Sunday, December 13, 2015

Sheriff SHOAR Quoted in Editorial, w/ Violent Commenter

Even though Sheriff SHOAR appears right on this one occasion, this is a thinly-sourced editorial reliant upon a serial violator of civil rights, internationally infamous due to the coverup of the September 2, 2010 fatal shooting of Michelle O'Connell in a Sheriff deputy's home using his service weapon.

Editorial: Sheriffs, police chiefs split on open carry bill
Posted: December 12, 2015 - 3:36pm | Updated: December 13, 2015 - 12:01am

Florida’s controversial gun bill that’s working its way toward the 2016 legislative session just got stiffer legs. The Florida Police Chief’s Association’s board of directors voted Thursday to back the bill ... with a few caveats.
The vote sets up a rare split with the two largest state law enforcement groups. Earlier this winter, the Florida Sheriffs Association came out against the bill. In neither case does the position of the association mandate towing the party line by Florida’s police chiefs or its sheriffs — depending upon individual philosophy and rigidity of spine.
St. Augustine Police Chief Loran Lueders was out of the state Friday at an FBI graduation exercise and unable to comment.
Sheriff David Shoar said that the proposed legislation sends him mixed signals. There’s a wide gray area, practically speaking. But the gun battle’s fought on a philosophical field, and it’s strictly black and white: “If you support it you’re a gun nut — if you have reservations, you’re anti-Second Amendment ... It’s one way or the other.”
“Practically, does it make it harder for us to do our jobs? No. Does it make it easier? Maybe not.”
What Shoar does object to is the bill itself, which got significantly stickier when sponsors added amendments late last week, insisted upon by the police association.
“There’s nobody who can take a public policy issue and screw it up like our legislature,” Shoar said. One amendment adds language that states, according to the News Service of Florida, that a person who displays a firearm “intentionally ... in an angry or threatening manor, not necessarily in self-defense,” is not covered by the proposed open carry law. Understand?
Another states that no one who infringes on the right to openly carry guns will be immune from legal consequences. You know there are a lot of lawyers in the legislature, right?
A third states that a holster is required for open carry. As opposed to what? A hand?
A fourth is a model of the lawmakers’ craft. The amendment would, according to the news service, “allow fines to be imposed on people — including police officers — who infringe on others’ rights to openly carry guns, unless probable cause exists to believe that crimes have been committed.”
A law enforcement officer or citizen is more likely to die trying to figure out their legal options in a real-life scenario than by a bullet from a nonconcealed weapon (is he intentionally angry, or just modestly miffed?)
The base argument for open carry is that the opposite isn’t noncarry, it’s concealed carry. And that’s what bad guys do, because they’re bad guys. Good guys will carry openly. But under the new law, wouldn’t carrying openly be like hiding in plain sight for killers and crooks? It’s kind of like wearing an orange shirt in Ben Hill Griffin Stadium.
The other rationale we hear about open carry, especially since Paris, is as a deterrent to crime; in this case terrorism. Carrying a concealed makes some sense under that scenario. But it seems safe to speculate that, for a terrorist about to unveil his weapon (or simply draw it under the new law) and open fire in a public place, job No. 1 would be taking out the dudes with the sidearms showing. (Note to self: If the bill passes, don’t stand too close to an open-carry guy.)
The session is a long way off, judging by the life expectancy of recent Gaetz-introduced legislation. Expect the companion bills, by the father and son team of Sen. and Rep. Gaetz, to take on more baggage as they try to please its way into law. We suspect it will backfire accordingly. Something a little more straightforward will takes its place. And the House and Senate will debate it rationally before drafting bills 180 degrees apart.
Nigel 12/12/15 - 07:41 pm 02Yehaw open carry Tex
Too funny…. They should require locking holsters. Otherwise the open carry guns are pretty much free for anybody in he crowd to use. Or they could be required to keep their hand on it at all times.

Firstcoaster 12/12/15 - 09:10 pm 20Who wrote this? Who edited this?
There is no byline and it is full of typos, etc.

JoeGalt 12/12/15 - 09:10 pm 31Wherever
The Isis flag is allowed to fly, or liberals are allowed to live, I'm going to carry. High capacity , multiple firearms, lethal loads. Anything less you're a subject, not a citizen. Those with an aversion to pork, the constitution,wear hoodies, or who think they're entitled to what's mine get head of the line privileges. Double tap center mass, and one in the mouth.

JoeJoe 12/13/15 - 10:56 am 01JoeGalt, you are the man
I just hope there is enough of us when the time comes.

No comments: