|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
FL: On guard against ‘stand your ground’
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Now, they’ve really done it. Florida’s gun-happy, National Rifle Association-controlled Legislature has turned an already dangerous, unpopular law into an unmitigated disaster.
It’s nothing short of legislative malpractice. Florida’s infamous “stand your ground” law — with a long-running, well-documented history of flagrant misuse — has now been elevated into a virtual license to kill.
Already weighted heavily in favor of trigger-happy shooters (freed of any duty to retreat), new changes to the law will not only increase shootings but discourage legitimate prosecutions. |
| Comment by:
hisself
(6/30/2017)
|
And, of course, elected Florida prosecutors would NEVER try to railroad somebody to increase their conviction count!
Tell that to George Zimmerman. Tell that to the cop Janet Reno railroaded. Tell that to the many others who were persecuted for self defense.
The reason that this bill became law is that prosecutors and judges blatantly twisted the intent of the original law so as to make the defendant have to prove a negative.
The law Florida really needs is one that appoints State Attorneys, not elects them. For proof, see that loony dingbat in Orlando! |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
