Path 2

News Thursday, Feb 15 2018

#TBT: Seven Years of Florida Editorials Slam Rick Scott's Gun Violence Record

Feb 15, 2018

The tragic school shooting yesterday in Parkland was the third mass shooting in Florida in two years. But for his entire tenure as governor, Rick Scott has worked to weaken commonsense regulations to curb gun violence and prevented even the most sensible of gun violence prevention laws.

“Floridians have been crying out for Rick Scott to take action to protect their communities. Instead, he’s met them with silence and empty words that enable future tragedies,” said American Bridge spokesperson Joshua Karp. “The time for action is long since past — it’s time for consequences for politicians who put partisan politics ahead of keeping kids safe.”

Read years of editorials against Rick Scott’s shameful record on gun violence below:

Pensacola News Journal Editorial: “Why Conservative Lawmakers Who Profess To Believe That Government Should Stay Out Of Health Care And Not Impose Politically Motivated Restrictions On Individual Freedom Is Also Almost Beyond Comprehension.” According to an editorial by the Pensacola News Journal, “In Gov. Rick Scott’s quest to make Florida ‘business friendly,’ he should consider the importance of having enough doctors to provide good health care to the state’s residents…Why the state should interfere in this is almost beyond comprehension. And why conservative lawmakers who profess to believe that government should stay out of health care and not impose politically motivated restrictions on individual freedom is also almost beyond comprehension.” [Editorial – Pensacola News Journal, 3/12/11]

Florida Times-Union Editorial: “A Major Issue Here Is With Pediatricians, Who Might Ask Parents Of Their Patients About Guns In Order To Advise Them To Keep Them Secured And Out-Of-Reach From Children. There Are Tragic Examples From The First Coast And Elsewhere On What Can Happen When Unsupervised Youths Misuse Guns.” According to an editorial by the Florida Times-Union, “Forget that the patient’s well-being is supposed to be the doctor’s business. Forget that whether someone owns a gun might be a good question to ask of someone who has mental illness or takes a lot of medications. Forget that it might be an appropriate question for someone who has anger management issues. A major issue here is with pediatricians, who might ask parents of their patients about guns in order to advise them to keep them secured and out-of-reach from children. There are tragic examples from the First Coast and elsewhere on what can happen when unsupervised youths misuse guns. Doctors need the ability to ask questions that might be helpful for a patient’s well-being. Lawmakers who support this legislation had better hope their colleagues don’t pass a law seeking fines and prison terms for the most outrageous bills.” [Editorial – Florida Times-Union, 2/4/11]

Tallahassee Democrat Editorial: “There Is Nothing Threatening About Doctors Trying To Educate Parents About Keeping Guns That Might Unintentionally But Dangerously Get Into The Hands Of Children.” According to an editorial by the Tallahassee Democrat, “On Wednesday the Senate appeared to be following the lead of the House, which on Tuesday caved in to the National Rifle Association. HB 155/SB432 restricts physicians from asking patients questions regarding gun ownership, and bans them from inquiring about the presence of guns in a patient’s home and even from entering such information in private medical records. Supporters say the intention of the legislation is to stop physicians from discussing gun issues with patients and prevent the doctors from espousing any zealous personal views on potential dangers of gun ownership. But this is not about gun control. Indeed, a majority of doctors told the Florida Medical Association that such conversations rarely come up…But pediatricians and OB-GYNs of course do have a more frequent and quite legitimate need to make such inquiries when they are speaking with parents about the well-being of infants and children. There is nothing threatening about doctors trying to educate parents about keeping guns that might unintentionally but dangerously get into the hands of children.” [Editorial – Tallahassee Democrat, 4/28/11]

Orlando Sentinel Editorial: “In The Fevered Imaginations Of National Rifle Association Lobbyists And Their Toadies In Tallahassee, However, Such Questions Are Signs Of An Insidious Agenda Among Some Physicians, Who Might Secretly Be Collaborating With The Government To Identify And Disarm Gun Owners.” According to an editorial by the Orlando Sentinel, “During this year’s legislative session, state lawmakers passed a bill, which Gov. Rick Scott signed into law, that restricts how doctors and other health-care providers talk to their patients about guns. Physicians, especially pediatricians, have traditionally asked about firearms and other potential dangers to children in their patients’ homes….So firearms are now a don’t ask, don’t tell subject for health-care providers, unless they believe ‘in good faith that this information is relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety, or the safety of others.’ Got that? Doctors, who could lose their licenses for violating the law, might figure it’s not worth the risk of even asking.” [Editorial – Orlando Sentinel, 6/14/11]

Tampa Bay Times Editorial: “Florida’s New Law Punishing Doctors For Questioning Their Patients About Firearms Is A Prime Example Of The State’s Powerful Gun Lobby Overstepping Its Bounds.” According to an editorial by the Tampa Bay Times, “Florida’s new law punishing doctors for questioning their patients about firearms is a prime example of the state’s powerful gun lobby overstepping its bounds. The law, nicknamed ‘Docs vs. Glocks,’ infringes upon the free speech rights of doctors and patients, and it interferes with the doctor-patient relationship. That didn’t stop lawmakers beholden to the National Rifle Association from passing the statute in the last legislative session, or Gov. Rick Scott from signing it into law. But now a federal judge in Miami has blocked the law, and it should be clear to everyone that what is at issue is not gun rights but the suspension of common sense.” [Editorial – Tampa Bay Times, 9/16/11]

Gainesville Sun Editorial: “Gagging Doctors, Even To Stay In The Good Graces Of The National Rifle Association, Turns Out To Be A Blatant Violation Of Physicians’ Free Speech Rights.” According to an editorial by the Gainesville Sun, “Saturday was Constitution Day. Appropriately, a federal judge in Miami has just delivered a timely message about the Constitution to Gov. Rick Scott and the Florida Legislature…Gagging doctors, even to stay in the good graces of the National Rifle Association, turns out to be a blatant violation of physicians’ free speech rights. ‘Information regarding firearm ownership is not sacrosanct,’ U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke wrote in her ruling. ‘The law curtails practitioners’ ability to inquire about whether patients own firearms and burdens their ability to deliver a firearm safety message to patients … (and) thus implicates practitioners’ First Amendment rights of free speech.’” [Editorial – Gainesville Sun, 9/18/11]

Orlando Sentinel Editorial: “Florida Doesn’t Need A Governor Defending An Indefensible Law. It Needs Scott To Surrender To Common Sense And Drop His Guns And The State’s Costly, Nonsensical Appeal.” According to an editorial by the Orlando Sentinel, “Last year, Scott signed into law the so-called ‘Docs vs. Glocks’ bill…Last month, U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke wisely tossed the law…Florida doesn’t need a governor defending an indefensible law. It needs Scott to surrender to common sense and drop his guns and the state’s costly, nonsensical appeal.” [Editorial – Orlando Sentinel, 8/1/12]

Tallahassee Democrat Editorial: “Had That Latter Law Been In Effect In 2006, It Could Have Exempted The Surveillance Video Of Martin Lee Anderson’s Death At A Boot Camp, A Video That Helped Change Florida’s Criminal Justice System.” According to an editorial by the Tallahassee Democrat, “But Mr. Scott also approved bills allowing exemptions for the names of those licensed to carry a concealed weapon and for videos or photographs of the ‘killing of a person.’ Had that latter law been in effect in 2006, it could have exempted the surveillance video of Martin Lee Anderson’s death at a boot camp, a video that helped change Florida’s criminal justice system.” [Editorial – Tallahassee Democrat, 1/8/12]

Miami Herald Editorial: “This Bill […] Put Armed, Potentially Dangerous, Folks Out In Public Who Have Not Qualified For A License To Carry A Firearm.” According to an editorial by the Miami Herald, “This bill, and its companion, House Bill 209, put armed, potentially dangerous, folks out in public who have not qualified for a license to carry a firearm. Is it any wonder that the Florida Sheriffs Association opposes them?…Currently, Florida’s gun owners can take weapons with them when evacuating in a declared emergency. However, they must be securely encased and not in a gun owner’s physical possession. This clearly belies Ms. Hammer’s contention that thugs and looters will snag these weapons in residents’ vacant homes — those guns aren’t there.” [Editorial – Miami Herald, 4/3/14]

