It certainly seems so to me, based on your spot-on quote of FL law.
Yes and no....
The problem comes in the language of 790.053, which says "any firearm."
Skipping the definitions section in 790.001, or choosing to ignore it because it's inconvenient to the anti's agenda, or deliberately misinterpreting it, clouds the water.
FS 790.001 said:
Definitions. As used in this chapter, except where the context otherwise requires:
(1) “Antique firearm” means any firearm manufactured in or before 1918 (including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar early type of ignition system) or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1918, and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1918, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.
The above excludes the 1911, even though it is made prior to 1918. But, any cap/ball/powder/wad revolver with no cartridge at all, being made prior to 1918, or a replica there of made in 2016, would be defined as an "Antique Firearm."
Fun tangent: If I built an 80% 1911 chambered in some bizarre cartridge that isn't available in "ordinary channels of commercial trade" and outside of the USA....
FS 790.001(6) said:
(6) “Firearm” means any weapon (including a starter gun) which will, is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; the frame or receiver of any such weapon; any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; any destructive device; or any machine gun. The term “firearm” does not include an antique firearm unless the antique firearm is used in the commission of a crime.
The above is where the previously defined "antique firearm" is excluded from the definition of "firearm."
FS 790.053(1) said:
Open carrying of weapons. (1) Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device. It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to 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.
Since "antique firearm" has been, for the purposes of this section, defined as excluded from the definition of "firearm," on it's face, Open Carry of a cap/ball revolver replica should be perfectly legal.
But. And that's a big but. Let me be clear; I am not Sir Mixalot. I do not like big buts.
"Any firearm" may be fraudulently/willfully misinterpreted to step outside the bounds of the definition stated in FS 790.001(1) and 790.001(6), and include literally any firearm, even though as defined for the purposes of this section it's not a firearm, based on "
except where the context otherwise requires" at the beginning of 790.001.
Note that the "
except where the context otherwise requires" part is over the entire Satute, not bound in (1). So, this means the definitions can be bent to suit any agenda as desired. As such, the definitions section is pretty much Play Doh. Why even bother having definitions when the very first sentence in the definitions section essentially says "it can mean whatever we want it to mean." What kind of effng law is this? That's right, Floriduh law.
The context does not, in fact, "otherwise requires," but it may well be very convenient to an agenda, and thus, be falsely "required" in order to persecute as they see fit.
It may be "required" for getting away with persecution to misrepresent it, but it's not "required" for purposes of the law as plainly read.
A slight of hand in misrepresenting the matter is all it takes to turn the matter upside-down.
While it's easy to read the law and see what you want to see, that coin has two sides. I'm reading that law and seeing what it says. OC of Cap/Ball Revolver is legal. But, those who want it to say otherwise can easily do so... When the person with the gavel and handcuffs reads it how they want to read it, instead of what is there... That's the problem.
It's circular... If they want it to be. Even though that's clearly not the real meaning. When a citizen reads the law as what he wants it to be, things can go badly for him. When it's the government that is seeing what it wants to see, that makes the situation equally unpleasant for the citizen.
I guess lowly trash like me isn't supposed to do such fancy thinkin'...
Since the "
except where the context otherwise requires" part is so patently absurd on it's own, it strikes me that this could be removed for clarity and then...