Florida Carry: We Will Sue Any Cop Who Violates a Member’s Rights

florida carry lawsuit

Courtesy Florida Carry

By Florida Carry

Florida Carry, Inc. has put Florida’s top cops on notice: Stop violating the rights of law abiding gun owners or you will get sued.

In a letter sent to every sheriff and police chief in the state (SEE ATTACHED), Florida Carry notes,

“Despite the well-established right, our members have been repeatedly victimized and deprived of their rights by various law enforcement agencies and their respective officers and deputies. Too many individuals in law enforcement throughout the state have harassed, berated, belittled, arrested, and even killed law-abiding citizens going about their personal business, for simply exercising their constitutionally protected right to bear arms.”

The letter goes on to detail instances where the rights of their members as well as other Floridians have been violated by law enforcement officers who were either ignorant of, directed to or simply refused to comply with the law.

Florida Carry is demanding that frontline law enforcement officers receive proper training on how to interact with law-abiding citizens who are simply exercising their legal rights. Further, they warn that incidents where these rights are violated will result in legal action.

“If your officers and deputies do not receive this more thorough and appropriate training and continue to violate our rights, we will respond. We will bring lawsuit after lawsuit until the message is delivered.”

lawsuit law suit judge gavel

Bigstock

Now that law enforcement has been put on proper notice, Florida Carry hopes that their members will now be able to exercise their right to keep and bear arms without incident. But should this not be the case and legal action is required, law enforcement agencies can no longer claim “ignorance” as a defense.

“We have cataloged and continue to catalog the violations of our rights. We will use this letter and these onerous violations in court. We will show that you were made aware of the consequences of your persistent failure to properly train your officers and deputies. We will show that law enforcement statewide has repeatedly violated the rights of gun owners and yet you did nothing.”

“We will demand criminal prosecution of officers and deputies who violate our rights.”

 

comments

  1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

    LOL, I *just* read this same article at Ammoland before coming over here to TTAG.

    Fun Fact: Back in 2011, when then-Gov Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown took office, one of the first things he did was sign into law the removal of open carry in CA. Over 160 years of carry here, and he removed it. Why? Not because of any fault of gun owners themselves, but because – as he stated when he defended his decision – of the widespread lack of proper LEO training about citizens’ rights, and to avoid the many uncomfortable (and sometimes lethal) confrontations that had been occurring as uneducated LEOs approached law-abiding carriers with guns drawn as if they were criminals.

    We’re still awaiting the Ninth Circuit’s final ruling on Young v. Hawaii to end this mess once and for all.

    1. avatar Geoff "I got your Super Bowl right *here*" PR says:

      “We’re still awaiting the Ninth Circuit’s final ruling on Young v. Hawaii to end this mess once and for all.”

      Hopefully, the ‘NY Pistol’ decision will make that necessary…

      1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        Go for both and see if we can challenge the Sullivan act and approved handgun roster to get the coaats at least to some level of parity with the rest of the country.

        1. avatar Jay in Florida says:

          You can go to NYC and challenge the Sullivan act all you want to.
          But unless you have an unending bank account. You will never outspend the city spending your tax money defending its own unconstitutional laws. Courts and justice have never been and never will be free in this country.

        2. avatar Jim S. says:

          Yes, please!

        3. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          The real problem is that the courts in this country are being run illegally and no one has lifted a finger to stop it. The entire court system is run under maritime law, when it should be run under common law. It is unconstitutional, hence illegal, to subject any citizen to maritime law. Secondly, better than 90% of all cases that are adjudicated are by courts that have no jurisdiction. And lastly, the majority of those cases are not legal cases because they do NOT meet the requirement of a “crime” — there is no victim. The Act of 1871 is the first major legislation that threw away the freedoms of citizens in this country by making the US a corporation owned by foreign interests.

          This is the reason that the federal government and states continue to create prohibitive laws (malum prohibitum) which violate the rights of the people, and get away with it. It’s also the reason that many cases are decided due to political interests rather than the true merits of the case (if there are any). And it is also the reason that “law enforcement” acts the way they do. Law enforcement is OWNED and CONTROLLED by their respective government. They do as they are told with the expectation of keeping their employment and being protected from prosecution.

          You can expect Florida Carry to be engage in a lot of law suits if they truly back that letter. My question is, will the mayors of the locality and governor be sued in each of these cases too, as well as the county boards and city boards, because they are all part of this.

        4. avatar Jim Simpson (formerly March) says:

          Young v. Hawaii is officially on hold pending a Supreme Court decision in NYSRPA.

          Apparently they assume that NYSRPA will be used as a vehicle to set standards in either 2A cases in general, or carry cases specifically, or both.

          Another big clue as to the importance of NYSRA – there’s a -=bunch=- of 2A cases pending a cert decision at the USSC. These are cases where The Nine haven’t officially decided whether or not to hear them. It’s as if the USSC is a dog that swallowed a tennis ball (NYSRPA) and the other cases are the constipated turds behind it.

          If NYSRPA gets a decision, it’s likely the rest will be stamped basically “send this shit back to wherever it came from and re-think in light of our ruling in NYSRPA”.

          IF NYSRPA gets mooted, many of the cases backed up behind it would work just fine as vehicles to decide on 2A standards of review, carry rights, etc. Some are much better cases than NYSRPA which is only a “carry case” if you squint, stand on one leg and look at it in a cracked mirror.

  2. avatar BusyBeef says:

    Go get ’em.

  3. avatar cgray says:

    Sternly worded. That’ll teach those power tripping thugs.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I was thinking the same.

      Sheriffs and Police Chiefs could care less about this letter or lawsuits because they pay no personal penalties. Until Sheriffs and Police Chiefs are certain that they will suffer significant personal injury or personal financial ruin as a result of their illegal conduct, they will continue to violate our rights.

      And yes, their conduct is illegal: they are violating 18 U.S. code, section 242 “Deprivation of rights under color of law” and probably 18 U.S. code, section 241 “Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights” as well.

      1. avatar Geoff "I got your Super Bowl right *here*" PR says:

        For the most part, the county sheriffs aren’t the problem. It’s the coastal Democrat-run cities hiring police chiefs that reflect the politics of those who hired them.

        This is an interesting change in tactics, I have to admit. I just hope that cool heads prevail in those encounters…

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          County sheriffs are only as good as the electorates that they run in. There are county police departments in major metropolitan areas… they’re often just as bad as the police chiefs. Look at Cook County (i.e. Chicago) Sheriff Tom Dart.

        2. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          BBUULLLLSSHHIITT!!!!!!!!!! ALL law enforcement are engaged in violation of the Constitution and rights of the people! Example: Anyone who has been “forced” to pay for a Driver’s license that is NOT engaged in commerce or has been “convicted of driving without one has had their rights violated. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the states cannot require an individual to have a license for personal travel. And ALL law enforcement officers will enforce the bullshiit state laws concerning driver’s licenses. That is just one of hundreds/thousands of BS laws that the states have created that have turned your rights into privileges. Just because a few sheriffs around the country are supporting the 2nd amendment, you think they are on your side –THEY ARE NOT! They still go along with the majority of unconstitutional law, because THAT IS THEIR JOB!!! The fact is that law enforcement agents are as stupid as the rest of the majority of the population, they don’t have a clue what the Constitution says or how it relates to our rights and bogus “laws”.

        3. avatar Hannibal says:

          Hey “sovereign citizen” rattlesnake, please cite the US SCOTUS case that invalidates the requirement for a driving license. I’d love to hear this one. You know, without having to break a window as part of the deal.

      2. avatar LKB says:

        I demur.

        Part of the strategy here is to poison any claim of qualified immunity. While typically you just sue the offending officer’s employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior (i.e., the employer is liable for the acts of the employee that were committed in the course and scope of employment), it would also facilitate bringing suit against the involved officers personally.

        Now, particularly in big cities where the police unions have lots of power, there may be contractual indemnification provisions whereby the city/county must indemnify individual officers for claims against them arising from acts within the course and scope of their employment. However, I could also see a pretty good case that contractual provisions that purport to indemnify acts that are violations of settled law are void.

