Speaking Of Jim Crow Relics

The weekly compilation from the Brady Campaign had an attack on the filibuster. Quoting former President Obama, it was called a “Jim Crow relic”.

This week, President Obama called for the elimination of the filibuster: an arcane rule in the Senate that requires a supermajority of 60 votes, instead of 51, to pass nearly any bill. Our movement knows all too well the dangers of this rule. It’s what stopped Congress from passing lifesaving gun reform legislation following the Sandy Hook massacre.

They were 54 votes in favor and 46 against — clearly a simple majority! But the 60-vote rule stopped Congress from acting  even after 26 students and educators were shot and killed. 

Enough is enough. Why do we need a 60-vote threshold to pass a bill that will save American lives? Fifty-one is the majority, and 51 is fair.

We’re not asking for a lot. We’re simply calling for a simple majority vote — fair and square — to pass lifesaving, evidence-based policy solutions to end gun violence. There’s no excuse for senseless gun violence, especially when legislative solutions have been sitting before Mitch McConnell and the U.S. Senate for over 500 days!

We need to let every Senator know that #51IsFair and gun violence is a national emergency.

Actually, the filibuster and its use in the US Senate predates both the origin of Jim Crow laws and the Civil War. According to a history of it as published by the Senate, unlimited debate was allowed in both the House and Senate. The growth in the number of representatives saw it discontinued in the House but unlimited debate continued in the Senate. Its use to block bills came to the forefront in the 1840s when unlimited debate was used to block a banking bill. The concept of cloture or the ending of unlimited debate by a vote only came into existence in 1917 at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson.

The history of Jim Crow laws and black codes began in 1865 with the adoption of the 13th Amendment which ended slavery and involuntary servitude in the United States once and for all. The black codes were laws enacted at the state and local level which restricted former slaves as to where, when, and how they could work and also restricted their compensation. It served to put many blacks into indentured servitude.

Jim Crow laws were a follow-on that served to enforce segregation, to ban inter-racial marriage, to keep blacks disenfranchised, and, for the purposes of my discussion here, disarmed.

Historians like Clayton Cramer and legal scholars like Dave Kopel and Robert Cottrol among others have shown how many gun control laws were aimed at keeping blacks unarmed and vulnerable.

Let’s talk about two of those Jim Crow relics that I’ve written about in the past. The first from Florida and the second from my home state of North Carolina.

After armed black men using their Winchester repeating rifles prevented a lynching in Jacksonville, Florida, the Florida legislature enacted a law that required a permit for Floridians to carry a handgun or a “Winchester rifle or other repeating rifle.” It was the first law nationwide that treated repeating rifles differently than any other firearm. It was the antecedent to modern day “assault weapons” (sic) bans in states like California and New York (among others).

One need only look to the official proclamations of the Democratic Party and their standard bearer Joe Biden to see that support for such Jim Crow relics as a ban on repeating rifles lives on. In their ideological blindness, neither the Democrats nor the Brady Campaign suffer any cognitive dissonance in pushing Jim Crow originated gun control while attacking the filibuster as a “Jim Crow relic”.

I have written often on this blog about North Carolina’s pistol purchase permit and its role in perpetuating white supremacy in the early 20th century. It was enacted in 1919 soon after a race riot in Winston-Salem. There was a great fear of black veterans returning from World War One. The co-primary sponsor of the bill was Sen. Earle A. Humphreys (D-Goldsboro). Humphrey just happened to be the brother-in-law of US Sen. Furnifold Simmons who was the architect of the Democrat’s white supremacy campaign. The goal was to make it difficult if not impossible for blacks as well as Populists and union organizers to be armed outside the home.

Every time in the last decade a repeal of the pistol purchase permit system in North Carolina is tried, it ultimately fails. Part of that failure is due to recalcitrant sheriffs who don’t want to give up the power or money and the obsequious nature of Republicans towards law enforcement. The other part is due to the unified nature of Democrats and the gun control lobby in opposition. That includes the Brady Campaign. Current Brady Campaign President Kris Brown characterized the repeal effort as rolling back “our decades of a lifesaving policy requiring a background check and a “permit to purchase” for every handgun sale.”

She was wrong. It was an effort to rid the state of the then-98 years of institutionalized racism in the form of a Jim Crow law to keep blacks unarmed and subservient.

It is the height of hypocrisy on the part of the Brady Campaign to rail against the filibuster as a “Jim Crow relic” because it stood in their way of enacting a gun control law. A law that had its very antecedent in a Jim Crow law meant to make it “safer” for racists to lynch innocent blacks.

To be honest, when have politicians or the gun control industry let a little thing like hypocrisy ever get in the way of their pursuit of power.

The answer is never.

First US Law To Treat Repeating Arms Differently

Attorney and Second Amendment scholar David Kopel had an interesting article published yesterday. It dealt with the racist history of gun control and how it is still being written by gun control advocates.

The article recounted the advice of journalist and civil rights activist Ida B. Wells to fellow blacks to “buy a Winchester”. As Kopel notes, Wells was the leading anti-lynching advocate of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. She felt that a repeating rifle in the hands of armed black men and women was essential to lynch mobs.

On June 25, 1892, Wells penned an iconic article for the New York Age, which was reprinted as a nationally circulated pamphlet, “Southern Horrors.” After noting cases in which lynch mobs had been defeated by armed blacks, Wells continued: “The lesson this teaches and which every Afro-American should ponder well is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for the protection which the law refuses to give.

“When the white man who is always the aggressor knows he runs as great a risk biting the dust every time his Afro-American victim does, he will have greater respect for Afro-American life. The more the Afro-American yields and cringes and begs, the more he has to do so, the more he is insulted, outraged, lynched.”

Wells was referring to an incident in Jacksonville, Florida in which armed black men with their repeating rifles prevented a black prisoner from being lynched.

The result of this incident is that that Florida legislature enacted a gun control law in the next session that required a license to carry or possess “a pistol, Winchester rifle or other repeating rifle.”

This appears to be the first American statute that treated repeating arms differently from other arms. The 1893 Florida tradition is continued today by states such as California and Massachusetts, which ban many common repeating rifles and shotguns, and limit magazine capacity to only 10 rounds. (emphasis mine)

In the 1941 case Watson v. Stone, the Florida Supreme Court construed the statute narrowly. The court held that the statute didn’t apply to carrying in an automobile. Concurring, Justice Buford explained the racial background:

“I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers. … The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied. (emphasis mine) … [T]here has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people, because it has been generally conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and nonenforceable if contested.”

This law was only repealed in 1987 when Florida adopted shall-issue carry permits.

The gun control lobby is still trying to keep “repeating arms” out of the hands of blacks – and whites and Asians and Latinos and Native Americans. Indeed, Joe Biden, he of the double-barrel shotgun, vows to do away with “repeating arms” on his campaign website. He may call them by a different name but they are still repeating arms.

Florida Supreme Court Says No To AWB Ballot Item

Ban Assault Weapons NOW or BAWN sought to have an assault weapons ban inserted into Article 1, Section 8, Right to Bear Arms, of the Florida Constitution. They did this with a so-called citizens initiative petition which would have put the constitutional change on the ballot.

BAWN, who characterized themselves as a “bipartisan, grassroots movement”, was spawned after the murders at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Their leadership includes such luminaries as Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), David “Camera” Hogg, and Fred Guttenberg. It is considered “bipartisan” because it has a couple of former Republican office holders on its committee. Partner organizations include Brady Campaign (now Brady United), the Newtown Alliance, and March for our Lives.

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R-FL) sought an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court as to the validity of the constitutional initiative. Today the Florida Supreme Court issued their advisory opinion.

They concluded that the proposed initiative should not be placed on the ballot in a Per Curiam decision. It was a four to one decision with one justice not participating.

The court’s review was limited to two issues: did the proposed amendement satisfy the single-subject requirement and whether the ballot title and summary satisfy the requirements of the Florida statutes. They don’t address the merit or wisdom of the proposed initiative.

The court addressed the latter issue and found that the ballot summary mislead voters as to the exemption contained in the ballot summary in the next to last sentence. That sentence read, “Exempts and requires registration of assault weapons lawfully possessed prior to this provision’s effective date.”

Here, the ballot summary fails to satisfy the requirements of section
101.161(1) and is affirmatively misleading because the meaning of the text of the ballot summary does not accurately describe the meaning of the Initiative’s text regarding the exemption.

Specifically, the next to last sentence of the ballot summary informs voters
that the Initiative “[e]xempts and requires registration of assault weapons lawfully possessed prior to this provision’s effective date” (emphasis added), when in fact the Initiative does no such thing. Contrary to the ballot summary, the Initiative’s text exempts only “the person’s,” meaning the current owner’s, possession of that assault weapon.

They go on to add:

While the ballot summary purports to exempt registered assault
weapons lawfully possessed prior to the Initiative’s effective date, the Initiative does not categorically exempt the assault weapon, only the current owner’s possession of that assault weapon. The ballot summary is therefore affirmatively misleading.

Since they found the ballot summary “affirmatively misleading”, it didn’t comply with Section 101.161(1) of the Florida Statutes and thus cannot be on the ballot.

Attorney General Moody had attacked the initiative from the very beginning. She continued her attack by calling it “deceitful and misleading”. Moody said the ban, if approved, would have banned “virtually every self-loading long gun.”

She was right. It would have banned everything from Glenfield tube-fed .22 rifles to every AR and AK. Moreover, it would have made possession by unregistered people a third-degree felony.

Congratulations to Attorney General Moody and to the NRA and NSSF who filed as “interested parties” on the win.

One must wonder how long it will take before BAWN and their partners are back seeking signatures on an amended petition. I would hope that all the new gun owners who might have supported this in the past have now come to their senses and will reject any new such petition.

The full Per Curiam opinion can be found here.

Remind Me Again Why SHOT Show Continues To Be In Vegas

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

The largest convention centers in the United States are not in Las Vegas. The largest, McCormick Place, is in Chicago and then the second largest, the Orange County Convention Center, is in Orlando, Florida. The Sands Expo Center which is the site of the SHOT Show comes in at tenth in size.

I can understand why McCormick Place was not chosen for the SHOT Show. Despite its size which I can assure you is huge having driven right past it twice in the last week, no one in their right mind would want to hold a convention in January in frigid Chicago. I won’t even speak to the anti-gun politics of Chicago as a reason to avoid having the firearms industry trade show there.

I come from the school of rewarding our friends and punishing our enemies.

Nevada voters just elected Democrats to three out of four House seats including one flipped seat, ousted Dean Heller (R-NV) in favor of Jacky Rosen (D-NV) in the Senate, flipped the governor’s office from Republican to Democrat, hold both houses of the state legislature, and now have only one Republican official, Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske, elected statewide. The Las Vegas Sun opines that Democrat dominance of the state should continue thanks to Latinos and young voters. I’m sure you might want to add (some) ex-pat Californians to that list as well.

Contrast this with the State of Florida. Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) beat Tallahasse Mayor Andrew Gillum (D-FL) for the governorship. Rick Scott (R-FL) beat three-term incumbent Bill Nelson (D-FL) for the US Senate. Republicans hold the other three statewide offices (AG, Ag Commissioner, and Chief Finance Officer). Despite losing two seats in House delegation to Democrats, Republicans still hold a 14 to 13 edge. They are also projected to hold majorities in both the state House and Senate.

The Sands Expo Center which is the location of the SHOT Show in Las Vegas has about 1.2 million square feet of exposition space. Earlier this year it was announced that the SHOT Show would expand their venue to include the MGM Grand Conference Center in 2020 and the Caesars Forum in 2021. According to the announcement, it is due to running out of space at the Sands Expo Center and having to turn away potential exhibitors.

The Orange County Convention Center, by contrast, has 2.1 million square feet of exposition space and is the nation’s second largest convention center. You would not need to expand the SHOT Show to multiple locations to handle the growth in exhibitors. OCCC also has over 6,000 parking spaces. Orlando does have fewer hotel rooms with “only” about 121,000 rooms as compared to Las Vegas which has approximately 175,000 rooms available. However, when you expand out of the city limits of Orlando to places like St. Cloud and Kissimmee you thousands of more rooms. Another advantage to Orlando is the generally warmer, even balmy, weather you are likely to find there in January.

I would be all for immediately switching the 2020 SHOT Show from Nevada to Florida for many of the reasons mentioned above including more space and a gun friendlier location. However, it won’t happen overnight.

 The fly or flies in the ointment on making the switch are two-fold. First, the National Shooting Sports Foundation has extended their contract with the Sands Expo Center through 2027. I don’t know if this is because they got a better deal from Sheldon Adelson or because they just were very familiar with the location. The second issue is a shooting range large enough to handle Industry Day at the Range. The Boulder Rifle and Pistol Club is outstanding in that regard. There are a number of shooting ranges in Central Florida but nothing approaching it that I know of.

To conclude, the gun industry has changed from being a boys’ club to being more inclusive of women and families. You see fewer and fewer “booth babes” at the SHOT Show and the NRA Annual Meeting than in the past. It would be nice if the industry’s major event would leave Las Vegas behind and move to a more gun and family friendly location like Orlando. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Democrat State Party Platforms – Colorado To Georgia

This is a  continuation of my series of posts pointing out the political platforms of the individual state Democrat parties on firearms, gun control, and the Second Amendment. Remember, this is the official position of the Democratic Party in each state and you can expect Democrats to work to enact laws along these lines.

Colorado

Colorado Democrats have an explicit gun control agenda in their platform. Moreover, firearm restrictions come up in other areas such as schools and National Parks and Forests.

Firearms and Gun Safety
We agree with individual ownership of firearms for hunting and personal safety, but also believe that firearms should be
regulated as follows:

1. Ban assault weapons, bump stocks, and high capacity magazines.
2. Enact universal background checks federally.
3. Enact restrictions: Must be 21 and must demonstrate competency with firearms to purchase a firearm.
4. Prohibit the possession and purchase of firearms by people with violent criminal offenses or on terrorist watch list.
5. Except for security personnel, ban firearms on K-12 schools, college campuses and allow cultural institutions to ban
firearms on their premises.
6. Enact Extreme Risk Protection Order law, which would allow families and law enforcement to seek a court order to
temporarily disarm a person who is dangerous to themselves or others.
7. Enact criminal penalties when adults fail to properly store firearms and minors gain access and harm themselves or
others.
8. Restrict firearms use in National Forest to designated areas, except during hunting season.
9. Allow the CDC and other government agencies to conduct gun violence research, and properly fund.

With regard to making schools gun-free zones, the Colorado Democrats say:

We oppose guns in school, more guns would make our schools less safe and but all (sic) students and staff at increased
risk of becoming a victim of gun violence.

Finally, with regard to public lands and wildlife, it says, “We support the restriction of shooting in National Forests and Parks.”

Connecticut

As you might expect, Connecticut Democrats support gun control and make great claims for it. They don’t go into great detail so they must assume all the post-Newtown restrictions have been accepted.

Guns

Connecticut Democrats are proud to stand behind common sense gun violence prevention measures. As a result, Connecticut has one of the lowest gun death rates in the country.

Gun violence in our urban centers needs to be addressed. This can be supported through incentivized proactive measures such as buybacks, and reinforcing “no questions asked” protections where appropriate in order to get guns off the streets.

Connecticut can do more. There is progress to be made in the areas of Domestic Violence and Extreme Risk protections as these scenarios are a source of mass shooting violence and gun suicide.

Delaware

 The Delaware Democrats’ platform adopts the usual buzzwords such as “common sense” and “weapons of war” without going into too much detail.

Preventing Gun Violence: Gun violence is taking far too many lives in Delaware.
Delaware Democrats support common sense gun safety measures while
respecting responsible gun ownership. We will build on successful efforts at the
state level and proposed efforts at the federal level to get weapons of war away
from criminals and off our streets, while preserving the Second Amendment rights
of law-abiding gun owners.

Florida

 The Florida Democrats have a list of their “values” on their website instead of a platform. In addition to a statement on guns, they also have a separate “gun violence prevention” fact (sic) sheet.

Preventing Gun Violence

“Proud NRA sellout” Adam Putnam and his Republican party would rather give guns to people who shouldn’t have them than enact comprehensive gun control policies. The Republican Party’s dependence on the NRA for money is why they refuse to enact policies that a majority of Floridians support. Unlike Republicans, Democrats support banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, universal background checks, closing the gun show loophole, and a 3-day waiting period for gun sales. Democrats realize that this isn’t about taking away the rights of responsible, law abiding gun-owners. This is about making our state safer so that there isn’t another shooting in Parkland, Pulse, or anywhere else in Florida. Florida has endured 4 mass shootings in 18 months because of Republicans’ refusal to implement common sense gun reform. Let’s make sure there isn’t a 5th.

Georgia

Georgia Democrats don’t seem to have adopted a party platform since 2011. It is probably for this reason that their platform makes no reference to firearms or “gun violence” (sic).  The only real item I could find is a 2013 press release supporting then President Obama’s efforts at gun control post-Newtown including magazines bans and assault weapon (sic) bans.

I will have to assume that they will support the gun control platform of Stacey Abrams who is their nominee for governor.

As Governor, Stacey will:

  1. Fight for common-sense gun reforms including universal background checks, repeal of campus carry, and extreme-risk protection orders
  2. Support protections and services for victims of domestic violence
  3. Invest in mental health services
  4. Support community and hospital programs to stop the cycle of gun violence



Stacey’s Record:

  1. Opposed legislation which required that guns confiscated in crimes be returned to the street
  2. Opposed campus carry
  3. Received only Ds and Fs from the National Rifle Association
  4. Endorsed by Moms Demand Action and Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence

For Those In Florida

Last year, Florida Carry got some grief from Marion Hammer and the NRA due to their stance on some bills in the Florida legislature. Notwithstanding that – and showing that they are united in their support of gun rights – they have passed on the following alert from the NRA and Marion Hammer. I think it shows class on their part.

The alert concerns a move by the anti-gun forces to diminish gun rights in Florida through putting constitutional amendments on the ballot. One need only looks at the moves by Bloomberg and Everytown to force so-called universal background checks through referenda. They succeeded in Washington and Nevada but failed in Maine.

From Florida Carry:

ALERT: Anti-gun CRC Members Want Gun Bans in the Florida Constitution

DATE: March 19, 2018
TO:      USF & NRA Member and Friends
FROM: Marion P. Hammer
            USF Executive Director
            NRA Past President
ACTION NEEDED NOW


Some
of the members of the Florida Constitution Revision Commission (CRC)
are very anti-gun and they are proposing and pushing gun ban and gun
control amendments to put in the Florida Constitution.

Commissioners will be voting on these amendment soon. Links to these amendments are listed at the bottom.

Among these amendments are:

*An
“assault weapons” ban which bans the distribution, sale, transfer, and
possession of so-called assault weapons and any detachable magazine that
has a capacity of more than 9 rounds.  (Makes possession illegal with
no compensation provided for those already possessed that must be
surrendered) 

*A
ban on any semi-automatic rifle that is able to accept a detachable
magazine or has a fixed magazine capable of holding more than10 rounds.
(that means almost all semi-automatic rifles)

*A
ban on the sale and transfer of “assault weapons” and defines
“transfer” as the conveyance “from a person or entity to another person
or entity WITHOUT any conveyance of money or other valuable
consideration.”  (Note: to “convey” between persons without compensation
could mean the simple act of handing the firearm to another person
while hunting, on the range, or anywhere)

*A 10 day waiting period (excluding weekends and legal holidays) on all firearms to facilitate a background check.

*A ban on the purchase of any firearm by a person under 21 years of age. 

*A ban on the sale, transfer and possession of bump stocks and other devises, tools, kits, etc. 

Please email CRC Commissioners and tell them to OPPOSE gun control amendments!

PLEASE DO IT NOW !!! They could be voting on these amendments at anytime


IN THE SUBJECT LINE PUT:  

VOTE AGAINST GUN CONTROL AMENDMENTS

(To send your message to all just Block and Copy All email addresses into the “Send To” box)

(Depending on you email program you may need to add commas or semicolons between each email) 

jose.armas@flcrc.gov
pam.bondi@flcrc.gov
lisa.carlton@flcrc.gov
timothy.cerio@flcrc.gov
hank.coxe@flcrc.gov
jose.diaz@flcrc.gov
erika.donalds@flcrc.gov
don.gaetz@flcrc.gov
emery.gainey@flcrc.gov
anna.gamez@flcrc.gov
brecht.heuchan@flcrc.gov
marva.johnson@flcrc.gov
darlene.jordan@flcrc.gov
arthenia.joyner@flcrc.gov
fred.karlinsky@flcrc.gov
belinda.keiser@flcrc.gov
frank.kruppenbacher@flcrc.gov
tom.lee@flcrc.gov
gary.lester@flcrc.gov
patricia.levesque@flcrc.gov
roberto.martinez@flcrc.gov
rich.newsome@flcrc.gov
chris.nocco@flcrc.gov
jeanette.nunez@flcrc.gov
jimmy.patronis@flcrc.gov
sherry.plymale@flcrc.gov
darryl.rouson@flcrc.gov
william.schifino@flcrc.gov
chris.smith@flcrc.gov
bob.solari@flcrc.gov
chris.sprowls@flcrc.gov
john.stemberger@flcrc.gov
pam.stewart@flcrc.gov
jacqui.lippisch@flcrc.gov
carolyn.timmann@flcrc.gov
nicole.washington@flcrc.gov

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:



Scott Signs Gun Control Bill Today; NRA Sues Today

Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL) signed SB 7026, the Majory Stoneman Douglas Public Safety Act, into law today. The bill would allow some teachers to carry firearms on campus, it allocated significant funding (approximately $500 million) to school safety, it imposed a 3-day waiting period on all firearm sales, and raised the age from 18 to 21 for all firearm purchases including shotguns and rifles. It also included some items related to mental health issues.

The bill was opposed by most Democrats in the legislature because they were against letting teachers have the opportunity to defend students with more than harsh words. They were also upset that it didn’t include universal background checks and a state assault weapons ban (sic).

After the signing, the Florida Democratic Party reiterated its opposition to the bill, which was touted as bipartisan since it passed both chambers with GOP and Democratic votes. FDP chair Terrie Rizzo said the governor and Legislature didn’t go nearly far enough.

The ban on the sale of firearms to those between the ages of 18 and 21 did not apply to law enforcement, correctional officers, or those serving in the military. The law would make it a felony for a licensed individual to sell the firearm and for a person to buy the firearm. Moreover, it also prohibited the private sale of handguns to those under the age of 21.

Within an hour of Gov. Scott signing SB 7026, the National Rifle Association filed suit in US District Court for the Northern District of Florida on behalf of their members in Florida. The suit was filed against Attorney General Pam Bondi and Commissioner of the Department of Law Enforcement Rick Swearingen in their official capacities. The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the bill on the basis that it unconstitutionally discriminates against 18 to 20 years by denying them both their Second Amendment rights and their 14th Amendment Due Process rights. It also seek an order enjoining the enforcement of FLA. STAT. § 790.065(13) by the defendants, their employees, and agents and from enforcing the ban on the sales of firearms to those aged 18 to 20.

16. Independent provisions of federal law also already significantly
constrain the right of adult citizens under the age of 21 to purchase firearms. Under
18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1), a federally licensed firearm dealer may not sell to any
individual under the age of 21 any handgun—the “quintessential self-defense
weapon” which is “the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense
in the home.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 629. Florida’s new ban broadens these
preexisting limits, by (1) extending the ban to rifles and shotguns, in addition to
handguns, and (2) prohibiting these law-abiding, adult citizens from purchasing
these firearms from any source, not just federally licensed dealers (i.e., those who

are “engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail.” 18 U.S.C. §
921(a)(11)).

17. The effect of Florida’s age-based ban is to impose a significant,
unequal, and impermissible burden on the right to keep and bear arms of a class of
millions of law-abiding 18-to-20 year-old adult citizens.

The suit seeks both a facial and as-applied declaration that the new law is unconstitutional. With regard to the as-applied challenge, the complaint says:

32.  This ban particularly infringes upon, and imposes an impermissible
burden upon, the Second Amendment rights of those NRA Members described
above who are female. Females between the ages of 18 and 21 pose a relatively
slight risk of perpetrating a school shooting such as the one that occurred at
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, or, for that matter, a violent crime of any
kind. For example, in 2015, women in this age group accounted for only 1.8% of
arrests for violent crime, while males in the same age bracket accounted for 8.7%
of such arrests—and males between the ages of 21 and 24, who may lawfully
purchase firearms under current law, accounted for 9.2%. See Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Crime in the United States: 2015 tbls. 39 and 40, available at
https://goo.gl/8pVWnb; see also BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, WOMEN
OFFENDERS at 2, 13 (2009) (female offenders responsible for only 14% of violent
crimes, and only 10% of female offenders aged 18-20), available at
https://goo.gl/3qAJXu. Regardless of its facial validity, Florida’s ban is therefore
unconstitutional, void, and invalid as applied to women between the ages of 18 and
21.

The full complaint can be found here.

From Florida Carry – Oppose SB 7026

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

SB 7026, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act, is up for a third reading by the Florida State Senate. The bill had 151 proposed amendments most of which were either withdrawn or defeated. However, those that were adopted took a bill that was meant to protect students into one with enough nonsensical gun control crap to make it a bill that needs to be defeated.

Miguel at Gunfreezonee.net gives his take on it here.

This alert from Florida Carry outlines the good and the bad. It also includes a call to action on the part of Florida gun owners.

Florida Senate to under 21 voters – “You’re not adult enough to have a gun”

Florida Carry
ADAMANTLY OPPOSES SB 7026
——-
We strongly urge members and supporters to IMMEDIATELY send an email to ALL SENATORS listed below!

This bill is a classic example of a fundamentally good bill destroyed by countless amendments.
  • Establishes voluntary armed teacher program
  • Establishes mental health care program for schools to recognize symptoms
  • Creates a government commission and a new state-level department to deal with school safety
But it also imposes unconstitutional restrictions on Florida citizens.
  • Prohibits purchase of ANY firearm by anyone under 21 years of age.
  • Imposes a 3-day waiting period on the purchase of ANY firearm with some exceptions.
  • Makes possession
    , sale, etc. of bump-stocks illegal – NO LEGAL DISPOSITION OPTION! OWN ONE – INSTANT FELON!

  • Facilitates confiscation of firearms without due process in Baker Act cases.
Florida Carry vehemently opposes any and all “compromises” which REMOVE rights from law-abiding citizens.



CONTACT ALL FLORIDA SENATORS



 NOW!



Copy/paste the email addresses below into your email client. 

Please ensure you include the following subject line – 
“Oppose SB 7026 – Public Safety”

baxley.dennis@flsenate.gov
bean.aaron@flsenate.gov
benacquisto.lizbeth@flsenate.gov
bradley.rob@flsenate.gov
brandes.jeff@flsenate.gov
broxson.doug@flsenate.gov
flores.anitere@flsenate.gov
gainer.george@flsenate.gov
galvano.bill@flsenate.gov
garcia.rene@flsenate.gov
grimsley.denise@flsenate.gov
hukill.dorothy@flsenate.gov
hutson.travis@flsenate.gov
lee.tom@flsenate.gov
mayfield.debbie@flsenate.gov
negron.joe@flsenate.gov
passidomo.kathleen@flsenate.gov
perry.keith@flsenate.gov
simmons.david@flsenate.gov
stargel.kelli@flsenate.gov
steube.greg@flsenate.gov
young.dana@flsenate.gov
book.lauren@flsenate.gov
bracy.randolp@flsenate.gov
braynon.oscar@flsenate.gov
campbell.daphne@flsenate.gov
clemens.jeff@flsenate.gov
farmer.gary@flsenate.gov
gibson.audrey@flsenate.gov
montford.bill@flsenate.gov
powell.bobby@flsenate.gov
rader.kevin@flsenate.gov
rodriguez.jose@flsenate.gov
rouson.darryl@flsenate.gov
simpson.wilton@flsenate.gov
stewart.linda@flsenate.gov
thurston.perry@flsenate.gov
torres.victor@flsenate.gov

For Those In Florida

Florida Carry issued a call late last week for legislators to eliminate gun-free zones, to authorize teachers with a CWFL to be allowed to carry in schools, and to immediately provide funding for a FASTER program.

If you live in Florida, it’s time to hit these legislators up.

On Friday, Feb 16th, Florida Carry called for the Florida Legislature to immediately:
  1. Pass emergency legislation to eliminate gun-free zones for law-abiding concealed carry licensees;
  2. Pass
    emergency legislation authorizing all teachers in public schools who
    possess a CWFL to carry their licensed, concealed firearm if they so
    choose, without repercussion; and
  3. Provide
    immediate funding of one million dollars in grants for county school
    boards and sheriffs to implement pilot programs of the
    Faculty/Administrator Safety Training and Emergency Response (FASTER) Program in the State of Florida.
Today, the legislature is under attack.
The candidates who came to us as Florida Gun Owners during the primaries have now become lawmakers.
Those lawmakers are now being pressured in to selling us out.
We have offered effective solutions to the violence of evil people.  Far too many legislators are not listening…
We have called for the legislature to fund FASTER
Investigate the non-response of the Broward County Sheriff’s office to a clear and present danger, to demand that the FBI account for its failure to investigate multiple reported threats, Recognize that “gun free zones” are not free of criminal violence, and Provide for the lawful defence of FL students.  

Contact your legislators.
larry.ahern@myfloridahouse.gov
ben.albritton@myfloridahouse.gov
thad.altman@myfloridahouse.gov
brian.avila@myfloridahouse.gov
halsey.beshears@myfloridahouse.gov
michael.bileca@myfloridahouse.gov
jim.boyd@myfloridahouse.gov
jason.brodeur@myfloridahouse.gov
daniel.burgess@myfloridahouse.gov
colleen.burton@myfloridahouse.gov
cord.byrd@myfloridahouse.gov
matt.caldwell@myfloridahouse.gov
charles.clemons@myfloridahouse.gov
richard.corcoran@myfloridahouse.gov
robert.cortes@myfloridahouse.gov
travis.cummings@myfloridahouse.gov
jose.diaz@myfloridahouse.gov
manny.diaz@myfloridahouse.gov
byron.donalds@myfloridahouse.gov
brad.drake@myfloridahouse.gov
jay.fant@myfloridahouse.gov
randy.fine@myfloridahouse.gov
jason.fischer@myfloridahouse.gov
heather.fitzenhagen@myfloridahouse.gov
julio.gonzalez@myfloridahouse.gov
tom.goodson@myfloridahouse.gov
erin.grall@myfloridahouse.gov
james.grant@myfloridahouse.gov
michael.grant@myfloridahouse.gov
joe.gruters@myfloridahouse.gov
bill.hager@myfloridahouse.gov
gayle.harrell@myfloridahouse.gov
shawn.harrison@myfloridahouse.gov
blaise.ingoglia@myfloridahouse.gov
clay.ingram@myfloridahouse.gov
sam.killebrew@myfloridahouse.gov
mike.larosa@myfloridahouse.gov
chris.latvala@myfloridahouse.gov
thomas.leek@myfloridahouse.gov
marylynn.magar@myfloridahouse.gov
amber.mariano@myfloridahouse.gov
ralph.massullo@myfloridahouse.gov
stan.mcclain@myfloridahouse.gov
larry.metz@myfloridahouse.gov
mike.miller@myfloridahouse.gov
george.moraitis@myfloridahouse.gov
jeanette.nunez@myfloridahouse.gov
jose.oliva@myfloridahouse.gov
bobby.payne@myfloridahouse.gov
kathleen.peters@myfloridahouse.gov
cary.pigman@myfloridahouse.gov
scott.plakon@myfloridahouse.gov
rene.plasencia@myfloridahouse.gov
mel.ponder@myfloridahouse.gov
elizabeth.porter@myfloridahouse.gov
jake.raburn@myfloridahouse.gov
holly.raschein@myfloridahouse.gov
paul.renner@myfloridahouse.gov
ray.rodrigues@myfloridahouse.gov
bob.rommel@myfloridahouse.gov
rick.roth@myfloridahouse.gov
david.santiago@myfloridahouse.gov
ross.spano@myfloridahouse.gov
chris.sprowls@myfloridahouse.gov
cyndi.stevenson@myfloridahouse.gov
charlie.stone@myfloridahouse.gov
jennifer.sullivan@myfloridahouse.gov
jackie.toledo@myfloridahouse.gov
carlos.trujillo@myfloridahouse.gov
jay.trumbull@myfloridahouse.gov
frank.white@myfloridahouse.gov
jayer.williamson@myfloridahouse.gov
yarborough.clay@myfloridahouse.gov
joseph.abruzzo@myfloridahouse.gov
ramon.alexander@myfloridahouse.gov
bruce.antone@myfloridahouse.gov
robert.asencio@myfloridahouse.gov
loranne.ausley@myfloridahouse.gov
lori.berman@myfloridahouse.gov
kamia.brown@myfloridahouse.gov
john.cortes@myfloridahouse.gov
janet.cruz@myfloridahouse.gov
kimberly.daniels@myfloridahouse.gov
tracie.davis@myfloridahouse.gov
ben.diamond@myfloridahouse.gov
bobby.dubose@myfloridahouse.gov
nicholas.duran@myfloridahouse.gov
katie.edwards@myfloridahouse.gov
joseph.geller@myfloridahouse.gov
margret.good@myfloridahouse.gov
roy.hardemon@myfloridahouse.gov
patrick.henry@myfloridahouse.gov
kristin.jacobs@myfloridahouse.gov
al.jacquet@myfloridahouse.gov
evan.jenne@myfloridahouse.gov
shevrin.jones@myfloridahouse.gov
larry.lee@myfloridahouse.gov
kionne.mcghee@myfloridahouse.gov
amy.mercado@myfloridahouse.gov
jared.moskowitz@myfloridahouse.gov
wengay.newton@myfloridahouse.gov
sharon.pritchett@myfloridahouse.gov
david.richardson@myfloridahouse.gov
barrington.russell@myfloridahouse.gov
sean.shaw@myfloridahouse.gov
david.silvers@myfloridahouse.gov
emily.slosberg@myfloridahouse.gov
carlos.smith@myfloridahouse.gov
cynthia.stafford@myfloridahouse.gov
richard.stark@myfloridahouse.gov
barbara.watson@myfloridahouse.gov
clovis.watson@myfloridahouse.gov
matt.willhite@myfloridahouse.gov
patricia.williams@myfloridahouse.gov
baxley.dennis@flsenate.gov
bean.aaron@flsenate.gov
benacquisto.lizbeth@flsenate.gov
bradley.rob@flsenate.gov
brandes.jeff@flsenate.gov
broxson.doug@flsenate.gov
flores.anitere@flsenate.gov
gainer.george@flsenate.gov
galvano.bill@flsenate.gov
garcia.rene@flsenate.gov
grimsley.denise@flsenate.gov
hukill.dorothy@flsenate.gov
hutson.travis@flsenate.gov
lee.tom@flsenate.gov
mayfield.debbie@flsenate.gov
negron.joe@flsenate.gov
passidomo.kathleen@flsenate.gov
perry.keith@flsenate.gov
simmons.david@flsenate.gov
stargel.kelli@flsenate.gov
steube.greg@flsenate.gov
young.dana@flsenate.gov
book.lauren@flsenate.gov
bracy.randolp@flsenate.gov
braynon.oscar@flsenate.gov
campbell.daphne@flsenate.gov
clemens.jeff@flsenate.gov
farmer.gary@flsenate.gov
gibson.audrey@flsenate.gov
montford.bill@flsenate.gov
powell.bobby@flsenate.gov
rader.kevin@flsenate.gov
rodriguez.jose@flsenate.gov
rouson.darryl@flsenate.gov
simpson.wilton@flsenate.gov
stewart.linda@flsenate.gov
thurston.perry@flsenate.gov
torres.victor@flsenate.gov

It’s Time Again For Floridians To Call Their Legislators

The Florida Senate is considering SB 128 which would restore the immunity from prosecution in legitimate self-defense shootings. The original 2005 law had that but the Florida Supreme Court then placed the burden of proof on the defendant and not the prosecution. SB 128 would reverse this.

It should be noted that just because a legislator has a “R” after his or her name does not mean her or she is on our side. Lee Williams, The Gun Writer, illustrates this clearly in his posts about the treachery of Senate President Pro Temp Anitere Flores (R-Miami). She was for gun rights before she was against them. She is responsible for killing the bills that would allow campus carry.

More on the issue in this FloridaCarry alert:

SB 128 – Burden of Proof
Full Senate hears bill tomorrow!

Contact Senators Now!!!

Perhaps the single most important bill of the session, SB 128 – Burden of Proof, restores the
full effect of legislative immunity back to the lawful user of self-defense where it belongs!
When the first claims of immunity were made under the 2005 “stand your ground” bill package, the courts had no judicial procedure in place to deal with the legislative immunity created by the bill.

Chapter 776.032 Florida Statutes clearly states –

A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s.776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution… 


 


As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.




The Florida Supreme Court created a procedure, but ignored legislative intent. Under current case law –






1. The burden of proof that self-defense was necessary is on the defendant, not the State.






2. Any evidence or statements made by the defendant may be used against him in any ensuing action.






This great bill restores full effect to the Legislature’s immunity statute, which the Court has improperly neutered.






Four amendments were filed today to dilute this bill!



Senators Simmons, Thurman, and Rodriguez have together filed four amendments today, all watering down certain provisions of this bill. These amendments must be defeated or the intent of the Legislature will continue to be ignored by the courts.

Florida Carry opposes the floor amendments filed today, and enthusiastically supports SB 128 as tendered.


An 

important note on contacting your legislators:



We
cannot stress enough the necessity of telling legislators how you feel
they should vote. During the legislative sessions, we issue Action Alerts asking
our members and supporters to take a few moments to contact
legislators. Email addresses, subject line, and sample body are all
included in these alerts to allow cut and paste into your email client.

Please
take the few seconds it takes to send an email when you receive an
Action Alert from Florida Carry. The failure or success of a bill can
hinge on that simple act.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke

Please, take a few moments to ask the members of the Senate to support SB 128.

Remember
that whether you contact the committee members either by email or by
phone, to be courteous and respectful above all else. Be sure to keep
your message brief, and thank them for their time.

In the subject line put:  SUPPORT SB 128 – Burden of Proof

(Copy and Paste All email addresses into the “Send To” box)
artiles.frank@flsenate.gov;
baxley.dennis@flsenate.gov;
bean.aaron@flsenate.gov;
benacquisto.lizbeth@flsenate.gov;
book.lauren@flsenate.gov;
bracy.randolph@flsenate.gov;
bradley.rob@flsenate.gov;
brandes.jeff@flsenate.gov;
broxson.doug@flsenate.gov;
clemens.jeff@flsenate.gov;
flores.anitere@flsenate.gov;
gainer.george@flsenate.gov;
galvano.bill@flsenate.gov;
garcia.rene@flsenate.gov;
grimsley.denise@flsenate.gov;
hukill.dorothy@flsenate.gov;
hutson.travis@flsenate.gov;
latvala.jack@flsenate.gov;
lee.tom@flsenate.gov;
mayfield.debbie@flsenate.gov;
montford.bill@flsenate.gov;
negron.joe@flsenate.gov;
passidomo.kathleen@flsenate.gov;
perry.keith@flsenate.gov;
rouson.darryl@flsenate.gov;
simmons.david@flsenate.gov;
simpson.wilton@flsenate.gov;
stargel.kelli@flsenate.gov;
steube.greg@flsenate.gov;
young.dana@flsenate.gov
Sample Body:
Dear Senator,
In
2005, the Legislature approved immunity for those involved in lawful
acts of self-defense. This immunity included protection from the expense
and embarrassment of arrest and prosecution unless sufficient evidence
existed to show the act was not in lawful self-defense. The Florida
Supreme Court neutered legislative intent by not only placing the burden
of proof on the defendant, but that testimony given in defense can be
used against the defendant in later proceedings. This flies in the face
of Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and certainly
is in contrast to the long held American legal principle one is innocent
until proven guilty.

Please support SB 128.

Respectfully,