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.
You wonder sometimes if these amendments are put forth to kill legislation, well sometimes they are and if it is a bad bill then that is okay, both sides do it, but it appears that the Republicans might be trying to scuttle this legislation.
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.
Concur with most of what you said, but wanted to point out that the "well-regulated militia" is just one reason that justifies the Right of the People to Keep and Bear arms. It is not a requirement any more than a law saying "Driving kids to school, being important to the functioning of a family, the right to own car shall not be infringed" would imply that you could not have a car if you didn't have kids.
The "Militia" is The People, but I do get your point. Do you get my point posted below that the Repubs will only give you your liberty if they are afraid of losing their precious seats of power?
"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.
Bingo!!! Repub does Not = Conservative or Constitutional. The ONLY reason for most Repubs to be elected is they are not (openly) democRat Bolsheviks.
Just meet and talk to your representatives ? not likely, But If you did with discernment you can see their Elitist Mentality seeping into the conversation. "They Know Best, You are a Peasant."
If you are not a big donor you are treated patronizingly at best to get you out of the room.
"How" did GA get Constitutional Carry??? Kemp and his band of corrupt rinos were scared they might lose to Fat Stacy's Bolsheviks and tossed a red meat bone to the base just before the last election. They had killed Constitutional Carry for years previously, just like in FL.
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.
IIRC that was what the 2011 Bill addressed. I remember a debate on a Florida firearm forum that some claimed was a open carry bill when in fact it was not.
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.
Thanks for reminding us of the Founders' REAL reason for the Second Amendment. It's not about personal self-protection and it's damned sure not about hunting Bugs and Bambi.
Hate to have to say it, but we have a presidential election ahead so vitally critical that it ultimately may have to be decided by the Second Amendment.
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.
Spot on analysis, Z. I wish you were wrong.
You wonder sometimes if these amendments are put forth to kill legislation, well sometimes they are and if it is a bad bill then that is okay, both sides do it, but it appears that the Republicans might be trying to scuttle this legislation.
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
I concur. Everyone should be armed with training, but if the governrment requires the training, that's an infringement.
Concur with most of what you said, but wanted to point out that the "well-regulated militia" is just one reason that justifies the Right of the People to Keep and Bear arms. It is not a requirement any more than a law saying "Driving kids to school, being important to the functioning of a family, the right to own car shall not be infringed" would imply that you could not have a car if you didn't have kids.
The "Militia" is The People, but I do get your point. Do you get my point posted below that the Repubs will only give you your liberty if they are afraid of losing their precious seats of power?
"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'm not here, Ken. At least not yet ...
Bingo!!! Repub does Not = Conservative or Constitutional. The ONLY reason for most Repubs to be elected is they are not (openly) democRat Bolsheviks.
Just meet and talk to your representatives ? not likely, But If you did with discernment you can see their Elitist Mentality seeping into the conversation. "They Know Best, You are a Peasant."
If you are not a big donor you are treated patronizingly at best to get you out of the room.
"How" did GA get Constitutional Carry??? Kemp and his band of corrupt rinos were scared they might lose to Fat Stacy's Bolsheviks and tossed a red meat bone to the base just before the last election. They had killed Constitutional Carry for years previously, just like in FL.
They Act in self-interest When Scared, FYI.
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.
The amendment was withdrawn by Beltran yesterday.
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.
IIRC that was what the 2011 Bill addressed. I remember a debate on a Florida firearm forum that some claimed was a open carry bill when in fact it was not.
I am shocked SHOCKED that an anti would talk out of both sides of their mouth!! 😆
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.
Thanks for reminding us of the Founders' REAL reason for the Second Amendment. It's not about personal self-protection and it's damned sure not about hunting Bugs and Bambi.
Hate to have to say it, but we have a presidential election ahead so vitally critical that it ultimately may have to be decided by the Second Amendment.