|
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:
FL: Florida Senate set to vote on 'stand your ground' bill next week
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Florida Senate held a tense debate Thursday that sets the stage for passage of a bill that shifts the burden of proof in "stand your ground" cases.
If the full senate approves the new legislation, it would increase the amount of protection gunowners have when they claim self-defense.
Currently, the burden of proof is on the person claiming self-defense to prove they were in fact threatened or in imminent danger.
If the new law passes, the burden shifts to prosecutors who would have to prove self-defense wasn't warranted. |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/10/2017)
|
Two things:
One, despite the relentless MSM meme that this bill "shifts" the burden, it does no such thing. It RESTORES the burden that the courts arbitrarily shifted to begin with.
Two, the increase in homicides are significantly due to JUSTIFIABLE homicides, which is exactly what this law is supposed to accomplish. |
|
|
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) |
|
|