Florida has it right

[GoNRA 12]

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/florida-self-defense-law.htm

 

Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law:

It Ain’t What the Bradys Say It Is

 

Most readers of this website will not be surprised that some anti-gun advocates have serious difficulties with facts, truth, logic and the derivatives thereof. Still, Brady bunch* attacks on Florida’s new self-defense law, which took effect on October 1, are so viciously misleading as to eliminate any credibility the group has or ever again will have, even among the more responsible of their own kind. Given the brevity and simplicity of the law, so clearly distorted by the Bradys, the cynical calculation of the group has to be that no one will actually read it.

 

On its website, in newspaper ads and in flyers handed out in Florida airports to inbound tourists, the Bradys repeatedly label the law as the “Shoot First” law and warn visitors not to argue with, shout at or make threatening gestures to “local people.” A Florida map is made to resemble a handgun. There’s more misrepresentative, hyperbolic scare-mongering.

 

The Florida law is not a gun law. Period. It contains zero references to guns or shooting, unless you feel propagandistically compelled to count one of those ubiquitous legislative “Whereases” that references the Florida Constitution’s “right of the people to bear arms…”

 

The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:

 

* It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.

 

* In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

 

* In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

 

* If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

 

Florida’s law, like countless others from legislative sausage grinders, could have been better drafted. It unquestionably will be challenged in court, over and over again, by those who abhor even the concept of applied individual self-defense or by legal gadflies with nothing better to do with their time.

 

It is a tough law — on those with criminal intent. As is often the case, its ultimate goal is as much to deter as to be used. Whether it ever results in much change remains to be seen. But by removing ambiguities regarding legal responses to imminent threats to life and property and removing an obligation to retreat, the law attempts to rebalance justice on behalf of innocent, law-abiding Floridians, as well as the state’s numerous law-abiding visitors, specifically included. Whether those visitors are comforted or frightened by the law should be based on accurately understanding it, not blatant attempts by a faltering advocacy group to harm Florida tourism.

 

 

i'd like to see statistics on how many gun owners have been robbed or burglarized or if the robbery/burglary rate decreased after this law was passed. I am sure it did, especially if it was advertised on news channels and throughout the state itself. Letting criminals know that if they do attempt a burglary or robbery there is a chance they are in the wrong house.

[CageFighter 236]

Lets get this in NJ!

[hopper 36]

Lets get this in NJ!

Fat chance we will ever be so lucky !!

[GoNRA 12]

Fat chance we will ever be so lucky !!

 

I can bet if they released a NJ poll, even on the star ledger page asking NJ Citizens if they feel you should be able to defend your home from intruders I guarantee even the liberals will agree.

 

This is more of a common sense issue for basic defense of family and property. I don't see how you can be against defending your family unless your a criminal yourself. I think if this were brought up for public discussion you would see the support for such a bill on both sides of the political isle.

[vladtepes 1,060]

Lets get this in NJ!

 

 

the NJ version would be almost identical.. only it would protect the criminal/attacker...

[ianargent 7]

NJ has a weak castle doctrine - no requirement to retreat in the home and use of force in the home is not required to be proportional. This is, believe it or not, better than some states, including possibly PA. NJ does NOT have civil immunity etc, and doesn't have the "stand your ground" provision for places "you have a right to be"; duty to retreat and no first use of deadly force are the order of the day outside the home. And according to a jury instruction I once got from a judge, brandishing a deadly weapon is NOT use of deadly force justifying use of deadly force in return.

[YankeeFan 49]

I say let's get this here....and the new bill being considered by the Florida Senate to allow open carry....but I ain't holding my breath

[ianargent 7]

That's the other problem with FL - CCW ONLY in it's climate. You must be MAD. It's like Open-carry only in, say, North Dakota!

[halbautomatisch 60]

NJ has a weak castle doctrine - no requirement to retreat in the home and use of force in the home is not required to be proportional. This is, believe it or not, better than some states, including possibly PA. NJ does NOT have civil immunity etc, and doesn't have the "stand your ground" provision for places "you have a right to be"; duty to retreat and no first use of deadly force are the order of the day outside the home. And according to a jury instruction I once got from a judge, brandishing a deadly weapon is NOT use of deadly force justifying use of deadly force in return.

If you shoot someone in your house, the wounds better be in the perps frontside and make sure to explain to the police that you were being threatened, otherwise you will most likely be going to jail.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

That's the other problem with FL - CCW ONLY in it's climate. You must be MAD. It's like Open-carry only in, say, North Dakota!

took me a min. to understand this lol.

[ianargent 7]

What the law says and how the law acts wrest two separate things. That's a bigger problem.

[vjf915 456]

I find it incredibly disturbing that there are states that don't have a law like this in place already. I mean really, how far out of the question is it that you should be able to protect yourself and your family? How far should I retreat before I can defend myself......until I can retreat no further? What if I am with my mother, who has a hard time walking let alone running, and she cannot retreat.......I cannot defend her because I should have retreated? And OH MY GOD! If you do something that is legal, you can't be held criminally or civilly liable?!?!?!?! Who could ever think of such a thing....

 

When you look at these things logically, it is just absolutely absurd that in our "advanced" society, this is not a common belief. Why should I be arrested or sued because I had the misfortune of being attacked, and I had to defend myself? If the state doesn't want to protect me from criminals, fine. I will protect myself, I have NO problem taking a criminal off the streets because he picked the wrong person to attack. But I just hope that if that ever happens, my state which I help fund with the money that I work hard for will defend me from being sued by the criminals family.

[Recon Racoon 49]

This is actually a modified version of their original Castle Doctrine which was much akin to the Texas version. But the new version is slightly more liberal than the one preceding it. Also because of its amendments you are allowed to carry concealed in your car (i.e center console or in your dashboard) to work even if the employer does not allow concealed carry into the place of business. This allows you to make full use of the Castle Doctrine while inside a vehicle traveling to or from work, or if on the job.

 

The only way New Jersey will get this liberal with gun laws is if Pigs fly, and we finally figure out what happened to JFK.