The Coalition of the Swilling

Of course, as lots of Florida residents are at the age where they're lacking teeth, this may be more like "gum porn"...

Ugh, why do the journalists NEVER have the courtesy to provide bill numbers? I suppose we're meant to just take people's word as to what the bill really does?

I've worked with the NRA's Florida lobbyists and, while I'm a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, they're still a bunch of single-issue nutjob zealots. Stop me before I start telling legislative war stories. ;-)

GUN PORN!

Dave, that would be SB 436, the so-called "Castle Doctrine" bill. To wit:

Where shots can ring out
Under the Castle Doctrine bill, people are allowed to shoot another person:
In their homes: A person can shoot if someone is either breaking into or has broken into his home. The bill explains that the possible victim in that case holds a 'reasonable fear of imminent peril or death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.'
In their vehicles: A person can shoot if someone is carjacking or trying to carjack his car. The bill explains that the possible victim 'had reason to believe that an unlawful forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.'
In a public place: A person can shoot if someone is either attacking or about to attack the person in any place the possible victim has a right to be. The bill overrides court rulings that people have a duty to retreat from such confrontations, and instead gives them the right to 'stand his or her ground and meet force with force.'

We need that here in NC. We have concealed carry, at least. Now I just hafta buy a gun that is small enough to be concealed.

Having actually read the bill now, it goes WAY beyond the common-law Castle Doctrine, which doesn't surprise me. I'm not saying the overall substance of it is bad, but as is typical, it shifts costs to a losing party in civil litigation even if the suit was brought in good faith and was not frivolous. It WILL also be used by criminals to escape prosecution for cop-killing, despite the exceptions the bill attempts to make for law enforcement.

How 'bout criminals escaping prosecution for killing your average citizen? Couldn't that place the onus probandi at the foot of the victim; especially if he's muerto since that makes it hard for him to dispute the blackguard's version?

THS, I'm not disagreeing with that: I don't have any problem with this bill IN PRINCIPLE. The thing about legislative drafting is that the devil's always in the details. The NRA lobbyists do not trust the legislative staff (indeed, they're paranoids who don't trust anyone): they think any tinkering with their usually shoddy orginal language is done with an agenda instead of trying to make the bill actually do what it's intended to do. And they hook on to morons like Baxley to protectively sponsor their bills for just that reason.

I'd like to see the language before saying pro or con for sure, but I'm in favor of the concept (and yes, I'm a Floridian).

FYI, Kathy, here's the bill info from the Dark Side (um, that's the Senate web site, which even us House staffers agreed worked better than ours): http://flsenate.gov/session/index.cfm?BI_Mode=ViewBillInfo&Mode=Bills&SubMenu=1&Year=2005&billnum=436