HB 89, a reform of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, passed the house on last week by a vote of 93-24.  The law extends the same immunity currently provided to people who actually shoot someone in self defense to those who merely threaten force or fire warning shots. The bill was given impetus by the Marissa Alexander case in which the defendant claimed to have fired a warning shot, but was sentenced to 20 years in prison under Florida’s mandatory sentencing laws . . .

The bill has brought together a diverse coalition of supporters, including the Florida Public Defender Association and the NRA.

“We see, routinely, clients that we believe shouldn’t be prosecuted because they did act in lawful self-defense,” said Stacy Scott, the Gainesville-based public defender for the 8th Judicial Circuit. “We’re fighting those cases in court every day.”

The reform bill also provides for the expungement of records in self defense cases. From bradenton.com, Representative Matt Gaetz:

“The point is to make sure that someone who appropriately uses the ‘stand your ground’ defense doesn’t have their life ruined by the use of that defense,” Gaetz said.

We’ll be watching the bill’s progress.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch

77 Responses to Florida House Passes Stand Your Ground Reform

    • Mr. Branca,

      Vaguely recall reading some years ago that several critical purposes were served by the Florida legislature’s enactment of the Protection of Persons / Use of Force bill.
      Should you favor us with a longer post, please consider including some of the primary reasons for us.
      Thank You
      Gw
      Do No Harm / Successfully Defend

      • I’ll do my best, time permitting.

        The key being, “time permitting.” Looking at April, it seems I have about two days of that month where I’m not giving seminars, speaking at the NRA Annual Meeting, debating 2A and self-defense at various law schools and universities, or isn’t taken up by the travel getting to and from those various places around the country.

        As my dad used to say, the reward for a job well done is another job. 🙂

        –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

  1. The story as reported in the media has an interesting mixture of facts in it about why and how she fired a shot at her estranged husband.

    The change in the law is good, regardless of the circumstances that may have led to it.

      • LOL! But, actually, it looks like Mr Gray was convinced Marissa was serious, whatever her intentions– no? But I still don’t think “warning shots” are a good idea, nor that ever-popular goo-goo (and plaintiff’s attorney) refrain, “shoot to wound”.

      • I will agree that “warning shots” are generally a bad idea. The problem is that every policy has exceptions, and I have read about and been told about all too many cases where “warning shots” solved the problem of convincing the aggressor that the shooter was serious. Sure, it *could* happen the other way, I suppose. I have yet to read of a case where that happened, or at least, was related that way.

        The closest that I can come is the infamous Harold Fish case in Arizona, where Harold fired a warning shot that *did* deter the dogs from attacking him, but enraged the dogs’ mentally challenged keeper, who Harold then had to shoot. The case changed the Arizona law, where legislators voted in Harold’s favor three times to no effect, until Governor Napalitano left for the Obama administration. Arizona’s gain was the country’s loss.

        http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/

        • I have never understood the outcry against warning shots. They are such a standard piece of self-defense custom that even VP Joe Biden believes in them. Of course they should be rare, but so should criminal intrusions and violent aggression. True, dense population argues against them, and liability still attaches to an errant shot, whether it is a “warning shot” or simply a justified but “miss-aimed first shot.”

      • The warning shot should be aimed center/mass. And followed up by more warning shots should that prove insufficient.

  2. Florida seems to be consistently in the front lines when it comes to self defense issues. Let’s hope this one sticks, for the best of the whole country.

    • The liberty minded people who frequent this site need to familiarize themselves with the history and purpose of the Common Law. Civil law and statutory criminal law are subordinate and inferior to the Common Law. Under Common Law jurors stand in judgement not only of the facts of the case, but of THE LAW ITSELF. It’s called JURY NULLIFICATION. A jury can make any bulls–t case, based on a bullsh–t law (mandatory minimum setencing anyone?) go away by voting not guilty. Bullsh–t ‘judges instructions to the jury’ not withstanding.

      Soap Box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box. All four ‘boxes’ are mutually supporting. The Constitution is very clear. THE POWER is with THE PEOPLE.

      • “The liberty minded people who frequent this site need to familiarize themselves with the history and purpose of the Common Law.”

        Are you anticipating that any jury you might end up with would be composed of liberty minded people who frequent this site and have familiarized themselves with common law in general and the concept of jury nullification in particular?

        Because I would suggest that’s a losing bet. Any of are lucky if we end up with a jury subject to the power of reason.

        Just my personal experience.

        –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • Unfortunatly juries are mostly made up of folks not smart enough to get out of it, or folks with nothing better to do. Of the folks with nothing better to do, any who have some level of higher education or above average alertness are usually eliminated from the pool during selection. No prosecuter, defense counsel nor judge wants a jury member who can think for himself. If citizens actually started to behave according to the scenario I described that would really cut into the profits!

  3. Gov. Scott will sign it. Just like the last major firearms law signed in FL that uniformed state law to stop certain counties from usurping an otherwise anti gun profile. WPB, Tampa, etc,..Marissa should be pardoned an reimbursed. This law also covers warning shots which I do not agree with. Fl was a bell weather state in regards to ccw and stand your ground. And over two million ccw permits later, our crime rate is still lower than restrictive states averages

      • You may very well be right Andrew. But personally, I ain’t taking Angela Corey’s word for nothin’.

        • Sure, Corey should be disbarred for what she did in the Zimmerman case.

          That doesn’t change the forensics evidence and witness testimony in the Alexander case.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • I’ll take forensics and witness testimony–it is what saved Zimmerman’s behind. But all I saw was a letter from Angela Corey. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, though, Andrew, since you obviously know a lot about that case and I don’t.

        • So what’s your point? Do away with trials altogether? Not entirely clear to me how you run a trial without either witnesses or physical evidence, but I’m open to suggestions.

          Running the gauntlet, perhaps? 🙂

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • A logical error is being made: The fact that the Marissa Alexander case may not have met the requirements for justified use of lethal force does not take away from the legislature’s realization, which seems to be that in a case where use of lethal force in self-defense was in reality justified, and where the perpetrator of violence or unlawful intrusion laughed off the threat, a warning shot could well be the best way to end the attack without producing a corpse.

          That legislative goals are often brought to mind and action by a case that does not fully support the enacted law is nothing new. It happens every legislative session.

  4. Sounds good. If the goal is to discourage a criminal from harming you, and you can do that with a warning shot that doesn’t endanger anyone and doesn’t take your attacker’s life, then why should you be prosecuted for that?

    • Just to be clear, the bill does not advocate warning shots, does not provide any kind of legal immunity for having fired a warning shot that causes harm, and does not even mention the phrase “warning shot” nor the words “warning” or “shot”.

      “Warning shot” makes for good headlines, so that’s what the bill gets labelled as.

      All it really is intended to do is treat the mere THREAT of defensive force in the same way that the actual USE of defensive force is considered under Florida’s self-defense statutory framework.

      –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      • Yes. The legislation does not convert unjustified use of force into that considered justified. It simply recognizes the fact that so-called “brandishing” (in the old days called ‘presentation’) is justified to stop a threat of a kind that would justify actually shooting the aggressor.

        Long ago ‘brandishing’ meant waving a firearm to bully someone into behavior which the brandisher had no right to demand. It was commonly applied to those wrongly applying force, or making a public display of their own power. 1848 Macaulay Hist. Eng. II. 488 A great crowd‥of young peasants, brandishing their cudgels.    1874 Boutell Arms & Arm. ii. 40. 2.2 absol. To flourish one’s weapons or limbs; to make a flourish or display; to swagger.

    • That’s a whole lot of “if’s” to expect of someone in the midst of perhaps the most terrifying moment of their life. A given person is more likely to regard firing a warning shot as generally a nice split-the-difference approach, doing something, but not killing anyone. I’d bet such a given person would therefore assume there’s a lower threshold of necessary circumstances, well beneath the aggregation of “if” scenarios you mention, for firing a warning shot.

      That is, since a warning shot is itself something in the middle, then it must be ok to fire one in under circumstances that aren’t as severe as true imminent danger of loss of life or serious injury. Once people start interpreting legalized warning shots as being available to them for a wider range of scenarios than true life & death situations, then we’re opening up the doors to escalation to true life & death situations from encounters that were not as dangerous as that. Allowing warning shots, therefore, becomes the self-fulfilling prophecy that now deploying lethal force becomes necessary because you’ve lowered the bar.

      • I think its kind of disgusting that the law would punish someone for NOT shooting someone that probably needed shooting. For whatever reason they drew their gun but couldn’t bring themselves to shoot them. Its a terrible idea, but the effect of not having that protection is basically encouraging not leaving witnesses, where you are in greater legal danger if you don’t shoot them. Thats crazy, like the government forcing someone to buy product with the threat of a tax if they don’t.

