**A MUST WATCH VIDEO FIRST***
Eric Holder 1995:
Trouble viewing video? Click HERE
“Fast and Furious” scandal trying to focus on guns and their crimes.
Then Progressives focusing on the Trayvon Martin tragedy. Note: Why focus on this ONE CASE ?
Progressives now fighting against the “Stand Your Ground” law of Florida.
Schumer wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder on Sunday that the laws themselves should be investigated.
“These laws seem to be encouraging vigilantism by allowing individuals to use deadly force as a first resort” Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement.
Schumer asked Holder’s department to probe whether the laws “are creating more violence than they are preventing,” and whether potential murders are “going unprosecuted” because of them.
He estimated that 23 states have some form of this law.
Schumer cited statistics in Florida showing that before the law was approved, the state averaged 12 justifiable homicides per year. The average subsequent to the law’s enactment was 33.
Are Progressives trying to disarm America through “brainwashing” techniques?
U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment
Second Amendment – Bearing Arms
Amendment Text |
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Prior to the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an “individual rights” approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals’ rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a “states’ rights” approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.3
However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.
Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law:
It Ain’t What the Bradys Say It Is
Most readers of this website will not be surprised that some anti-gun advocates have serious difficulties with facts, truth, logic and the derivatives thereof. Still, Brady bunch* attacks on Florida’s new self-defense law, which took effect on October 1, are so viciously misleading as to eliminate any credibility the group has or ever again will have, even among the more responsible of their own kind. Given the brevity and simplicity of the law, so clearly distorted by the Bradys, the cynical calculation of the group has to be that no one will actually read it.
The Florida law is not a gun law. Period.
It contains zero references to guns or shooting, unless you feel propagandistically compelled to count one of those ubiquitous legislative “Whereases” that references the Florida Constitution’s “right of the people to bear arms…”
The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:
- It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.
- In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
- In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.
- If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.
Florida’s law, like countless others from legislative sausage grinders, could have been better drafted. It unquestionably will be challenged in court, over and over again, by those who abhor even the concept of applied individual self-defense or by legal gadflies with nothing better to do with their time.
It is a tough law — on those with criminal intent. As is often the case, its ultimate goal is as much to deter as to be used. Whether it ever results in much change remains to be seen. But by removing ambiguities regarding legal responses to imminent threats to life and property and removing an obligation to retreat, the law attempts to rebalance justice on behalf of innocent, law-abiding Floridians, as well as the state’s numerous law-abiding visitors, specifically included. Whether those visitors are comforted or frightened by the law should be based on accurately understanding it, not blatant attempts by a faltering advocacy group to harm Florida tourism.
The key section of the law states:
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”