|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
sheldonsthomas
(2/26/2016)
|
Nothing actually changed, merely shuffled the wording. See SB 130 2016 (4)(b): (4) Any person who recreationally discharges a firearm
15 outdoors, including target shooting, in an area that the person
16 knows or reasonably should know is primarily residential in
17 nature and that has a residential density of one or more
18 dwelling units per acre, commits a misdemeanor of the first
19 degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. This
20 subsection does not apply:
22 performing official duties requiring the discharge of a firearm;
23 (b) If, under the circumstances, the discharge does not
24 pose a reasonably foreseeable risk to life, safety, or property;
|
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? — Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836 |
|
|
