>>"That's just not what good people do," LaPierre said. "It's been proven that good people can use rational decisions about what's necessary to save their life."

Thats a pretty useless statement.

And since im psychic I know Sarge will be here in a few saying.

"Well YOUIR stetaments aer uselees"!!1

"Thats a pretty useless statement."

And you come to this conclusion how?

....becasue the almighty megalomaniac UY says so. Didn't you get the memo?

Personally I think the law is a bad idea. If it were just applicable to say an intruder in your home then yes I could see it being a good idea.

The law as it is written leaves anyone free to "perceive" someone as a threat and then shoot them.

As for what I said about Mr.ThePete's statement and how useless it is.

Did you read what he said?

Im going to go out on a limb and saying by "good" people he means people whom he thinks wont break or abuse the law.

So to reiterate:

>>"That's just not what people who wont break/abuse the law do," ThePete said. "It's been proven that people who wont break/abuse the law can use rational decisions about what's necessary to save their life."

Well thats great, so what about the "bad" people or the crazy/paranoid people. Or the people with bad eyesight who think you pulled out a gun when its actually not?

This new law is very wide upon for abuse.

There's one big flaw in your reasoning (or lack thereof) UY: Leftists just like you raised the same objections to the concealed carry law in it's previous form. To listen to them in the late 80s, you would have thought that Florida would have been a frickin' bloodbath by now -- average citizens with concealed carry permits were supposed to be either too stupid to know how to properly defend themselves or a bunch of Charlie Bronsons reenacting the Death Wish movies on a daily basis. The exact opposite happened. Reasonable people can't ignore the facts. Liberals do it all the time.

Let me get this straight,....

If you pass a 'Stand your ground' law, your nutty anti-gun activists will tell all thier nutty anti-gun activist friends to stay out of your state because they're afraid they'll be shot???

We need this law in Illinois!

Apples and Oranges Steve.

As you SEEM to be aware the conceal carry law requires a permit and you must meet requirements.

Its not as broad as the new law.

The new law doesnt seem to have any boundaries, if you "feel" you are in danger you can respond with deadly force and apparently be free from consequences if your judgement is wrong.

Quote marks abound.

"The new law doesnt seem to have any boundaries..."

The new law has the exact same requirements of a permit to carry. If you are licenced to carry and are threatened by someone you no longer have to run away before defending yourself.

Why does that seem unreasonable that if a person is licensed to carry a firearm (and by necessity has met the requirements of the permitting process) he/she no longer has to run away first before actually defending themselves.

How about the criminal taking the first action and just not attacking people on the streets. Put the onus of action (or in this case just not acting like an ass towards others) on the person actually commiting the crime.

>>The new law has the exact same requirements of a permit to carry.

No. Because you do not have to have a conceal carry permit for this law to have effect.

It also would cover home/property defense or even if you were hunting etc. and had a weapon about your person legally .

>>he/she no longer has to run away first before actually defending themselves.

Because there is no burden of proof if he/she "feels" she is in "mortal danger" thats enough blast immune from any law that would normally take effect.

>>or in this case just not acting like an ass towards others

Which comes to an interesting, some liquored up guy say "ill kick your ass and bury you" well he is being an ass and you feel youre in mortal danger why not shoot his ass free and clear?

First off, your argument about home defense, where do I (under the existing law) run away to if not into my own home. If the felon is already inside, do I have to run away to outside my house?

During other situations where you could be legally carrying a firearm without a permit, like hunting, doesn't give you the right to just off someone because you get annoyed.

Your argument about someone being "liquored up" is already illegal. It is currently against the law to carry while impaired.

>>Your argument about someone being "liquored up" is already illegal.

In the example I gave the guy who was making drunken threats was the one drinking.

Ok, so by your reasoning some drunken idiot starts shouting threats at a guy carrying a gun and the guy carrying shoots him dead based on the defense that he was scared.

For some reason I don't think that's going to pass legal mustar in the first place. In the second place you have made the assumption that people carrying guns have little if any impulse control and are incapable of restricting their actions to situations where it is reasonable that they need to take action.

If this were the case then we would see many shootings in states where the right to carry has already been enacted since these people carrying cannot be trusted. Fortunately history does not support this argument and people have proven their ability to carry firearms responsibly.

>>In the second place you have made the assumption that people carrying guns have little if any impulse control and are incapable of restricting their actions

Well I assume of that of many many people.

Also the control of impulse is often fear of consequences from breaking the law

Those consequences are now being taken away.

>>For some reason I don't think that's going to pass legal mustar in the first place.

You would think so but not with the new law.

>>If this were the case then we would see many shootings in states where the right to carry has already been enacted since these people carrying cannot be trusted.

No because the way it is structured now there is still at least a bit of an onus of proof on any wannabe gunslinger.

The new law is very vague, the mere hint of a threat of danger apparently suffices. Which ive pointed out.

Please do not change the subject it is not about people carrying firearms concealed or not, this is about having people immune from laws that control them using said firearms responsibly.

Afraid I didn't change the subject. The law is specifically an modification to the carry law in FL. It does not suspend consequences for people using deadly force improperly, it does change the definition of improper use (or more precisely behavior).

Right now if you shoot someone cause you thought your life was in danger and didn't have the forethought to run away first before you took that action, you're in violation of the existing law.

This can easily be extended to a situation where someone draws a gun on you, you draw back and fire killing the bad guy. Guess what, you were wrong cause you didn't run away first.

>>Afraid I didn't change the subject.

Ive been asked several reiterations of "what about conceal and carry?"

The new law does not only concern that.

>>This can easily be extended to a situation where someone draws a gun on you,

No because that was already covered under the old laws.

>>It does not suspend consequences for people using deadly force improperly

No because it pretty much throws the whole entire concept of improperly out the window.

Did you actually bother to read the law or must you continue to spout rumor and inuendo? I guess you have the Bradey play card in front of you.

The new law specifically says you can only use force to defend yourself from deadly force. It further goes to only covering the fact that it only applies to defence in one's house, car or in defense of another (once again only when deadly force is being met).

The new law absolutely doesn't throw out the concept of improper use and you know it (or at least you would if you'd read the law)

For those interested in more than propaganda and want to read the law:

http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/2005/Senate/bills/billtext/pdf/s0436er.pdf

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20050502.html

Ive read the law, all it says is "under specified circumstances" providing that person is "justified".

The hint or feeling of deadly force is enough.

Or not even just being on someone property is justification enough.

Mike A Please dont lie, I have had my fill of liars on this site and do not wish to see another.

ah, I get it, this has degenerated into name calling. Well that's just fine but I won't dive down to your level.

You've sent a link to an opinion piece on the new law, I sent the text of the law.

The law in section 1 states that the law only applies you are using deadly force to defend a home, occupied vehicle or in defence of another in that same home/vehicle situation.

Section 1(2) specifies all the circumstances where use of deadley force is not justified.

Again, read the law, not an opinion piece.

Mike before you go crying home to momma, Let me point out again that I have read the law.

Since you seem so hellbent on lying I do not care if you feel insulted.

I cannot check out your link because it freezes up my browser.

But I have read the law.

Yes I did link to a opinion piece, from a proffesor of law.

Got a point?

OK, since you've read the law, do you care to comment on section 1(1) detailing the specific uses of deadly force and section 1(2) detailing the specific area's where it is not to be used?

I'm not quite certain how my referencing the source material (the actual law) qualifies as lying. If this is in fact your position I'd like you to spell it out for everyone.

Many opinion pieces that were referenced when the original laws concerning deadly force, and conceiled carry (I know you don't want to talk about that but oh well) said essentially the same thing. People will be in the streets killing each other. Well it didn't happen. So yes I've got a point, opinion pieces with an axe to grind on the subject don't amount to the time spent writing them.

All it mentions in the first part of section 1 is a "reasonable fear".

According to section 2c If the person is on your property thats it. So if someone is vandalizing your car/house you can kill them.

The lying part is when you claim I havent read the law.

It is still far too vague after all a "created presumption" is enough to start killing people.

Yes section 1 does state "A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm". The terminology isn't just something like "a person who is scared", it has a standard higher than "I'm scared".

Section 2 specifies where you cannot use deadly force. Specifically: "A person is justified in using the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the such other's imminent use of unlawful force." it further goes on to detail specific exceptions where deadly force can be used and the duty to retreat is not applicable.

So you're specific argument with the law is what exactly?

>>it has a standard higher than "I'm scared".

Not really its just in legalese.

>>So you're specific argument with the law is what exactly?

Its poorly written/vague. And far too broad.

This is where I disagree with my fellow liberals. I think this is a damn good law. I wish we had it in Pennsylvania. My dad had me hunting since I was 14. I am strongly in favor of our 2nd admendment.

My only concerned is will the law be equal for all residents. If a gay kid decided to shoot hetrosexual kids that wanted to beat him up, will people be on the gay kids side?

If my brother (who's black and my sister-in-law who's white had to shoot at a group of men who wanted to assult my brother because he's with a white woman) will the law of Stand Your Ground Law apply?

I'm not trying to put race in this issue. It's an honest question. The problem isn't the law-the problem is that there are 2 sets of laws in this country, depending on who you are and what ethnic group the jury is.

>I think this is a damn good law. I wish we had it in Pennsylvania. My dad had me hunting since I was 14. I am strongly in favor of our 2nd admendment.

What exactly do these have to do with one another?

The new law will not effect anyones second amendment right or prevent anyone from hunting.

I think saying most people who carry guns "legally" are not criminal minds. It goes back to the whole gun control argument: Don't let people keep and bare arms legally. Do you think being able to abtain something legally is going to stop the very people who would actually use a gun for purposes other than self protection (read: criminals) from getting one? No, but it will sure increases the chances that the innocent person they are robbing is unarmed... Gotta love that Liberal logic.

We have a talk show host here in Pittsburgh named Jim Quinn. "Quinn's First Law" states: Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of it's stated intent.

Last comment should state: I think saying most people who carry guns *legally* are not criminal minds is an accurate and fair statement.

Brain goes faster than the fingers sometimes ;-)