If the Supreme Court upholds the decision, great. If the Supreme Court reverses, the political template for what follows may be Kelo.
RKBA
Stupid Journalist Tricks and Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law
Strange Women Lying in Ponds eviscerates a tendentious Miami Herald article about Florida’s new self-defense law.
Miami Police Chief John Timoney is quoted in the article:
What you’re going to see is drug dealers using this [i.e., the new law] to settle scores, and the Legislature has basically given them permission
Timoney should know better. Perhaps he does. This quote reflects poorly on him in any case. The Herald plays along, because the reporters and their editors are either too lazy to do a little research or because they like what Timoney is saying or both. The fact is that no matter the changes in the law, anybody who shoots another person is going to receive full investigative scrutiny and be prosecuted if the shooting was not in self-defense. That’s as it should be. (To its credit the article provides a quote from the NRA’s Marion Hammer, who reasonably points out that criminals have claimed self-defense since long before the new law was enacted. However, Hammer’s one quote is offset by numerous quotes from opponents of the law, most of whom ignore the law’s substance.)
In particular, the article’s emphasis of State’s Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle’s comment that the new law complicates prosecutions misses the point, and the authors mislead by not providing more background on the law. The very reason the law exists is that prosecutors like Fernandez Rundle had gained a reputation for being too willing to prosecute otherwise-law-abiding individuals who defended themselves against violent attacks. The new law exists in part to clarify the legislature’s intent that good-faith attempts at self-defense not be punished. The law would not have been proposed, then easily passed and enacted, if there were no problem with prosecutors who abused their discretion.
UPDATE: A follow up by SWLIP.
(Related posts here and here.)
Congress to Vote Tomorrow on Bill (S. 397) to Protect Firearms Manufacturers
In the best spirit of the big media I am copying the title of my post from an activist group’s press release! (And why not, since I agree with the activists in this case. My biases are open for inspection.)
The US House of Representatives votes tomorrow on S. 397, the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” which would shield the firearms industry from liability for the actions of violent criminals. Makes sense to me. If Congress wants to restrict availability of weapons, let it pass laws doing so. It’s wrong for Congress to dodge the issue while allowing unpopular interest groups to impose their anti-gun agenda via lawsuits.
You can phone your Congressional representative at (202) 225-3121. Or visit the NRA’s site to get precise contact info. I phoned my Congresswoman’s office. The conversation went like this:
Q: Hi. What is Congresswoman X’s position on S.397?
A: She is very concerned.
Q: Me too. And I would urge her to support this bill as passed by the Senate. . .
Worth a try, no? These calls are always fun, because if the issue is at all controversial or your Congressman is wavering, you can really make the receptionist squirm if you politely ask what the boss’s position is before you state your own.
(Via the NRA and Illinois State Rifle Association)
UPDATE: The bill passes.
Compare and Contrast: Responses to Florida’s Self-Defense Laws
An alarmist minority gets uncritical media attention:
Washington DC – The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is beginning a public education effort to educate Florida tourists and potential Florida tourists that effective October 1, they face a greater risk of bodily harm within the state of Florida.
That is the date that the state’s new “Shoot First” law also known as the “Stand Your Ground” law, goes into effect.
Individuals who are unfamiliar with Florida’s roads, traffic regulations and customs, or who speak foreign languages, or look different than Florida residents, may face a higher risk of danger – because they may be more likely to be perceived as threatening by Floridians, and because they are unaware of Florida’s new law that says individual who feel their safety is threatened or their possessions are at risk are legally authorized to use deadly force.
“We think people visiting Florida should be aware of this law, and act accordingly,” said Sarah Brady, Chair of the Brady Campaign. “Visitors should be very careful about getting into an aggressive argument with anyone during their stay.”
[. . . ]
Yeah, that’s it. Everbody knows Florida is a racially and ethnically homogeneous place where no one speaks English with an accent or looks like he comes from somewhere else. And everybody knows those Floridians will shoot you if you even look at them cross-eyed. Because unlike us they are subject to hysteria and irrational prejudices. And this new law makes the situation even worse! Because now all those hot-headed Floridians who were ready to murder you over a parking spot will get really mad or something! And by the way, please send a check to the Brady Campaign which has only your best interests at heart.
Jerks.
I like the response from these guys better:
CHICAGO, Oct. 5 /U.S. Newswire/ — The following was released today by the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA):
The ISRA is encouraging Illinois citizens to acquire Florida Concealed Weapons Licenses before visiting the Sunshine State. This bit of advice comes only days after Florida reformed the state’s deadly force laws to eliminate “retreat” provisions found under the former statute.
[. . .]
“Florida is a wonderful vacation destination for the entire family,” said ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson. “The Florida vacation experience is made even better when the law- abiding tourist knows that he or she can carry a defensive firearm as a means of protecting the family against robbers, rapists and murderers. Florida’s progressive views on the right of self defense are reflected in the state law that allows qualified persons from outside the state to obtain a Concealed Weapons License.”
(Related post: Here)
The Proposed Florida “Take Your Gun to Work” Law
Glenn Reynolds reviews the proposed legislation on its merits. He is mildly positive but points out that a talk-radio discussion of the bill “illustrates how quick people are, even on the right, to constitutionalize all sorts of arguments that aren’t really about the Constitution at all.” Hey, it’s the American way.
I don’t have a strong opinion about the Florida bill. IMO people have a right to defend themselves, our society should tolerate individual self-defense efforts, and our laws should reflect that tolerance by not putting gratuitous barriers in the way of people who want to exercise their rights. But I also think it’s important to respect people’s rights to property and contract, and one of the ways to do that is to avoid passing laws that increase the State’s authority over the terms of employer/employee relationships. I think employers are foolish to forbid employees from having guns in their cars, but resolving such issues should be a matter for private negotiation rather than legislation.
However (and here comes the central point of this post), the proposed Florida law isn’t really about Constitutional rights except in a symbolic sense. What it is really about is limiting the power of officials — mayors, police chiefs, prosecutors, etc. — who have a history of abusing their discretionary authority. The current Florida proposal follows enactment of Florida’s new (and much demagogued) “Stand Your Ground” law, which is intended to make it difficult for prosecutors to victimize citizens who defend themselves in their homes, and of Florida’s 1987 concealed-carry law, which substituted a nondiscretionary state-administered permitting regime for the much-abused discretion of local governments.
I have some sympathy for people who complain that the big bad State government is riding roughshod over their local autonomy. Sometimes it’s true. But in other cases the legislature would not have gotten involved if local officials and State’s attorneys had exercised more restraint in applying their considerable discretionary authority. What goes around comes around (at least in politically competitive States like Florida). Officials who treat citizens capriciously should not be surprised when citizens use the legislature to put the officials on a shorter leash.
(Related post: Here)