        Bottom line: FCI is setting things up to hit the individual officers involved, as well as their employers.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          “However, I could also see a pretty good case that contractual provisions that purport to indemnify acts that are violations of settled law are void.”

          An interesting question. Private contracts cannot do such. But when one party to the contract is actually the government what does that mean? On one hand yeah, it’s a contract that authorizes, essentially, law breaking which means it’s void. OTOH, the cop signing it “trusts” the government, which is effectively lying to him/her.

          So if the cop “reasonably believes” that they’ve been told the truth in a contract to which the other party is government, a contract that’s actually void, the officer theoretically has an obligation to uphold their part of the contract until they’re informed that the contract is void. So… what happens at the moment a court declares the contract void? Is the officer liable to the law or are they victims of fraud?

        2. avatar Geoff "I got your Super Bowl right *here*" PR says:

          “So… what happens at the moment a court declares the contract void? Is the officer liable to the law or are they victims of fraud?”

          If that happens, I can foresee departments having to offer an insurance rider to their benefit package. It’s gonna be that, or good luck finding cops to show up at all…

        3. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          Strych9 — It shouldn’t make a difference! Why? Because ALL major cities, counties, states, and the federal government are CORPORATIONS, not true governments. Just look up your city and see if it isn’t incorporated! Our entire governmental system was highjacked by the Act of 1871 when the US government became the United States Corporation and sold out to foreign interests — look it up. Why do you think that we are burdened with so many unconstitutional rules, statutes, regulations, ordinances, etc.? Because they do not care about the Constitution, they make “laws” and enforce them knowing that the people are too stupid to know, or are financially unable to fight, or are intimidated enough to not fight. The few cases that make it to the SCOTUS and are decided favorably on the side of the individual, are rarely publicized and the states or federal government continue to enforce those laws — the income tax is a perfect example.

          So, in reality, a contract between government and an individual (employer/employee) is no different than in the private sector!

      3. avatar kevin says:

        Violation of civil rights carried with it attorneys’ fees. Ever seen an attorneys’ bill? That alone should give them pause.

      4. avatar AC says:

        The previous comment said;
        And yes, their conduct is illegal: they are violating 18 U.S. code, section 242 “Deprivation of rights under color of law” and probably 18 U.S. code, section 241 “Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights” as well.

        But in addition, under 42 U.S. Code § 1983, there are also civil penalties whereby they can also be held legally liable in their individual capacity to have to pay monetary damages to those that were made to suffer a deprivation of rights caused by the actions of the government official acting under color of law. Money always speaks louder than words, so make them pay out of their own pockets for their illegal actions.

        .

      5. avatar Paul Bonneau says:

        Good luck, doing battle on the enemy’s chosen ground.

  4. avatar A Cody says:

    Excellent and very informative article. My family used to live if Florida but have either passed or relocated. I live in Arizona – is there a similar organization in this state? I am unaware of such abuses in AZ but would like to know and be kept up to date since I frequently carry on my person (lawfully with a CCW permit) and in my vehicle.

    1. avatar Mark H says:

      For Arizona that would be AZCDL, Arizona Citizens Defense Leage.

      1. avatar A Cody says:

        Thanks for the info.

    2. avatar Viejo torro says:

      Something’s to keep in mind about Arizona. Arizona has been open carry friendly for decades. Our Constitution clearly embraces 2nd Amendment rights. Open carry and then concealed carry has enjoyed public support throughout the state. We simply don’t get excited when we see a young man at Denny’s with a Glock or a bike rider with a 1911 in a Yaqui slide.

      1. avatar A Cody says:

        Sig P365 MS w/TR27/G laser.

      2. avatar TomC says:

        I’m nor sure when or where “Arizona has been open carry friendly for decades” — I have limited experience with Arizona, having only been there once, and only for four or five days about three decades ago. But I still recall walking from my hotel about three or four blocks to an outdoor shopping/restaurant district and noticing the signs on each street corner warning that all firearms were prohibited.

      3. avatar Hydguy says:

        If I saw someone. A trying anything in a Yaqui Slide, I’d get excited. Haven’t seen someone use one of those in over 15 years.

