Sharp as a Marble - Like a cheap lawn chair

<< The budding gunnie? | Home | The free ice cream nozzle is NOT clogged >>

Like a cheap lawn chair

Florida Carry

A review of county ordinances found two instances that restricted gun use, Castleberry said during a Board of Commissioners public hearing in Palatka.
One ordinance bars firearm use in county parks.

The other ordinance authorizes restrictions and suspensions when a local emergency had been declared.

But both now are history.

We need to expand HB45 to start removing ‘protections’ from politicians, lawmakers, and police. I realize some level of protection is required so they can do their job efficiently, but putting the fear of a lawsuit on every SWAT member’s head that cause them to check, double check, and triple check the address before they do the raid is a good thing. Same with the judges who sign the warrants. Things like that.

posted @ 8/10/2011 3:59:54 PM

Comments

David Liddy says:

on 8/10/2011 4:51:52 PM

You mean that you didn't strap on your orange tipped Draco and challenge the man and his repressive laws?

Common sense prevails...

Rignerd says:

on 8/10/2011 7:36:14 PM

I'd like to see a lot of accountability for mistakes on raids. Also I think they should have to get a CLEO sign off for every one. Maybe that would slow down the expansion of swat teams into departments like USDA and Education, who have no business making raids.

Bubblehead Les says:

on 8/10/2011 7:49:44 PM

I'm looking forward to that day in the near future where one of those pissant burgs doesn't remove their laws and tries to do things the old way. Keep us informed.

Ferret says:

on 8/10/2011 11:13:53 PM

I've seen first-hand the kinds of decisions cavalierly handed down by city council members either pushing their own agendas or being just plain ignorant, which subsequently cost the city millions of dollars. It didn't matter to the council members because they were spending other people's money. (sound familiar?)
Maybe we should hold lawmakers more directly accountable for their actions. I would very much like to bear witness to a commission meeting during which the following was said:
"Mayor and Commissioners, last year you voted to install a traffic camera system under contract with the vendor which stipulates that if revenues go below a specified amount, the city would be held liable for breach of contract. The city has received a judgement against it in the amount of 10 million dollars. By law, the original signers of the contract are to be held personally liable and such liability cannot be paid using public funds. The paperwork in front of you lists the dollar amount for each council member. Please have your credit card or checkbook ready."
Of course, this idea of enforcing state laws would not have been necessary if local governing bodies had been in compliance with the law in the first place. It pleases me to see that continued abuse of unenforced law is starting to garner harsher and more direct punishments. However, what happens when the federal government jumps on that bandwagon and starts going after state legislators who passed some of the firearms freedom acts (for example)?

Speakertweaker says:

on 8/11/2011 10:20:44 AM

Ferret, I'm all over that. I'd drive from TX to FL to watch that one go down.

Robb, keep 'em comin! Every time an unjust law is forcefully removed from the books, an angel gets his wings!

tweaker

Braden Lynch says:

on 8/11/2011 6:43:09 PM

It is high time that politicians and the nameless, faceless bureaucrats are held accountable for the laws that are passed and the regulations they create for them.

It is a surefire way to stop stupid laws and rules from being implemented. Also, they must apply to all citizens so as to include politicians, judges, police, and so on so that they are just.

I also like the idea of an automatic expiration date (say 5 years) for them to be sunset if no action is taken to renew them. That way a bunch will fall off the books if they are not worthy of being re-authorized.

Sendarius says:

on 8/11/2011 9:01:35 PM

@Braden Lynch:

I like your idea of a sunset clause, but I can see it devolving into a single session of "let's re-authorise everything that is sunsetting".

I would prefer to see every law required to have:
1. A clearly stated and deterministic goal.
2. A statement of how success will be measured.
3. Automatic nullification in no more than 5 years if the stated goal is not achieved, as determined by the stated measure.
4. Personal and individual penalties against law-makers (who voted in favour) if the law is subsequently found unconstitutional.

John Hardin says:

on 8/11/2011 9:52:58 PM

However, what happens when the federal government jumps on that bandwagon and starts going after state legislators who passed some of the firearms freedom acts (for example)?

Not much, if they're found Constitutional per the tenth amendment. (crosses fingers, toes...)

M Gallo says:

on 8/14/2011 10:20:22 AM

One of my biggest problems with WI's new "castle doctrine" bill is that it has creepy langauge about not applying if your home is being invaded by LEOs. They write some of these "protections" and "exemptions" so a crack dealer* can't claim self defense if he kills some cops in a raid, but they never end up getting applied to anyone but the peacable citizens in wrong house raids. Bottom line: yes, politicians and LEOs need to lose sleep at night worrying when they've done something wrong, because of the same looming possibilities/consequences faced by "ordinary citizens" in the same situation.

*Why isn't a crack dealer allowed to defend himself against armed aggression in his home, anyways?

Comments have been closed on this topic.

Comments

Archives

Categories

Comments

Archives

Categories

Second Amendment

Sharpest Marbles

Blogroll

Funny, as in Ha-ha

Good Reads

Extended Blogroll

Industry Links