Florida Concealed Carry banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,044 Posts
You're like a hemorrhoid..pain in the ass that won't go away
 
  • Like
Reactions: joecarry and hornet

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,235 Posts
Florida Bulldog reported in May 2019 that Hammer received $270,000 from the NRA “for consulting services and legislative lobbying in Florida” in the wake of the 2018 Parkland school massacre. She was paid another $134,000 in 2017 “for legislative lobbying services in Florida.” Neither of those payments, described in internal NRA documents, was disclosed on the required quarterly lobbyist compensation reports.

Further, NRA tax returns show that Hammer received $147,000 in 2014, $172,000 in 2015 and $206,000 in 2016. The 2014-2018 totals: $929,000. None of it was reported to state lobbyist regulators, and, while Hammer is a registered lobbyist in the capital she has not filed any compensation reports since at least 2007.

My question is why would she claim the income on her tax returns and not claim the income as per the the guidelines of the lobbyist compensation reports.? The answer is she denies she is a lobbyist...well, that is not for me to decide.....However...While the Democrats are out to hang her, let's be fair and disclose a little more info about the whole picture.....https://www.floridabulldog.org/2019/06/for-nra-lobbyist-marion-hammer-florida-senate-ignores-own-rules/
When it comes to holding NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer accountable, Florida Senate ignores own rules


Personally I feel she is way overpaid by the NRA, but that is a whole new can of worms.... for a different discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,628 Posts
How does one politely say old news, welcome to 2020.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,044 Posts
Yep, the establishment likes to protect its own. Rules only apply to the plebes apparently.
Bullshit. Peddle your Dudley Dumbass crap elsewhere
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,348 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
379 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
I don’t know anyone who is more hard-core or unyielding on Second Amendment rights than her. I’d also like to have her as back up in a bar fight.
Maybe back in the day. But what significant pro gun legislation has she passed recently? Why didn't she stop the red flag laws and then punish the Republicans who supported it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,821 Posts
Perhaps my view is a little jaundiced. I’ve been involved in law-enforcement and have practiced law and consequently I’ve dealt with a lot of loons. For as long as I can remember we’ve had the ability for a woman to apply for a temporary restraining order against a wife beater. He gets his guns taken away and always has. Most “red flag laws“ do require judicial intervention to protect the rights of the gun owner.

Marion Hammer doesn’t pass any legislation, she’s a lobbyist. There are crazy people out there who simply should not have a gun. Under a TRO or a red flag order, the aggrieved party does have the ability to petition the court for the return of his or her gun. There are people out there who feel that the communists or the Democrats or the Boogaloo movement is spying on them through the air conditioning vents or sending radio signals that are picked up by their molars. I think I may have dated a couple of those over the years.

There is an awful lot to be said about the right to keep and bear arms. Concurrently, there’s a lot to be said about disarming crazies who could indiscriminately kill your wife in a grocery store because the Goat Cheese told him to. That’s one of the fallacies of the system, with HIPPA laws and such, theres little or no coordination between the mental health system and background checks.

The 4473 form unfortunately doesn’t have questions like “have you ever had an extended argument with a vegetable?” “Do you routinely eat your own toenails?” Perhaps these would be helpful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
379 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Under a TRO or a red flag order, the aggrieved party does have the ability to petition the court for the return of his or her gun.
This is contrary to the Constitution and the rule of law and due process.

The accused party must be able to have their day in court BEFORE they are punished. Have a ruling that an individual is insane and/or a danger to themselves or other? Fine. But they had better damn well be able to have representation at that hearing when that ruling occurs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,821 Posts
Well, if you understood the system a little better we could have a more fruitful discussion. Generally speaking, there are some things that are so dangerous that you can’t wait around for a hearing, deal with continuances, substitution of counsel and a myriad of other things inherent in the legal system.

As an example, years ago I represented a police officer in an injunction hearing where a vindictive female police officer was trying to take his job away. I asked the judge to release him on his own recognizance and he summoned me to the bench. He told me that a few days earlier another judge had entered an ROR order, skipped the mental status exam and let the guy go home. That guy drove directly home and shot his wife to death. My guy had to spend the night and go through an evaluation. Ultimately he was released and never had his right to carry a gun impacted when we had the next hearing a week later.

When judges evaluate applications to take a weapon, they balance the individuals right to have a gun versus the public or private personal safety. Then they are required to set a hearing quickly to allow a more thorough investigation and give the enjoined person an opportunity to be heard.

Even “cooling off periods” have a purpose. I had a situation once where the guy went to a pawnshop and tried to buy a shotgun and ammunition. They told him he would have to come back in three days according to the county ordinance. He decided to leave. He went to the next place that did not require him to wait. He drove directly home and blew the brains out of his girlfriend and mother of a two-year-old and killed himself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,821 Posts
Did it say something to you? May I respectfully ask if you have some particular qualification regarding the constitution or do you get your information from looking at websites like other “lawyers” here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,286 Posts
Mister Shark 1007,
jackhinson seems to make up his own news out of the way he can edit and cut the stuff he reads.
He seems to be a Dudley Brown TROLL and is the N.R.A. basher/hater of all time.
Go back up and read #6 on the subject jackhinson posted about.
Ronnie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,821 Posts
I know, Ronnie. It’s maddening when you spend the time to try to explain something thoroughly with examples for everyone’s benefit and then you get some snarky response.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,570 Posts
Don't feed the Trolls!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
379 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
May I respectfully ask if you have some particular qualification regarding the constitution or do you get your information from looking at websites like other “lawyers” here.
One doesn't need "qualifications" to read and understand the Constitution. Thinking that only qualified people can read and understand it is the height of elitism.

The document means what it meant at the time it was written. . And by the way, lawyers don't even read the document in law school.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top