As a New Legislative Session Nears, Is the Sun Setting on Gun Rights in Florida?

The Capitol Building In Downtown Tallahassee Florida Undergoes A

Bigstock

The 2020 Florida legislative session is right around the corner and right now the House and Senate are engaging in committee to discuss crafting legislation. As such, I’m back in the front row watching this happen live and in person at the Capitol.

Senate President Bill Galvano (R) — the man who crafted the post-Parkland gun control bill SB 7026 that former Governor Rick Scott signed into law after it passed the House and Senate with GOP supermajority support — directed Sen. Tom Lee (R) to lead a Senate workshop last week. Sen. Lee is the chair for the Senate Committee on Infrastructure and security. That committee is made up of five Republicans to three Democrats. But that doesn’t matter.

Sen. Lee was one of the few Republicans who voted against SB 7026 back in May 2018. So I hoped that he would run the workshop as a dog and pony show to appease Galvano and nothing more. But Sen. President Galvano is not to be trusted.

Sen. Lee told the Tampa Bay Times that when SB 7026 was crafted and passed it shocked the core of the Republican party of Florida’s views on gun rights.

“It definitely broke the seal.”

Rep. James Grant (R) has confirmed that the seal is, in fact, broken on Republicans going after Second Amendment Rights.

“Populism is a plague on the republic,” said state Rep. James Grant, a Tampa Republican who leads the House subcommittee on Criminal Justice. “We have to be responsive to our constituents, we have to be listening to them, but this era of populism … it sets up a tragic pathway forward.

There comes a time in our society that public opinion consolidates so much around an issue that a representative democracy can no longer represent in denial,” Lee said. “It will move or it will get replaced.”

Speaking at the workshop were Florida Department of Law Enforcement Commissioner Rick Swearingen and Sarasota County Sheriff Tom Knight. I can tell you this: the FDLE as an agency is no friend to the Second Amendment and Sheriff Knight in particular is no friend of ours.

Sheriff Knight spoke at the workshop for the entire Florida Sheriff’s Association. That organization has always been anti-gun. Sheriff Knight is just like Pinellas County Sheriff Gualtieri and is against Floridians carrying (either open or concealed) firearms.

Knight has also announced that he isn’t running again and this will be his last term. So he isn’t beholden to the voters and I predict that he’ll back gun control. Commissioner Swearingen was in favor of trampling over Floridian’s 4th Amendment Rights.

My fear was that other Republicans wanting to stay in office will bend the knee and kowtow to the the loudest voices and restrict our rights and it appears that I was correct. Florida Republicans will probably back universal  background checks and expanding the state’s red flag laws.

From the Tampa Bay Times – Better gun background checks ‘makes sense,’ key Florida Republican says . . .

“Probably the thing that makes the most sense, if there is something to be done in the area of common-sense gun safety, would probably be an enhancement of some kind of background check system, to look and see where there are holes in that system and if there is room for improvement,” Sen. Lee, told reporters.

“Of all the things I’ve reviewed, and all the ideas that have come forward, that’s the one that seems to me to make the most common sense, not just to me, but to the average Floridian,” said Sen. Tom Lee, R-Thonotosassa.

“Does anybody think we have too many gun laws in Florida right now?” Lee asked.

No one on the panel raised their hands.

Lee then mentioned that after the Parkland shooting, the Legislature broke decades of inaction on gun legislation by raising the minimum age to purchase a firearm to 21. “There’s no silver bullet,” he said. “We need to take a comprehensive approach.”

According to the Orlando Sentinel, Sen. David Simmons (R) wants to make 25 the the minimum age for purchasing an “assault weapon.” As Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he can hold other bills hostage for favorable treatment of his proposal.

He told the audience he would introduce the measure for the next legislative session that begins in January, which will be Simmons’ last as a term-limited senator.

The proposal as drafted would bar some individuals under age 25 from purchasing, possessing or selling assault weapons, which Simmons defined as firearms with a fixed or detachable magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

“Given the circumstances now and over the last 15 to 20 years, we need to go ahead and do this,” Simmons told the Orlando Sentinel. He was referring to the spate of mass shootings that have taken place, including at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando in 2016 and at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland in 2018.

He said he was a strong believer in the Second Amendment, which he said was put in place so Americans could defend themselves against a tyrannical government and not just to allow access to guns for hunting or self-defense.

Of course Sen. Simmons made sure to throws in an “I support the 2nd Amendment, but…”

But, he added, “Thirty years ago, [issues with] assault-style weapons were not as common as today. We didn’t have at-risk young men committing the kinds of crimes they’re committing. … I think we need to ensure they don’t have access to assault-style weapons.”

Sen. Simmons tried to add such an amendment to SB 7026 when it was being debated on the Senate Floor in 2018. I was there and saw it with my own eyes when then Senate President, Joe Negon (R) allowed an assault weapons ban to be added to the bill by a voice vote, but Sen. Baxely fought tooth and nail, demanding a recorded floor vote and the amendment lost.

