Never Has a Law So Simple Caused So Much Hysterics

You’d think the Florida Legislature had passed a state law required a detailed proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem from every single local legislator in the country by some unreasonable deadline, judging from the amount of hysteria I’ve seen in the media over the preemption law with teeth. How hard is it to repeal a law at the next town meeting?

After watching all the hewing and hawing from local officials in Florida, I’d really like to get this passed in Pennsylvania. It’s been great watching as local officials, who for years have gotten away with passing and sometimes enforcing laws, thumbing their noses at the state legislature and getting away with it, now suddenly find themselves held accountable.

18 thoughts on “Never Has a Law So Simple Caused So Much Hysterics”

  1. This should have been our #1 priority, many times more important than Castle Doctrine.

  2. Castle doctrine was a worthwhile priority. Pennsylvania is not a pioneering state when it comes to legislation. Our legislators tend to copy from others. Florida is the first state that did this, much like with concealed carry.

  3. Someone should point out to that editorial author that Florida Statute 784.05 still says that “Whoever, through culpable negligence, exposes another person to personal injury commits a misdemeanor of the second degree”.

    In other words, contra the editorial’s ridiculous hypothetical, some yahoo shooting like an idiot and “scaring you” because now he can shoot off “within 300 yards of a building” can still be arrested, if your fear was justified by actually exposing you to injury.

    Funny how you don’t need a magic gun-specific law to make “endangering others by being a moron” illegal, isn’t it?

  4. Sigh… Florida has been over-run by snowbirds… Especially down south. In 1986 there was NO opposition to the first CCW laws…

  5. Sigivald, the editorial excepts the fear factor. But not public nuisance, or some such.

    On the other hand:
    “Without this prohibition — a commonsense statute — it is conceivable that the owner of a large-lot property in the county’s unincorporated area could create conditions in which a firearm could be discharged in the backyard without endangering public safety or making neighbors feel threatened.”

    “Commonsense” statute? If there is no danger, and the neighbors do not even feel threatened, what (other than noise?) is the problem that jusrifies the law?

  6. I could see a close-by, backyard shooting still being illegal due to noise ordinances or something. …and there wouldn’t be that problem if silencers were easier to get.

  7. “Feeling threatened” isn’t usually the basis for law.

    “Exposes another person to personal injury” usually means that someone has to be injured before the law comes into play.

  8. Pingback: Daily Pundit
  9. It’s kind of sad seeing the contortions anti-gun politicans go through in the name of “public safety.” Here’s what’s happening in my neck of the woods:

    “Beginning Oct. 1, when the revised state law goes into effect, anyone with a concealed weapons permit will be allowed to enter city hall. However, the gun owner will have to wait for a police officer to arrive and escort him or her through the building. Visitors must go through a metal detector in West Palm Beach before entering city hall.”

    I’m pretty sure the requirement that a CCW be escorted by a police officer violates the statute (or at least common sense). It’ll be fun to try out come October.

  10. Violate the law for almost as long as I’ve been alive, now will get in legal trouble because of it, and they act like its new…

  11. Jujube: If that’s so, then I rescind my argument.

    I read “exposes to…” as something like “creates an exposure to risk of”; otherwise why “exposes to ” rather than “causes”?

    But legal English isn’t … English, of course.

Comments are closed.