GEORGE CLINTON NELSON, 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.
The court held that Florida Statute § 790.23, prohibiting felons without restored civil rights from possessing firearms, is constitutional.
Defendant, a convicted felon whose civil rights were not restored, was charged with possessing a pistol in violation of Florida Statute § 790.23. The …
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.
This case is before us on appeal from the Court of Record of Escambia County, that court having upheld the validity of Florida Statute § 790.23, F.S.A.1
Defendant, previously convicted of a felony and his civil rights not restored, was, by information, charged with having iff his possession a pistol in violation of Florida Statute § 790.23, F.S.A.
The trial judge denied defendant’s motion to quash the information, the jury returned a verdict of guilty and defendant was sentenced to a term of six months to ten years.
Defendant has appealed, contending that, under § 12 and § 20, Declaration of Rights, Constitution of Florida, F.S.A. and the Fourteenth Amendment, Constitution of the United States, the Legislature may not “single out persons who have been convicted of crime and create of them a special class who shall be deprived of constitutionally protected rights unrelated to their punishment.”
The constitutionality of Florida laws regulating the carrying of weapons2 and conviction under the Statute in question3have been upheld but this Court has not passed directly upon the validity of F.S. §". 790.23, F.S.A.
In other jurisdictions, statutes prohibiting a felon from possessing firearms, have been held valid.4 Appellant cites, as-*855.authority to the contrary, an Ohio decision5 -which held invalid a city ordinance prohibiting possession of firearms by felons, fugitives and others as violative of the Constitution of the State of Ohio, which, 'be it noted, is relevantly to be distinguished from the pertinent provision of the Florida ■Constitution. The ordinance involved prohibited the possession of pistols by all convicted felons, whether or not civil rights had been restored. We are not by this prec■edent persuaded the Florida Statute here -questioned is constitutionally infirm.
Inasmuch as the Second Amendment, Constitution of the United States, and § 20, Declaration of Rights, Constitution of Florida, are quite similar, we observe the Federal Firearms Act6, prohibits commerce in arms by persons convicted of certain criminal offenses. The constitutionality of the Federal act was sustained7, the Court holding the purpose of the act being to protect the public by preventing the possession of firearms by persons convicted of certain crimes or who are fugitives from justice. We think the purpose of the Florida Statute is fairly comparable with that of the Federal Statute.8
The statutory prohibition of possession of a pistol by one convicted of a felony, *856civil rights not restored, is a reasonable public safeguard.
We uphold the validity of § 790.23 and affirm the judgment appealed from.
Affirmed.
THORN AL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Rinzler v. Carson, 262 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1972)…to keep and bear arms, it can determine that certain arms or weapons may not be kept or borne by the citizen. We have specifically held that the Legislature can regulate the use and the manner of bearing certain specific weapons. In Nelson v. State, 195 So. 2d 853 (1967) we held constitutional Section 790.23, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which makes it unlawful for a convicted felon to have in his possession a pistol, sawed-off rifle, or sawed-off shotgun. In Davis v. State, 146 So. 2d 892 (1962) we held valid S…
-
State v. Snyder, 673 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1996)…. Id. Section 790.23 is intended to protect the public by preventing the possession of firearms by persons who, because of their past conduct, have demonstrated their unfitness to be entrusted with such dangerous instrumentalities. Nelson v. State, 195 So. 2d 853, 855 & n. 8 (Fla.1967). In order to achieve this legislative purpose, section 790.23 must apply following an adjudication of guilt in the trial court. Furthermore, the fact that the predicate conviction is pending on appeal is irrelevant to the legi…
-
State v. Anderson, 764 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…intended to protect the public from persons, who, because [*850] of their past conduct, have - demonstrated they are unfit to be trusted with dangerous instruments such as firearms. See State v. Snyder, 673 So. 2d 9, 10 (Fla.1996); Nelson v. State, 195 So. 2d 853, 855 n. 8 (Fla.1967). The evil contemplated by section 790.23 is clearly the prevention of the possession and the use of firearms by convicted felons. Anderson argues that, given the legislative intent in section 790.25(4) that the section be const…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)
- Bascom Carlton v. State, 63 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1912)
- Davis v. State, 146 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1962)
- Velazquez v. United States, 319 U.S. 770 (U.S. 1943)
- Kennedy Laundry Co. v. Helvering, 319 U.S. 770 (U.S. 1943)
- Maloney v. State, 146 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Kelly v. Patek, 172 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Benitez v. State, 172 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)