Get ready for possible disappointment in FL with Constitutional Carry.

[tcpip95]

Thank you for the update.

Saw the click on link for another letter, thank you.

Sent in another letter as well.

In your opinion is it true that the delay on this is the Republicans not wanting black people, or as the article put it, people of color, not to be able to carry weapons?

I just don't understand the logic in this. Criminals will carry regardless of color, why can't law abiding citizens carry regardless of color?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I've heard it from a number of Republicans at different Republican events when Constitutional Carry is discussed.

At the April Quarterly Meeting, a couple of good old boys were against it because as they put it, "what if my wife sees some gangbanger with a gun on his hip at the Piggly Wiggly? I can't have my wife deal with that!" When I asked him would he have an issue if it were a White Guy in creased pants and polo Open Carrying, would he have an issue? He went beet red.

A colleague of mine confronted a Republican State Representative about Constitutional Carry. The lawmaker stated he's against Constitutional Carry because he can't stand the idea of hoodlums with dreadlocks walking down International Drive openly carrying a firearm. When my colleague asked for clarification and said, "oh, you mea young Black men in urban attire? That's what you're against?" The lawmaker choked on his own tongue and basically said yes.

The FL Republican Party is infested with former Southern Blue Dog Democrats and Northern Country Club Republicans. Both of whom don't like the idea of minorities being armed.

I have the perfect answer to this: change the law in FL to something along the lines of "If you commit a crime with a gun, and are found guilty by a jury of your peers, you receive the death penalty." DeSantis is proposing something very similar for child rapists as we speak (although Kennedy v. Louisiana has already decided against it based on the 8th Amendment). In my example, the defendant gets an expedited appeal and failing that, sentence is carried out. The key here to my proposal isn't that someone gets injured/harmed/killed; someone robs a convenience store, and used a gun to commit the crime. No one is injured, no shots were fired, but a gun was used in the crime. If that person is convicted of the crime, they get the death penalty. Governor has the ability to grant clemency in extenuating circumstances. I personally would be completely at ease with a law like that. Watch "gun crimes" drop precipitously in our state. Unfortunately, I'm sure the 8th Amendment would be invoked as "cruel and unusual punishment". However, I believe that an argument could be made whereby the presence of a firearm during a robbery denotes a clear and present danger to those being robbed. A firearm is clearly meant to be used to kill people - the Democrats tell us that every day - so IMHO the case law of Kennedy v. Louisiana would not apply (NOTE: I am not a lawyer).

I would think these Blue Dog Democrats and Northern Country Club Republicans wives would be very much at peace.

[Miami_JBT]

Thank you for the update.

Saw the click on link for another letter, thank you.

Sent in another letter as well.

In your opinion is it true that the delay on this is the Republicans not wanting black people, or as the article put it, people of color, not to be able to carry weapons?

I just don't understand the logic in this. Criminals will carry regardless of color, why can't law abiding citizens carry regardless of color?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I've heard it from a number of Republicans at different Republican events when Constitutional Carry is discussed.

At the April Quarterly Meeting, a couple of good old boys were against it because as they put it, "what if my wife sees some gangbanger with a gun on his hip at the Piggly Wiggly? I can't have my wife deal with that!" When I asked him would he have an issue if it were a White Guy in creased pants and polo Open Carrying, would he have an issue? He went beet red.

A colleague of mine confronted a Republican State Representative about Constitutional Carry. The lawmaker stated he's against Constitutional Carry because he can't stand the idea of hoodlums with dreadlocks walking down International Drive openly carrying a firearm. When my colleague asked for clarification and said, "oh, you mea young Black men in urban attire? That's what you're against?" The lawmaker choked on his own tongue and basically said yes.

The FL Republican Party is infested with former Southern Blue Dog Democrats and Northern Country Club Republicans. Both of whom don't like the idea of minorities being armed.

I have the perfect answer to this: change the law in FL to something along the lines of "If you commit a crime with a gun, and are found guilty by a jury of your peers, you receive the death penalty." DeSantis is proposing something very similar for child rapists as we speak (although Kennedy v. Louisiana has already decided against it based on the 8th Amendment). In my example, the defendant gets an expedited appeal and failing that, sentence is carried out. The key here to my proposal isn't that someone gets injured/harmed/killed; someone robs a convenience store, and used a gun to commit the crime. No one is injured, no shots were fired, but a gun was used in the crime. If that person is convicted of the crime, they get the death penalty. Governor has the ability to grant clemency in extenuating circumstances. I personally would be completely at ease with a law like that. Watch "gun crimes" drop precipitously in our state. Unfortunately, I'm sure the 8th Amendment would be invoked as "cruel and unusual punishment". However, I believe that an argument could be made whereby the presence of a firearm during a robbery denotes a clear and present danger to those being robbed. A firearm is clearly meant to be used to kill people - the Democrats tell us that every day - so IMHO the case law of Kennedy v. Louisiana would not apply (NOTE: I am not a lawyer).

I would think these Blue Dog Democrats and Northern Country Club Republicans wives would be very much at peace.

That's a horrible idea and I say that as former LE.

[tcpip95]

I've heard it from a number of Republicans at different Republican events when Constitutional Carry is discussed.

At the April Quarterly Meeting, a couple of good old boys were against it because as they put it, "what if my wife sees some gangbanger with a gun on his hip at the Piggly Wiggly? I can't have my wife deal with that!" When I asked him would he have an issue if it were a White Guy in creased pants and polo Open Carrying, would he have an issue? He went beet red.

A colleague of mine confronted a Republican State Representative about Constitutional Carry. The lawmaker stated he's against Constitutional Carry because he can't stand the idea of hoodlums with dreadlocks walking down International Drive openly carrying a firearm. When my colleague asked for clarification and said, "oh, you mea young Black men in urban attire? That's what you're against?" The lawmaker choked on his own tongue and basically said yes.

The FL Republican Party is infested with former Southern Blue Dog Democrats and Northern Country Club Republicans. Both of whom don't like the idea of minorities being armed.

I have the perfect answer to this: change the law in FL to something along the lines of "If you commit a crime with a gun, and are found guilty by a jury of your peers, you receive the death penalty." DeSantis is proposing something very similar for child rapists as we speak (although Kennedy v. Louisiana has already decided against it based on the 8th Amendment). In my example, the defendant gets an expedited appeal and failing that, sentence is carried out. The key here to my proposal isn't that someone gets injured/harmed/killed; someone robs a convenience store, and used a gun to commit the crime. No one is injured, no shots were fired, but a gun was used in the crime. If that person is convicted of the crime, they get the death penalty. Governor has the ability to grant clemency in extenuating circumstances. I personally would be completely at ease with a law like that. Watch "gun crimes" drop precipitously in our state. Unfortunately, I'm sure the 8th Amendment would be invoked as "cruel and unusual punishment". However, I believe that an argument could be made whereby the presence of a firearm during a robbery denotes a clear and present danger to those being robbed. A firearm is clearly meant to be used to kill people - the Democrats tell us that every day - so IMHO the case law of Kennedy v. Louisiana would not apply (NOTE: I am not a lawyer).

I would think these Blue Dog Democrats and Northern Country Club Republicans wives would be very much at peace.

That's a horrible idea and I say that as former LE.

Why?

[FfNJGTFO]

I have the perfect answer to this: change the law in FL to something along the lines of "If you commit a crime with a gun, and are found guilty by a jury of your peers, you receive the death penalty." DeSantis is proposing something very similar for child rapists as we speak (although Kennedy v. Louisiana has already decided against it based on the 8th Amendment). In my example, the defendant gets an expedited appeal and failing that, sentence is carried out. The key here to my proposal isn't that someone gets injured/harmed/killed; someone robs a convenience store, and used a gun to commit the crime. No one is injured, no shots were fired, but a gun was used in the crime. If that person is convicted of the crime, they get the death penalty. Governor has the ability to grant clemency in extenuating circumstances. I personally would be completely at ease with a law like that. Watch "gun crimes" drop precipitously in our state. Unfortunately, I'm sure the 8th Amendment would be invoked as "cruel and unusual punishment". However, I believe that an argument could be made whereby the presence of a firearm during a robbery denotes a clear and present danger to those being robbed. A firearm is clearly meant to be used to kill people - the Democrats tell us that every day - so IMHO the case law of Kennedy v. Louisiana would not apply (NOTE: I am not a lawyer).

I would think these Blue Dog Democrats and Northern Country Club Republicans wives would be very much at peace.

That's a horrible idea and I say that as former LE.

Believe it or not, I actually agree with Luis on this. Maybe not for the same reasons, but...

For the death penalty to mean anything, for it to be that "necessary and sufficient" measure justice for the crime committed, AFAIC, the crime has to rise to that level. The crime has to be so heinous and ridiculously horrible, that the only just punishment is the "forfeiture of life." I don't believe that use of a gun to commit a crime, such as the above, rises to that level automatically. Now, if the BG uses that gun to murder a ton of people at one time, etc. etc., then you may have something. I would not apply the death penalty so haphazardly. It needs to be reserved for the worst of the worst.

That said, I might be willing to expand the list of crimes and circumstances to include:

• [1]Drug Trafficking that directly results in death
  [2]Crimes directly against a child where the BG took advantage of the child's age and the inherent disparity of force{e.g. "molestation")

[Miami_JBT]

I have the perfect answer to this: change the law in FL to something along the lines of "If you commit a crime with a gun, and are found guilty by a jury of your peers, you receive the death penalty." DeSantis is proposing something very similar for child rapists as we speak (although Kennedy v. Louisiana has already decided against it based on the 8th Amendment). In my example, the defendant gets an expedited appeal and failing that, sentence is carried out. The key here to my proposal isn't that someone gets injured/harmed/killed; someone robs a convenience store, and used a gun to commit the crime. No one is injured, no shots were fired, but a gun was used in the crime. If that person is convicted of the crime, they get the death penalty. Governor has the ability to grant clemency in extenuating circumstances. I personally would be completely at ease with a law like that. Watch "gun crimes" drop precipitously in our state. Unfortunately, I'm sure the 8th Amendment would be invoked as "cruel and unusual punishment". However, I believe that an argument could be made whereby the presence of a firearm during a robbery denotes a clear and present danger to those being robbed. A firearm is clearly meant to be used to kill people - the Democrats tell us that every day - so IMHO the case law of Kennedy v. Louisiana would not apply (NOTE: I am not a lawyer).

I would think these Blue Dog Democrats and Northern Country Club Republicans wives would be very much at peace.

That's a horrible idea and I say that as former LE.

Believe it or not, I actually agree with Luis on this. Maybe not for the same reasons, but...

For the death penalty to mean anything, for it to be that "necessary and sufficient" measure justice for the crime committed, AFAIC, the crime has to rise to that level. The crime has to be so heinous and ridiculously horrible, that the only just punishment is the "forfeiture of life." I don't believe that use of a gun to commit a crime, such as the above, rises to that level automatically. Now, if the BG uses that gun to murder a ton of people at one time, etc. etc., then you may have something. I would not apply the death penalty so haphazardly. It needs to be reserved for the worst of the worst.

That said, I might be willing to expand the list of crimes and circumstances to include:

• [1]Drug Trafficking that directly results in death
  [2]Crimes directly against a child where the BG took advantage of the child's age and the inherent disparity of force{e.g. "molestation")

You pretty much explained it.

The idea of the state having the power to execute people over mundane things is terrifying. With the screw ups that is our criminal justice programs. I stand by the statement of "better 9 guilty go free instead of one innocent man goes to prison."

The death penalty should be for pretty horrible things. Child molestation, murder, etc....

[tcpip95]

OK... A guy walks into a taqueria brandishing a firearm and starts holding up the place. You're sitting there watching this guy wave this gun all around. He turns his back on you and you are able to draw your weapon and shoot him four times, killing him. To me, he presented a clear and present danger. He brought the firearm with him. Regardless of whether his intent was to use it or not, he still presented enough of a danger that you shot him and killed him.

How is that any different from what I'm proposing? He used a firearm to commit a crime, and he was given the death penalty... there just wasn't a trail. I'm tired of thugs knowing that they can threaten people with impunity. Let people know that Florida is a Fuck Around and Find Out state. They sign their own death warrant the minute they use a firearm to commit a crime.

[FfNJGTFO]

How is that any different from what I'm proposing? He used a firearm to commit a crime, and he was given the death penalty... there just wasn't a trial.

It's also not the "death penalty," either. It was a "self-defense" shooting that resulted in death. We're allowed to do that if we reasonably believe (and can articulate it to LE and/or a Jury) that we were in fear of death or great bodily harm. A true death penalty can only be administered by a court and carried out by the State Corrections dept. as a matter of justice and as a result of a crime... a very specific crime and set of circumstances that warrant it.

I'm tired of thugs knowing that they can threaten people with impunity.

So am I. They seem to know precisely where that line is drawn and know how to get very close to it without going over... thereby avoiding a DGU. It's why I wish we could defend property in FL the same way they can in Tx. Fat chance of that happening, I know, but...

Let people know that Florida is a Fuck Around and Find Out state. They sign their own death warrant the minute they use a firearm to commit a crime.

I don't ever want to use my firearm unless I absolutely have to (i.e. last resort). I will, if it is a last resort, mind you, but I'd prefer to avoid doing so if possible. I can see use of a firearm in committing a crime a huge aggravating factor for sentencing (i.e. +10-20 years), or in consideration of a death sentence if the crime/circumstances warrant it. Then again, if you are ever facing a BG with a gun, and you feel your life is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and can articulate that to a jury, then by all means defend yourself. It's what GGWG is all about.

[Miami_JBT]

How is that any different from what I'm proposing? He used a firearm to commit a crime, and he was given the death penalty... there just wasn't a trial.

It's also not the "death penalty," either. It was a "self-defense" shooting that resulted in death. We're allowed to do that if we reasonably believe (and can articulate it to LE and/or a Jury) that we were in fear of death or great bodily harm. A true death penalty can only be administered by a court and carried out by the State Corrections dept. as a matter of justice and as a result of a crime... a very specific crime and set of circumstances that warrant it.

I'm tired of thugs knowing that they can threaten people with impunity.

So am I. They seem to know precisely where that line is drawn and know how to get very close to it without going over... thereby avoiding a DGU. It's why I wish we could defend property in FL the same way they can in Tx. Fat chance of that happening, I know, but...

Let people know that Florida is a Fuck Around and Find Out state. They sign their own death warrant the minute they use a firearm to commit a crime.

I don't ever want to use my firearm unless I absolutely have to (i.e. last resort). I will, if it is a last resort, mind you, but I'd prefer to avoid doing so if possible. I can see use of a firearm in committing a crime a huge aggravating factor for sentencing (i.e. +10-20 years), or in consideration of a death sentence if the crime/circumstances warrant it. Then again, if you are ever facing a BG with a gun, and you feel your life is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and can articulate that to a jury, then by all means defend yourself. It's what GGWG is all about.

Again FfNJGTFO, GET OUT OF MY HEAD!

You pretty much answered what I would have answered.

[tcpip95]

No true good guy with a gun wants to ever have to use it. There's no argument there.

OK, the guy did not get a literal, LEGAL death penalty. However, he did pay the penalty for using a firearm in a crime, and it caused his death. Semantics.

Apply that reasoning to the law. If you send them away for 10-20 years, they're probably going to get parole after 5 and be back out on the streets doing it all again. That doesn't fix the problem.

I will make a slight modification. Make the law very specific, and clearly define the circumstances. IF YOU ARE A CONVICTED FELON who is found to be in possession of a firearm when you commit a crime (there is the LAW part of it), and are found guilty by a jury of your peers (this is the ORDER part of it) you will receive the death penalty (the is the State Corrections Dept).

Send the message to all the street thugs that if they continue in their ways, the state of Florida will make them room temperature.

[tector]

I never want to use a gun, if at all possible.

First, even if exonorated eventually, who wants all that hassle?

Second, my ears are so shot already that the idea of gunfire with unprotected ears, eapecially indoors, is really unattractive.

Finally, the possible PTSD from the whole event is really not desirable, even if you were 100% in the right.

It's a last-ditch measure to save your life or those of your loved ones. That's it.