Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: HB/SB 733 - need help.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    121

    HB/SB 733 - need help.

    It'a amazing to read, and awesome in it's simplicity. HB 733 proposes that any state employee or elected official who aids a federal officer or agency in enforcing a federal gun law that is not mirrored in state law, is guilty of a crime and will immediately be removed from office.

    The text reads:

    HB 733 2014

    F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S

    790.339 Federal infringement of Second Amendment rights prohibited.
    —

    (1) Notwithstanding any provision of law, the State of Florida and its agencies, political subdivisions, constitutional officers, officials of its agencies and subdivisions, and their successors, or an employee of such an agency acting in his or her official capacity, or a corporation or person providing services to or on behalf of this state shall not, concerning any act, law, order, rule, or regulation, whether past, present, or future, of the Federal Government relating to a personal firearm or firearm accessory within this state that applies to a personal firearm or firearm accessory based on the design, features, or characteristics of the firearm or accessory:
    (a) Enforce any such federal act, law, order, rule, or regulation.

    (b) Provide material support to, participate with, or assist, in any form, any federal agency or employee engaged in the enforcement of any such federal act, law, order, rule, or regulation or any investigation pursuant to the enforcement of any such federal act, law, order, rule, or regulation.

    (c) Use any state assets, state funds, or funds allocated by the state to local entities on or after the effective date of this act, in whole or in part, to engage in any activity that aids a federal agency, federal agent, or corporation providing services to the Federal Government in the enforcement of any such federal act, law, order, rule, or regulation or any investigation pursuant to the enforcement of any such federal act, law, order, rule, or regulation as these federal laws shall not be recognized by this state, are specifically rejected by this state, and shall be of no effect in this state.

    An agent or employee of this state who knowingly violates subsection (1) shall be deemed to have resigned a commission from this state that he or she may possess, and his or her position or office shall be deemed vacant.

    Section 5.
    The Division of Law Revision and Information is directed to replace the phrase "the effective date of this act" wherever it occurs in this act with the date this act takes effect.

    Section 6.
    This act shall take effect upon becoming a law.

    The NRA has taken a stance against this bill. The SAF is undecided, but may be on it's side. MY position is clear, I am 100% for it.

    Which is why I need help. I've already started blogging in support of the law, and have spent a few hours contacting various reps to co-sponsor or delcare on-board on this, but we are going to need some serious phonework and calling to get this passed.

    The man who penned it, State Representative Eagle has M Diaz, Tizenhagen, Huston, Mayfield, O'Toole, and Smith as co-sponsors, but it needs to be a LOT bigger before it hits committee.

    Please, contact your reps and make them aware that there is support for this bill, and ask them to sign on to it. It's only three days old now, and if we get them fired up this early, it will carry more weight later as it gets a name. One reporter has already trashed it, and this is his reply to me when I contacted him declaring my support...

    "Yeah, they're saying the same crap on my blog, but it's all traffic, so I love it, especially when they argue amongst themselves.

    I'm also getting private kudos from some pols who will use the story for cover, if this abomination ever comes to a vote.

    Our web editor is in heaven.

    These 10th Amendment guys are nuts, and frankly, they've pissed me off.

    Lee Williams
    Reporter
    Herald-Tribune Media Group
    1741 Main Street, Sarasota, FL 34243
    T: 941-361-4975
    lee.williams@heraldtribune.com
    www.heraldtribune.com"


    So it has a hate fan already! An anti-gun fruitcake who needs to go back to journalism school.


    Let's help this one go through!

    Then, then we need to get serious about open carry.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Stupid waste of time. It's unconstitutional and unenforceable. Yet another feel-good, do-nothing bill coming our of Tallahassee.

    A better (legal) approach is to sue the federal government over any laws the 'State' feels violate the Constitution. But that will never happen. You want to know why? Because it takes dedication, effort, time and money.

  3. #3
    Regular Member conandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    Stupid waste of time. It's unconstitutional and unenforceable. Yet another feel-good, do-nothing bill coming our of Tallahassee.

    A better (legal) approach is to sue the federal government over any laws the 'State' feels violate the Constitution. But that will never happen. You want to know why? Because it takes dedication, effort, time and money.
    Agree 100%

  4. #4
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,004
    Nothing meaningfully good for gun rights out of the phallus in the panhandle since enforceable preemption in 2011. Nothing on the horizon.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NW Florida
    Posts
    79

    Cooperation is voluntary

    While Federal law enforcement does not need State permission to enforce Federal law, nothing requires we assist them. They frequently ask for our cooperation and we usually give it. The decision is made by the Chief of Police or Sheriff of jurisdiction. The proposed law would limit discretion to assisting them with Federal crimes that are also State crimes. Bank Robbery is a good example of a dual jurisdiction crime.

  6. #6
    Regular Member conandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    248
    Even if it passed they would not be allowed to enforce it. As the federal level does not recognize states rights. They would have it thrown out in federal court.

    As said above. Nobody has the fortitude to stand up to the feds.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NW Florida
    Posts
    79

    Read the law closely

    Nothing in the proposed law attempts to bar or impede Federal agents from enforcing Federal law within our boundary. (Nothing in the proposal suggests setting up roadblocks at the State line to turn them back.) Rather it outlines circumstances under which State LEO's are prohibited from assisting them. We have no Constitutional duty to assist the Feds, and already set limits on the amount and type of assistance to which we are willing to allocate our resources.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by 6-shooter View Post
    Nothing in the proposed law attempts to bar or impede Federal agents from enforcing Federal law within our boundary. (Nothing in the proposal suggests setting up roadblocks at the State line to turn them back.) Rather it outlines circumstances under which State LEO's are prohibited from assisting them. We have no Constitutional duty to assist the Feds, and already set limits on the amount and type of assistance to which we are willing to allocate our resources.
    Bad bill. Very poorly written and is Unconstitutionally overly broad.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NW Florida
    Posts
    79

    Wow, just wow

    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    Bad bill. Very poorly written and is Unconstitutionally overly broad.
    You make it a point that you are not a lawyer, declare no other legal experience, yet opine that a narrowly written law is unconstitutionally over broad.

    We all form opinions - they fall into 2 categories:

    1. Raw opinions
    2. Considered opinions

    So everyone who follows the forum will form an opinion of one type or the other.

    HAND

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by 6-shooter View Post
    You make it a point that you are not a lawyer, declare no other legal experience, yet opine that a narrowly written law is unconstitutionally over broad.

    We all form opinions - they fall into 2 categories:

    1. Raw opinions
    2. Considered opinions

    So everyone who follows the forum will form an opinion of one type or the other.

    HAND
    Well, I've been doing this (statutory interpretation) for over 30 years so I have some experience here.

    What does this phrase mean?:
    personal firearm
    This is a completely meaningless statement:

    . . . as these federal laws shall not be recognized by this state, are specifically rejected by this state, and shall be of no effect in this state.
    As is this:
    An agent or employee of this state who knowingly violates subsection (1) shall be deemed to have resigned a commission from this state that he or she may possess, and his or her position or office shall be deemed vacant.
    This bill could make FDLE's participation in the FBI NICS, unlawful.

    The simple act of filing a report to or receiving a report from the ATF or FBI could be unlawful.

    Answering a telephone call from ATF/FBI could be unlawful.

    Etc.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NW Florida
    Posts
    79

    The principle is sound

    I am not a lawyer either but also have some experience in research and writing briefs.

    As neither lawyers, nor Judges, nor Justices of the SCOTUS agree with each other then certainly we can disagree.

    If you have not already reviewed it, see Printz v. United States 521 U.S. 898 for an example of the anti-commandeering doctrine.

    If there are some valid nits to pick in the current bill, perhaps you could draft and submit a better version.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by 6-shooter View Post
    I am not a lawyer either but also have some experience in research and writing briefs.

    As neither lawyers, nor Judges, nor Justices of the SCOTUS agree with each other then certainly we can disagree.

    If you have not already reviewed it, see Printz v. United States 521 U.S. 898 for an example of the anti-commandeering doctrine.

    If there are some valid nits to pick in the current bill, perhaps you could draft and submit a better version.
    I not disagreeing with the principle of the the anti-commandeering doctrine, it is clear that the feds cannot force states to enforce or assist in the enforcement of Federal laws. But they are not doing that now.

    This bill is horribly written and the language will cause it to be found unconstitutional, if it passes (which I very much doubt) and the Governor does not veto it (which I'm pretty sure he will.)
    For example:
    " shall be deemed to have resigned a commission from this state that he or she may possess, and his or her position or office shall be deemed vacant."
    What the heck does that mean? Where is the due process? What entity of authority is legally authorized to make such a decision. How would it be implemented?

    If there are some valid nits to pick in the current bill, perhaps you could draft and submit a better version.
    Well, since I think it is completely unnecessary and unwise, I'll respectfully decline your offer. However I would point you to some of the language in 790.33 (the preemption statute) for some guidance.
    Last edited by notalawyer; 02-06-2014 at 01:29 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NW Florida
    Posts
    79

    Pick a bone

    Gun Owners of America put out an action alert Tuesday Feb. 4 in support of HB 733. They, and the Tenth Amendment Center which is behind the bill have more expertise than I. NRA has not taken a position yet. Readers can assign whatever level of credibility they choose.

    When it comes to getting things accomplished, organizations and movements have 4 types of bones:

    1. Wishbones - who spend their time wishing someone would do something

    2. Jawbones - who talk it to death but do nothing else

    3.Knuckle bones - who knock everything anyone else tries to do

    4. Backbones - who get under the load and do the work for all the above

    HAND
    Last edited by 6-shooter; 02-06-2014 at 02:56 PM. Reason: spellin'

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by 6-shooter View Post
    Gun Owners of America put out an action alert Tuesday Feb. 4 in support of HB 733. They, and the Tenth Amendment Center which is behind the bill have more expertise than I. NRA has not taken a position yet. Readers can assign whatever level of credibility they choose.

    When it comes to getting things accomplished, organizations and movements have 4 types of bones:

    1. Wishbones - who spend their time wishing someone would do something

    2. Jawbones - who talk it to death but do nothing else

    3.Knuckle bones - who knock everything anyone else tries to do

    4. Backbones - who get under the load and do the work for all the above

    HAND
    Some organizations support certain legislation/activities when it is purely symbolic. Even when it is clearly unconstitutional. What's your point?


    ETA:
    DATE: January 30, 2014
    TO: USF & NRA Member and Friends
    FROM: Marion P. Hammer
    USF Executive Director
    NRA Past President

    There appears to be quite a bit of confusion concerning House Bill 733 which is being called the "Second Amendment Preservation Act."

    In answer to many inquiries, HB-733 is NOT an NRA bill and, at this time, we have taken no position on this bill. We have serious concerns about the effect of the bill -- whether the consequences are intended or unintended.

    Of primary concern is the effect the bill would have on positive pro-gun legislation that NRA has worked hard to pass in the past -- and hopes to pass in the future. The bill does not differentiate between positive pro-gun legislation and restrictive gun control laws that negatively effect Second Amendment rights

    Click here to read the bill: HB-733 by Rep. Dane Eagle

    We are continuing to analyze and evaluate the bill but already see some serious problems -- some of which are discussed in the article titled, The 'Second Amendment Preservation Act' raises questions, concerns, by Lee Williams in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.
    Last edited by notalawyer; 02-06-2014 at 05:28 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •