https://floridapolitics.com/archives/29 ... urt-review
If this thing makes the 2020 ballot, it will pass IMO. Antis + soccer moms + Fudds + morons > 60%.
PS: that new law just signed by DeSantis does not apply to the signatures gathered already, but would apply to the rest needed IF it gets the go-ahead to go to phase II. But given the deep, deep pockets behind this initiative (Bloomberg, Soros), I don't think the cost barriers effectively imposed by the new law will be that crippling to gathering signatures.
https://miami.cbslocal.com/2019/06/07/f ... tion-bill/
Florida "AWB" petition moving forward
Florida "AWB" petition moving forward
“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.”
I agree, dont forget the stupid northerners that have now made their state of residence Florida
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
-
Mohel_Knives
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2019 2:51 pm
- Location: Deerfield Beach
I got this today in my email. This should stop it in its tracks I think since our if state people are involved. HB-5, Protecting Florida's Constitution from Outsiders
HB-5 – Contains an amendment by Rep. James Grant (R) to restore the right of Floridians to control the Florida citizen ballot initiative petition process.
The amendment is intended to stop out-of-state billionaires from crafting amendments to Florida's Constitution, then sending paid, out-of-state petition gatherers into Florida to collect petition signatures to change the Constitution for the benefit of out-of-state special interests.
The House voted 105-0 to pass the Grant amendment with 15 House members not voting. The Senate concurred in the Grant amendment and passed the bill 22-17. On June 7, 2019, Governor DeSantis signed the bill into law.
HB-5 – Contains an amendment by Rep. James Grant (R) to restore the right of Floridians to control the Florida citizen ballot initiative petition process.
The amendment is intended to stop out-of-state billionaires from crafting amendments to Florida's Constitution, then sending paid, out-of-state petition gatherers into Florida to collect petition signatures to change the Constitution for the benefit of out-of-state special interests.
The House voted 105-0 to pass the Grant amendment with 15 House members not voting. The Senate concurred in the Grant amendment and passed the bill 22-17. On June 7, 2019, Governor DeSantis signed the bill into law.
Ira G
Mohel Knives
I know stuff and can do things
My Name is Ira and I am a 1911 addict!!
Mohel Knives
I know stuff and can do things
My Name is Ira and I am a 1911 addict!!
We need to have a similar (friend of the court brief) filed in Florida's Supreme Court. ASAP! (If the Grant Amendment doesn't kill it)
https://www.wnd.com/2019/06/court-told- ... at_orig=us
COURT TOLD 'HIGH-CAPACITY' MAGS AROUND BEFORE COLORADO EXISTED
Lawsuit challenges ban on ordinary weapons
Led by Democrats in the statehouse and a Democrat in the governor’s office, Colorado banned “high-capacity” gun magazines after supporters claimed it would cut down on mass shootings.
Since the ban in 2013, the state has seen at least five shootings at schools, stores or parking lots, including the recent STEM school shooting.
The effectiveness of the law, however, isn’t even a consideration for those who have sued the state over the restriction.
The fact is, according to a brief filed in the case with the state Supreme Court, that the rule violates keep-and-bear-arms provisions in both the state and the U.S. constitutions.
The Firearms Policy Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Millennial Policy Center and the Second Amendment Foundation recently filed their comments in Sternberg v. Colorado.
The Colorado General Assembly adopted a ban on so-called “large capacity ammunition magazines” as part of a sweeping gun control push in 2013.
“This is an important case because it is testing state gun laws against Colorado’s strong right-to-keep-and-bear-arms state constitutional provision,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “Our brief provides a historical examination of why the right was specifically protected by the state constitution, and applies that to today’s context.”
The brief, prepared by noted Second Amendment civil rights attorney Joseph Greenlee, explains the context surrounding the state’s claim that the writers of the state constitution had no concept of “rapid fire repeating rifles.”
“Anti-gunners are constantly arguing that there is no historical support for protecting modern repeating firearms,” he said, “and our brief provides proof that repeating rifles capable of holding 15 or more cartridges were in existence long before Colorado became a state in 1876. The framers of Colorado’s constitution knew exactly what they were doing.
“Frankly,” Gottlieb stated, “joining in this brief has been a delight, not only because we enjoy working with our colleagues, but also because it offers SAF an opportunity to add a historical perspective to this discussion.”
The state barred the sale, possession or transfer of “large-capacity” magazines after July 1, 2013.
“Bans on modern-day firearms are often rationalized by the argument that federal and state founders could not have envisioned today’s guns,” said Greenlee. “Our brief shows that the framers of Colorado’s constitution were intimately familiar with firearms capable of firing more than 15 rounds, and that they intended to protect them through an exceptionally strong arms provision in the state constitution.”
Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition, added: “Firearms that could hold 15 or more rounds of ammunition pre-date even the founding of Colorado as a state. Such firearms and magazines are constitutionally protected today, period. Time and technological evolution do not change the fundamental nature or the scope of constitutional rights against government infringement."
https://www.wnd.com/2019/06/court-told- ... at_orig=us
COURT TOLD 'HIGH-CAPACITY' MAGS AROUND BEFORE COLORADO EXISTED
Lawsuit challenges ban on ordinary weapons
Led by Democrats in the statehouse and a Democrat in the governor’s office, Colorado banned “high-capacity” gun magazines after supporters claimed it would cut down on mass shootings.
Since the ban in 2013, the state has seen at least five shootings at schools, stores or parking lots, including the recent STEM school shooting.
The effectiveness of the law, however, isn’t even a consideration for those who have sued the state over the restriction.
The fact is, according to a brief filed in the case with the state Supreme Court, that the rule violates keep-and-bear-arms provisions in both the state and the U.S. constitutions.
The Firearms Policy Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Millennial Policy Center and the Second Amendment Foundation recently filed their comments in Sternberg v. Colorado.
The Colorado General Assembly adopted a ban on so-called “large capacity ammunition magazines” as part of a sweeping gun control push in 2013.
“This is an important case because it is testing state gun laws against Colorado’s strong right-to-keep-and-bear-arms state constitutional provision,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “Our brief provides a historical examination of why the right was specifically protected by the state constitution, and applies that to today’s context.”
The brief, prepared by noted Second Amendment civil rights attorney Joseph Greenlee, explains the context surrounding the state’s claim that the writers of the state constitution had no concept of “rapid fire repeating rifles.”
“Anti-gunners are constantly arguing that there is no historical support for protecting modern repeating firearms,” he said, “and our brief provides proof that repeating rifles capable of holding 15 or more cartridges were in existence long before Colorado became a state in 1876. The framers of Colorado’s constitution knew exactly what they were doing.
“Frankly,” Gottlieb stated, “joining in this brief has been a delight, not only because we enjoy working with our colleagues, but also because it offers SAF an opportunity to add a historical perspective to this discussion.”
The state barred the sale, possession or transfer of “large-capacity” magazines after July 1, 2013.
“Bans on modern-day firearms are often rationalized by the argument that federal and state founders could not have envisioned today’s guns,” said Greenlee. “Our brief shows that the framers of Colorado’s constitution were intimately familiar with firearms capable of firing more than 15 rounds, and that they intended to protect them through an exceptionally strong arms provision in the state constitution.”
Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition, added: “Firearms that could hold 15 or more rounds of ammunition pre-date even the founding of Colorado as a state. Such firearms and magazines are constitutionally protected today, period. Time and technological evolution do not change the fundamental nature or the scope of constitutional rights against government infringement."
2001 FSN Alumni and NRA Life Member.
All the bill does, in essence, is make the processMohel_Knives wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:05 pm I got this today in my email. This should stop it in its tracks I think since our if state people are involved. HB-5, Protecting Florida's Constitution from Outsiders
HB-5 – Contains an amendment by Rep. James Grant (R) to restore the right of Floridians to control the Florida citizen ballot initiative petition process.
The amendment is intended to stop out-of-state billionaires from crafting amendments to Florida's Constitution, then sending paid, out-of-state petition gatherers into Florida to collect petition signatures to change the Constitution for the benefit of out-of-state special interests.
The House voted 105-0 to pass the Grant amendment with 15 House members not voting. The Senate concurred in the Grant amendment and passed the bill 22-17. On June 7, 2019, Governor DeSantis signed the bill into law.
quite a bit more expensive. Read the second link in my OP. But IF the form of this amendment gets past the Florida Supreme Court, then there is nothing to hold it back BUT money. And two major billionaires backing it can overcome that. We are talking about pockets much, much deeper than Morgan, for example.
You are way, way too optimistic.
“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.”
I would like to know why those House members did not vote.Mohel_Knives wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:05 pm The House voted 105-0 to pass the Grant amendment with 15 House members not voting. The Senate concurred in the Grant amendment and passed the bill 22-17. On June 7, 2019, Governor DeSantis signed the bill into law.
"The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted."