Municipalities to start following Fla. gun laws

[William769]

LEE COUNTY -
Starting next month, Lee County will allow concealed weapons permit holders to bring guns into more public places. That means more guns will be in local parks, while other areas will still be off limits.

The State of Florida is cracking down. Starting next month, municipalities statewide will have to follow the state's conceal and carry laws or face major fines.

"We are in a corner, if you will. We're boxed in and we'll have to change ordinances locally," said Lee County Commissioner Brian Bigelow.

In Lee County, several ordinances keep gun owners from packing heat in public places - which under state law - are legal.

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/15428770/2011/09/09/gun-will-be-allowed-in-more-public-places

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. Oh God. I step back and watch what's happening to this country, and it's not a pretty picture

Not at all.

[aikoaiko]

6. protecting individuals' liberties is not really a bad thing.

or is it? :shrug:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

8. What individuals' liberties? Would you allow people to have bombs? nt

[aikoaiko]

10. The OP was about firearms (not bombs) and keeping and bearing arms is a civil liberty.

You may ask about other things, but I'm talking about the firearms discussed in the OP.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

14. It's not a civil right. It was an amendment from back when there was NO MILITARY

Anything else said about it, is bullshit by those who see guns as fun toys and live in a mental movie in which they are the armed hero.

[aikoaiko]

16. Until you add a new amendment, it is still a protected civil liberty,

You should probably read why the call the first 10 amendments to the constitution the "Bill of Rights" before you declare something bullshit.

Hint: it has something to do with limiting the power of government and protecting individual liberties.

Good luck with that next amendment to the constitution if you think it is not necessary anymore .... :rofl:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

18. It's EXACTLY like anti-fellatio laws from the 1800s which remain on the books. Useless.

Needing to be removed. And yet there they are. Causing destruction and havoc.

[X_Digger]

20. If you repealed the second amendment, the right would simply move to an unenumerated right under..

the ninth amendment, as well as a state-level protected right.

Of course, you have an uphill battle even attempting to repeal the second..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108394/americans-agreement-supreme-court-gun-rights.aspx

[Sarah Ibarruri]

45. This country has a love of violence which is deeply-ingrained and promoted by the strongest lobby

on earth.

I never said it didn't.

Violence is definitely a favorite here. But at one time, so was slavery. And prohibiting slavery was SO HATED that people DIED to defend slavery.

A lot of people a lot of the time can be mistaken, and even die for wrong, violent, sick principles.

[X_Digger]

53. Here, have a lance..

[aikoaiko]

22. You're funny. The anti-fellatio laws were violations of civil liberties just like anti-RKBA laws.

You don't even realize that you're arguing against yourself.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

26. And like the amendment which is now useless since we have a military, it needs to be done away with

Same shit as sodomy laws and blue laws. Useless, causing harm, end of story.

[aikoaiko]

29. That's the thing, to many people it is not useless to protect the right of individuals to own guns

And that is why you will never get what you want.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

30. It is the cause of, not the solution to, the violence mentality in this country nt

[PavePusher]

57. Oh, you are an Animist! Well, that explains so much....

Describe, please, how an inanimate object "causes" anything.

We'll wait....

[pipoman]

32. Funny how nearly nobody agrees with you

SCOTUS doesn't, the general population doesn't, hell, DU GD doesn't even come close to agreeing (by huge overwhelming margins). So there you are, confused, lacking understanding of the issue, wishing like a poor child on Christmas for something which will never come.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

44. Well, just as it took one hell of a long time to CORRECT the Constitution's other mistakes....

One day this, too, will be corrected.

The Constitution is not a godly instrument. It's got mistakes out the wazoo.

[pipoman]

49. It will never be changed

as long as there are daily gang shootings, home invasions, rapes, robberies, and car jackings. Over the last 20 years there has been steady reductions in violent crime in the US. How could this be as during the same time concealed carry has been legalized in nearly every state in the union? Maybe cause and effect? Again, nearly nobody agrees that there is a need to do anything with the 2nd.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

63. Never say never. One day this country might be benevolent rather than punitive. Maybe. nt

[PavePusher]

56. You assume the Second Amendment is a mistake.

Ummm... no, actually, it's not.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

62. Not back then. Back then it had a use. It is now a mistake and has no use. In fact,

it is harmful to this country.

[PavePusher]

67. You have not proved that....

and you may feel free to attempt a new Amendment at any time.

Put your money where your mouth is.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

76. Pick up any newspaper. nt

[PavePusher]

79. Nifty quip...

but it doesn't have the effect you intend. It can't.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

81. I don't want to use quips and quotes. I just want to live in a SAFE country, it is UNSAFE with guns

sold openly. If there were NO GUNS SOLD, I'd feel as safe here as I felt in Spain. But I can't, because some people think they're toys and get off on them, and feel tougher with them, so they insist on having guns.

[PavePusher]

83. I lived in England for 7 1/2 years.

I was by no means "safe" while I was there, and pretty much prohibited from effective defensive tools.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

89. That's interesting, since England has been far safer than the U.S. with regard to crimes in general

And most assuredly with regard to gun crime (which makes up a huge amount of the crime here)

[PavePusher]

91. Let's see...

myself and numerous friends attacked and hospitalized, my house broken into repeatedly (after the second time, I couldn't even get the police to come), car stolen....

[X_Digger]

93. Err.. let's see you back that up with a source, please.

UK's violent crime rate (2009)? 2,034 per 100,000. US? 466 per 100,000.

[PavePusher]

84. Oh, and again with a lot of emotion and assertions, not so much with facts and evidence.

Not a winning strategy.

[oneshooter]

85. So how do you propose to stop the sale?

Federal law only concerns the sale between the states. It can not control sales within the states. So you would have to pass laws in each state, not to mention the required Federal laws.

Where to begin?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Sarah Ibarruri]

90. Who knows? The door has never been shut on the free and open selling of weapons here.

My view of the U.S. in this regard, is no different than any other country where chaos reigns and weapons are freely sold.

[oneshooter]

92. well, since you don't want to fight for what you believe, and have given up

trying, then move. The UK beckons with open arms,and little crime. A Utopia on an island.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[SteveM]

70. Well, one CORRECTION was made: Prohibition of alcohol ended.

I am certain you agree with the correction of that prohibition.

[Kennah]

94. But the 18A created the problem, while the 21A removed it.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

55. No, its not "exactly" like those at all.

The anti-fellatio laws were laws making private actions illegal. The affected the individual, not government. Additionally, they were on a local municipality basis, not national.

The 2nd Amendment is a law which tells government what it is not permitted to do, while leaving existing personal liberties intact. It does not grant a right or make anything legal or illegal for the individual. It is also on a national level.

They're hugely different situations and your ignorance does not change that fact.

[Euromutt]

61. Actually, it's the exact opposite of anti-"sodomy" laws

That kind of law got adopted as textbook example of the "tyranny of the majority" and was ultimately struck down (admittedly not before time, to put it mildly) as unconstitutional because it was held to violate individual citizens' constitutional rights without being justified by a compelling state interest; to borrow a phrase from Jefferson, "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" if some guy on my block gets a blowjob from his SO, as long as they do it somewhere where they don't frighten the horses.

And just like the right to privacy (which, bitching by self-styled "strict constructionists" notwithstanding, is implicit in the Bill of Rights because otherwise, what reason does the Fourth Amendment even have to exist?) the right to keep and bear arms is a restriction on the government's ability to infringe on individual liberties, whereas anti-"sodomy" laws were the exact opposite. QED.

[beevul]

95. Oh it is?

"It's EXACTLY like anti-fellatio laws from the 1800s which remain on the books."


Oh it is?


"anti-fellatio laws" were a restriction aimed at people.


The second amendment is a restriction that applies to government.


Thats about as different as apples and oranges.

[SteveM]

69. The Articles gave Congress the power to fund and organize a standing army...

...much like the one which, along with the various militia, had just won the Revolutionary War. Reading up on the context of the Second Amendment will reveal some of the politics involved in its proposal and adoption by the states.

The Second is very much a civil and individual right.

[friendly_iconoclast]

"NO MILITARY"? What did you think George Washington was commanding general of?

A very large and well-armed Masonic lodge, perhaps?...

[Union Scribe]

40. An anti-fellatio task force?

I don't know, this subthread has lost me.

[PavePusher]

23. Straight to the hyperbole, eh?

One of the pro-restrictionists favorite tactics... I guess it saves them the time of actually having to come up with anything constructive.

[hack89]

7. You oppose uniform protection of civil.rights?

Do you think cities should have their own laws on voting? Abortion? Same sex marriage?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

9. I agree with civil rights. What is your point? nt

[hack89]

12. You seem to have had a negative reaction to Florida's

efforts to ensure civil rights are uniformly protected.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

13. 'civil rights'

Yeah, some rights. The right to have everyone armed to the teeth, so this country becomes an even more dangerous one than it already is, thanks to the guns and ammo.

A typical cowboy movie mentality.

[hack89]

15. What kind of rights do you think are in the Bill of Rights?

Do you understand that gun violence and deaths are at historic lows and still declining? Even as gun ownership has skyrocketed? You have never been safer.

You will not restrict my civil rights based purely on your fear and ignorance. Learn the facts - they will actually reassure you.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

19. The 2nd amendment was arrived at because there was NO military AT ALL back then. Now there is....

Right now, the 2nd amendment is exactly as useless as the anti-fellatio laws of the 1800s, and the blue laws from Prohibition. Useless, pointless, causing destruction, creating a dangerous environment for the entire country. And yet there they all are: the useless 2nd amendment meant for non-military countries, the anti-fellatio laws, and the blue laws.

Of course, some people view the Constitution as if it were the 10 Commandments. The only thing missing in their opinion is a story to be written whereby God himself came down and delivered the Constitution to us.

Ahem.

[spin]

21. My daughter does not feel the second amendment is useless ...

She used a large caliber revolver to stop an individual who was breaking into our Tampa home by forcing open the sliding glass door in the kitchen.

He was halfway through the door when she walked into the kitchen. He said, "I'm going to rape you."

My daughter raised her S&W Model 25-2 .45acp revolver and pointed it at him. He ran.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hack89]

24. So change the Constitution.

What do you think protects your civil rights? The good.will of your fellow Americans? Imagine Rick Perry as president - do you think for.second that your right to an abortion will survive? What about same sex marriage? That Constitution you dismiss is the only thing between you and a far right theocracy.
Do you realize that the Constitution was the instrument for over turning those laws? They were deemed too.restrictive of.civil rights. Without the Constitution, where are our civil rights even listed?
.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

27. Unlikely in a country where abortion runs the risk of being denied.

Here, the stupid rant and fight to defend racist laws, Bible laws, death penalty, and guns being rampant.

[hack89]

33. Are you calling me stupid? nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

42. No, but I'm calling you deceptive. You like guns, and so you're all for laws designed for the 1700s

And don't try to tell me you're not being deceptive.

[gejohnston]

47. for the enlightenment

not just the 1700s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law

scroll down to France.

[hack89]

51. Deceptive how?

the 2nd amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights describes individual civil rights. I support civil rights. Nothing deceptive there.

As for your screed about violence, I know for a fact that gun violence (as well as all violent crime) has been falling steadily for 20 years and is at historic lows. You are safer now then you have ever been - next year you will be even more safe. No deception there - just hard verifiable facts.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

64. By pretending various things:

1) That the Constitution was somehow magical, godly, and nothing about it needs to be changed;
2) By pretending that the 2nd amendment was not put in there to compensate for there being no federal military;
3) By pretending that the open sale of guns is good in any way.

[hack89]

66. Well, considering the Constitution has been amended 27 times

it certainly was not "magical, godly, and nothing about it needs to be changed." Fail number one on your part

The US army was formed before the Constitution was ratified - the Articles of Confederation established a national army. The states still had their militias but there was a federal military. And of course the Constitution does name the president Commander in Chief of:

the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

So it is kind of hard to say the writers of the Constitution did not plan on a federal military since they actually mention it in the document.

As for the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, the Bill of Right are limits on government power - they describe individual civil rights that the government can't take away. This is what James Madison had to say:

I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed , disliked it because it did not contain effectual provision against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercised the sovereign power: nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow citizens think these securities necessary.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

74. Lots of people said lots of things, and the Constitution still needed changing

Because what applied back when it was written, to now, has changed dramatically. Certain things that were needed or were popular or accepted back then, are now harmful to our current society.

[hack89]

77. So convince enough people to change the 2nd Amendment

it is that simple. If you are right and your opinions reflect the views of the American people then it should be easy. However, distorting the views of anyone that disagrees with you is not going to help. If you are to convince people you have to be willing to answer the hard questions factually and without harsh rhetoric. Just a suggestion.

[hack89]

50. Self delete - wrong place. nt

[PavePusher]

58. Yes, s/he did, and then made a very clumsy back-pedal and a loser of a distraction attempt. n/t

[S_B_Jackson]

28. Not true, and you know it...

there was a military. The argument at the time was, "What type of military are we to have?" Do we have a large standing army to be used by the national government at a whim, or do we keep a small army to be augmented at need by militia forces comprised of ordinary citizens armed with privately-owned firearms?

We opted for the latter, and it remained the effective model until after the Spanish American war and the evaluation that followed in which it became clear that if the United States were to be a world power, that a larger professional military was necessary and that instead of relying upon state-raised militias to augment that the formation of militias needed to take on a two-tiered form:

1) An Organized militia - i.e. the National Guard - and whose members were to be armed by and trained by the federal government, using the same weapons and weapons-systems used by the larger, professional standing army. This force was to be under the control of the states, unless called up for federal service, and were to be the primary augmentation system to the regular army; and

2) An unorganized militia which was to be the remain the same pool of citizens as defined under the Militia Act of 1792....

One would note, however that while the Militia Act originally defined the Militia as males between the ages of 17-45, that subsequent changes to federal law which outlaw discrimination on the basis of gender and age mean that the Militia now incorporates all persons (men and women) over the age of 17, and aged 64 or under (i.e. Maximum Enlistment age of 44 years old +20 years).

[Sarah Ibarruri]

31. Yeah? So they did it because, well, people liked to own guns?

Oh please. Try that on someone who believes it. Pull Charlton Heston from wherever he is, and convince him.

[S_B_Jackson]

34. No, they did it because from it's beginnings, our nation was to be one which

rights of the individual as opposed the the rights of a priviledged class. The right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness - as well as the most effective means to protect them. I won't bore you with the contemporaneous statements of the framers of the Constitution, I'm sure that you're already aware of them and choose to ignore them in favor of your prejudices.

You're always free to seek to repeal the 2nd Amendment....the process for doing so is clearly laid-out in the US Constitution, the burden of persuasion is yours.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

41. Again, bullshit. The U.S. of the 1700s had slavery, child labor, and laws designed to match that

But you're cool with everything in it back then, and with the Constitution serving the 1700s U.S. without federal military, eh?

You like guns, and want laws to match your likes. Absolutely NOT the other way around.

[S_B_Jackson]

46. Yes, it did and that was wrong and the Constitution has been amended

many times to improve it/keep it current with the evolving needs/morality of our nation. Still, this imperfection does not make the fact that our nation was designed to maximize the liberties of the individual as opposed to a priviledged class. I'm cool with it as it is now; you're not, and I get that.

I do enjoy firearms - target shooting, occasionally skeet/trap, hunting -though I do so less often that I have in the past; and collecting. Why should any of those be limited by the government?

As I said, however, if you don't like the 2nd Amendment there is a clearly defined method to change the Constitution - the burden of persuasion is yours. You just need to convince a large enough percentage of the electorate to your view. Best hop to it!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

65. I'm sure some people enjoyed having slavery. I don't think it's about enjoyment.

It's about what is right for the country.

[PavePusher]

68. Prove your case and get a majority on your side.

It would help to provide some evidence...

[Sarah Ibarruri]

75. Well, given that the most powerful lobby in the U.S. is that of the gun MANUFACTURERS...

the changes of my doing that are, oh, how about absurd?

[oneshooter]

78. So you give up the fight, and just scream on the internutz? n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

82. I'm not a gigantic lobby. I'm just one ordinary, middle class woman. that hates being

surrounded by guns and gun-nuts.

[S_B_Jackson]

88. I wasn't aware that the National Shooting Sports Foundation was all that powerful a lobby.....

I'd think that the lobby which represents civilian gun owners would be more influential, wouldn't you?

[beevul]

96. Now you are just going off the dep end.

"Well, given that the most powerful lobby in the U.S. is that of the gun MANUFACTURERS..."


Now you're just going off the deep end, or youre regurgitating brady/vpc koolaid (is there a difference?).

Actual firearm manufacturers, and the lobby to which they belong, is one of the SMALLEST in America.

McDonalds makes more money anually than all firearms manufacturers in America combined.


So uh...


The lobby thats powerful, and that you'd be needing to do something about, is the gun OWNERS lobby.


Glad to aid in eliminating your confusion.

