|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Florida could pave new changes in ‘stand your ground’ laws
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The measure before Scott would effectively require a trial-before-a-trial whenever someone invokes self-defense, making prosecutors prove the suspect doesn’t deserve immunity.
Scott hasn’t revealed his intentions, but he’s a National Rifle Association supporter, and this is an NRA priority.
“If it passes in Florida, then they take that same legislation and they push it on the legislative floors across the country,” said McBath, whose 17-year-old son Jordan Davis was killed by Michael Dunn outside a Jacksonville convenience store in 2012. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(6/1/2017)
|
| Before the liberals changed the SYG law, the prosicuters had to prove it was NOT self-defence...the new proposal is just going back to REAL jurisprodence! |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/1/2017)
|
| Before the liberal state courts, including the SCOF, changed the law (which, BTW, they are not constitutionally empowered to do), that's the way the law read. They rewrote the law from the bench, which is why the Florida legislature is taking this action. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
