I took the amendment as if you open carry without a license and aren’t eligible for a license it would be a felony, which means a more severe penalty than current law, which is a misdemeanor. In 2011, an amendment that wasn’t ultimately adopted for SB 234- licensed open carry by the late Greg Evers included the level 1 language. It was done to appease the anti 2a FSA. So I suspect that may have been Beltran’s intention. There is no legal definition of that so they’d be better off saying strapped, snapped, or secured in a holster. Regardless, I have no idea why this simple step is so difficult for a Republican supermajority. My sense is that 40 senators for 21 million people makes for republicans that are close to moderate Democrats. Regardless unless DeSantis stays governor it’s not happening any time soon.
Mar 23, 2023·edited Mar 23, 2023Liked by Lee Williams
Grant has A good point : "I believe everyone should be armed with training." I concur as it meets the language of the 2nd Amendment concerning the Militia of the People.
However, it omits one vital element Liberty & Freedom. The "Requirement" to be licensed by any government is despicable, imo. As far as "other" licenses, there are way too many, and unnecessary. "Where" did All these Licenses come from??? Business Cartels protecting their members, Not the Public. Cutting someone's hair requires a license??? Sheesh.
Yes, and the Worst are Lawyers & MD's, GASP!!! Well just LOOK at their Products. Political Coup Governments and Covid Death VaXXXes implemented under Controlled Speech. So the 1st Amendment is no different than the 2nd, Both subject to Elitist Dictates.
Really, in the current USSA, We wouldn't know true Liberty if it slapped us in the face.
As far as the FL Sheriffs ASSes ...... No Friend of Liberty, too many Deputies have the "I Am The Law" mentality, tyranny with a badge, not All, but too many.
"The amendment could have brought down unlicensed concealed carry bills"
Maybe that was the plan. We know it is a legislative practice to introduce amendments to kill legislation both sides do it, but I'd expect better from the Republicans on bills they "supposedly" support.
I just now read the email from Luis Valdes GOA's Florida person asking us to support this amendment. This amendment may repeal the open carry ban but places other restriction on how we can carry. This is similar to the 2011 bill although that was not an open carry bill, IIRC all it did was remove the printing violation.
So? Pass what you can and come back for open carry. Not a fan of OC, but if the wind blows your cover garment of you reach for the top shelf frijoles and some pearl clutching bed wetter freaks out the gendarmes will leave you alone.
Grant's wrong. Marriage can definitely be more dangerous than guns.
I recall when Florida passed "shall issue" concealed carry. The anti-Constitutionalists screamed there would be "blood in the streets", that every fender bender would become "a shootout at the OK Corral" (Yes, they actually said that!). They dubbed Florida "the Gunshine State".
So what actually happened?
The homicide rate went down. The GUN-RELATED HOMICIDE RATE WENT DOWN EVEN MORE!
I think Grant has one foot in the camp that says guns are too dangerous for people to have without a government stamp of approval. And yet, when you look at the PRIMARY purpose of the Second Amendment, it's to ensure the People will always be able to overthrow the government. Thus government restrictions on law-abiding gun owners make no sense as it would give government the means to block the entire intent of the Second Amendment - which is to give citizens the means to kill those who oppress them.
I took the amendment as if you open carry without a license and aren’t eligible for a license it would be a felony, which means a more severe penalty than current law, which is a misdemeanor. In 2011, an amendment that wasn’t ultimately adopted for SB 234- licensed open carry by the late Greg Evers included the level 1 language. It was done to appease the anti 2a FSA. So I suspect that may have been Beltran’s intention. There is no legal definition of that so they’d be better off saying strapped, snapped, or secured in a holster. Regardless, I have no idea why this simple step is so difficult for a Republican supermajority. My sense is that 40 senators for 21 million people makes for republicans that are close to moderate Democrats. Regardless unless DeSantis stays governor it’s not happening any time soon.
Grant has A good point : "I believe everyone should be armed with training." I concur as it meets the language of the 2nd Amendment concerning the Militia of the People.
However, it omits one vital element Liberty & Freedom. The "Requirement" to be licensed by any government is despicable, imo. As far as "other" licenses, there are way too many, and unnecessary. "Where" did All these Licenses come from??? Business Cartels protecting their members, Not the Public. Cutting someone's hair requires a license??? Sheesh.
Yes, and the Worst are Lawyers & MD's, GASP!!! Well just LOOK at their Products. Political Coup Governments and Covid Death VaXXXes implemented under Controlled Speech. So the 1st Amendment is no different than the 2nd, Both subject to Elitist Dictates.
Really, in the current USSA, We wouldn't know true Liberty if it slapped us in the face.
As far as the FL Sheriffs ASSes ...... No Friend of Liberty, too many Deputies have the "I Am The Law" mentality, tyranny with a badge, not All, but too many.
genearly.substack.com
"The amendment could have brought down unlicensed concealed carry bills"
Maybe that was the plan. We know it is a legislative practice to introduce amendments to kill legislation both sides do it, but I'd expect better from the Republicans on bills they "supposedly" support.
I just now read the email from Luis Valdes GOA's Florida person asking us to support this amendment. This amendment may repeal the open carry ban but places other restriction on how we can carry. This is similar to the 2011 bill although that was not an open carry bill, IIRC all it did was remove the printing violation.
So? Pass what you can and come back for open carry. Not a fan of OC, but if the wind blows your cover garment of you reach for the top shelf frijoles and some pearl clutching bed wetter freaks out the gendarmes will leave you alone.
Grant's wrong. Marriage can definitely be more dangerous than guns.
I recall when Florida passed "shall issue" concealed carry. The anti-Constitutionalists screamed there would be "blood in the streets", that every fender bender would become "a shootout at the OK Corral" (Yes, they actually said that!). They dubbed Florida "the Gunshine State".
So what actually happened?
The homicide rate went down. The GUN-RELATED HOMICIDE RATE WENT DOWN EVEN MORE!
I think Grant has one foot in the camp that says guns are too dangerous for people to have without a government stamp of approval. And yet, when you look at the PRIMARY purpose of the Second Amendment, it's to ensure the People will always be able to overthrow the government. Thus government restrictions on law-abiding gun owners make no sense as it would give government the means to block the entire intent of the Second Amendment - which is to give citizens the means to kill those who oppress them.