Bradenton Herald Editorial: “Think Hurricanes, Wildfires Or Riots And Other Panic Situations Where Floridians Are Already On Edge. That Will Give The Green Light To Putting Easy Access To Guns Into The Hands Of Trigger-Happy Fools.” According to an editorial by the Bradenton Herald, “Florida continues to earnestly pursue the label of ‘Gunshine State’ for all of its weapons-friendly laws. The latest evidence is another Nation Rifle Association-promoted bill to allow people without concealed weapons permits to pack heat during evacuation emergencies…State law already allows the public to carry weapons during evacuation orders. But those guns must be secured and not holstered — and thus ready to be drawn and fired in some hot-headed outburst over road rage or other perceived slight during an emergency.” [Editorial – Bradenton Herald, 4/5/14]

Miami Herald Editorial: “Really, Do We Need This Law? Common Sense Says No. But Common Sense Never Stopped An NRA Initiative In Tallahassee.” According to an editorial by the Miami Herald, “This obeisance has left Florida’s streets indeed mean and dangerous. The latest proposal of the Florida affiliate of the NRA is a bill that would prevent schools from punishing kids who bring toy guns to school. Nicknamed the ‘Pop Tart bill’ for a Maryland student who was punished for biting his Pop Tart into the shape of a gun, the bill is getting early support in legislative committees. Really, do we need this law? Common sense says No. But common sense never stopped an NRA initiative in Tallahassee. Until it does prevail, Floridians can expect more fatal shootings where racial assumptions and accessible guns escalate a conflict that otherwise might have ended with cuts and bruised egos instead of death.” [Editorial Miami Herald, 2/18/14]

Palm Beach Post Editorial: “When Families Are Denied Fair Housing, That’s Discrimination. When Qualified Applicants Are Denied A Shot At A Job, That’s Discrimination. What This Bill Does Is Make A Mockery Of A Very Serious Societal Issue For The Sake Of Winning Points With A Powerful Lobbying Group In An Election Year.” According to an editorial by the Palm Beach Post, “Regardless, one canceled insurance policy does not a case for discrimination make. When citizens are denied an opportunity to sit and eat, that’s discrimination. When families are denied fair housing, that’s discrimination. When qualified applicants are denied a shot at a job, that’s discrimination. What this bill does is make a mockery of a very serious societal issue for the sake of winning points with a powerful lobbying group in an election year. And the governor shouldn’t sign on to this.” [Editorial – Palm Beach Post, 4/30/14]

Tampa Bay Times Editorial: “The Ham-Handed Effort Has Resulted In A Task Force That Is Less Politically Balanced Than It Should Be To Instill Public Confidence In Its Work, And It Raises Questions About Scott’s Intentions.” According to an editorial by the Tampa Bay Times, “Putting together an impartial panel to objectively review the controversial law in the wake of Martin’s death was a political challenge, but it could have been done. The ham-handed effort has resulted in a task force that is less politically balanced than it should be to instill public confidence in its work, and it raises questions about Scott’s intentions. The first meeting is May 1. The panel could rise above expectations, but it’s not a promising start.” [Editorial – Tampa Bay Times, 4/24/12]

New York Times Editorial: “It Is Outrageous That Some Of Florida’s Most Gun-Friendly Legislators Are On A Task Force Appointed By Gov. Rick Scott To Examine The Stand Your Ground Law At Issue In The Shooting Death Of Trayvon Martin.” According to the New York Times, “It is outrageous that some of Florida’s most gun-friendly legislators are on a task force appointed by Gov. Rick Scott to examine the Stand Your Ground law at issue in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. While Governor Scott has promised a full and fair review, his appointments raise serious doubts about that commitment. The task force’s chairwoman, Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll, co-sponsored the law when she was in the Legislature. And three of the four legislators on the 17-member task force co-sponsored or voted for the bill’s passage in 2005. The fourth arrived in office later but lost no time in sponsoring a pro-gun law signed by Governor Scott that bans doctors from asking patients about gun ownership.” [New York Times, 4/26/12]

Orlando Sentinel Editorial: “It Also Includes At Least Three Members Who Have No Place In A Group Purporting To Take An Unbiased Look At ‘Stand Your Ground’ And Other Gun Laws.” According to an editorial by the Orlando Sentinel, “But it also includes at least three members who have no place in a group purporting to take an unbiased look at ‘stand your ground’ and other gun laws. *State Sen. David Simmons, R-Altamonte Springs. He’s smart and civic-minded, but he drafted ‘stand your ground,’ and he defended the law in a column recently published in the Sentinel. He’s much better suited to testify before the panel than serve on it. *State Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala. He sponsored the ‘stand your ground’ law, for Pete’s sake, and has blamed police and prosecutors for misapplying it. *State Rep. Jason Brodeur, R-Sanford. He wasn’t in the Legislature when ‘stand your ground’ passed, but last year he sponsored one of the most preposterous gun bills ever. Known as ‘docs and Glocks,’ it threatened doctors with a $5 million fine and five years in prison if they dared ask patients, with kids’ safety in mind, about guns in the home. Legislators watered down the bill before passing it, but it has been challenged in court by doctors’ groups and rightly blocked by a federal judge. Jason Brodeur on a panel reviewing gun laws? Was Ted Nugent unavailable?” [Editorial – Orlando Sentinel, 4/20/12]

Sun-Sentinel Editorial: “We Don’t Take Issue With The Governor Appointing Members Of The Legislative Branch, Indeed Doing So Might Help Get Reforms, Glitches Or Tweaks Passed Next Year. We Just Believe He Chose Three Members Who Will Not Be Impartial.” According to an editorial by the Sun-Sentinel, “A governor’s spokesman downplayed the obvious conflicts for some task force members by noting that the panel is looking at more than Stand Your Ground, and more even than just gun laws. But, come on. If not for the Trayvon shooting and the controversy over Stand Your Ground, this group wouldn’t be meeting. We don’t take issue with the governor appointing members of the legislative branch, indeed doing so might help get reforms, glitches or tweaks passed next year. We just believe he chose three members who will not be impartial.” [Editorial – Sun-Sentinel, 4/21/12]

Tampa Tribune Editorial: “Lawmakers Should Be Looking For Ways To Eliminate The Ambiguities Surrounding The Stand Your Ground Law, Not Adding To The Ways The Law Might Be Used By Those Undeserving Of Its Protections.” According to an editorial by the Tampa Tribune, “State lawmakers should be looking for ways to eliminate the ambiguities surrounding the stand your ground law, not adding to the ways the law might be used by those undeserving of its protections….The bill should not be signed into law by Gov. Rick Scott. Called the warning shot bill, it was filed by Rep. Neil Combee, a Republican from Polk City, and is meant for people who might flash a gun, fire a warning shot or take some other non-lethal action in self-defense. Under current law, a person who fires a warning a shot or takes other non-lethal measures can face felony charges and a mandatory prison sentence. Stand your ground applies to lethal force.” [Editorial – Tampa Tribune, 4/4/14]

St. Augustine Record Editorial: “The Warning Shot Law Is Simply Too Easy To Shoot Full Of Holes.” According to an editorial by the St. Augustine Record, “We’re all for the use of deadly force in life-threatening situations and support the principles of stand your ground. But the warning shot law is simply too easy to shoot full of holes. Ask any law enforcement officer how dangerous a ‘warning’ is for the one holding the gun. Ask any of them if they’d ever fire one on duty. Our Sheriff’s Office instructors tell class members taking the concealed weapons course that the most dangerous situation you can be put into is pulling your gun and not using it – lethally – when facing an armed attacker. And in any one-on-one confrontation with an attacker in any kind of urban situation, the person you’re warning might not die, but innocent bystanders might. Gov. Scott, and Florida, have more important matters at hand than defending a new law expanding the license to shoot – and possibly kill.” [Editorial – St. Augustine Record, 4/9/14]

Tampa Bay Times Editorial: “There Is No Rational Defense For The Latest Revision To The ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law. It Appears To Contain A Flaw That Could Erode Protections For People In Their Homes, Makes Gun Laws Even More Confusing And Closes Public Records That Help Hold Police And The Courts Accountable.” According to an editorial by the Tampa Bay Times, “There is a good reason why Gov. Rick Scott on Friday signed into law another favor for the National Rifle Association without holding a news conference or issuing a press release explaining his reasoning. There is no rational defense for the latest revision to the ‘stand your ground’ law…The original goal was to extend protection from prosecution to those who fire warning shots. Yet the new law also includes a confusing rewrite of the common law castle doctrine, which has long held that a person has no duty to retreat if there is a threat in his or her home.” [Editorial – Tampa Bay Times, 6/21/14]

Sun-Sentinel Editorial: “At The Behest Of The National Rifle Association, Florida Lawmakers Continue To Broaden The Latitude Given Shooters Under The State’s Controversial ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law. Instead Of Getting Rid Of That Law, Or Clarifying It, Or Watering It Down, State Lawmakers Continue To Give It More Ammunition.” According to an editorial by the Sun-Sentinel, “Another week, another Wild West gun bill signed into law in Florida. This time, it’s the firing of warning shots. As if we need more guns being shot into the air. But that’s one of the pieces of legislation Gov. Rick Scott signed into law last week. The law, which takes effect immediately, allows people to fire warning shots in certain circumstances. The governor also signed into law the so-called Pop Tart bill, which makes it legal for children to play with simulated guns in school without facing punishment. Another bad law, but the warning-shot bill is worse. At the behest of the National Rifle Association, Florida lawmakers continue to broaden the latitude given shooters under the state’s controversial ‘Stand Your Ground’ law. Instead of getting rid of that law, or clarifying it, or watering it down, state lawmakers continue to give it more ammunition.” [Editorial – Sun-Sentinel, 6/24/14]

Tampa Bay Times Editorial: “HB 89, Would Keep Secret All Records Involving ‘Stand Your Ground’ Cases Where Criminal Charges Were Dropped Because The Accused Claimed Self-Defense. Keeping Those Records Secret Would Make It Impossible For Floridians To Evaluate Whether The Law Is Being Abused Or Whether Police, Prosecutors Or Judges Are Misusing Their Authority.” According to an editorial by the Tampa Bay Times, “While this good bill languishes, lawmakers have moved forward with several others to reduce access to public records. The worst, HB 89, would keep secret all records involving ‘stand your ground’ cases where criminal charges were dropped because the accused claimed self-defense. Keeping those records secret would make it impossible for Floridians to evaluate whether the law is being abused or whether police, prosecutors or judges are misusing their authority. The First Amendment Foundation, which promotes open government, has asked Scott to veto the bill. (Full disclosure: Tim Nickens, editor of editorials for the Times, serves on the foundation’s board). The governor should follow that recommendation.” [Editorial – Tampa Bay Times, 4/28/14]

Tampa Bay Times Editorial: “This Bill Also Erodes Florida’s Tradition Of Open Government By Giving Defendants In ‘Stand Your Ground’ Who Prevail The Right To Request All Records Of The Incident Be Sealed From Public View. There Is No Place In A Democracy Where Government Investigations Of Even Justified Homicides Are Not Part Of The Open Record.” According to an editorial by the Tampa Bay Times, “This bill also erodes Florida’s tradition of open government by giving defendants in ‘stand your ground’ who prevail the right to request all records of the incident be sealed from public view. There is no place in a democracy where government investigations of even justified homicides are not part of the open record. The accused have a right to a fair trial, but not to anonymity; and the public has the right to ascertain if officials are actually upholding the law.” [Editorial – Tampa Bay Times, 5/22/14]

Tampa Bay Times Editorial: “This Is Just Another Attempt By The Same Legislators Who Want Guns Openly Carried Everywhere To Make It Easier To Shoot Someone And Successfully Claim Self-Defense.” According to an editorial by the Tampa Bay Times, “Sen. Rob Bradley’s bill, SB 128, squeaked through the Senate Judiciary Committee this week by a 5-4 vote with Republicans supporting it and Democrats opposing it. If history repeats itself, the Fleming Island Republican’s legislation will sail along in the Senate as it did last year. It will again be up to the House to stand with prosecutors, law enforcement officers and common sense and reject it. This is just another attempt by the same legislators who want guns openly carried everywhere to make it easier to shoot someone and successfully claim self-defense. Now, defendants invoking ‘stand your ground’ have to show by a preponderance of evidence in a pretrial hearing that they qualify for that immunity. Bradley’s bill would require prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant cannot invoke ‘stand your ground.’ That flips the burden of proof from the defendant to the prosecutor and sets an even higher standard for prosecutors to be successful than defendants have now.” [Editorial – Tampa Bay Times, 1/26/17]

St. Augustine Record Editorial: “Stand Your Ground Leaves More Than Sufficient Room For A Defendant To Shoot Rather Than Take Safe Retreat. It May Need Tweaking One Way Or Another, But Not A 180-Degree Turn Toward More Gun Violence.” According to an editorial by the St. Augustine Record, “The proposed law, SB 128, reverses that ruling, flipping the burden of proof on the prosecutors. Proponents say that the burden of proof is always on the prosecutor: ‘Innocent until proven guilty.’ And that’s true. But whether or not Stand Your Ground can be used as a defense is decided in the pre-trial hearing, not in the trial. It’s easy to see how invoking the Stand Your Ground defense could be manipulated to protect killers. A 2012 study by the Tampa Bay Times looked at over 200 cases in which the defense was invoked, and found that it had been used to defend ‘drug dealers, killers and other violent offenders.’ The Supreme Court noted that its intent was to protect a limited class of defendants. The bill really steps out of line by making Florida responsible for legal fees of up to $200,000 if it fails to prove Stand Your Ground was not a valid defense. Stand Your Ground leaves more than sufficient room for a defendant to shoot rather than take safe retreat. It may need tweaking one way or another, but not a 180-degree turn toward more gun violence.” [Editorial – St. Augustine Record, 2/10/17]

Bradenton Herald Editorial: “This Is Monumentally Terrible Legislation That Should Be Killed. Major Jeers To The Lawmakers Supporting This Injustice, Which Could Allow People To Get Away With Murder.” According to an editorial by the Bradenton Herald, “Public defenders and the gun lobby argue the current standard is unjust and runs counter to legislative intent when Stand Your Group was enacted a dozen years ago. How could that possibly be? Did lawmakers not know what they were approving back then? That legislation clearly put the burden of proof on the defendant. If they intended otherwise, wouldn’t they have passed a different measure? Where was the gun lobby then? The Florida Supreme Court upheld the current standard in 2015. Apparently, the justices got it wrong, too. They should have divined legislative intent as the gun lobby has today. This is monumentally terrible legislation that should be killed. Major jeers to the lawmakers supporting this injustice, which could allow people to get away with murder.” [Editorial – Bradenton Herald, 2/24/17]

Citrus County Chronicle Editorial: “This Legislation Is Irresponsible And Will Result In Additional Shooting Deaths, Some Of Which Might Be Intentional — But We’d Never Know.” According to an editorial by the Citrus County Chronicle, “The issue here should be clear: In cases that are not black and white — and almost all stand-your-ground cases are some shade of gray — the shooter will almost always walk. While that means you might not have to worry about enduring a trial if you shoot a burglar, it also means you could lure an adversary to your home, agitate them, shoot them dead and still not have to worry about a trial — so long as you were careful enough to leave yourself enough reasonable doubt. Irrespective of concern for Second Amendment rights, this legislation is irresponsible and will result in additional shooting deaths, some of which might be intentional — but we’d never know.” [Editorial – Citrus County Chronicle, 3/8/17]

Gainesville Sun Editorial: “Research Has Found Stand Your Gun Has Already Increased Gun Deaths And Reporting By The Tampa Bay Times Found Criminals Have Used The Law To Avoid Prosecution In Encounters Such As Drug Deals Gone Bad.” According to an editorial by the Gainesville Sun, “Jeer: Members of the Florida Senate, for seeking to make it easier for people who use deadly force to avoid prosecution through the Stand Your Ground law. The legislation, SB 128, passed the Senate by a 23-15 vote. It is sponsored by Sen. Rob Bradley, a Fleming Island Republican who represented Alachua County before districts were redrawn, and was supported by Sen. Keith Perry, a Gainesville Republican who currently represents the county. The measure would shift the burden of proof to prosecutors in pre-trial hearings when someone claims immunity due to Stand Your Ground, likely causing skyrocketing self-defense claims and driving up costs for state attorneys. Research has found Stand Your Gun has already increased gun deaths and reporting by the Tampa Bay Times found criminals have used the law to avoid prosecution in encounters such as drug deals gone bad. House members must now show that they aren’t beholden to the National Rifle Association and reject the legislation.” [Editorial – Gainesville Sun, 3/17/17]

Sun-Sentinel Editorial: “The NRA Professes To Be A Law-And-Order Organization, But The Legislation Could Encourage Violence, Not Prevent It. That’s Why Law Enforcement Opposes SB 128.” According to an editorial by the Sun-Sentinel, “Despite Archer’s NRA credentials, Hammer has attacked him for opposing the bill. ‘It looks to me,’ Archer said, ‘as if the NRA is just doing this because they can.’ The NRA professes to be a law-and-order organization, but the legislation could encourage violence, not prevent it. That’s why law enforcement opposes SB 128. Though nearly two dozen other states have Stand Your Ground laws, no state has allowed this dangerous expansion. Florida should not be the first.” [Editorial – Sun-Sentinel, 6/2/17]

Published: Feb 15, 2018

Jump to Content