Antigun

Cops Are Lying in Florida

I was at work last night and the supervisor of security came wandering through the ED. One of the nurses asked him if Florida’s new concealed carry law was going to make his job more difficult. His reply was that many people in Florida don’t realize that concealed carry doesn’t apply to the hospital. When I asked him why the law didn’t apply, his reply was that there were three reasons:

  • Concealed carry isn’t allowed on private property in Florida, unless the owner allows it
  • Concealed carry isn’t allowed in police stations, and our hospital contains a “police substation”
  • Concealed carry isn’t allowed in hospitals

When I told him that most of those statements weren’t what the law says, he told me that he and the police likely know more about the law than I do, so I should just stay in my lane. Let’s tackle his claims one at a time, with this post addressing the “property owner” argument:

The police are the ones circulating the “carry isn’t allowed on private property” trope, and I am not sure where it’s coming from. I searched the social media pages of every sheriff’s office in central Florida, along with a sampling of city police departments. This is what I found:

Hillsboro County and Tampa Police
Lake County Sheriff
Columbia County Sheriff’s Office
Sarasota Police

It’s being pushed by a fair number of law enforcement agencies all over the state. The problem here is that the law says nothing of the sort. The new law says that a person who doesn’t have a permit but would otherwise be eligible for one may still carry a concealed weapon or firearm wherever they could carry that weapon if the DID have a permit. There is a list of places off limits to carry that can be found in 790.06(12). Property owners prohibiting carry is not anywhere on that list.

The only statement that could be construed as allowing a property owner to prohibit carry is the general property rights that any property owner has. If you are in a place not specifically mentioned in the law as being prohibited for concealed carry, but it has posted “no guns” signs, and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged. Even if the property is not posted and you are asked to leave you must leave, but that is different from claiming that the “law doesn’t apply” to private property. If they don’t ask you to leave, it is legal to carry right past a “no guns” sign.

Since this is being widely pushed by some (but no all) police agencies all over the state, I can’t help by believe that this is an intentional misstatement by law enforcement to enforce a law that doesn’t exist.

Next, we will take a look at carry in hospitals and police stations.

By Divemedic, ago

Wrong

When I was a teacher, I layered the security for my classroom and my students. First, I installed a Nightlock on my door.

I have Level IV body armor that I kept in my classroom. It had a blowout kit, 4 TQ’s, a huge label on it that said “PARAMEDIC” and a sewn on badge with my blood type. The file cabinet between the door and the blind corner where I planned to shelter my students in the event of a shooter had been modified by me. It has a 1/4″ aluminum plate lining the inside of the sides of the cabinet. With us behind the cabinet, the bullet would have to go through the cabinet, through the first plate, through whatever was in the cabinet, then through the second plate, and the backside of the cabinet.

Dude, use your head.

By Divemedic, ago

Senator Terrorist

Have you heard about the Rhode Island state senator that physically attacks people and destroys their property for exercising their right to free speech? No? Well, whatever you do, don’t have a bumper sticker on your car that supports RKBA or opposes Joe Biden.

He keyed a person’s car for having a bumper sticker that said “Biden Sucks” then when the police arrived, he tried to avoid capture by changing his appearance.

This isn’t the first time that he has shown contempt for the rights of his constituents. In 2014, Miller was caught on video at the Rhode Island State House telling a Second Amendment supporter “go fuck yourself.” He then released a statement explaining his actions:

Last Tuesday a vast group of Rhode Islanders gathered peacefully in the State House rotunda to voice their concerns about gun violence in our state and in our country. They also gathered to support sensible gun legislation that would ban the sale of assault weapons, ban the sale of high capacity magazines, ban weapons on school grounds and deny firearm access to individuals who have been convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors.

At the end of a press conference in which I participated, an individual representing a website notorious for conspiracy theories started berating members of the coalition and intimidating elderly veterans, members of the clergy and victims of violence.

It quickly became a highly charged atmosphere, which required the presence of the Capitol Police. The individual in question is not new to the State House and is known for his aggressive and intimidating manner. He also was interrupting legitimate members of the media who were attempting to conduct interviews.

After watching him antagonize an elderly veteran he swung his camera my way, which produced a very human and guttural reaction. I respect both the Second Amendment and the First Amendment. It is important to note that the individual in question was physically removed from a committee room by the Capitol Police later that evening.

Regardless of the emotions and atmosphere of the moment, it does not justify the language I used that day. Out of respect for the decorum of the State House and the constituents I represent, I offer my apologies.

You get his attitude? A website with which he disagrees asks questions, and they are accused of being intimidating and pushing conspiracy theories, as compared to those media outlets that treat him with kid gloves, who are referred to as “legitimate members of media.” He is the arbiter of what is and is not allowed, and anyone who disagrees will be attacked.

I will cheer for any person that fucks him up, and I will donate to their legal defense fund. We all know that this is the only way that this authoritarian tyrant will see justice, because this arrest won’t lead to him seeing a prison cell.

By Divemedic, ago

Random Thought on the Second Amendment

The argument that the 2A is only for the militia is still being pushed by the anti-forces, even in light of Heller. If they won’t believe SCOTUS, perhaps they can believe the version of the 2A that was originally passed by the House of Representatives on August 24, 1789:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Note that being a member of the Militia didn’t require that a person be a member of an exclusive, limited membership military. It merely required that you be a part of the body of the people.

By Divemedic, ago

Winning

Now that the Second Amendment is a winning issue in court, the left is getting desperate. Gavin Newsom is proposing a 28th Amendment that would add the left’s wish lists to the Constitution. There is precisely zero chance of getting 3/4 of the states to approve such an amendment, at least not in my lifetime.

Others on the left are proposing some pretty wild stuff:

a better proposal would be to repeal and replace the 2nd Amendment through Congress and the states.

By replacing the convoluted language of the 2nd Amendment with a list of specific rules for gun ownership, gun violence can be reduced.

This has the same chances of success as Newsome’s 28th Amendment, and for the same reasons. There is also:

Instead of taking decades to secure approval of two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states, I believe a gun summit at Camp David — with gun-rights advocates, law enforcement and survivors — could hammer out new, commonsense gun safety measures in a matter of days.

I don’t see this being Constitutional. Gun rights organizations are done compromising with the left. Compromise to the left means “We want to take all of your rights. You don’t want to give them up. How about we compromise and only take half of them? Then next year, we can do this again.” No. Just no. The gun control side doesn’t deal in good faith. How about this proposal?

The 2nd Amendment begins with “a well-regulated militia” — not just a militia, but a a well-regulated one. An honest interpretation would be that as long as restrictions do not impede the formation of a regulated state militia, they could be deemed permissible.

My suggestion to Newsom: Allow widespread ownership of firearms, but all such arms (some types of small arms might be exempted) would be held by the California National Guard and could be accessed and used only through the Guard.

This hot take was destroyed in the Heller decision. Apparently, the anti-gun idiots haven’t read it.

By Divemedic, ago

No, Just No

They tell us that we are paranoid because no one wants to take our guns.

Jane Fonda says that we need to kill all of the white men in order to save the planet. You see, according to her and the climate change religion, we only have eight years to cut our greenhouse gas emissions in half, or the world is doomed. Of course, they were saying we only had eight years last year. They also said it the year before that. They also said we only had eight years in 2007, sixteen years ago.

She should have been arrested and sentenced to death for treason when she went to North Vietnam and sat on that anti-aircraft gun for a photo opportunity. I am sick of the anti-American left telling me how they are going to come after me to have me killed, fired, deplatformed, or whatever, then telling me that I am paranoid for not wanting to give up my guns.

I am not giving up my guns, I am not getting into the rail car, and if you try, my only hope is that I make the trade an expensive one.

By Divemedic, ago

They Did It

Chicago is sending unarmed, yellow vested peacekeepers in to violent scenes, instead of police officers. The idea is that they will deescalate instead of use force.

If there’s unrest downtown or mass shootings elsewhere in Chicago this Memorial Day holiday — often among the year’s most violent weekends — a special team of 30 “Peacekeepers” wearing yellow vests will be mobilized to help calm things down, state officials said Tuesday.

By Divemedic, ago