  5. I think this will pass into law finally. It’s been offered up before, but never got far. Then the Gov ordered a task force to review Florida’s self defense laws in the wake of a certain sensationalized case (just guess) and decriminalizing brandishing in self defense was one of the top suggestions from the panel. I can say, when I took my (state mandated to qualify for a CCL) safety course a few years ago, the instructor told us quite plainly that in the eyes of Florida law you are better off not drawing unless you are about to shoot, and that drawing to ward off a threat could lead to being prosecuted for brandishing.

    • “in the eyes of Florida law you are better off not drawing unless you are about to shoot, and that drawing to ward off a threat could lead to being prosecuted for brandishing.”

      So what? That same statement applies to EVERY use or threatened use of defensive force.

      “Better off not shooting and killing someone, that could lead to being prosecuted for murder.”

      “Better off not shooting and merely injuring someone, that could lead to being prosecuted for aggravated battery.”

      “Better off not threatening to shoot someone, that could lead to being prosecuted for aggravated assault.”

      “Better off not even displaying a gun, because that could lead to being prosecuted for brandishing.”

      ANY time you use or threaten to use force against another person you’re liable to being prosecuted. That’s why we have the law of self-defense, as an affirmative defense to each and every one of those charges.

      –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      • “Better off not even displaying a gun, because that could lead to being prosecuted for brandishing.”

        ANY time you use or threaten to use force against another person you’re liable to being prosecuted. That’s why we have the law of self-defense, as an affirmative defense to each and every one of those charges.

        I find this line of legal presentation a bit confusing, and here is why: It is not true in Florida that “any time you use or threaten to use force you’re liable to being prosecuted,” unless you consider your own motion for a “stand your ground immunity hearing” to be prosecution.

        If you draw and present a weapon, if you fire that weapon but miss your target, if you fire that weapon and kill your attacker, you are liable to prosecution only in such case as the evidence you present at an immunity hearing does not convince the judge presiding at the immunity hearing that you acted with reasonable belief that you were about to be subjected to death or serious bodily harm, and the judge does not conclude that any of the statutory bars to the stand-your-ground or castle statutes apply.

        In Marissa Alexander’s case she convinced no one, either in the immunity hearing or at trial, that she had presented and fired her gun in justified self-defense. While the legislature may have been spurred to action by wondering “but what if she was justified in firing? Should she go to jail for a missed or warning shot?” That the case had, in actuality, very different facts does not argue against the sense of the legislation recently passed by the House. Nor should Floridians be hesitant to present their firearm as a measured step in stopping an attack simply because they are not informed of the “immunity hearing” step. It is always important that the facts be unambiguous. That should be part of every defensive firearm training course. Yes, there are many unambiguous cases, well defined by the statute’s terms.

  6. Read the multiple investigations into the case. Stop sounding like a lawyer. In Florida, I have no duty to retreat in a critical SD situation. If upon such an event, a 15 year old is out and about wanting to get froggy breaking in my house, or otherwise jeopardizing my family, perhaps a shot that rings his bell is better than ending his life.
    In the old days, Rock salt was fired against produce and vegetable poachers. Non lethal, but a reminder.

  7. Shooting to kill is a solution, but it shouldn’t always be the only solution to diffuse a situation where you are being threatened.

  8. Equating warning shots with mere threat of deadly force is disingenuous. Sure, a warning shot is pretty threatening, but you’re being too cute by half, or else just daft, to lump it in with other threats of deadly force.

    Placing your hand on your tang, or pulling up your shirt to reveal your side arm, or hell, even presenting your firearm, are all far removed from actually discharging that firearm. Pulling that trigger is itself a crossing the Rubicon event, regardless whether it was purely a warning or aimed directly at someone.

    Allowing so-called warning shots only blurs an individual’s decision making and muddies the waters post-event on determining exactly what happened. Allowing warning shots adds another gradient to the lethal force spectrum, further diluting the bright line between justification for lethal force and not. It creates a brand new category of activity for individuals and jurors alike to struggle with. Instead of keeping it simple and holding that you may not threaten or use lethal force unless you are in imminent danger of death or serious injury, we would instead allow the new middle ground whereby kinda sorta semi-dangers are permitted to be addressed with kinda sorta in your general direction discharges, but not necessarily meant to hit you. Well.

    Once you’re firing that firearm, it’s on. Warning shots or intentional, bullets fired do have a nasty habit of hitting other people and property. Just ask the NYPD.

    If you’re faced with an imminent danger of loss of life or of serious injury, then by all means you’re justified in firing to stop the threat and the law should stand behind you and defend you right to defend yourself. However, if you’re in a sufficiently shady middle ground that even YOU aren’t confident enough that you’re in such serious danger as to justify shooting someone, then why on Earth should the rest of us and the law give you special rights to fire off rounds indiscriminately and with impunity? The concept is Stand Your Ground, not Go Launch an Offensive.

    • If you are “in such shady ground that even you aren’t convinced” that you have the right to use lethal force…then no presentation of a firearm is legal. If you are legally open-carrying, it is obvious that you are armed. The spirit (and generally the letter) of concealed carry laws forbids you, though, from presenting your firearm from concealment without being in fear of your life or serious bodily injury (usually interpreted by the courts as in fear of what amounts in a given state to ‘aggravated assault.’)

      The law passed by the Florida House does not provide cover to those who are not convinced, nor to those unreasonably convinced. It merely seeks to remove criminal sanction from those who consider presenting their firearm, or firing it, a morally justified intermediate step short of “one minute you have no gun, the next minute the perp is dead.” The law does nothing to diminish the culpability of people who present a firearm, remove it from concealment or open-carry holster, just because they are uncomfortable.

      Anyone who takes the statute to be an lessening of the threat required to justify presenting or firing a gun is in for a terrible surprise.

      • I agree, they are in for a surprise, and that’s the problem. The Law, especially the penal code side of the legal system, is replete with instances demanding “reasonableness.” There are numerous demands that we act in accordance to some standard, but it’s impossible to specify every potential circumstance. So that standard is often the “reasonableness” standard. Well.

        While that suggests a corresponding punishment for a given offense, it’s not necessarily a one-to-one relationship. That is, Offense A doesn’t automatically Punishment 1, nor does Offense B automatically receive Punishment 2, upon conviction. It’s more like a range of offenses are associated with a range of punishments, and what constitutes an offense in tbe first place is subject to an infinite number of real world scenarios. That’s where it gets tricky introducing something like a warning shot.

        People have trouble grasping that concept, that there aren’t necessarily strict yes/no exact relationships between a specific action and a specific punishment. I hear this from my concealed carry students every single class. They want specifics and certitude, but the Law doesn’t typically work that way. So they settle on that imminent danger standard as their action anchor: imminent threat of loss of life? Yes = may shoot the attacker, No = may not shoot the attacker. The yes/no duality of the circumstance fits with the yes/no duality of the available actions.

        Adding a third action like a warning shot is confusing. On the one hand, it’s an action in between shooting the attacker and not shooting at all. On the other hand, it corresponds to a circumstance in between being and not being an imminent threat to your life. Except, there’s no such in between circumstance, and that’s the problem. Warning shots give people an option that doesn’t logically conform to the legal justification available. It’s like answering “maybe” or “both” to a survey question asking your gender.

        It gives people a way to tiptoe along that yes/no line, but which is apt to be more dangerous for everyone than simply mandating that your actions must fall clearly on one side or the other.

  9. I can say this is a good step. Each case of course is unique. This at least keeps the door open to discussion so people can defend themselves and not go to jail.

  10. Warning shots are generally a bad idea and someone purposely firing them should be responsible for the Newtonian results. That said, there are probably times a warning shot saved a life (even if the life of a criminal).

    • Agreed. This one’s a tough one. I don’t want more people shot by accident, but neither do I want people afraid that their entire lives will be destroyed because at the last nanosecond they chose to fire a warning shot instead of at the threat.

      Maybe some adjustments could be made for where the encounter takes place? I want to discourage people from firing unless absolutely necessary, but I don’t want to turn good people into criminals because some actual criminal put them in a near impossible position.

  11. Intercepted two “youths” trying to climb my livestock fence at midnight. Upon being lit up with a tac light hung on an Arsenal AK they stood on the opposite side of the fence, still on my property, and started with the “F You, you cant do shit, that guns not even real.” 6 rds into a nearby tree convinced them it was indeed, a real AK, upon which they took off post haste and have never returned.

    Warning shots are fine depending on the situation. Not every armed encounter demands somebody be shot.

    • That’s just it, it depends upon the situation. That’s introducing yet another layer of nuanced thinking into situations that already resist deliberation. That’s too much to ask of people and affording them this new option could get them more deeply into an already bad situation. Warning shots offer someone a choice. They don’t impose a solution. Even from the criminal’s standpoint, he’s already made a poor choice in instigating the encounter in the first place. Allowing a warning shot gives the shooter an opening to be indecisive and gives the warned person an opportunity to respond with violence.

      Going back to the reading of the situation, suppose someone misreads it? After all, who would one fire a warning shot at? Not someone in your bedroom in the middle of the night. It’s going to be someone at some distance in a parking lot, down the street or even across your backyard. Many of the circumstances where a warning shot might be warranted, happen also to be situations most easily misinterpreted and not actually life-threatening. Some could even be completely harmless.

      If someone misinterprets my harmless activity and fires a warning shot my way, I won’t assume it was a warning shot, but rather a missed shot. I’d likely return fire and not miss. That outcome could be avoided if the warning shot shooter had taken the time to assess the situation better and determined whether they were really in imminent serious danger.

  12. Interesting situation. Given that they were on the other side of a fence from you and apparently unarmed, I’ll go out on a limb and assume that right at that point you would not be justified in actually shooting them (not much of a limb, IMO). So, as I understand the provision in question here, you would similarly not be justified in shooting up the nearby tree if some kind of prosecution for “brandishing” or “reckless discharge” or such would otherwise lie. Am I right, Andrew?

    • I’d need a lot more facts than that to have any kind of informed opinion! And while I’m usually happy to explore various hypotheticals, no time for it today. 🙂

      –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

    • I suppose you were responding to my post, so I will elucidate:

      1. I dont live in Florida.
      2. Any man, beast or otherworldly entity that attempts intrusion onto my property will be intercepted with force,
      3. Any trespassing entities at midnight are assumed to be a threat and not there to sell me cookies,
      4. I did my due diligence afterwards (although in my county I didnt have to) and called 911 to report the incident, the responding officer agreed they were probably junkies and he “would have just shot them,”
      5. Everything is relative, every situation is different, and nobody consults with an attorney before TSHTF.

      • “4. I did my due diligence afterwards (although in my county I didnt have to) and called 911 to report the incident, the responding officer agreed they were probably junkies and he “would have just shot them,”

        Haha, nobody ever even thinks to ask a lawyer to serve a felony warrant, but most give no second thought to getting legal advice from a cop. Awesome. 🙂

        “5. Everything is relative, every situation is different, and nobody consults with an attorney before TSHTF.”

        If nobody consulted with an attorney before “TSHTF” I’d be a lot thinner than I currently am, and have a lot more range time on my hands. 🙂

        –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • It was a dirtbag lawyer who ripped me off in my divorce settlement. I would rather take my chances with the fence jumping thugs than a dirtbag lawyer anyday.

        • “It was a dirtbag lawyer who ripped me off in my divorce settlement. I would rather take my chances with the fence jumping thugs than a dirtbag lawyer anyday.”

          Eye roll. 🙂

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • I’ve had my CCW in this particular slave state continuously since the early 1990s. 🙂

          But haters gotta hate, I guess. You go ahead and let the world know that an AK is all the legal counsel you need, Delbert Grady. It’s not like THAT could come back to haunt you. Prosecutors hardly ever pay attention to prior statements from which a jury can infer criminal intent.

          Hardly. Ever.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      • Yes, Mass. is such a gun friendly state, because YOU have a CCW. Eye roll.

        I have 30 dollars worth of old brass, and some moldy Hustler magazines, please accept it as my retainer for your much valued services when I am haunted.

        -Delbert @MyHauntednessHauntsMe

        • “Yes, Mass. is such a gun friendly state, because YOU have a CCW.”

          Oh, plenty of us here in MA have CCWs. The large majority of the Commonwealth is functionally shall-issue. Fill out the paperwork, let ’em take your prints, pay the fee, get your CCW in the mail. Easy-peasy.

          But you wouldn’t know that, because your AK didn’t tell you. 🙂

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • My AK wouldnt tell me, or you, anything, because,

          1. its an inanimate object, thus it cannot speak,
          2. you are in MASS, where they are no longer welcome,
          3. its too busy sitting next to my door prepared for the next fence jumping lawyer.

          -Delbert@ MyAKdoesntTalkitBarks

        • Your delusions about the (lack of) gun freedoms of MASS are interesting. Perhaps you also think Obamacare is a wonderful law, because you already had health insurance?

          -Delbert@RosyglassesInMass

        • I get calls from guys like you all the time. All righteous and looking for a fight–at least, an internet fight. 🙂 The ones who call me in meatspace, generally I arrange for their bail and see what kind of deal I can get them.

          Sorry, Delbert, but I have neither the time nor interest to indulge your childish gun fantasies and your deep knowledge of MA gun law further. Keep safe, try to stay out of jail, and for Pete’s sake have some mercy on those poor trees. 🙂

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        • You jumped in on my post with your snarky comments. I simply replied that someone living in the anti gun slave state of MASS making such comments deserves the same derision right back. Glass houses and such. So “childish” of me pointing out the obvious. Alas I am not bestowed by the BAR to be one of the special people. Just me and my dumb self, my AK, and my moldy Hustlers. Thanks so much for your pity and taking the time to remind me how stupid I am for defending my property without consulting the likes of you first.

      • I would like to see what would happen to the deputy who shot a couple of unarmed teenagers who were on the other side of a fence from him, and then claimed self-defense. Or the civilian for that matter. Hell, at that point they aren’t even trespassing any more. Does your jurisdiction allow you to shoot unarmed tresspassers after the fact? Can you follow them to their homes if they manage to evade you long enough not to be shot immediately outside of your fence?

        • Good questions. In the dark, on your property, you have to assume a trespasser might be armed. I was in no position to frisk them and find out. They were on clearly marked NO TRESPASSING property, before they even got to the fenceline. Hell, I didnt shoot the dirtbags and I am being vilified on here for blasting a couple rounds. This is a very gun friendly pro property rights county and state, and also a very crime ridden state, with lots of home invasions by junkies and gangbangers. In a rural situation like here the cops can be over half an hour away. As far as what would happen to a cop shooting some trespassers, well, I think that goes without saying.

          I do not preach to anyone what to do, only pointing out what I did in one situation. If it adds to your background knowledge, fine. If you think it sucks, fine. I could care less what others do in the same situation. Everyman for himself.

  13. But if I’m not mistaken, did she not leave the house, retrieve her gun, then come back in an fire the warning shot? So she was able to flee the situation, then returned to it with a gun. So how would this new “warning shot” provision help her?

    • Marissa Alexander did not leave the house, per se, she went into the attached garage to obtain her pistol, then returned to the kitchen.

      The warning shot legislation has no relevancy to her case for several reasons.

      First, it is intended to apply only in cases of self-defense. Leaving the scene of conflict, obtaining a firearm, returning to the scene of conflict, and bringing fire upon your antagonist–who now has his hands raised–standing beside his two minor children, is rarely going to be seen as an act of self-defense.

      Second, a warning shot by definition is one not intended to cause physical harm to the other person, but to act as a “warning.” A reasonable jury, seeing the head-height bullet hole in the wall in front of which Alexander’s husband was standing, will infer that this was more likely a “miss” than a “warning.”

      Third, Alexander’s consciousness of guilt conduct in the aftermath of the shooting is not consistent with self defense or innocence.

      Fourth . . . well, it’s a long list. You get the idea.

      –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

    • She went from the living room, through the kitchen, out to the garage to retrieve her pistol from the car. She then went back into the kitchen and fired at her husband in the living room (with their two kids) who were in the process of leaving the house. The husband told her he was leaving before she made the trip out to the garage.

      For more information:
      http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/03/angela-corey-reminds-fl-legislators-of-facts-of-marissa-alexander-case/

  14. I was interested to read Jon Gutmacher’s concerns regarding HB-89…

    http://orlandocriminallawyer.blogspot.com/2014/03/still-major-problems-with-hb-89-that.html

    Has anyone seen discussion of his points among the various gun or legal forums? I have not, but would certainly like to. FWIW, I compared the text of what passed the house to the text in his blog, and those sections have not changed since his latest post on the matter.

    It’s all well and good to agree with the intent of the bill… I’d like to know whether I agree with its effect, and in a field as convoluted as firearms law it’s a whole lot tougher to figure out what that’s likely to be!

    • I simply disagree with Attorney Gutmacher’s interpretation of the statutory language.

      That said, I believe he is licensed to practice law in Florida. I am most definitely NOT licensed to practice law in Florida. 🙂

      So, my objection is academic. If you live in Florida and find yourself in the binds of this statute, it is infinitely more likely that Attorney Gutmacher, rather than I, will be representing you. 🙂

      –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *