Why can't he be OUR governor

[Njgunowner 2]

I hear he's having a rocky time in Florida now, maybe we could get him up here?

 

 

May 1, 2012

The Honorable Bob Buckhorn

Office of Mayor Bob Buckhorn 315 East Kennedy Blvd., 5″‘ Floor Tampa, Florida 33602

Dear Mayor Buckhorn,

Allow me to take this opportunity to reply to your letter of May 1, 2012, requesting that I “exercise the powers vested in [me] by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Florida and issue an executive order prohibiting the transportation of firearms in Downtown Tampa during the [Republican National Convention]/’ My understanding is that the current security plan will ban firearms in the convention center itself, as well as in an immediately adjacent ”safe zone” established by the Secret Service. You are now requesting that citizens be disarmed in all of downtown Tampa, including in areas across the river, and distant, from the convention center and Secret Service safe zone.

The short answer to your request is found in the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and in Article 1, Section 8 of the Florida Constitution. These provisions guarantee that the government may not infringe the people’s right “to keep and bear arms.” The United States Supreme Court has explained that those rights have real force, and that government bans on firearms are generally impermissible. While the government may enforce longstanding prohibitions on the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, an absolute ban on possession in entire neighborhoods and regions would surely violate the 2nd Amendment.

You note that the City’s temporary ordinance regulates “sticks, poles, and water guns,” but that firearms are a ’’noticeable item missing from the City’s temporary ordinance.” Firearms are noticeably included, however, in the 2nd Amendment. The choice to allow the government to ban sticks and poles, but not firearms, is one that the People made in enacting their state and federal constitutions.

Like you, I share the concern that ”violent anti-government protests or other civil unrest” can pose ”dangers” and the ”threat of substantial injury or harm to Florida residents and visitors to the State.” But it is unclear how disarming law-abiding citizens would better protect them from the dangers and threats posed by those who would flout the law. It is at just such times that the constitutional right to self defense is most precious and must be protected from government overreach. I am confident that the many federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies focused on the RNC will fully protect Floridians and visitors, without the need to resort to sweeping infringements on our most sacred constitutional traditions.

We have had political conventions in this country since the dawn of the Republic. They are an essential means of furthering our constitutional rights to free speech and to vote. Our fundamental right to keep and bear arms has coexisted with those freedoms for just as long, and I see no reason to depart from that tradition this year.

 

Sincerely,

Rick Scott

Governo

[lunker 274]

Great letter to the Mayor. If a NJ Governor wrote that to the mayor of Trenton or Newark, the outcry would be heard far and wide.

[mcbethr 42]

IMHO, Governor Christie is a product of his upbringing. There is nothing nefarious about his position. He can no more help his position on firearms than a tiger can help the fact that it is a tiger.

 

I'm reminded of Governor George Wallace, the Alabama Governor who stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama to personally deny blacks the right to register for classes. Governor Wallace once said: "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever!"

 

George Wallace grew up in the segregated south, went to a segregated college and served in a segregated Air Corps during World War II. Can you blame him for for having the views he had? Was he wrong? Yes. Should you take his upbringing into account? Yes.

 

Governor Christie was born in Newark in 1962, just 4 years before New Jersey enacted its FID laws. My guess is that that he may have shot a .22 rifle at summer camp, but he never served in the military or seemed to have any real exposure to firearms. For all of his life, he existed in a world where the FID was required, carry was only done by cops or criminals, and most people simply didn't own guns.

 

In other words, he is just like the other 86% of New Jersey residents: guns just aren't part of his orbit.

 

What advantage does Governor Christie have in supporting firearm owners? None. It will just make 86% of residents mad at him.

 

Now flip that around and imagine a Democratic Governor Sweeny or a Governor Van Drew. They could support firearms rights, get some of the Republican vote and all of the Democrats in the state would vote for them anyway. I hate to break it to you guys, but a Governor Sweeny in 2013 is the best hope we have for FID and a carry reform outside of the courts.

 

The only light I can see on the horizon for this state would happen if President Obama wins a second term.

 

If that happens, Governor Christie would probably run for President in 2016. There is no way in hell that he would carry primaries in the south and midwest without some sort of positive NRA rating. So if President Obama wins reelection in 2012 and Governor Christie wins reelection in 2013, we may see him push for firearm law reform in this state to try to build some sort of record.

 

Quick edit. The only way I could see this political attitude changing in this term is if some sort of New Jersey based Suzanna Hupp arises. Some woman becomes the victim of a crime which a gun could have stopped, and that woman has to be sympathetic to New Jersey residents and politically connected. A situation like that might start an outcry which would sway the Governor, Senator Sweeny and Speaker Oliver to change New Jersey firearms laws. But that would be a perfect storm, and it's hard to imagine that happening.

[Njgunowner 2]

Women are victims of crime in this state all the time that guns could have stopped. The problem is they are too busy blaming the guns criminals have access, to realize that if the woman was armed she could have protected herself. New Jersians seem to be under the impression that if they JUST make the laws super tough, criminals will not be able to get guns.