Now, the Chairman of the Republican Party of Florida says that such legislation is dead on arrival.

“It’s unlikely that I would ever support anything like that,” said state Sen. Joe Gruters, R-Sarasota, the chairman of the Republican Party of Florida. “In the present Legislature, I would say it has a zero percent chance.”

But I wouldn’t put much faith in him or the RPoF since he also admits that SB 7026 should have not happened, but did.

Gruters acknowledged the gun safety law passed after the Parkland shooting was also unlikely to have passed a GOP-controlled Legislature, “but I don’t think there’s an appetite to go down that path again.”

The 2018 Senatorial Election proves that Florida Republicans can pass gun control legislation and win. Then-Governor Rick Scott was elected Senator and many of the Republicans in the Florida Legislature won reelection and kept their seats.

Democrats, of course, aren’t leaving this stone unturned.

State Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith, D-Orlando, who has proposed complete assault weapons bans each year since 2017, said he “immediately applauded” Simmons’ announcement at the league event that he also attended. Simmons had described it there as a “ban.”

Smith said later he was disappointed in the many exceptions. But, he added, “I’m open to any restrictions on assault weapons. As always, the devil is in the details. I will continue to work with Sen. Simmons on his idea.”

Lastly, here are the current bills have been submitted in the Senate. They are in no way pro Second Amendment.

SB 266 requires that a firearm be locked in a safe or have a trigger lock on it when it’s in the home. If this becomes law, you can’t keep a gun at the ready in your home for personal protection.

SB 134 repeals the state preemption law and allows political subdivisions and municipalities to pass their own gun control ordinances. Basically a city or county could pass their own assault weapons or a magazine bans. They could also regulate gun ranges and gun shops out of existence.

The following two bills piggyback off each other. They push UBCs and end private sales. Also they restrict the “temporary” transfer of firearms to other parties even if they’re family. If a firearm is to be transferred, a background must be done and a 4473 must be completed through an FFL.

SB 94 ends private sales in the state and mandates that all transfers must go through a dealer. It also mandates universal background checks. You can’t loan a family member a gun for more than 14 days. That means if you’re in the military or away from your home because of work, you can’t have someone store your guns for you. You’d have to transfer your guns to your spouse for the time you’re away to comply with the law.

SB 270 repeals the provisions that a dealer must release a firearm to a buyer after three business days if there is a delay in the background check. Currently, if FDLE doesn’t contact the dealer within three business days, the firearm can be released to the purchaser. Under the bill, if the FDLE never gives a confirmation, the gun can never be released. The bill also limits loaning a firearm to family members for more than 10 days.

Here are the bills introduced in the House of Representatives.

HB 117 requires applicants to have a mental health evaluation conducted by a clinical psychologist or a psychiatrist before they can qualify for a CCW Permit. This is not inexpensive and brings up a question on what makes a person “rational” enough for a CCW permit.

HB 6001 repeals the provisions that allows someone with a CCW to carry a TASER or stun gun on a college or university campus. The carrying of firearms is already forbidden, so this bill would completely disarm people.

HB 6009 is just like SB 134. It repeals state preemption and allows political subdivisions and municipalities to enact their own gun control ordinances.

This is the only pro-gun bill is HB 6003. It repeals the gun control provisions passed in 2018 after Parkland. It basically guts SB 7026. It would end red flag orders and restore the rights of any Floridian under the age of 21 to buy a long gun. It would also repeal the state bump stock ban (though they would remain banned under the ATF reclassification. The bill would also reverse the state ban on binary triggers.

So in the immortal words of Samuel L. Jackson….

Another legislative session is about to start and I firmly believe that we’re in for some trouble.

comments

  1. avatar enuf says:

    I’ll not pretend to be informed enough to give an opinion on what will happen in Florida’s legislature. More generally though I do believe that our gun rights will erode away over a long period of time. Some short term gains may continue, including from the Supreme Court. However, we fight this fight in the wrong way, the wrong approach. We fight it on the terms of our opposition, not on the terms of our own making.

    By failing to find that better strategy, the one that breaks the mold and drives the issue to where it must go, this failure will haunt the next generation. As demographics shift in America, it is inevitable.

    Luckily, I’ll be long gone by then. So no one will need hear me say “GODDAMMIT! I TOLD YOU SO!”

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      I agree with much of what you have written. The strategy of anger, hate, implied violence and threats will set back the POTG hundreds of years in the legislative arena.

      The NRA actually has a good ad out, with the hero of the Sunderland shooting speaking calmly and candidly in an interview, about his experience in motivations.

      No crosshairs on politicians, no confederate flags or shouts of ‘blood and soil!’, ‘Kill all the liberals!’, just a reasonable man explaining his heroic actions in a terrible situation and articulating how his skill with firearms prevented more deaths.

      Why can’t you numbskulls all get it? This is how you persuade the independents into supporting our viewpoint.

      But OK, publicly speak about how you yearn for the early death of RBG and how by killing your political opponents you’ll be able to have the dictatorship you crave. See where it gets us.

      1. avatar Merle 0 says:

        Oh please. Yeah, the left never ever calls for blood ever. Nope not once. Completely rational people who never wish death on anyone.

        Get real. Leftists are the most bloodthirsty and violent people on the planet. They will brutally murder you and your children for merely disagreeing with them. Leftism has killed more people on this planet than any other political movement, faith, or any natural disaster.

        1. avatar Craig in IA says:

          “Oh please. Yeah, the left never ever calls for blood ever. Nope not once. Completely rational people who never wish death on anyone.”

          Does that mean it’s proper for us to act accordingly?? We have the right, as well as truth on our side, let’s not act like those who are wrong just because they lie and cheat, and seem to get away with it. Pretty childish. Besides, our nasties only get blown up out of proportion by the MSM. If you want to influence people to our side it’s ridiculous to try to scare them or use hyperbole merely for effect, because it’s all one can think of, or because it might make you feel good at the time.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          “Leftism has killed more people on this planet than any other political movement, faith, or any natural disaster.”

          Do you have a credible statistical source to verify your claim, or does your statement just feel ’truthy’ to you?

        3. avatar Hydguy says:

          Miner: you are ignorant of recent history, and apparently very proud of it.
          You are a sad little troll

        4. avatar Merle 0 says:

          Whiner, the combined atrocities by communist regimes in the 20th century eclipsed 100 million people. That’s far more then any other political or religious group. That’s also more then any natural disaster. The closest death dealing event to leftism is the Black Plague.

        5. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          Merle you forgot the Spanish flu and potentially small pox if the estimated native deaths are accurate but otherwise spot on. Also various brands of leftism were causing problems even in the late 19th century just not nearly to the level seen in the 20th

        6. avatar Miner49er says:

          Still no credible statistical source for your claim about leftists, just more empty speech from empty heads.

          Continue to bully people with implied threats of violence, anger towards your political opponents, actively wishing for their death.

          These gun worshiping extremists have become the poster children for the anti-gun movement, you are their best PR example for why firearms should be banned, thank you so much.

          Now go back to talking about how well prepared you are to kill police officers and troops during the coming civil wars, we all love to hear your fantasy stories of your planned Rambo glories.

        7. avatar Biatec says:

          Miner49er you are the same as a holocaust denier.

        8. avatar Merle 0 says:

          Whiner, the information is out there. A quick google search and some simple math is all you need to figure it out. But I guess that’s just too much work for a liberal like you. How typical.

        9. avatar Miner49er says:

          Hey, I didn’t make the claim, it’s not up to me to prove anything.

          The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

          And no one has provided any proof or evidence to support the claim so it’s clear it’s just empty propaganda.

          Good job, Josef Goebbels!

        10. avatar Ing says:

          Wrong-O, Miner49er. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

          Numbers, methodology, definitions, everything. Suck a socialist dick and choke on it.

      2. avatar GS650G says:

        For years (not hundreds) gun owners felt they didn’t have to worry because the 2A was in place.
        Rolling on your back getting your tummy rubbed is comforting but not very productive. A soft, kind comforting approach isn’t going to cut it any longer. But of course you know that.

      3. avatar Carl B. says:

        Quote:

        “I agree with much of what you have written. The strategy of anger, hate, implied violence and threats will set back the POTG hundreds of years in the legislative arena..”

        Bull. Anger, hate, implied violence, and threats have worked very well for the Left.

      4. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “This is how you persuade the independents into supporting our viewpoint.”

        In what numbers are there enough people to persuade that will change the political dynamic? Two problems:

        1. That the unpersuaded can be persuaded
        2. Unsupported presumption that those persuaded will reverse the current anti-gun trend among politicians

      5. avatar Nanashi says:

        The NRA also supported parts of the 2018 bill before it was FORCED to publicly speak against it.
        http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/10/luis-valdes/marion-hammer-nra-never-wanted-legal-machine-guns-bump-fire-stocks/

        Hammer is the one who has allowed this erosion of gun rights.

    2. avatar Craig in IA says:

      “As a New Legislative Session Nears, Is the Sun Setting on Gun Rights in Florida?” Only if Floridians allow it to happen. It’s their state and they, first and foremost need to stand up for it and make elected representatives accountable for their actions. Votes by legislative members have consequences but only if they are repaid during elections. Get back on your feet, quit apologizing for the actions of crazy people or being quiet because it seems to be going against the flow at the moment, and forge onward.

  2. avatar LKB says:

    Don’t worry . . . given all the lucre she’s being given, I’m sure Marion Hammer will ride in and save the day. [sarc]

    This is a good teaching moment for those who do not see the downside of putting your eggs in the basket of a LaPierre apologist — while at one time she had some stroke as a Florida lobbiest, Hammer is now damaged goods. No one fears her, so no one listens to her.

  3. avatar Stateisevil says:

    Yes.

  4. avatar GS650G says:

    Large numbers of liberals moved to Florida for the weather, low taxes, and beach life. Puerto Rico emptied out and most of those democrats went to Florida to be close to home. The money and population centers are very leftwing.
    So don’t wonder why this is happening. Its only the beginning really.

    1. avatar Jack WIllmington says:

      THIS times 1 million

      What we are seeing here is purely the result of demographic shifts…..same as California. Massive illegal and legal immigration has filled the state with people who vote almost purely democrat. They came to this country from places with no history of individual rights let alone a gun culture. THey love big govt. Couple that will massive influx of people from Dem states like NY and NJ…same thing…..dems almost all of them. Florida will shift solid blue in next 20 years just like California. Texas will follow. Other southern states after that like NC. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again….the massive immigration to this country is the number one threat to the 2nd amendment. We are importing votes who couldn’t care less about gun rights, love big govt, and have no concept of individual liberties. Once they become majority we are all screwed. And please don’t say that’s racist…we’d have the same issue if all the immigration was from England and France.`

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        One of my friends immigrated (legally) from Central America, where he said nobody but police and criminals have guns. As he became accepted into our group, he eventually got a Glock and then built his own AR (with our help) from an 80% lower. Unfortunately, because of his cultural background and tendency to be subservient to government, he rose only to the level of Fudd gun owner, not truly understanding the 2A, and registered his AR as an assault weapon in CA against advice.

        He’s a central-leaning Democrat.

      2. avatar GS650G says:

        I lived in South Florida from 1990 to 95 and I could see the shift starting back then. As the NE got more expensive the lack of a state income tax, caps on property increases, and cheap houses drew them in like flies to fresh droppings. Not to mention the nice weather.

        The hurricanes of 03-05 slowed it down a bit but the 08 crash made for cheap houses. You are seeing the end result of another real estate gold rush.

        Broward was always New Jersey South. Dade had a healthy mix of Rs and Ds or at least the Cubans voted for the right things. They punished Al gore for Elian Gonzales. Now it’s been reprogrammed to march to the left drums.

        Texas might not be far behind.

  5. avatar JP Ruiz says:

    Republicans are truly scumbags, and it confirms what many of us have been thinking for the past 5 years. The GOP were just profiteering off of the campaign of gun-rights and the 2nd Amendment, and now, Mao Zedong Bloomberg looks to be too big of a sugar-daddy to ignore (add in all of the other Wallstreet and Silicon Valley Democrat Party Billionaire Donors).

    The frustration is beyond that of a boiling point because we have the Ohio GOP now considering the little rhymee tag-line “you should be 21 to buy any gun”…………Never mind that 18-20 year olds are Adults per the Federal and ALL State Constitutions and Bills of Rights. Nevermind any of that. Politicians have determined that they will treat the rights and liberties of the citizenry as revocable privileges that under the guise of ‘Do as I say, not as I do”.

  6. avatar Phil Wilson says:

    “There comes a time in our society that public opinion consolidates so much around an issue that a representative democracy can no longer represent in denial”

    That’s exactly why the Bill of Rights was written and ratified, to prevent transient public panic from pushing politicians into violating fundamental civil rights for political expedience. Of course, the original document said nothing about the individual States.

    1. avatar JP Ruiz says:

      The 14th Amendment says otherwise. The biggest and most important thing it did was ensure that the Federal Bill of Rights applies to ALL STATES and that ALL CITIZENS OF ALL STATES are to respected and honored of the Bill Of Rights.

      1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        Yep, that’s the current situation. I’m still not 100% clear on whether that’s good or not. I lean toward letting States run things the way their voters (or constitutions) dictate to the greatest extent possible. I think a return to classic federalism could keep the USA together longer than it otherwise might.

        1. avatar Hydguy says:

          The 14th Amendment isn’t what required the states to follow the BoR. Their ratification of the Constitution, and agreeing that the Constitution was the law of the land upon requesting statehood is what required them to follow the BoR.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Their ratification of the Constitution, and agreeing that the Constitution was the law of the land upon requesting statehood is what required them to follow the BoR.”

          Not so, not so at all. The constitution, insofar as the States agreed upon powers the federal government (not State governments) would be permitted, does not require the States to conform to every provision of the constitution. If that were the intent, there would have been no ratification, anywhere. The constitution was entirely related to the limits the superior and sovereign (important word there) States placed upon the national government. The States were not afraid of themselves.

          The States (as independent colonies) existed before the national government. The need for certain mutual actions to be performed by an entity of coordination (national government) was seen as a necessary evil, not a boon to mankind, not a surrender of all State powers to the instrument of despotism and tyranny. That mindset is predicated on certain interpretations of the 14th Amendment.

          If the States were surrendering superior power to the created being of a federal government, all State constitutions would have been rendered moot, null and void; there would have been no concept living up to the 60s called “States Rights”. The States would have had no rights/powers separate and apart from the national compact. The 9th and 10th amendments make no sense under the idea that the central government superseded, and subjugated the States. Think about that, the 9th and 10th Amendments. Both say that powers not specifically delegated (delegated means the superior agent retains power and is contracting-out execution of that power) to the national government are retained entirely by the States. Now, apply that concept to the states. What logic argues that the states are telling them selves (state governments) that the states retain powers they already declared they retained? The 9th and 10th amendments are bizarre if applied to the states. The states declared in the BOR that they retained unspecified rights. To declare that same principle to themselves is just silly.

          As to “the law of the land”, that concept is valid only insofar as the laws of the national legislature comport entirely with the powers delegated to the national government via the Constitution. Laws that violate one or more of the unlisted powers retained by the States are invalid, as they are usurpations of power by the central committee. State laws that violate the powers delegated to the national government are likewise unconstitutional. However….

          Keep in mind that the States can amend the constitution to add or retract powers of the federal government. The central government has no power to amend the constitution, which is what adds impetus to the Congress to alter the constitution through mere legislation, and courts to create law where the constitution is inconvenient.

          Bottom line: prior to the 14th Amendment, States were independent, sovereign and completely separate from the national government (except for powers delegated to the national government). The constitution declares what the central government may do, and does not permit the central government to interfere in State affairs to any more degree that the States agreed to (via delegations in the constitution). The States created the Constitution, and thus the national government. Nothing in law, or debate of the founders declares that the States then became vassals and serfs in the empire of the national government.

          One must first read the notes, letters and publications of the founders, then reason to the final form of the constitution, then forward from there. To reason backward from the state of the union today, and apply current reality to the beginning of the nation, is irrational, and presupposes the current condition was the intent from the beginning. It was not.

        3. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          “The 14th Amendment isn’t what required the states to follow the BoR”

          I don’t think that’s clear. The Constitution is the founding and defining document of the Federal Government. It enumerated powers and responsibilities for the Federal Government alone. All other authority was to be retained by the people and the States, but it didn’t specify exactly how the people and the states would divide up that power (in fact, doing so in detail would fly in the face of the original spirit of federalism).

          I’m personally in favor of the Bill of rights being binding on all the States, as it is in principle (if not in practice) now. The flip side of that is a stronger central government (in any respect) is a tool that can be used to infringe on rights as well as defend them.

        4. avatar Hydguy says:

          How is it not clear? States were not allowed to suppress unpopular political speech, or the freedom to practice religion due to the 1A.
          States were not allowed to force you to quarter troops.
          States were not allowed to search you home and seize your property just willy nilly.
          The BoR was understood to be the Rights the individual retained, free from government infringement. By ratifying the BoR, and requesting statehood, the states agreed to those principles.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “How is it not clear? States were not allowed to suppress unpopular political speech, or the freedom to practice religion due to the 1A.”

          You are applying today backward to the founding. At the beginning, States were sovereign and separate from a national government. They retained power to do pretty much what the voters in the States conjured up. An instructive case is the debate about establishing a national religion. The discussions were solely targeted at preventing the national government, not the States, from creating and forcing a particular religion upon the entire nation. The founders did not debate sectarian struggles in the several and independent States, because the new constitution was all about controlling a national government, not State governments.

          (Yes, teachers and professors do lie to their students)

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “By ratifying the BoR, and requesting statehood, the states agreed to those principles.”

          Incorrect. Prior to 1868, States did not surrender their sovereignty entirely. Read the 9th and 10th Amendments. If States became subordinate to the national government, the 9th and 10th are gibberish. The States had individual constitutions, constitutions that predated the Confederation and the Constitution.

          You will find nothing, repeat nothing, among the words of the founders, or the constitution contemplating surrendering complete sovereignty of the States to the new federal government. The States were exceedingly jealous of their self-governance.

          Setting aside your presumptions about how the nation was founded to work, please report anything you discover that shows the founders contemplated a national government that would supplant State governments entirel, and that the Constitution was instituted to control the governments of the States (except as specifically agreed to in the words of the Constitution and BOR). As an alternative, I would recommend you take Hillsdale’s free online course on the history of the constitution.

    2. avatar Hydguy says:

      The Constitution is the law of the land.
      The BoR applies to the federal and State governments. Because the BoR addresses the right to keep and bear arms, and it shall not be infringed, it is removed from the purview of the States.

  7. avatar TommyGNR says:

    Take it from somebody in New York who has been through this. Your best course of action is to mobilize gun owner to tell there Republican reps that they will not donate money to them or vote for them if they support these measures. They will be wishy washy until you make it clear to them that they will lose 10, 20, 30 percent of there support. Don’t sit on the couch.

    1. avatar JP Ruiz says:

      ” Don’t sit on the couch”……….When it comes to Civic Engagement, “Conservatives” are the professional political couch potatoes.

      We here in Ohio are pretty angry that DeWine is bending over to Bloomberg and his scumbag junkyard-dog, Cecil Thomas (D-Cincinnati) with UBC’s, a Red Flag Law, and the tagline of ’21 to buy a gun”.

      My gun-club and I are very active with politics, but we come across too many ‘couch-potato-conservatives’ who come up with every excuse to sit out on Civic Engagement, and then cry like fucking babies when the Left takes power and stomps their agenda on them.

      It’s what I saw in the People’s Republic of New Jersey. My parents’ inner-circle are all Right-Of-Center but refuse to get off their asses. They are cry-baby couch-potato-conservatives.

  8. avatar Adam says:

    Gun rights in general are on the decline in America. The golden age of gun ownership was easily 2004 to 2016. Baring some drastic Supreme Court decisions, I can’t see gun rights expanding anymore than what they are currently, rather, they will most like begin to shrink within the next decade.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      They’ll only decline if people fail to act. Ever see this before?

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

      So the question now becomes: What will YOU do?

  9. avatar Merle 0 says:

    “The 2018 Senatorial Election proves that Florida Republicans can pass gun control legislation and win. Then-Governor Rick Scott was elected Senator and many of the Republicans in the Florida Legislature won reelection and kept their seats.“

    The problem is those RINOs are the only alternative over some truly terrifying leftists in Florida. It’s not so simple as vote the RINOs out, either. I maintain that it’s not all lost in Florida. It’s a state worth fighting for, indeed it’s necessary to fight for, to keep the infection from spreading to the rest of the south. This article points out some glaring negatives in Florida that need pointing out, but there are some solid positives to point too that show all is not lost.

    1. Ron Desantis is governor. He’s a real conservative, and beat both a RINO and a hardened socialist nicknamed the “next Obama” for the governorship. That victory is no small feat.

    2. Desantis ability to appoint Florida Supreme Court justices. It puts Florida’s Court with a solid conservative lean.

    3. Conceal carry and gun ownership in general is still immensely popular throughout the state. Even among liberal target groups such as minorities and gays.

    4. “Climate change”. No really, stay with me here. Wether it’s real or not, the perception of rising sea water and increasing number hurricanes can be used to drive away the Northern thugs who wish to colonize this state. “Why buy property in Florida? It’s all gonna be under water in 10 years. Best to move to California instead.”

    5. If Florida falls Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina will be next. As the taxes and other liberal regulations destroy the state, the Florida liberals will begin fleeing to neighboring southern states like the locusts they are.

    1. avatar JP Ruiz says:

      New Waves of New Jersey and Connecticut Liberal trash are already destroying NC. They’ve just about finished ruining Virginia too.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Sorry, NC has been full of white trash for better than 100 years.

        To see how they treat individual rights in NC, research Wilmington, NC 1898.

        1. avatar Merle 0 says:

          See how they treat individual rights in NYC…

        2. avatar Merle 0 says:

          Also you typical whining liberal, it’s great that you judge an entire state of people in 2019 on an event that took place 120 years ago. Yeah you liberals aren’t prejudiced at all.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          Yep, ancient history.

          “The sheriff of a North Carolina county allegedly tried to arrange the killing of a deputy who planned to release a recording of him using “racially offensive language,” according to court records.

          Granville County Sheriff Brindell Wilkins was charged Monday with felony obstruction of justice for the alleged 2014 plot.

          After learning one of his deputies, Joshua Freeman, possessed the offensive tape, Wilkins reportedly told an unnamed individual on a phone call “the only way you gonna stop him is kill him.”

        4. avatar Hydguy says:

          Oh no, a White Guy used the N word!! Doesn’t he know that the blacks trademarked it and he can’t use it without permission?

          Wow.. you pull a single example out of your ass, when you can go on social media and see it all over the place, hear it in rap songs, and see it in
          movies. Guess what? Only sensitive morons get triggered over a word. Like you.

        5. avatar Merle 0 says:

          Whiner yet you continue to demonize an entire state state for the actions of a few. But I guess that’s the core tenant of liberalism, isn’t it? You bigot. All you liberals are the same. You want to punish everyone for the actions of a few. That’s why you’re so hated. Because you’re all disgusting and terrible human beings who worship at the alter of mass murder.

  10. avatar strych9 says:

    I note the similarities of Florida’s predicament and that here in Colorado vis a vis demographic shifts. Ya’ll get the folks from the Noertheast while we get them from California.

    There’s a striking difference according to this article however, which is that generally our LE is against these sort of proposals as being giant unworkable resource drains and Florida LE seems more supportive of such regulations. Where the laws here have been largely ignored by LE it seems in Florida there is a larger appetite to enforce them with vigor.

    If it’s possible to shift the politics of Florida on this it seems it starts at the local and county level with Sheriffs and Mayors.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “…generally our LE is against these sort of proposals as being giant unworkable resource drains and Florida LE seems more supportive of such regulations.”

      Not where I live. Sheriff Grady “because they ran out of bullets” Judd is *solid* on the 2A.

      We’re good here in the ‘sticks. Coastal areas are where the problems are, and Florida has a shit-ton of coastline…

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        And of course why do Blie staters move to Florida? The ocean.

        Reminds me of a conversation my wife and I had last time we were there.

        She said ‘Florida seems nice except for all the Floridians’.

        I said ‘Same as anywhere else. It is odd though that if I was blind I’d swear it was a warm, breezy day in North Jersey or Long Island. You’d think they’d all talk like Southerners, eh?’.

        ‘Home or away and no matter where they’re from, snowbirds always talk like fucking retards’.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          *Blue staters

  11. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Hey ya’ll….

    Tired of all the winning, yet?

    1. avatar Tim says:

      Ignorant often ?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Ignorant often ?”

        The comment was directed to those who continue to believe the pro-2A movement is on a winning streak, and it is only a matter of time before they prevail. So, if you happen to be one of those who think the tide is turning, “Tired of winning, yet?” If you are not, my comment is irrelevant.

  12. avatar JustSayin says:

    So Luis, thank you for your service in LE and at the capital. Since you are there and can see things that I cannot (living in SW Florida) I need to ask you something.
    What gun rights group(s) in Florida is(are) actually there doing the lobbying?
    I ask, because to be honest, some of the websites I have reviewed looked like they would be black hole donation sites; you put your $$$ in, and get nothing in return.

    Any information you could give would be greatly appreciated as I would not only donate $$, I would donate time and effort. I just want to know who to hook up with; I don’t want to chase the wind

    1. avatar Luis Valdes says:

      Florida Carry does very well on the lawsuit side. But I’m poking ’em to become more like VCDL.

      1. avatar JustSayin says:

        Thank you sir.

  13. avatar Aleric says:

    More evidence that “conservative” GOP means MODERATE Democrat. The party has been in a nose dive since the 90s when they allowed RINOs to be called Republicans and the RNC constantly called people who sided with democrats good republicans.

    1. avatar JP Ruiz says:

      All courtesy of the Bush Family. No-good, Statist Motherf***ers.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “All courtesy of the Bush Family.”

        Uuuhhh, no. Reagan was not the norm for Republicrats. Prior to Reagan, Goldwater was the last of the hard line conservatives. Nixon was not. Eisenhower was not. (Actually, Reagan was only ‘sorta’). Bushes were known to be elite easterners, with the concept of noblesse oblige ingrained. (“To whom much is given, much is required”). The entire trope of the need for the elite and enlightened to lead the nation goes all the way back to the early days, when a new monarchy and hereditary ruling class was a serious contender for the form of government best suited to managing “the masses”.

        The founders were of one mind in throwing off England, but seriously fractured about the best form of independent government. They weren’t a solid block of hard line “conservatives” (which in those days would have actually made them supporters of the rule of the King)

  14. avatar tdiinva says:

    Democrats are fleeing high tax states for a better economic climate. Add to that the aging New Yorkers and Chicagoans who move out of winter. Even if the economic migrants have learned their lesson they are bringing their anti-gun attitudes with them. The climate refugees generally keep both their high tax and anti-gun beliefs so Florida is turning blue faster than Texas. One can hope that third generation Cubans and the new refugees from Venezuela can offset this. I have more hope for Texas because native Hispanics support border control so they may follow the normal immigrant transformation to an even split or Republican demographic.

  15. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    The biggest problem those idiots in Tallahassee are going to run into is noncompliance. I think the same will be true in other states as well.

  16. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “.. it is removed from the purview of the States.”

    Not actually. The Constitution describes limited power available to the national government. The BOR is a second notice of restrictions on federal power. The founders never intended the Constitution to limit powers of the States, except as specifically identified and delegated. The Second Amendment applied only to the Central government. This is re-enforced by amendments 9 and 10. The States retained all powers not listed in the Constitution. You will find no writings of the founders where they determined that the national Constitution would completely supplant State Constitutions…except as regards powers granted to (not restricted from) the national government. At the time of the ratification of the national Constitution, some States retained official religions.

    Do not view the founding of the nation with the perversion of power sharing that attended the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Two entirely different “worlds”.

    1. avatar Merle 0 says:

      And, *that* is the enduring tragedy of the civil war. Lost in the many arguments revolving around slavery, is the many other issues that were sucked into the war, and the aftershocks from it. From the war onward the federal government greatly expanded well beyond its original scope and effectively ended the concept of states rights. Only recently has that concept returned to modern political thought as the growing political schism has forced both right and left to expand into any legal ground they can muster. To win the war the north had to tear the constitution apart, and doing so, set a precedent for abuse of federal power, and forever tainted the minds of most Americans with the apparition of a “superior” federal government a top a pyramid of subservient states.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “And, *that* is the enduring tragedy of the civil war.”

        And the enduring tragedy of education in this country since 1960.

  17. avatar John B Thayer says:

    The Supreme Court of the Sovereign State of Georgia fleshed out the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution in 1846. This is where I stand.

    Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) is a Georgia Supreme Court ruling that a state law ban on handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. This was the first gun control measure to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds.

    “Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: ‘The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; . . . “

    1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      I think a discussion on the meaning of the word “militia” would be relevant in the whole scheme of the 2A argument… To be sure, that one word has caused more problems for the pro 2A group because they have NOT addressed it “comprehensively” (yeah I just had to use THAT word). I believe the term militia has two distinct and very different meanings in the two eras in question.. In todays tetrminology militia is considered to refer to a government organized and regulated military style body, but in the 1700s the militia was any citizen capable of bearing and using a weapon and the arms referred to in 2A would have been the weapons of war of the day and common sense would infer that the intention was to ensure that the “people” would always be on a level playing with the government. While the founders had no way of knowing that their muskets would evolve into weapons capable of firing more than 200/300 rounds per minute they would still argue on the side of the peoples rights to self defense (yes you do need an AR/AK to defend against similar weapons) as a “NATURAL” right bestowed by God and AFFIRMED by the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        The interesting thing is that codified federal law recognizes the “old school” definition and the law recognizing this ( 10 U.S. Code § 246) was written in 1958 and the definition was addressed and kept by Congress and the POTUS back in the days of yore in… 1993.

        Now if memory serves, it was William Jefferson Clinton who signed off on that back in 1993.

        1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          Yeah, well how quickly THEY forget… Hopefully we can get a SCOTUS that will remind them….

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        You are correct. There are two eras related to the US Constitution. The first era was States controlling the central government. The second era is the central government ruling over the states*.

        *The change from “State”, to “state” is intentional and significant.

  18. avatar MADDMAXX says:

    The push to place a state constitutional ban on AR/AK rifles, among many others that they won’t discuss, on the 2020 ballot has only turned in 100,000 of the 766,000 signatures required. Hopefully this in itself will send a message to “conservative” law makers in Fl.
    Attorney General Ashley Moody asked the state Supreme Court to block the ballot initiative because the language in the legislation was “deficient” and would mislead voters. Moody argued that voters are unaware the amendment would outlaw “VIRTUALLY EVERY FIREARM” including “guns like the gun my grandfather gave my father and his brother when they were 9 and 10, 60 years ago.”

  19. avatar Larry says:

    Well for years guys on gun boards have told those in NY, NJ, Mass.that they should leave those sh!thole states . Ask and you shall receive .

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      True, though I don’t think people here were talking to the leftist gun control voters fleeing their self-soiled nests. Or is that the point you are making? Might as well stand and fight because the a-holes will follow you if you run?

  20. avatar Dr RJP says:

    Time to quit bitching and start doing some talking. Call your State Representatives and Senators and tell them to vote NO on every bill except HB6003. I would also call Gov. Ron Desantis and tell him to veto every bill except HB6003 if they cross his desk.

    It is also important to become a member of the GOA, the Gun Owners of America and donate to the 2nd Amendment Foundation. There two have done far more to preserve our gun rights by lobbying on our behalf than the namby-pamby NRA. We need to stage protests in Tally on the capital grounds like we did during the Tea Party revolt of 2010.

    I would also call Andrew Pollack, a gun rights advocate and father of 18-year-old Meadow Pollack who was killed in the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in February 2018. Pollack is credited with helping to pass the “Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act.”

    I recently bought and read his book, “Why Meadow Died: The People and Policies That Created The Parkland Shooter and Endanger America’s Students,” which is an outstanding read. I think we should send copies to every Republican lawmaker in Florida and have them read it. We don’t need more gun laws. We need changes to enforcement of the myriad of gun laws we already have on the books.

    If we don’t take a stand now, it will be too late.

  21. avatar Tim says:

    Which part of “shall not be infringed” did they not read ? Oop’s, we’ve aleady slid down that slope. Don’t worry though, I’m sure no one want”t to take away all your guns. Thay agree that they support the 2nd. That makes me feel better – – – RRrrriiiigghht !

  22. avatar Jay still here in Florida says:

    Its all the dammed Northeasterners that have moved here and POLUTED everything.
    They turned NY and the East Coast to shit. Now they brought all their collective bullshit here too.
    It wont change a thing folks like me do. Let them write all the laws they want turning me into a criminal.
    I wont go quiet and many others here wont too.

  23. avatar Sam Hill says:

    First I grew up in and around Chicago, have lived in about six different states, lived in Central America three years, left Florida about 33 years ago so I really don’t have a dog in that fight. But I would like to express an opinion. Gun owners out number non owners by a significant amount. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Now some of the gun owners are liberals some conservatives and a lot don’t care. Politics always goes to the money. And where the most kickback can be had. Fighting among our selves will cost us dearly. Only thing that will ensure our rights will be respected is organizing and supporting our cause. We have to get publicity really good publicity. Promote good awareness all the time. Nothing sways a legislator more than a hunting lodge with hot tubs beautiful dears (spelled correct). Thank you and good luck Florida.

  24. avatar TheTruthBurns says:

    Any Faggot Commie Politician or Cop or Sheriff Against Legal Citizen Gun Ownership or Legal Concealed or Open Carry can Fuck Themselves. I live in Florida & legally own guns but hey keep pushing our rights down the Toilet – No Problem I know people who can get any kind of Gun you want & No Bullshit “Law” will stop me from getting whatever I need & I’m Not Worried about Stupid Unconstitutional “Laws”. Don’t Fear “Laws” or Corrupt Politicians just start Practicing when the time comes to Eliminate these Bastards with Extreme Prejudice.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email