Governor Scott Drafts Task Force to Review Stand Your Ground

Rocky1

Rocky1

New member

Guess you just can't make some folks happy no matter how hard you try. Be sure and click on the lick at the bottom and tell them whether you agree with their editorial.


Quote:Gov. Scott's picks for gun law task force miss the mark

We praised Gov. Rick Scott last month when he announced he'd appoint a task force to review Florida's "stand your ground" law, the police excuse for not immediately arresting George Zimmerman in the shooting of Trayvon Martin. But we said only a "thorough, unbiased and expeditious" review would do.

So much for that hope.

On Thursday, eight days after Special Prosecutor Angela Corey charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder, and more than seven weeks after Trayvon's death on Feb. 26, Scott named a 17-member task force. The panel — not scheduled to meet until May 1 — is headed by Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll and includes a sheriff, a former Supreme Court justice, a state attorney, and a criminal-defense attorney among a broad scope of voices and viewpoints.

But it also includes at least three members who have no place in a group purporting to take an unbiased look at "stand your ground" and other gun laws.

-State Sen. David Simmons, R-Altamonte Springs. He's smart and civic-minded, but he drafted "stand your ground," and he defended the law in a column recently published in the Sentinel. He's much better suited to testify before the panel than serve on it.

-State Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala. He sponsored the "stand your ground" law, for Pete's sake, and has blamed police and prosecutors for misapplying it.

-State Rep. Jason Brodeur, R-Sanford. He wasn't in the Legislature when "stand your ground" passed, but last year he sponsored one of the most preposterous gun bills ever. Known as "docs and Glocks," it threatened doctors with a $5 million fine and five years in prison if they dared ask patients, with kids' safety in mind, about guns in the home. Legislators watered down the bill before passing it, but it has been challenged in court by doctors' groups and rightly blocked by a federal judge.

Jason Brodeur on a panel reviewing gun laws? Was Ted Nugent unavailable?

A governor's spokesman downplayed the obvious conflicts for some task force members by noting that the panel is looking at more than "stand your ground," and more even than just gun laws. Come on. If not for the Trayvon shooting and the controversy over "stand your ground," this group wouldn't exist.

If Scott wanted a balance of outspoken members from the Legislature, he could have looked to state Sen. Chris Smith. The Fort Lauderdale Democrat is so passionate about the issue that he set up his own panel to study the issue.

We were caught off guard by the governor's announcement about his task force Thursday because, a day earlier, he told the Sentinel's editorial board, "My goal is to get it out in the next couple of weeks."

That wasn't Scott's only verbal misdirection. He was vague or evasive on other important issues. In hindsight, it's not surprising he didn't offer any details about the lineup he had in mind for his task force.



http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/os-ed-gun-task-force-042012-20120419,0,4482698.story
 
The 'docs and glocks' law doesn't sound 'preposterous' at all. Clearly, the reporter was hoping for a group of individuals that would dismantle stand your ground.
 
HB,I'm still trying to comprehend where you are coming from.

Originally Posted By: HunterBear71The 'docs and glocks' law doesn't sound 'preposterous' at all. Clearly, the reporter was hoping for a group of individuals that would dismantle stand your ground.

You obviously recognize the slant toward anti-gun agenda of the above article by its author, yet, in a previous thread regarding zero's gun control record (http://www.predatormastersforums.com/for...827#Post2201827), you state:

Originally Posted By: HunterBear71Why would an organization dominated by staunch conservatives spread alarmist rhetoric about a liberal administration? This administration hasn't attacked gun rights but we are supposed to believe that they are poised to begin gun grabbing during a second term.

Apparently you failed to see my question at the end of that thread regarding above quote so I shall repeat here:

Originally Posted By: hm1996(1)How can you say "this administration hasn't attacked gun rights"?
(2)Are you denying these facts as being a misrepresentation?

As stated above, I am just trying to figure out where you are coming from. Perhaps your answer to these questions will help clear up my confusion in this regard.

Regards,
hm





 
You keep asking the question and I keep examining the information looking for the specific anti-gun legislation that has been passed during this administration. Obama is a liberal politician who contends with voters who advocate gun control measures. I never suggested that he was a rabidly progun zealot who opposed all restrictions on gun ownership. I merely indicated that he wasn't going to take your guns away. Mr. Romney has a record of favoring gun control measures. Does this mean Romney has attacked gun rights? The whole NRA campaign against Obama is disingenuous. They know very well that this administration doesn't have the votes to start banning guns. The NRA wants to control the voter block that is gun owners. The more solidly they control that voting block, the more powerful they become. Some of the gun owners might stray from the reservation without relentless scare tactics. No gun grabbing is going to occur regardless of who is elected President. Your constitutional right to bear arms is safe even without the relentless posturing of the NRA.
 
Quote: Your constitutional right to bear arms is safe even without the relentless posturing of the NRA

If you truly believe that then you are drinking too much of that kool-aid
 
Originally Posted By: HunterBear71You keep asking the question and I keep examining the information looking for the specific anti-gun legislation that has been passed during this administration. Obama is a liberal politician who contends with voters who advocate gun control measures. I never suggested that he was a rabidly progun zealot who opposed all restrictions on gun ownership. I merely indicated that he wasn't going to take your guns away.

Fair enough. I misinterpreted your earlier posts to be defending his record as somehow not being anti-gun or that his anti-gun record had been a misrepresentation.

Originally Posted By: HunterBear71Mr. Romney has a record of favoring gun control measures. Does this mean Romney has attacked gun rights?

I can't disagree with this statement either. Romney has not been my favorite from the get-go, but between he and 0, Romney is clearly the better choice overall IMO.


Originally Posted By: HunterBear71 The whole NRA campaign against Obama is disingenuous. They know very well that this administration doesn't have the votes to start banning guns.


Here is where our opinions start to differ. NRA's campaign is not disingenuous in that the number one reason for the existance (need) for NRA is preservation of the 2nd Amendment, therefore the campaign is right on target.

While I agree w/your assessment that 0 currently lacks the votes to ban guns; that does not mean that he would not love to do so and for this reason we, and especially NRA, can't afford to let up in the effort to unseat him! Additionally, were it not for NRA's efforts, he/his successor(s) might very well have those votes.

Originally Posted By: HunterBear71The NRA wants to control the voter block that is gun owners. The more solidly they control that voting block, the more powerful they become. Some of the gun owners might stray from the reservation without relentless scare tactics.

I don't think it is a desire to control the voting block as much as it is to inform and maintain a good, solid voting block which is feared by the gun-grabbers in order to insure that no future anti-gun president will have sufficient votes to support anti-gun ambitions.

Originally Posted By: HunterBear71No gun grabbing is going to occur regardless of who is elected President.

Hopefully you are correct in wishfully thinking that "no gun grabbing" will occur regardless of who is elected president.

Originally Posted By: HunterBear71Your constitutional right to bear arms is safe even without the relentless posturing of the NRA.

Very close, but no cigar on this one, HB. A more accurate assessment would be:
YourOur constitutional right to bear arms is safe even without because of the relentless posturing of the NRA.

NRA is the largest and by far most powerful pro-gun group in the US. If it were not for the power of this organization at the polls, recognized and feared by the less rabid anti-gunners, entrenched anti-gun senators such as Schumer et.al. and members of congress such as Sheila Jackson Lee would not be afraid to force their agenda on us. Every gun owner in this country owes a debt of gratitude to the NRA and should show thier support by being a member.

All in all, it would appear that we are not as far apart as I had thought. Thanks for the clarification.

Regards,
hm

 
Originally Posted By: HunterBear71The 'docs and glocks' law doesn't sound 'preposterous' at all. Clearly, the reporter was hoping for a group of individuals that would dismantle stand your ground.


On that one I would wholeheartedly have to agree with you HB. Doctors have no business inquiring about guns in the home. They start asking, someone gets a bug twisted up their backside, Family Services is called, then the police are brought into it. Kinda sounds like the deal in Canada where the kindergarten kid drew a picture of her daddy with a gun and the poor guy was arrested, just waiting to happen, all over again!!

Rick Scott is a pretty straight forward no-nonsense kind of governor. There is no doubt in my mind that he appointed the people he did appoint, so that the committee could hash things out without a LOT of outside involvement. While the reporter would like to see a committee comprised of unbiased people, how do you find unbiased committee members on a topic of this nature? Either people own guns and are for gun rights, or they don't own guns and the issue is totally unimportant to them, or they are strictly opposed to gun ownership. Rick Scott has assembled a committee comprised of all three groups, as well as law enforcement and court representatives, to hash this out, which I feel is commendable. And, who better to argue gun owners rights than those who sponsored legislation supporting gun rights, and the very law being questioned. In that manner, no one is trying to interpret intent of the law, the people that wrote and sponsored the law are there to explain their intent, no reading something into it or taking testimony out of context. I think it was a good choice on Scott's part.
 
Back
Top