Would you prefer “stretching the law?” The child development center is a day care, not a school. The day care facility is in a separate building from the office and not associated with the 6 story concrete deck parking lot. I think implying the property is a school facility is quite a stretch. Have you read the Florida Statutes on concealed permits and the “Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008?”
Whatever it says.
"Stretching the law" could be in brackets after. :-)
Have you read the Florida Statutes on concealed permits and the “Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008?”
Yes, as well as the pre-passage analyses, which pointed out the constitutional issues with trying to interfere with private-property rights, as well as recommending that "school proprty" be explicitly defined. AFAIK, that didn't happen.
Of course, this is likely all academic, with the federal court review already in progress.
The child development center is a day care, not a school. The day care facility is in a separate building from the office and not associated with the 6 story concrete deck parking lot. I think implying the property is a school facility is quite a stretch.
Now that's good info to include as commentary. Thank you!
A day care center where any educational activity occurs will qualify under “preschool” unless Florida requires industrial day care centers to be licensed and the USAA one is not licensed, which I doubt.
The parking lot issue re the USAA building is moot. It the lot used by people bringing kids to that “preschool?”
“Property” will be defined here under broad encompassing contiguous real estate terms and perhaps even more broadly under an intent of use doctrine.
USAA wins legally.
Live by the loopholes, die by the loopholes.