Another fortnight, another guns-in-the-news cycle.
* Considerable attention–here and elsewhere–is being focused on the high-profile case of Curtis Reeve, who fatally shot a fellow Wesley Chapel movie patron three years ago. The defendant will either head toward trial on a second-degree murder charge or be acquitted under Florida’s controversial “Stand Your Ground” law. To refresh, SYG stipulates that a person has no duty to retreat when faced with a violent confrontation and can, as a result, use deadly force if he or she fears great bodily harm or death.
However this tragedy turns out legally, the bottom-line remains a mindset. Imagine going to a matinee movie with your wife and bringing your gun? SYG law is center stage, but another law has already been applied: the law of unintended consequences.
* Among the proposals that could come before the legislative session that begins March 7 is one that would end Florida’s “gun-free” zones. Filed by Republican Sen. Dennis Baxley of Ocala and Republican Rep. Don Hahnfeldt of the Villages (yes, it has its own Representative), the proposal (SB 908 and HB 803) would mean concealed guns could be carried in all those places now prohibited. Fifteen in all, they range from seaports and airport passenger terminals to university campuses and bars. No, not juice bars, but the alcohol-serving ones.
It makes no sense to most folks, including the vast majority of law enforcement officials who know best. But with a legislature in the pocket of the NRA–and 1.7 million Floridians having concealed weapons permits–no one is precluding the possibility that “Flori-duh” will again live down to its name.
* There’s also a variation on the anti-gun-free zone proposal (SB 610) that would ostensibly incentivize businesses to allow those with permits to pack on the premises. It would make businesses that ban guns liable if an attack occurs. It’s the unsurprising work of Senate Judiciary Chairman Greg Steube, R-O.K. Corral.
* It’s been called a victory for free speech, and it was. But that recent 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that rejected the (“Docs vs. Glocks“) Florida law that restricted doctors from asking patients about firearm ownership, was a lot more. It was a win for the common good. Literally. Allowing doctors to ask about guns in the home and assessing their safety risk is well within their preventive-medicine purview. In fact, not to ask–about guns as well as swimming pool gates or insecticides–should be considered malpractice and at odds with common sense.
The good guys won one, but the verdict is still in the cross hairs of those who may push it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.