[S_B_Jackson]

86. Actually, enjoyment is as good a "need" as any other....

I target shoot as a means of relaxation and to keep up with and improving my skills. I collect firearms because I find them to be of interest, and an solid investment as they tend to retain their value even with use. I engage in local competetive shooting events - this is also of benefit should I need to use a firearm for self-defense. I engage in shooting skeet and trap too...again this simulates hunting in the field and shooting at flushed birds. (To be honest, my daughter is much better at this than am I.....). And I do hunt to put food on my table, though as I said not as often as I used to, but still.......

None of these activities is detrimental nor harmful to our society, and I would argue that they are actually a benefit to our society and are very right for this country.

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. Exactly- so I should be able to buy an AR or an M-4gery.

Though I rather suspect your interlocutor would shit green if a serious attempt was made to implement a Swiss-style militia in the US...

[S_B_Jackson]

39. I've got a CZ version AK clone on my short list...

will probably get permission from SWMBO (or at least consulted ;-)). As for a Swiss-style militia I'm all for it, but I'd settle for rescinding the Hughes Amendment instead.

[Euromutt]

60. Do you mean a Vz.58?

It's not an "AK clone," as it uses a very different mechanism; where the AK uses a long-stroke gas pistol and a rotating locking bolt, the Vz.58 uses a short-stroke piston and a tilting (falling) breech lock attached to the bolt. The Vz.58 also uses a striker rather than a hammer. Also, the two guns' magazines aren't interchangeable.

[S_B_Jackson]

87. I do...

I know that I was engaging in a bit of lazy short-hand related to the exterior appearance of the rifle. :blush:

[DissedByBush]

36. You clearly don't know your history

The personal, individual right to keep and bear arms goes far beyond the simple requirement for a militia that would defend the government.

In the historical literature goes far beyond the establishment of our country to support this, back in common law to England.

And look at the text:

Argument over the "milita" part fails in two areas. First, the clause is not restrictive, but explanatory. It is a reason, nothing more. It does not restrict, linguistically or historically, the rest of the Amendment. Second, the "militia" consists of all able-bodied people, for not only the purpose of being called up to defend the country against foreign enemies, but also to defend the country against an oppressive government. You cannot exclude this to only government-controlled militia without destroying this historical purpose of a militia of all the people.

"Right of the People" Everywhere else in the Bill of Rights, it is understood to be an individual right. Every PERSON has the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion. Historical precedent also shows this to be an individual right. There is zero evidence to single out this one right to be only be collective in nature.

"Keep and bear Arms" From Blackstone back, "keep arms" was understood to be the right of the individual to possess arms regardless of militia. "Bear arms" then and now means to carry or wear arms entirely outside of any militia connection. Often both in context refer to the right to keep and bear arms in the defense of a person's self and of the state (and, as above, defense of freedom against the government).

And remember United States v. Cruikshank "his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed..."

And, finally, I personally find it disgusting to see supposed liberals even attempting to interpret one of the Bill of Rights in a restrictive manner.

It shows you don't care about rights, only those you agree with.

That means you don't really believe in rights at all.

[S_B_Jackson]

38. Quoting Cruikshank...

Sarah Ibarruri probably just got you stricken from her Christmas card list.

Next thing you're going to do is try to explain that there really wasn't a decision in US v. Miller<\i>, that it was a simple remand to the district court to actually try the case instead of tossing the case during pre-trial motions!

[DissedByBush]

80. There is also the fact that Miller wasn't even defended

His attorney had no money to make it to arguments, and didn't even get to submit a brief.

The federal government got to argue unopposed.

It was a serious miscarriage of justice, malpractice at the very least for the attorney representing Miller.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[S_B_Jackson]

48. Really? Are you sure there was no federal military?

Because I'm absolutely positive that Congress created by legislative enactment the Continental Army, the US Navy, and the United States Marine Corps. I believe that you have no idea of what we NOW have:

U.S. Code TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

This in addition, of course the forces in the standing US Army, US Navy, US Marine Corps, US Air Force, and US Coast Guard.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

52. Have you....

...even been near a history text in your life? Perhaps event taken the time to read one?

You are SO far off the mark it really isn't even worth discussing it with you.

Simply put Sarah, you're wrong. Not mistaken, not misinformed, not even just slightly off - you're flat wrong. Your arguments are the functional equivalent of claiming 2+2=5 regardless of the facts to the contrary.

[MicaelS]

54. I would love to see the active duty US military disbanded

And we go to the Swiss model. If we did, there would probably be 50+ million members of the US Militia who would then have a true full auto assault rifle, along with several hundred rounds of ammunition in their home. You would see people carrying their true assault rifles around like just another every day item. There would multiple long range outdoor firing ranges in every city, town and village. Every weekend the air would ring with the sound of millions of rounds of full auto rifle fire.

First, we would not have to worry about staying out of all these interventionist wars simply making money for some big corporation.

But the second reason would be almost as enjoyable as the first. We would have the added comedy of seeing the reaction of people with your beliefs living surrounded by multiple neighbors who own machine guns.

I bet you would shit yourself blind. :beer: :rofl:

[DissedByBush]

35. Aww, I feel so sorry for the poor cities

Not being able to arbitrarily trample on the rights of citizens must suck.

Those darn higher-level governments enforcing civil rights, what's this country coming to?

I bet they wish they could go back to hosing down blacks demanding their rights too.

[spin]

73. Florida's current gun laws are much better than they used to be ...

Now I have Black friends who own firearms and legally carry them concealed.

The Racist Origins of US Gun Control

***snip***

1825 Florida Slave and free black homes searched for guns for
confiscation. "An Act to Govern Patrols," 1825 Acts of
Fla. 52, 55 - Section 8 provided that white citizen
patrols "shall enter into all negro houses and
suspected places, and search for arms and other
offensive or improper weapons, and may lawfully seize
and take away all such arms, weapons, and
ammunition...." Section 9 provided that a slave might
carry a firearm under this statute either by means of
the weekly renewable license or if "in the presence of
some white person." (Id.)

1828 Florida Free blacks permitted to carry guns if court approval.
Act of Nov. 17, 1828 Sec. 9, 1828 Fla. Laws 174, 177;
Act of Jan. 12, 1828, Sec. 9, 1827 Fla. Laws 97, 100
- Florida went back and forth on the question of
licenses for free blacks; twice in 1828, Florida
enacted provisions providing for free blacks to carry
and use firearms upon obtaining a license from a
justice of the peace. (Id.)

1831 Florida Race-based total gun ban. Act of Jan. 1831, 1831 Fla.
Laws 30 - Florida repealed all provision for firearm
licenses for free blacks. (Id. p. 337-38)

***snip***


1941 Florida Judge admits gun law passed to disarm black laborers.
In concurring opinion narrowly construing a Florida
gun control law passed in 1893, Justice Buford stated
the 1893 law "was passed when there was a great influx
of negro laborers in this State....The same condition
existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act
was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro
laborers....The statute was never intended to be
applied to the white population and in practice has
never been so applied...". Watson v. Stone, 148 Fla.
516, 524, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (1941) (GMU CR LJ, p. 69
http://www.lizmichael.com/racistgc.htm

[metalbot]

2. I would hope so

As a gun owner, it would suck to have to know the specific firearms regulations for every city or county in the state. Make one set of laws at the state level, and make sure you teach those laws at the classes required for your concealed weapon permit. Problem solved.

This thread will be moved to the gun forum shortly...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. About time...

State preemption is clearly a good thing in this area.

[Hoyt]

4. Oh, heck Yea! Let's all arm up and hasten end to whatever decent society we have left.

That's progressive. :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Checkerboard laws need to go, regardless of type

especially those that impact civil rights.

That is indeed quite progressive...opposing it is repressive and reactionary

[aikoaiko]

17. Oh don't be such a sore loser.

The anti-gun rights side loses some legal battles and the guns rights side loses some legal battles.

[spin]

72. Yup. It sure is progressive and very liberal to allow honest and sane citizens ...

to legally carry concealed weapons if they wish to do so.

It is also very reasonable for Florida to have a set of rules on where you can legally carry your concealed weapon that applies state wide.

[ileus]

11. Finally a small win for the little man, congrats friends from Fla

[spin]

71. I have to admit that one of the best reasons I have for living in Florida ...

is the reasonable gun laws.

[spin]

59. My daughter used to live in Lee County ...

and I would often visit her. I have a Florida concealed weapons permit and I always carried when I was traveling around Lee County while visiting her home. I never knew that Lee County had its own gun unique gun laws as it was my understanding that the state set the rules on where I could legally carry my firearm.

That's the way it should have been and now that is the way it is.

Good!!!