Sen. Bradley filed the Burden of Proof bill this morning - Page 11
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011
Results 101 to 110 of 110

Thread: Sen. Bradley filed the Burden of Proof bill this morning

  1. #101
    Distinguished Member substratum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Red Hills Region
    Posts
    2,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Rvrctyrngr View Post
    That's not the final version, Carson. Substratum posted the final version just above in post 94.
    Quote Originally Posted by flphotog View Post
    Thanks Scott, guess the website isn't up to date. Even clear and convincing is better than what we have now, a small gain is better than nothing.
    The reason this got confusing is that when bills are traveling through committees, they often adopt the amendments into the bill by making the amended bill a "Committee Substitute" or "CS," but when an amendment is adopted on the Floor of the full chamber, unless they go through a procedural motion of laying one on the table, the amendment travels with the bill - not as the bill. That's what happened in the House - the amendment arrived in Senate Messages as a companion to the bill, but not as part of the bill.

    I sat in the Senate gallery yesterday for about 2 hours, and there was a LOT of confusion with bills in Messages, and Senators attempting to amend bills with amendments that had not been heard in committee, or stripping out parts of House bills that had not been heard in Senate committees. I'm sure they'll be a serious, "How can we do this better next year" exercise going on with Negron's team in the next couple of weeks.

  2. #102
    Super Moderator
    BeerHunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    PBC - Finally!
    Posts
    16,238
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB View Post
    Yes, it removes vehicle from "has no duty to retreat" clause from the new 776.013(1). Honestly I don't know why 776.013(1) is needed at all since it grants nothing that 776.012 doesn't already grant. 776.012 grants the "sanctity" (of not having a duty to retreat) to all places in the state of Florida where you have a right to be - without limitation. The new 776.013(1), whose provisions were previously in 776.013(3), is redundant and unnecessary in my opinion.

    According to Justice Scalia (in his book "Reading Law") it doesn't matter what Simmons said on the floor. The various opinions of those involved in the lawmaking process are not ratified by the legislature when it passes the bill - only the words in the bill are. All of the debate and arguments about the bill are merely opinions of individuals involved - opinions not necessarily shared by the majority that pass the bill, especially since any bill reflects the product of compromises from people of varying opinions about what it does and doesn't do.

    Admittedly I am a rank amateur at all of this, but I am aware of no provision of statutory construction that would prevent me from benefiting from the presumptions found in the (newly numbered) 776.013(2), and the lack of duty to retreat found in 776.012(2). They are independent concepts and nothing in either statute precludes the other. If 776.013 imposed a specific duty to retreat from an occupied vehicle then the lex specialis rule or even the lex posterior derogat legi priori rule would say that the specific (and more recent) prohibition in 776.013 would override the general (and older) permission of 776.012, but 776.013 contains no such prohibition. It is merely silent on the matter of duty to retreat with regard to vehicles (and everywhere else other than residences and dwellings for that matter).

    Even if I were forced to choose between 776.013(2) and 776.012(2) then I'd choose 776.013(2) if my reasonable fear were in doubt, and I'd choose 776.012(2) if appeared I could have retreated safely. And if my reasonable fear is in doubt AND I could have retreated safely, well, I probably shouldn't have shot the person. But again, I don't see any reason why I can't have my 776.013(2) cake and eat it with my 773.012(2) fork.

    Don't get me wrong, if we can get Scott to veto this it would be good since no matter what the actual effect of the law is, it will cause chaos, confusion, and prosecutions that should not happen. What the hell was this bill expected to accomplish even in its original form? In its original form it seems like it moved the "no duty to retreat" from subsection 3 to subsection 1 and changed the phrasing, but little else. Especially since there is not even a need for a "no duty to retreat" in 776.013 (since 776.012 already provides it everywhere you have a right to be instead of only in a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when you have a right to be there) I can't see what the purpose was for even opening this particular can of worms. Personally I think that the no duty to retreat language should just be removed from 776.013 altogether. It's not needed. Problem solved.
    Could it be that the title of 776.013 is "Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm" and they wanted to pull a fast one by removing the automatic presumption for an occupied vehicle?
    -BH

    Member: Florida Carry, COTEP 766, SAF, NRA-Life Member
    FFL 03, NRA CRSO & CI: P-R-PPITH, MDQHI
    Former USAF NCO 1980-1984, DoD 1987-2017
    Please consider joining NRA at www.nra.org and Florida Carry at www.floridacarry.org

    "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind."
    -- Circa 1938, author unknown

    "It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's living."
    -- Gus McCrae

    "The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."
    -- Herbert Spencer

  3. #103
    Super Moderator
    BeerHunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    PBC - Finally!
    Posts
    16,238
    Quote Originally Posted by substratum View Post
    I'm sure they'll be a serious, How can we do this better next year" exercise going on with Negron's team in the next couple of weeks.
    As far as I'm concerned, Negron should no longer have a "team." His leadership of his "team" achieved what they probably intended all along (except for Greg Steube); snuggle up to 2A voters for support, let the freshman Senator propose several 2A friendly Bills, and then "the team" continued playing "the game" of back room dealing while counting on the political cover of "well we really, reall tried this time. We just didn't have the votes, but maybe next year" BS. Negron set up the committees, even leaving one with a Democrat Chair to boot, and they all failed on every single Bill, with the possible exception of the "burden of proof" Bill.

