.
PARKER and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Weyant, 990 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…rm is “readily accessible for immediate use.” Id. When the locations of the unloaded firearm and the separate ammunition are undisputed, the question of whether the firearm is readily accessible for immediate use is one of law. See Boswink v. State, 636 So. 2d 584, 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Thus, we need not defer to the trial court’s conclusion on the issue; instead, our standard of review is de novo. While this case addresses a new factual scenario, I nevertheless believe that the majority’s opinion runs con…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Ashley v. State, 619 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1993)