        1. avatar Hydguy says:

          Carrying. Fucking stupid phone.
          They need to add an edit function to this

    3. avatar DesertDave says:

      AZ is a Constitutional Carry state, you need no permit or license to carry openly or concealed. From my experience the agencies are pretty cool here, but I’m an OWG.

    4. avatar Jay in Florida says:

      In case you were unaware. Florida is one of a few states that legally doesn’t have open carry. Except “Officially”
      Open carry is not legal in Florida, except for a few limited exceptions such as when engaged in fishing, camping, lawful hunting or target practice at an indoor range.
      That includes long arms too.
      All verboten otherwise due to having CCW. That’s the states excuse anyway. In order to get the CCW laws passed back in the late 80s.

  5. avatar Arc says:

    Oh no, gun owners are going to sue the king in the king’s court, I’m sure the king and his agents are trembling in fear.

    I hope it works, but I doubt it will.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I will personally guarantee that it won’t work unless somebody tries.

  6. avatar Steve says:

    Yeah, that’s a win.

  7. avatar LKB says:

    Speaking as a trial lawyer, very nicely done. This is an in-your-face creation of an evidentiary record that is designed to knock out the usual qualified immunity defenses to lawsuits.

    E.g., assume FCI has an open carry event next week, and as before the local goon squad shows up and detains / disarms / hassles / etc. the participants. Before, the cops’ response to a lawsuit would be (1) we were within our rights to do so, (2) if we weren’t, the law saying we weren’t was not “clearly settled,” and/or (3) even if the law *was* “clearly settled,” these’s no evidence that we *knew* the law was clearly settled and our actions would therefore violate clearly settled law.

    Now, combined with the recent decisions out of Florida courts in favor of FCI, all three of these arguments go bye-bye as a matter of law. This letter and press regarding it truly become Exhibit A in such cases.

    It also puts the LE brass in a box. If they undertake new training for their officers as to what the law actually is, officers who later violate said law will be violating their training — meaning no qualified immunity, probably as a matter of law. If they fail or refuse to train their officers, however, then the brass puts itself on the block for intentionally choosing not to do so.

    Pass the popcorn. This could get interesting.

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Very good summation.
      Think I’ll stock up on popcorn…

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      LKB,

      Any guess whether Florida Carry Inc. sent all of these letters via certified U.S. mail with signature and return receipt required?

      Otherwise, any given Sheriff or Police Chief can simple claim that they did not receive it and had no idea.

      1. avatar LKB says:

        I haven’t the foggiest. But the more press this letter gets, the harder it becomes for them to even make that BS argument.

        Hopefully, FCI is also having some “friendly” press make inquiries to various press office of certain Florida LE departments for comment on the letter. Even if the press office says “no comment,” it creates another record that the departments ARE actually aware of the letter.

        [Hint, hint, Dan . . . why not send some e-mails from TTAG to the press offices of some of the most notorious offending departments (attaching a copy of the letter) requesting comment? And be sure to cc: FCI with the request and any response you get.]

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Learned through too many experiences that sending certified mail (or any form of “signature required”) is not the same as a subpoena. While a subpoena may be dodged for awhile, eventually the target gets “served”. Not so with certified mail. The target can refuse to accept (pick-up, receive) a piece of certified mail. After so many days, the postal service will return your certified mail, undelivered. The target can then claim to have never received the certified notice. As to this particular letter receiving “publicity”, thinking the target can declare that notice was not filed in the “newspaper of record” in the jurisdiction, and the target can claim to be legitimately unaware.

        Another popular notion is that one can seek recompense/damages via “small claims court”. The vast majority do not realize that the attorney for the target can move to have the matter elevated to a higher court. Experience has shown that such motions are generally granted, ending alot of “small claims”.

        As always dealing with government, the game is rigged against the populace.

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      LKB,

      Before, the cops’ response to a lawsuit would be …

      Government agents get a pass that never applies to the hoi poi — this is infuriating! So much for the 14th Amendment.

      Yet another concrete example that the saying regarding the ruling class rings true, “Rules for thee and none for me.”

      (LKB: I always appreciate your detailed/factual comments and I am most certainly NOT directing my ire at you.)

      1. avatar Geoff "I got your Super Bowl right *here*" PR says:

        Florida has a law that holds municipalities personally liable if they pass an anti-2A law. Preemption with financial teeth. There are now substantial efforts being made to get a ballot initiative to cancel that law.

        Leftists are scum…

      2. avatar LKB says:

        Well, Saint Thomas has been agitating for some time for the Supreme Court to take up a case that reexamines the whole idea of qualified immunity — the judicially-created doctrine that got us into this position in the first place. I think Goresuch and Alito would likely be on board, but I can’t yet see how they get to five.

        Nevertheless, the fact that Supreme Court justices are even talking about nuking qualified immunity (as well as other judicial creations things like Chevron deference, Auer deference, etc that have facilitated the existence of the Leviathian State) is huge.

        1. avatar Geoff "I got your Super Bowl right *here*" PR says:

          Say qualified immunity gets the nuking it rightly deserves.

          Cops are going to continue being cops with all of that risk that goes with it. I can see a situation where applicants for that job just say “fuck it” and no longer apply. Now LE agencies are turning into ghost towns.

          What then? How will agencies staff their departments?

        2. avatar Dave says:

          I think it was Thomas and Sotomayor who opposed qualified immunity.

        3. avatar LKB says:

          [responding to Geoff]

          They’d deal with it the way hospitals and other litigation targets do. They’d buy insurance, and the insurer will almost certainly require (1) serious training / screening of employees, and (2) getting rid of problem children who are unwilling to follow the law.

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

          Yeah, since it will be their money on the line, they will make sure the message is delivered loud and clear, with periodic ‘refresher’ sessions…

        5. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          [Responding to LKB]

          And you can expect that insurance 1) to be very expensive, and 2) borne by the taxpayer.

    4. avatar Justsomeguy says:

      I enjoy and benefit from reading your stuff. Thanks for taking the time to give us the benefit of your knowledge.

  8. avatar M says:

    Don’t forget to thank the anti 2A “republicans” of Florida. If FL is turning into an anti 2A state it surely isn’t the cops’ fault. Never been harassed by the cops here in any way, shape, or form. Stupid DNC and GOP screw us with massive support from all the liberal idiots who relocate from NY, NJ, IL, etc.

    1. avatar Toni Smith says:

      If i was able to find a way to relocate even being from Commiestralia you would have another strong 2A supporter. Sad i can’t say the same for most fellow Australians including many fellow shooters here 🙁 There are some of us though but most Australians lap up what the media says as gospel and all our mainstream media here are left wing.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Toni Smith,

        “… all our mainstream media [in Australia] are left wing.”

        Is there any country in the world where the mainstream media is not left wing??? (Serious question.)

        1. avatar Toni Smith says:

          you have Fox which is at least somewhat conservative… other than that i fear you are right… even fox is not perfect

  9. avatar GS650G says:

    For too long the authorities have
    Underestimated the impact laws have on
    Common people who have done nothing wrong.
    Knowing the law is an important first step

    You have to educate the police from the top down
    On the 2nd amendment and the rights it carries on
    Uninformed officers one way or another.

    Tip of the hat to Arnold Swarzenegger.

  10. avatar Imayeti says:

    Ignorance is bliss, no excuse, and expensive.

  11. avatar Stateisevil says:

    Government kourts don’t consider the bill of rights, especially 2A, as a thing. So, this will continue unmitigated.

    1. avatar Rattlerjake says:

      The reason is that the courts are run under maritime law not common law. That in and of itself is unconstitutional!

      1. avatar Toni Smith says:

        And part of that is because many have forgotten their common law rights of nullification in the court room. Lawyers will if they suspect you know about those rights not select you for jury duty. They want compliant serfs in there so they can continue the charade keeping people in the dark thinking they have the right to a fair trial when they no longer do. If you do know about Jury Nullification and manage to sneak through and bring that up in jury deliberations watch them scamper then. They will try to have it declared a mistrial or (I forget the right term) a contaminated jury. In the early days it was used to very great effect.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Lawyers will if they suspect you know about those rights not select you for jury duty.”

          Went through vior dire for a state drug case, once. Told the judge I needed to be excused because of inherent bias against both the prosecution and the defendant. Had to meet with the attorneys in front of the judges bench. Told the judge that I believe if a defendant gets to trial, they are almost certainly guilty. The defense attorney actually wandered over to the court reporter table, completely disengaged.

          Both the judge and the prosecutor tried to convince me I could be impartial. Told the judge that the state was investigating my company for possible accounting irregularities, so I was in no mood to do the prosecutor any favors. After about five minutes, the judge agreed that I was irretrievably biased against both attorneys, and could not sit on the jury. Judge admitted it was a first for him.

  12. avatar Don from CT says:

    I’ve said many times that FL (the gunshine state) and TX are no bastions of liberty.

    They are big government, aggressive police, states that (for now) happen to mostly respect the rights of gunowners.

    Unfortunately, AZ is the only warm state that truly values liberty for now.

    All the rest are freaking cold.

    1. avatar Jason(Possessor of 2.5 TTAG points) says:

      Ummmm. It’s 71 in Alabama today.

      1. avatar Toni Smith says:

        Perfect weather 🙂 not too hot. not too cold

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Perfect weather 🙂 not too hot. not too cold.”

          Sounds rather “blah” to me.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      just a big beach… without the water….

  13. avatar Ralph says:

    Cops don’t pay the judgments, so the harassment, arrest and even murder of lawful carriers will continue until cops understand that they might not go home safe at night.

    1. avatar Geoff "I got your Super Bowl right *here*" PR says:

      “…so the harassment, arrest and even murder of lawful carriers will continue until cops understand that they might not go home safe at night.”

      And when no one wants that job any more, what then?

      1. avatar Red in CO says:

        Then they’d be forced to prioritize. Go after the real assholes, the murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc and leave the rest of us alone. “Oh, the barrel of your rifle is a half inch too short? Whatever, we don’t have the resources to build a case against you so just don’t murder anyone with it”.

        Let’s be honest, 80% of law enforcement activities in the US are useless anyway. Meanwhile, gun laws would be less enforced, meaning more honest people would tool up, meaning crime would be that much more dangerous of an occupation. I don’t see the problem.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        When no one wants that job any more, I will still be armed and prepared to take care of my family and myself, the only thing that changes is you no longer need to call anyone to take out the trash. Sort of “shoot, shovel, and shut up!”

    2. avatar Mark H says:

      Actually, they could. If you can show that an Officer violated your rights, and knew he was doing so, he loses qualified immunity. Then he can be sued personally. That’s the idea here. It’s a preemptive action to negate qualified immunity.

      1. avatar A Cody says:

        Yes, but having been involved in other litigations, it always boils down to the “deep pockets” rule. These knuckleheads are hoping that citizens will not seek litigation because of the expense in doing so. And so they continue to get away with it unless the plaintiff has support from organizations such as FL Carry.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “If you can show that an Officer violated your rights, and knew he was doing so, he loses qualified immunity. ”

        Yes. Any government agent with delegated legal authority (even a private agent, such as one you hire) can be sued as an individual if the agent acts outside that delegated authority. Working as an evaluator of government contract compliance, that was always uppermost in my mind. (It is even possible for the delegating authority to be individually sued if delegating to an agent authority the delegtor does not have [it is illegal to use an agent to do something for which you do not have legal authority to do]).

      3. avatar Ralph says:

        “If you can show that an Officer violated your rights, and knew he was doing so, he loses qualified immunity.”

        Yes, but in practice, this occurs only when the cop is convicted of a crime. While there have been some high-profile cases where the cop was convicted, such convictions are very rare. In most cases, cops get away unscathed with laying the full Amadu Diallo treatment on us mundanes.

        BTW, the main culprit in the Diallo case is still a cop and has been promoted.

  14. avatar John Boch says:

    These top cops get lots of mail. A three page letter from an advocacy group? LOL. Too long, didn’t read.

    I did read it. Three pages and not one mention of Section 1983?

    Ralph’s right. Until the handful of line officers willing to violate rights to intimidate gun owners understand they are personally on the hook for violating rights, they won’t give a damn. It’s the taxpayers money.

    John

  15. avatar F.T. says:

    I am a retired LE Officer (30years) who was also a certtified Trainer in all aspects of Use of Force, including use of firearms. I have noticed lately while watching TV cops shows and seeing cops in action around here that cops are putting their hands on thir pistols or even drawing their guns more often lately than ever before. I understand that the number of cops killed has gone up a lot but that still doesn NOT make it justifiable to draw a gun on a routine traffic stop for speeding at night as they walk up to the car or one incident I witnessed was a cop running as fast as he could with the cruiser AR-15 for a chase that ended in a crash while there were already 5 other cops at the crashed car with their sidearms drawn. He looked like he was out of control and the most dangerous person there at that moment. The only guy with a rifle.
    The more a cop touches his sidearm, the more likely he is to draw it and pull the trigger, or so I believe. They are telegraphing their thoughts to their finger tips and saying, ” I may have to pull my gun”, and they may too, or they may not. You can’t go around pulling your gun or slamming someone face down every encounter you have before you hurt someone, get sued and cost your department’s insurance company a lot of money. I have seen way too many videos used against cops in the past couple years of cops shooting someone unjustifiably then lying as to what happened. Cops shooting someone 15 times, several shots while the guy lay motionless on the road. Another shot a guy in the back a few times then started to plant a gun on the guy. These cops are nothing more than murderers with a badge. I think police training is apparently pathetic lately as the cops keep making big mistakes and they should know they may be on someone’s camera. Yes, todays cops may very well be way too full of themselves and may be dangerous to law abiding people, even if the people are armed legally. Cops need to understand that people cn have guns too.

  16. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    This. 1,000x this. Choose the terrain, or change the terrain to win the battle.

    Why do you think NYS Governor Soprano went after gun-related insurance? Creating greater liabilities (like obscure, selectively prosecuted charges and encumberences, speaking hypothetically), you can’t lay off or insure, effectively *bans by risk* what they can’t ban by law.

    That he could do that while taking a swipe at a public entity that hadn’t fallen in line (enough) was just gravey. Or maybe the swipe was the main thing, and further crippling legal gun owners the gravey. Really, with him, yes he’s vindictive, but it’s hard to tell who he hates the most.

    As for Florida Carry, like any interest-based membership organization, pooled protections is just the thing. There’s a reason you can tick a box for supplemental coverage right when purchasing a ski lift ticket. (Yes, it’s a racket. Also, it’s a layer of protection.) There’s a reason various protections go with professional and memebership organizaitons.

    I’m reminded of Could-She-Stop-Polluting-My-Fantasies Milano declaring re: health care, that “Everyone should have the kind of health care I got.” Indeed. She got hers *through her guild*. And working actors in the guild keep their health care in place by paying premiums once they’re eligable. They banded together, formed a group which gets them access to group plans, and negotiated for better than most people get through employer plans, and way, way, way better than govt plans. (That is govt plans for us proles vs. the ones for govt employees, congresscritters, n the like.)

    A membership organization indeed should look into group indemnity. Being that “guns” are a hot, political issue, a gun-civil-rights membership organization should look to having a *collectively supported legal arm*. There will be outside funded show trials every time the anti-people can pull it off. There’s a reason Bloomie & company went after placing their selected AGs across states (they don’t live in, that disagree with them.)

    And, of course, every time the legal arm engages, it’s fodder for the PR operation. A PR operation creating (fact based) fodder for elections. Exactly as the NRA has declined to do.

    What’s the stats on “red flag” mis prosecutions? Some squish, FUDD, RINO, “2A but” conviction-free politicritter won’t stand on principle. Give them fodder to take a swipe at thee reactive red-flag touting fascist-lite they’re running against and they’ll use it. Purely out of self interest. Divisive fodder they can keep some distance from is even better. Why do you think the Screaming-D’s maintain such indirection between individual candidates and closely-coordianted “issues advocacy” groups.

    The screaming D’s never will step back from “Ban All the Things.” They’ve staked out territory they can’t abandon. Since it’s dumb, wrong, and evil, paint them up with the consequences of what they’ve insisted on. The convictionless R’s will never stand up to a gentle breeze on principle. Since what we want them to do will get them votes (and lose them none they haven’t already lost by having an R after their name), feed them the consequences of what the other guys did. Every school, church, n nightclub mass shooting for the rest of time should be positioned with: “Unlike which stopped at 2, the death toll at was a kabillion … people who couldn’t shoot back.”

    So, team up to fund media circuses we can’t affort individually — er, I mean trials — that make the issue a problem. The screaming-D’s and Bloomie’s Bots won’t be able to stop, even when it’s going sideways for them. So let them keep coming: sho themselves for who they are. (“Hey, if you’re not gonna lobby for the right things, *no access for you.*” says Gov Blackface. “Really, if you’re wrong, we’ll just keep you out … of voting, of commerce, or hotels n lunch counters. Just like before. Like my hat?”)

    Besides, we may keep some of the pro-people from being Flynned along the way.

  17. avatar 191145 says:

    18 USC 242 is very specific about this behavior . It needs to be applied daily and nationwide .

  18. avatar Chiefton says:

    If we ever get a true 2A president, I would hope that he instructs his DOJ leaders to go out and prosecute politicians, police chiefs and officers for civil rights violations when they go after legal firearms owners. That would clearly send a powerful message to all parties involved. Let that plan sink in for a moment.

    1. avatar Rattlerjake says:

      When Trump leaves office we aren’t likely to ever see another real President, mush less a pro 2nd amendment one. We will lose Texas and its 38 electoral votes to the left by 2024 because all of the major cities are already leftist controlled and more are moving there daily. When Texas is gone, this nation is gone!

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      well,..you got one sentence out of trump last night…

  19. avatar Alan says:

    Seems like Florida Law Enforcement has had clear and sufficient warning and advice. Be interesting to see how seriously the warning and advice is taken. Also interesting will be the following. Will Florida Carry actually institute suits?

    1. avatar Rattlerjake says:

      Virginia has received clear and sufficient warning and advice, and look how that governor is ignoring it!

  20. avatar DaveP. says:

    “Think of it as the formalities before the chaos begins. Kind of like playing the National Anthem before a Cubs game.”
    –Oliver, ‘Bloom County’.

  21. avatar Randy says:

    I have often wondered why the government officials have not been sued for violation of their oath to office when they try to infringe on the Second Amendment. Or when they try to ban Modern Sporting Rifles and 30 round magazines, when the Supreme Court has ruled that firearms in ‘common use’ are indeed covered by the second Amendment. What MSR is more common than the AR 15 and which magazine size is the most common – the 30 round magazine. It seems that States often go against Federal law and the Constitution. Just as many seem to think Jefferson’s comment of a ‘Wall of separation between church and state” means that the church/religious teachings, like the 10 Commandments must be removed from public schools and government buildings. At the time it was written, several different government buildings in DC were being used for church services.

    1. avatar Rattlerjake says:

      “…why the government officials have not been sued for violation of their oath to office…”

      Because first of all the oath to them is nothing but a formality. Secondly, the people refuse to force government to prosecute these scumbags. Instead it’s complain on social media, an wait until the next election, which never fixes anything.

      Our founders understood what it took to be free, we have completely lost that knowledge!

  22. avatar Florida Carry Member says:

    I had been on the fence about joining Florida Carry. Then they had an open carry fishing event in my city. The participants got harassed and detained by local police. Florida Carry filed lawsuits and a few months later repeated the event. Local police showed up with some attitude, but this event was eventually allowed to carry out. I am now a life member.

    1. avatar James Campbell says:

      Some of the founding members of Florida Carry are well known to me, and my son. Actually had a few to my Florida home when they were in high school. A good group of guys keeping citizens rights alive, and Florida LEOs educated on open carry of firearms.
      Some of the harassment by LEOs in Florida Carry vids is really disturbing, sometimes showing officers attempting to escalate situations, only to be shut down when an officer familiar with the laws arrives, QUICKLY apologies and allows, then let’s the “detained” law abiding citizens go on their way.
      Even seem a few vids where the LEOs call the Florida Carry members LIARS, claiming they are not REALLY going fishing.

  23. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    Dear Florida law enforcement. Never mind. We just reread our list of incidents and have decided to go ahead and sue now.

  24. avatar RMS1911 says:

    For Hannibal,
    Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –

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