• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Hit this poll

Bmeierholtz

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
60
Location
Nevada
I have had to actually pull my gun on two occasions in my life. Both times, it was enough to deter the attacker. If either one of them had not backed down, I would have fired a warning shot IF there was sufficient time to do so. I never want to kill anyone, but would without hesitation if conditions warranted it. Someone once asked my wife if I could kill a man. Her reply was simple, "Without any doubt"! I am a firm believer that if a person pulls a gun, then that person is willing to use it. And you never pull your own unless willing to use it.
 

StogieC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
745
Location
Florida
Of course the new bill endorses a warning shot. The mere mention that a warning shot is a defensive display instead of employing lethal force is endorsing a warning shot.

I am not opposed to this bill. Stating that the bill does not endorse a warning shot is not true in my view. The discharge of a firearm in a self defense situation is not and should not be considered nothing more than merely displaying your weapon. Now, do you deserve prosecution if you "take" a warning shot? No. But do not lessen the act of discharging your weapon in a self defense situation. As was posted earlier, that round went somewhere, even if it is toward the ground near your feet.


I'm pretty clear about the bill's intent. I wrote it after-all...
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
I voted yes, but....

In many cases where a warning shot would deter a criminal attack, deletion of certain language within 790.053 would have the same effect without any discharge needed, you know what I'm getting at. I like the bill, Sean, but it's bold in light of the slaying of the thug Treyvon Martin. How is it that this bill can be brought forward at this time but OC cannot, especially in light of CWFL holders continuing to be abused and other red states getting rid of their prohibitions? In fact, wouldn't 790.053 have to be amended anyway to make it consistent with your bill?
 
Last edited:

StogieC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
745
Location
Florida
In many cases where a warning shot would deter a criminal attack, deletion of certain language within 790.053 would have the same effect without any discharge needed, you know what I'm getting at. I like the bill, Sean, but it's bold in light of the slaying of the thug Treyvon Martin. How is it that this bill can be brought forward at this time but OC cannot, especially in light of CWFL holders continuing to be abused and other red states getting rid of their prohibitions? In fact, wouldn't 790.053 have to be amended anyway to make it consistent with your bill?

790.053 may be found unconstitutional soon.
 

StogieC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
745
Location
Florida
If warning shots are considered by just about anyone to be a very bad idea what makes you think it is a good idea in Florida?

Just because something is usually a bad idea does not mean you should end up in jail for a mandatory minimum of 20 years. There are very limited scenarios where a warning shot is a good option. warning shots are actually just a small part of the bill.

Under Florida law, if you are lawfully carrying and someone attacks you by punching you in the face multiple times, or beats your wife/husband/child; you can't even draw your gun to stop the attack. Because until the attacker uses a weapon or actually beats someone with enough force kill, you can't draw until lethal force is justified.

We're destroying people's lives who had no criminal intent, people who only were trying to defend themselves. The current law is wrong.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
The current law is wrong.

+1. Afterall, cops are allowed to draw down on us for any and every reason in practice. Your bill is a common sense gun law. It doesn't say warning shots are desirable, it recognizes the complexity of self defense scenarios.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Just because something is usually a bad idea does not mean you should end up in jail for a mandatory minimum of 20 years. There are very limited scenarios where a warning shot is a good option. warning shots are actually just a small part of the bill.

Under Florida law, if you are lawfully carrying and someone attacks you by punching you in the face multiple times, or beats your wife/husband/child; you can't even draw your gun to stop the attack. Because until the attacker uses a weapon or actually beats someone with enough force kill, you can't draw until lethal force is justified.

We're destroying people's lives who had no criminal intent, people who only were trying to defend themselves. The current law is wrong.

790.15 - Discharging firearm in public or on residential property.
[SIZE=-1]This section does not apply to a person lawfully defending life or property[/SIZE]....
Maybe 790.151(5). 776 seems to permit the use of any level of force up to deadly force. Would this not include a warning shot?

Is this the statute that your are attempting to address?
775.087 2. Possession or use of weapon; aggravated battery; felony reclassification; minimum sentence.— Any person who is convicted of a felony or an attempt to commit a felony listed in sub-subparagraphs (a)1.a.-q., regardless of whether the use of a weapon is an element of the felony, and during the course of the commission of the felony such person discharged a “firearm” or “destructive device” as defined in s. 790.001 shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 20 years.
Is there no lawful self defense with a firearm in Florida?

Is it possible that this bill is to address case law that contravenes existing statute regarding the use of a firearm during a lawful self defense situation?
 

StogieC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
745
Location
Florida
Is it possible that this bill is to address case law that contravenes existing statute regarding the use of a firearm during a lawful self defense situation?

Exactly! We have people actually being prosecuted and convicted for just showing a gun to an attacker, without even drawing it, when the court finds that the attack was not vicious enough to cause death or permanent injury.

In one case, a person arrived home to find someone trying to break in to his house. He drew a gun and ended up arrested because right now we have courts saying that pointing a gun is automatically aggravated assault and is only justified when you can actually use deadly force.

This is Florida's actual "shoot first" law. It means that you can't defend yourself by showing a firearm until you are actually justified in killing someone.
 
Last edited:

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,064
Location
Arizona
Maybe you should look at our brandishing defense law here in AZ. It does not include warning shots.
I have to go to work but I'll cite it afterwards if necessary.
 

StogieC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
745
Location
Florida
Maybe you should look at our brandishing defense law here in AZ. It does not include warning shots.
I have to go to work but I'll cite it afterwards if necessary.

We already looked at the AZ law, and we used it in drafting this. But we have some high profile warning shot cases here and the public and many of our legislators are outraged that people are going to jail for 20 years for a defensive warning shot.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Exactly! We have people actually being prosecuted and convicted for just showing a gun to an attacker, without even drawing it, when the court finds that the attack was not vicious enough to cause death or permanent injury.

In one case, a person arrived home to find someone trying to break in to his house. He drew a gun and ended up arrested because right now we have courts saying that pointing a gun is automatically aggravated assault and is only justified when you can actually use deadly force.

This is Florida's actual "shoot first" law. It means that you can't defend yourself by showing a firearm until you are actually justified in killing someone.
Thanks.

If prosecutors are charging folks and juries are convicting folks of acts that are blatantly lawful then this bill will not fix that behavior. A warning shot protection bill/law will not fix anything if folks get arrested for merely showing and not discharging a firearm as you describe above.

How will the citizenry and legislature fix the courts/prosecutors ignoring black letter law?

Good luck.
 

StogieC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
745
Location
Florida
Thanks.

If prosecutors are charging folks and juries are convicting folks of acts that are blatantly lawful then this bill will not fix that behavior. A warning shot protection bill/law will not fix anything if folks get arrested for merely showing and not discharging a firearm as you describe above.

How will the citizenry and legislature fix the courts/prosecutors ignoring black letter law?

Good luck.

Because the current law, as written, does not protect defensive display unless deadly force is already justified. Until you are attacked with lethal force, you can't even threaten to defend yourself with a weapon in Florida. That's why we have to change the law.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Exactly! We have people actually being prosecuted and convicted for just showing a gun to an attacker, without even drawing it, when the court finds that the attack was not vicious enough to cause death or permanent injury.

In one case, a person arrived home to find someone trying to break in to his house. He drew a gun and ended up arrested because right now we have courts saying that pointing a gun is automatically aggravated assault and is only justified when you can actually use deadly force.

This is Florida's actual "shoot first" law. It means that you can't defend yourself by showing a firearm until you are actually justified in killing someone.

From what you describe about this incident, the problem is that the law does not consider the situation a self-defense situation justifying deadly force. That is what needs to change in the law.

If warning shots are a punishable crime, I have no problem with that. They are moronic and dangerous. Do they deserve twenty years? Absolutely not.

But, again, based on your anecdote, the problem is with the legal definition of situations warranting deadly force. Fix THAT. I can't support this bill.

But, Florida ain't my State. You folks do what you will.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
Well,,,

I have often said that,
You can NOT display your weapon, Unless deadly force is justified.
That when it is justified, only then can you display your weapon by drawing your weapon.
If you draw your weapon, you MUST Shoot your attacker!

We see in the stories above that any other use of the weapon will lead to heart ache for the defender.

It is important to only use the threat of lethal force when legal,
then, lethal force should be just that, Lethal!
 

StogieC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
745
Location
Florida
... But, again, based on your anecdote, the problem is with the legal definition of situations warranting deadly force. Fix THAT. ...

You should read the bill. That's exactly what it does.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
I have often said that,
You can NOT display your weapon, Unless deadly force is justified.
That when it is justified, only then can you display your weapon by drawing your weapon.
If you draw your weapon, you MUST Shoot your attacker!

We see in the stories above that any other use of the weapon will lead to heart ache for the defender.

It is important to only use the threat of lethal force when legal,
then, lethal force should be just that, Lethal!

Do you believe what you said should apply to the police? Why or why not?
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I now see. This bill is to enable deadly force to be used, lawfully, if a citizen encounters the situation you described in your anecdote.

In one case, a person arrived home to find someone trying to break in to his house. He drew a gun and ended up arrested because right now we have courts saying that pointing a gun is automatically aggravated assault and is only justified when you can actually use deadly force.
A defense of property statute should be considered in this discussion.

Missouri statute.
Use of physical force in defense of property.

563.041. 1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.

2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.

3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
 
Top