Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: HB45 pit bull turning into a poodle

  1. #1
    Regular Member Mas49.56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    309

    HB45 pit bull turning into a poodle

    http://www.pnj.com/article/20110324/...text|FRONTPAGE

    So much for giving preemption some major teeth. If they lower it anymore, the counties will just continue to ignore preemption violations. Dropping from 5 million to 100,000 is a pretty big difference IMHO.

  2. #2
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Mas49.56 View Post
    http://www.pnj.com/article/20110324/...text|FRONTPAGE

    So much for giving preemption some major teeth. If they lower it anymore, the counties will just continue to ignore preemption violations. Dropping from 5 million to 100,000 is a pretty big difference IMHO.
    Not when public funds can't be used to pay the fines.
    “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.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    It's still sad and pathetic to watch.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Rich7553's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    516
    Read the above article on Gulf Breeze and the range issue, then read this:

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...s/0823.16.html

    I'd like your comments with regards to not only the "noise ordinance" baloney that Santa Rosa County passed, but also the requirement in this statute for an NRA-standards compliant range and how bogus this issue really is.
    Rich
    MSgt, USAF Ret.
    Executive Director
    Florida Carry, Inc.
    www.floridacarry.org
    Glock 23 RTF2
    Mosin Nagant M91/30 (1942 Izhevsk)
    _____________________________________
    Want to do something about your gun rights?
    PITCH IN, QUIT B*TCHING!

  5. #5
    Regular Member Mas49.56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich7553 View Post
    Read the above article on Gulf Breeze and the range issue, then read this:

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...s/0823.16.html

    I'd like your comments with regards to not only the "noise ordinance" baloney that Santa Rosa County passed, but also the requirement in this statute for an NRA-standards compliant range and how bogus this issue really is.
    The Doctor should win a law suit with this section.
    "(6) A sport shooting range that is not in violation of existing law at the time of the enactment of an ordinance applicable to the sport shooting range shall be permitted to continue in operation even if the operation of the sport shooting range does not conform to the new ordinance or an amendment to an existing ordinance, provided the range was not in violation of any law when the range was constructed and provided that the range continues to conform to current National Rifle Association gun safety and shooting range standards. "
    IIRC the reason the NRA standards are included, was because they pushed hard for this range protection legislation to pass and to give them a guide to go by. I'm not sure about the AG's take on this noise issue. I think it is a issue that should be addressed the same state wide and not on the fly by a county gov't. We will soon see.

  6. #6
    Regular Member rvrctyrngr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    SE of DiSOrDEr, ,
    Posts
    363
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich7553 View Post
    Read the above article on Gulf Breeze and the range issue, then read this:

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...s/0823.16.html

    I'd like your comments with regards to not only the "noise ordinance" baloney that Santa Rosa County passed, but also the requirement in this statute for an NRA-standards compliant range and how bogus this issue really is.
    I imagine that needed some sort of arbitrary 'standard' to get the bill passed, similar to the training 'standards' required to qualify for a CWFL. State didn't want to write their own, so they used a generally accepted standard for all things gun-related...the NRA.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Rich7553's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by rvrctyrngr View Post
    I imagine that needed some sort of arbitrary 'standard' to get the bill passed, similar to the training 'standards' required to qualify for a CWFL. State didn't want to write their own, so they used a generally accepted standard for all things gun-related...the NRA.
    Exactly. However, the statute IMHO makes a few things about the Gulf Breeze situation abundantly clear:

    1. The range, despite being owned by an individual, was subject to and protected by s. 823.16(1)(b).
    2. Santa Rosa County adopted the noise ordinance as a result of complaints received after the range was already in operation.
    3. The noise ordinance violated s. 823.16(2), regardless of whether or not it also violated s. 790.33 (preemption).
    4. The range owner is not protected from charges of negligence or recklessness under s. 823.16(5).
    5. The range must be maintained to conform with standards of the NRA. Failure to do so can be grounds for the county to demand operations be ceased under s. 823.16(6).
    6. The statute, being made law in 1999, predates the range establishment, therefore the county may deem either the location or the construction of the range to be unsuitable per s. 823.16(7).

    So I guess what I'm saying is that except for the bogus noise ordinance, the deck is stacked heavily in the county's favor. There is no reason for them to try to push a "discharge" ordinance that would generate a possible challenge based on s. 790.33, nor is there any reason for them to be mucking with SB 402/HB 45.
    Last edited by Rich7553; 03-27-2011 at 02:38 PM.
    Rich
    MSgt, USAF Ret.
    Executive Director
    Florida Carry, Inc.
    www.floridacarry.org
    Glock 23 RTF2
    Mosin Nagant M91/30 (1942 Izhevsk)
    _____________________________________
    Want to do something about your gun rights?
    PITCH IN, QUIT B*TCHING!

  8. #8
    Regular Member rvrctyrngr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    SE of DiSOrDEr, ,
    Posts
    363
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich7553 View Post
    Exactly. However, the statute IMHO makes a few things about the Gulf Breeze situation abundantly clear:

    1. The range, despite being owned by an individual, was subject to and protected by s. 823.16(1)(b).
    2. Santa Rosa County adopted the noise ordinance as a result of complaints received after the range was already in operation.
    3. The noise ordinance violated s. 823.16(2), regardless of whether or not is also violated s. 790.33 (preemption).
    4. The range owner is not protected from charges of negligence or recklessness under s. 823.16(5).
    5. The range must be maintained to conform with standards of the NRA. Failure to do so can be grounds for the county to demand operations be ceased under s. 823.16(6).
    6. The statute, being made law in 1999, predates the range establishment, therefore the county may deem either the location or the construction of the range to be unsuitable per s. 823.16(7).

    So I guess what I'm saying is that except for the bogus noise ordinance, the deck is stacked heavily in the county's favor. There is no reason for them to try to push a "discharge" ordinance that would generate a possible challenge based on s. 790.33, nor is there any reason for them to be mucking with SB 402/HB 45.
    Sure there is, Rich...It provides for penalties they can't just blow off. Upsets their little fiefdoms...can't have that. Politicians should be able to do whatever they want, ya know.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Rich7553's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by rvrctyrngr View Post
    Sure there is, Rich...It provides for penalties they can't just blow off. Upsets their little fiefdoms...can't have that. Politicians should be able to do whatever they want, ya know.
    Perhaps I should have rephrased that to read, "...nor is there any legitimate reason to the commoners for them to be mucking with SB 402/HB 45.
    Rich
    MSgt, USAF Ret.
    Executive Director
    Florida Carry, Inc.
    www.floridacarry.org
    Glock 23 RTF2
    Mosin Nagant M91/30 (1942 Izhevsk)
    _____________________________________
    Want to do something about your gun rights?
    PITCH IN, QUIT B*TCHING!

  10. #10
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    So, where are we on this one?

    Looks like SB402 passed Senate rules on 4/15 and HB45 is stuck somewhere in the House.

  11. #11
    Regular Member rvrctyrngr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    SE of DiSOrDEr, ,
    Posts
    363
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingfish View Post
    So, where are we on this one?

    Looks like SB402 passed Senate rules on 4/15 and HB45 is stuck somewhere in the House.
    HB45 had its second reading on the House floor on 4/12.

  12. #12
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingfish View Post
    So, where are we on this one?

    Looks like SB402 passed Senate rules on 4/15 and HB45 is stuck somewhere in the House.
    402/517 are expected to pass with no difficulty.
    “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.

Posting Permissions

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