    The House leadership failed just as miserably. It almost might as well have been a "D" majority in both houses of the Florida legislature,... almost! In at least one respect, Florida's recognition of our 2A rights went backwards when the Legislature monkeyed with 776.013(1)'s wording by removing "occupied vehicle." At the very least, it added an order of magnitude to the confusion on what that statute means or how it might be applied in the courts, whether the wording change has any real effect or not.

    These "Republican" politicians must really think we're really stupid. When they look at the whole of Florida Republican voters, perhaps they are right. I really think I'm done with the Florida Republican Party!
    -BH

    Member: Florida Carry, COTEP 766, SAF, NRA-Life Member
    FFL 03, NRA CRSO & CI: P-R-PPITH, MDQHI
    Former USAF NCO 1980-1984, DoD 1987-2017
    Please consider joining NRA at www.nra.org and Florida Carry at www.floridacarry.org

    "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind."
    -- Circa 1938, author unknown

    "It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's living."
    -- Gus McCrae

    "The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."
    -- Herbert Spencer

  4. Remove Advertisements
    FloridaConcealedCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #104
    Super Moderator Rvrctyrngr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Gator Nation
    Posts
    19,580
    Quote Originally Posted by BeerHunter View Post
    Could it be that the title of 776.013 is "Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm" and they wanted to pull a fast one by removing the automatic presumption for an occupied vehicle?
    You still get the presumptions and protections...after you try to retreat!

    "Welllll....I HAD to shoot Homey McCrackhead in the face to facilitate my retreat!"
    Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.
    -Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes
    Brown v. United States, 1921

    ...against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

    Join Florida Carry

  6. #105
    Senior Member flphotog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Clearwater, FL
    Posts
    1,395
    Quote Originally Posted by BeerHunter View Post
    As far as I'm concerned, Negron should no longer have a "team." His leadership of his "team" achieved what they probably intended all along (except for Greg Steube); snuggle up to 2A voters for support, let the freshman Senator propose several 2A friendly Bills, and then "the team" continued playing "the game" of back room dealing while counting on the political cover of "well we really, reall tried this time. We just didn't have the votes, but maybe next year" BS. Negron set up the committees, even leaving one with a Democrat Chair to boot, and they all failed on every single Bill, with the possible exception of the "burden of proof" Bill.

    The House leadership failed just as miserably. It almost might as well have been a "D" majority in both houses of the Florida legislature,... almost! In at least one respect, Florida's recognition of our 2A rights went backwards when the Legislature monkeyed with 776.013(1)'s wording by removing "occupied vehicle." At the very least, it added an order of magnitude to the confusion on what that statute means or how it might be applied in the courts, whether the wording change has any real effect or not.

    These "Republican" politicians must really think we're really stupid. When they look at the whole of Florida Republican voters, perhaps they are right. I really think I'm done with the Florida Republican Party!
    Have to agree BeerHunter, except voting for a Dem just isn't in my blood.
    Sun Tzu, The Art of War: He will win who has military Capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.

    Member: COTEP CBOB0772, NRA, Florida Carry, GOA

  7. #106
    Distinguished Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Skyview (Pinellas)
    Posts
    5,173
    Quote Originally Posted by flphotog View Post
    Thanks Scott, guess the website isn't up to date. Even clear and convincing is better than what we have now, a small gain is better than nothing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rvrctyrngr View Post
    Absolutely!!!!
    I think shifting the burden and raising the standard of proof is a big win. Sure it might have been nice to have the standard be "beyond a reasonable doubt", but just putting the burden on the state instead of the defendant is huge. The fact that the burden is on them and they have to prove by clear and convincing evidence is pretty damn good.
    NRA Certified Instructor and Chief Range Safety Officer
    Florida Carry Life Member, NRA Endowment Member
    Front Sight Distinguished Graduate, Defensive Handgun, Glock 35 and Glock 23
    FFL Type 7, Class 2 SOT (Licensed NFA Firearms Manufacturer)
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is A Good Guy With A Gun. -- Wayne LaPierre

  8. #107
    Distinguished Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Skyview (Pinellas)
    Posts
    5,173
    Quote Originally Posted by flphotog View Post
    Thanks Scott, guess the website isn't up to date. Even clear and convincing is better than what we have now, a small gain is better than nothing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rvrctyrngr View Post
    Absolutely!!!!
    Quote Originally Posted by BeerHunter View Post
    Could it be that the title of 776.013 is "Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm" and they wanted to pull a fast one by removing the automatic presumption for an occupied vehicle?
    They did nothing to change the presumptions for an occupied vehicle. The only change is that they removed the superfluous language of "no duty to retreat" for an occupied vehicle - but only from 776.013. As far as I'm concerned I never have no duty to retreat, anywhere in this state, so long as I have a right to be there. So says 776.012(2).
    NRA Certified Instructor and Chief Range Safety Officer
    Florida Carry Life Member, NRA Endowment Member
    Front Sight Distinguished Graduate, Defensive Handgun, Glock 35 and Glock 23
    FFL Type 7, Class 2 SOT (Licensed NFA Firearms Manufacturer)
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is A Good Guy With A Gun. -- Wayne LaPierre

  9. #108
    Distinguished Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Skyview (Pinellas)
    Posts
    5,173
    Quote Originally Posted by BeerHunter View Post
    As far as I'm concerned, Negron should no longer have a "team." His leadership of his "team" achieved what they probably intended all along (except for Greg Steube); snuggle up to 2A voters for support, let the freshman Senator propose several 2A friendly Bills, and then "the team" continued playing "the game" of back room dealing while counting on the political cover of "well we really, reall tried this time. We just didn't have the votes, but maybe next year" BS. Negron set up the committees, even leaving one with a Democrat Chair to boot, and they all failed on every single Bill, with the possible exception of the "burden of proof" Bill.

    The House leadership failed just as miserably. It almost might as well have been a "D" majority in both houses of the Florida legislature,... almost! In at least one respect, Florida's recognition of our 2A rights went backwards when the Legislature monkeyed with 776.013(1)'s wording by removing "occupied vehicle." At the very least, it added an order of magnitude to the confusion on what that statute means or how it might be applied in the courts, whether the wording change has any real effect or not.

    These "Republican" politicians must really think we're really stupid. When they look at the whole of Florida Republican voters, perhaps they are right. I really think I'm done with the Florida Republican Party!
    Agree with ALL of the above. I pre-registered to vote as a Republican at age 17 and was a registered Republican all my life. Several years ago I realized that they are really no better than the Democrats. They too want a big tax and spend government, that's involved in many aspects of your personal life. They just want to interfere with different aspects of your personal life and want to spend your money on different things. I changed to "L" years ago and never looked back. Sure I still vote mostly "R" because they are the lesser of two evils, but you're still voting for evil and I hate it.
    NRA Certified Instructor and Chief Range Safety Officer
    Florida Carry Life Member, NRA Endowment Member
    Front Sight Distinguished Graduate, Defensive Handgun, Glock 35 and Glock 23
    FFL Type 7, Class 2 SOT (Licensed NFA Firearms Manufacturer)
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is A Good Guy With A Gun. -- Wayne LaPierre

  10. #109
    Super Moderator Rvrctyrngr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Gator Nation
    Posts
    19,580
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB View Post
    They did nothing to change the presumptions for an occupied vehicle. The only change is that they removed the superfluous language of "no duty to retreat" for an occupied vehicle - but only from 776.013. As far as I'm concerned I never have no duty to retreat, anywhere in this state, so long as I have a right to be there. So says 776.012(2).
    I wish you luck if you're ever in court with this. Judges also tend to follow the dictum of 'last enacted'.

    It's a mess, any way you look at it.
    Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.
    -Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes
    Brown v. United States, 1921

    ...against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

    Join Florida Carry

  11. #110
    Distinguished Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Skyview (Pinellas)
    Posts
    5,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Rvrctyrngr View Post
    I wish you luck if you're ever in court with this. Judges also tend to follow the dictum of 'last enacted'.

    It's a mess, any way you look at it.
    It is a mess and I hope Scott can be convinced to veto it. That said, "specific law overrides general" and "more recent law supersedes older law" ("lex specialis" and "lex posterior derogat legi priori" respectively) would apply if the new 776.013 specifically provided a duty to retreat. It does not.
    NRA Certified Instructor and Chief Range Safety Officer
    Florida Carry Life Member, NRA Endowment Member
    Front Sight Distinguished Graduate, Defensive Handgun, Glock 35 and Glock 23
    FFL Type 7, Class 2 SOT (Licensed NFA Firearms Manufacturer)
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is A Good Guy With A Gun. -- Wayne LaPierre

Sposors

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •