I think it would be fun to propose and pass a law which states that transgenders, gays, and blacks are not permitted to own guns. The left will fight this tooth and nail. Then we can sit back and watch as the left argues in favor of the Second Amendment.
Within a year, the left will be pushing for a government program that issues guns to people.
Just sayin’.
I saw the news about the “hunting stand” with a sight line to the area where Trump boards Air Force One. My first thought was this was an actual hunting stand.
Until I looked at satellite pictures of the area, that is. Here is the satellite picture of the area in question. Trump’s plane is circled in blue, the area where the tree stand was found is circled in red:
There isn’t anywhere to hunt in the area. The stand is next to an Army Reserve center and the Palm Beach County jail, and right behind the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Forensics center.
The distance from the tree to Trump’s plane is just under 600 yards. I can’t tell what the exact sight line is, but that’s a fairly long shot. Doable, yes, but the number of people who can make that is much smaller than anything we’ve seen yet. They missed Trump at 100 yards and hit Kirk at 150 yards, but 600 yards is much, much more difficult.
Three masked men are trying to enter your home. They announce through your Ring Doorbell that they are going to enter your home and kill everyone inside. When you don’t open the front door, they kick in the gate to enter the back yard before slashing your screen to enter your porch and pound on the sliding glass door to your lanai. Watch the video, then ask yourself what you would do in this situation:
In Florida, you can use deadly force in your home if you reasonably believe you or another are facing imminent death or serious bodily harm, or a forcible felony is about to happen, and you are lawfully present in your home. Because the statute provides a presumption of reasonableness when an intruder is unlawfully and forcibly entering your home (or attempting to), the law strongly favors the occupant in that scenario.
So the questions that must be answered are:
I would say that the answers to 1, 2, and 3 are a definite yes. Question 4 and 5 are a no. After all, jiggling the doorhandle isn’t enough to say the threat was imminent. After all, they are being stopped by a locked door, so deadly force likely won’t be viewed as necessary. Right up until they entered the curtilage of your home Let me take a moment to explain:
Curtilage refers to the immediate area surrounding and associated with your home — the space that is considered part of the home for purposes of privacy and legal protection. Florida courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have described it as the area that harbors the “intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a person’s home and the privacies of life.”
That typically includes:
It does not usually include open fields, detached outbuildings far from the house, or unfenced areas that are visible and accessible to the public. Under both Florida criminal law and the Fourth Amendment, curtilage is defined as:
“The area immediately surrounding and associated with the home, which is considered part of the home itself for many legal purposes.”
— Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013); Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984)
Florida courts have consistently held that curtilage is an extension of the home for purposes of:
Courts look at several factors to decide whether an area is part of the home’s curtilage:
(See: United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987); State v. Hamilton, 660 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1995).)
Under Florida Statute § 776.013(1), the “dwelling” includes the building and its curtilage. Florida courts treat screened porches, lanais, or enclosed patios attached to the home as part of the dwelling. (See State v. Martinez, 700 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)). This means:
This means you can’t shoot someone for trying to open your door, standing on your porch, or walking up the driveway. Postal workers and Amazon delivery drivers are happy about this. However, if they kick in a fence or forcibly enter through a locked portal, such as slashing a screen, they have crossed over into breaking and entering.
At that moment, under § 776.013(2), Florida law presumes you have a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, because:
That presumption legally justifies deadly force, unless one of the exceptions in § 776.013(3) applies (for example, if the intruder is a lawful resident, or if you provoked the incident, etc.).
So back to this situation: I don’t breach my perimeter for idiots. I sit safely inside and call the cops. I would be wearing electronic hearing protection and body armor. I would be armed with a long gun that has lots of ammo. Why? Because we carry a handgun if we think we might be in a gunfight. If we think we WILL be in a gunfight, bring a long gun, and bring friends with long guns. My wife would be safely in the closet, also with hearing protection, body armor, and armed.
Once the critters breach my perimeter to enter my rear yard, then enter my second perimeter to enter my back porch, this threat becomes imminent, making both my fear of harm and my use of deadly force reasonable. In a case like this, there would be at least one dead body and perhaps some blood trails for the police to follow when they eventually arrived ten minutes after I called for them.
Florida appellate courts have repeatedly found deadly force justified when:
In such cases, the courts held that fenced yards, porches, and patios are part of the dwelling — the “castle” — so the presumption of reasonable fear applies.
Then my homeowners’ insurance would have to replace the glass in my back door, and pay to clean the gizzards from by rear porch furniture. I might even sue the estates of the decedents for the damages to include mental anguish, if they had any assets I could take.
It’s a great reason to have a fenced yard and a screened in porch with a locked door, even if the lock is flimsy like the ones found on a screen door.
State v. Martinez, 700 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) Martinez shot an intruder who broke through a screened porch attached to his home late at night. The state argued the porch was not part of the “dwelling,” so deadly force was not justified. The court held that the attached, screened porch was part of the dwelling’s curtilage. The homeowner was protected under the castle doctrine. The court reasoned that a porch “integrated with the home’s living space” and enclosed by screens “serves the same privacy and security functions as the interior.”
State v. Hamilton, 660 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1995) A man was shot in a fenced backyard after threatening and attempting to enter the home. The issue was whether the fenced yard counted as the home’s “curtilage.” The Florida Supreme Court held that a fenced backyard was part of the dwelling’s curtilage for self-defense and burglary statutes. The fence “manifested an intent to exclude the public and protect the area as part of the home.”
State v. Giles, 579 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) A homeowner shot a man trying to break into the house after entering the yard aggressively and ignoring commands to leave. The court found that deadly force was justified because the intruder’s actions created a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. The “no duty to retreat” principle applied — the homeowner was lawfully in his dwelling.
Weiand v. State, 732 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1999) A woman shot her abusive husband inside their shared home and was prosecuted for murder. The case helped establish Florida’s “no duty to retreat” inside one’s home rule (before Stand Your Ground). The Florida Supreme Court recognized the castle doctrine as firmly established: you are not required to retreat in your home before using deadly force against an aggressor posing imminent danger.
State v. Hill, 95 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) A man shot someone outside his home during a violent confrontation. The court examined whether the shooter could claim immunity under § 776.032 (the Stand Your Ground immunity statute). The court reaffirmed that § 776.012(2) justifies deadly force when a person reasonably believes it’s necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm — even outside the home, if the shooter has a right to be there and is not engaged in a crime.
If the intruder crossed into your yard and made explicit death threats, the standard of “reasonable fear” would almost certainly be satisfied — even if the intruder had not yet crossed the threshold.
The recent court decision striking down Florida’s open carry ban prompted Publix to issue a statement stating that it would not ban individuals who openly carry firearms from its stores. Even though other stores like Aldi issued statements saying that anyone seen open carrying in their stores would be asked to leave, Publix realized that such policies don’t reduce the number of firearms in their establishment, but only cause them to be concealed. Being that the left is all about emotion and not logic, this really pissed off the left.
In typical leftie fashion, the Tampa Bay Times immediately launched an op-ed that compares apples to bowling balls. See, Publix plainly states in their policy:
Publix follows all federal, state and local laws. In any instance where a customer creates a threatening, erratic or dangerous shopping experience — whether they are openly carrying a firearm or not — we will engage local law enforcement to protect our customers and associates.
But that isn’t good enough for the communists at the Times. So they immediately launched an imaginary Q&A, comparing various items against open carry. They compare bringing pets into the store (which is prohibited by health regulations), policies limiting the number of coupons you can redeem each day, and the Publix policy against cakes with any flag that isn’t the US Flag against cakes with the Mexican, Canadian, or the flag they really want- the Fag Flag against the policy of not prohibiting open carry.
They claim that the sight of guns bother some Publix customers, so Publix should ban open carry. Do you know what else bothers some Publix customers? Seeing men wearing dresses pulling their dicks out in the women’s restroom. I would bet that the Times wouldn’t like it if a business banned that.
I can’t wait for newspapers to eventually go the way of the telegram. They are nothing more than leftie propaganda. To quote Thomas Jefferson:
The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth
However, as he rightly points out, newspapers are preferable to tyrannical government:
The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs through the channel of the public papers, & to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them.
However, newspapers have indeed become the propaganda arm of the communists. It is Social Media, and to a lesser extent, blogs that are informing the American public. The days of newspaper editors telling us what to think is long past. That’s why the media’s influence has faded to nearly zero- most people know that it is nothing more than slanted propaganda.
Miguel has a post about illegal immigrants becoming cops. That isn’t anything new, I posted about this back in May, and before that, April. That’s why I made this meme:
The Republican Legislature of Florida is proposing changes to the state’s property tax policy. There are a number of proposals that will make it to the 2026 ballot, and I have researched them so you don’t have to. I am going to break it down for you, using my own taxes as an illustration. Then you decide which is the one you want.
In my case, I pay about $6100 per year in property taxes on a $600,000 home. It breaks down like this:
HJR 201 (Steele): Eliminates non-school ad-valorum property taxes for homesteads entirely. This would lower my taxes to $2300 per year ($1900 for the school board, $400 to police, fire, EMS, hospitals, and the water authority). This bill doesn’t prevent taxes that are flat fee based. Localities will likely switch to a non ad-valorum tax scheme, such as charging each property a flat fee as a tax.
HJR 203 (Miller): Phases out those same taxes over 10 years by adding an additional $100,000 exemption added each year. My taxes would go down by $500 the first year, $500 the second, and so on, until my taxes were finally about $2300 per year. This bill doesn’t prevent taxes that are flat fee based. Localities will likely switch to a non ad-valorum tax scheme, such as charging each property a flat fee as a tax.
HJR 205 (Porras): Exempts Florida residents 65 and older from paying non-school property taxes on homesteads. This one won’t change my taxes a bit until I turn 65, meaning that towns will simply raise taxes on everyone else to make up for the shortfall. Since those over 65 already get major breaks, many of them don’t pay taxes, anyhow. Politicians won’t face as much voter backlash. I think this is the one that politicians will love.
HJR 207 (Abbott): Creates a new 25% homestead exemption on non-school taxes — aiding current and first-time homebuyers. This one was trickier to decipher. I believe that it would lower my taxes by about $400 per year. It doesn’t prevent rate increases. I predict that localities will respond by raising milage rates. In the end, there will be no net change in what you actually pay.
HJR 209 (Busatta): Offers an extra $100,000 exemption to homeowners who carry property insurance, intended to ease overall housing costs. This one won’t make a huge difference. It would cut taxes by about $500 per year, but it would be an effective subsidy to insurance companies, who will happily raise insurance costs in response. It honestly looks like it was written by insurance companies.
HJR 211 (Overdorf): Eliminates the cap on “portability,” allowing homeowners to transfer their entire Save Our Homes benefit to a new property, even if it’s of lesser value. This one only lowers your tax liability if you sell your house and buy one of lesser value. I just went through this when I moved two years ago.
HJR 213 (Griffitts): Adjusts caps on taxable value growth — limiting increases to 3% over three years for homesteads (currently 3% annually) and 15% over three years for non-homesteads (currently 10% annually). This one won’t help now, it will just keep taxable value from growing as quickly as it does now. The loophole here is so large, you can drive a truck through it- there is nothing here that prevents localities from raising rates, the only cap is on taxable value. The net effect is that this won’t change your taxes a single cent.
In my opinion, HJR201 is the only one that will change anything, since a person owning a $200,000 house will wind up paying the same taxes as a person owning a million dollar house. To me, that is fair, since both are nominally receiving the same government services. Same services should mean same taxes.
The left is gathering today to say “No Kings!”
Except when the government orders you to remain indoors.
No Kings! We oppose fascism!
Except when your business is ordered closed. Unless your business is a Megacorporation like WalMart, Target, or Starbucks. Then it’s fine, because you can get your PSL.
No Kings!
Except when the government arrests people for going to the beach. Or when the government forces people to wear cloth masks to prevent a viral infection, even while we know that the holes in the fabric are thousands of times larger than the virus.
No Kings!
Oh, but when your side protests, they are exempt from having to stay home OR wear masks, because protest is patriotism.
The governor is exempt from all of this as well, because he must dine with his ass-kissing friends. Because he isn’t a king.
No Kings!
Except when the government orders that you take an experimental drug while exempting the company that makes it from any legal liability in the event the drug turns out not to work and actually is dangerous.
Then people who protest in the same manner as the left are tossed in jail for years over minor criminal charges.
No Kings!
Unless we forcibly take your money under the guise of fair taxation, so we can give it to people we import into the nation so we can pay them slave wages to build our homes, tend our gardens, and do other work that we consider beneath us.
No kings!
It’s a shame that the left lacks a level of basic awareness, so they don’t even realize that they are supporting actual tyranny and despotism. Of course, the ones in charge know, but they also realize that they are in command of an army of drones who will do whatever the media and TikTok tells them to.
We should have realized how much trouble this would cause when so-called challenges on TikTok had teens eating laundry soap. Oh by the way, that trend was in 2018. The teens who were doing that are the same ones out protesting today.
