Exploding Debt

On June 1, the Republicans caved by giving President Biden a blank check to borrow whatever and how ever much money he wants to spend. On that day, the US debt stood at $31.46 Trillion. Within a month, the US had borrowed another Trillion dollars. Here we are, just six and a half weeks after they handed him the credit cards, with $32.54 Trillion in debt.

Proving that the Democrats never deal on ANYTHING with good faith, they are already calling for the abrogation of the handshake agreement that the parties reached to rein in the spending. They are borrowing money at a rate of over $100 Billion every business day. To put that in perspective, I wrote in 2009 that Obama had broken a record by borrowing a Trillion dollars in only six months.

It took this nation over 200 years to borrow a trillion dollars. Trump did it in seven months, Obama did it in only 6 months. It took Biden 9 months to borrow his first Trillion dollars, but he soon got better at it. His second trillion took three months, borrowing $2 trillion in his first year. In fact, he has increased the national debt by 118% in just two and a half years.

President Trump increased the National Debt by 134% in four years.

Obama increased the debt by 194% in eight years.

President George W Bush borrowed his first trillion dollars in two and a half years. He borrowed his second trillion a year and a half later. Another two years, another $1 trillion. All told, President Bush borrowed $5 trillion in 8 years, increasing the national debt by 187%.

It took President Clinton 3 and a half years to borrow his first trillion dollars. All told, he borrowed $1.2 trillion in his first term, and $600 billion in his second. He increased the national debt by 140% in eight years.

George HW Bush borrowed his first trillion in 3 years, and he increased the National debt by 170% in four years.

Reagan borrowed his first trillion in 6 years, and doubled the National debt during his eight years in the White House.

Carter increased the National debt by 150%, but “only” borrowed $300 billion in 4 years. I guess that was when $1 Billion was real money.

Ford increased the debt by 147% in 3 years., Nixon by 135% in 5 years, Johnson by 116% in 6 years, Kennedy by 106% in 2 years, Eisenhower by 108% in eight years.

Democrats, and Republicans, both in a contest to see who can spend the most in our society of “how much can you give me if I vote for you.”

Remember when the Biden spokeswoman told us that borrowing trillions didn’t cost anything because it was already accounted for? So that’s where we are- under Biden, the US has borrowed $4.75 trillion in just two and a half years. This can’t continue.

By definition, anything that can’t continue, won’t. There is no amount of voting that will fix this.

Supply

The military supply system is stupid and messed up. Everything has a stock number and a description. They frequently don’t make sense. For example, a flyswatter is referred to as “Exterminator, Insect, Manual.” When I was a new E-4, I was forced into the role of Supply Petty Officer for the workcenter by the E-4 who was previously the most junior. He was glad to be rid of the job. I was soon to understand why.

On July 1, 1941, a requisition was submitted for 150 rolls of toilet paper by an officer aboard the submarine USS Skipjack (SS-184). As the boat patrolled the Pacific, the requested item never arrived. In March 1942, Lieutenant Commander James Coe took command of the Skipjack. As Coe settled into his new role, he learned of the missing toilet paper. On June 19, Coe received a canceled invoice for 150 rolls of toilet paper. The request was the original from July 1941 and was stamped “canceled-cannot identify.” Coe wrote a response that is famous within the Navy today.

1. This vessel submitted a requisition for 150 rolls of toilet paper on July 30, 1941, to USS HOLLAND. The material was ordered by HOLLAND from the Supply Officer, Navy Yard, Mare Island, for delivery to USS Skipjack.

2. The Supply Officer, Navy Yard, Mare Island, on November 26, 1941, cancelled Mare Island Invoice No. 272836 with the stamped notation “Cancelled—cannot identify.” This cancelled invoice was received by Skipjack on June 10, 1942.

3. During the 11 1/2 months elapsing from the time of ordering the toilet paper and the present date, the Skipjack personnel, despite their best efforts to await delivery of subject material, have been unable to wait on numerous occasions, and the situation is now quite acute, especially during depth charge attack by the “back-stabbers.”

4. Enclosure (2) is a sample of the desired material provided for the information of the Supply Officer, Navy Yard, Mare Island. The Commanding Officer, USS Skipjack cannot help but wonder what is being used in Mare Island in place of this unidentifiable material, once well known to this command.

5. Skipjack personnel during this period have become accustomed to use of “ersatz,” i.e., the vast amount of incoming non-essential paper work, and in so doing feel that the wish of the Bureau of Ships for the reduction of paper work is being complied with, thus effectively killing two birds with one stone.

6. It is believed by this command that the stamped notation “cannot identify” was possible error, and that this is simply a case of shortage of strategic war material, the Skipjack probably being low on the priority list.

7. In order to cooperate in our war effort at a small local sacrifice, the Skipjack desires no further action be taken until the end of the current war, which has created a situation aptly described as “war is hell.”

J.W. Coe

Coe’s letter caused quite a stir and was circulated throughout the fleet. When the Skipjack returned to Australia after her patrol, she was greeted by quite a sight. The pier was stacked seven feet high with boxes of toilet paper instead of the usual crates of fresh fruit and ice cream. Toilet paper streamers decorated the dock, and a band greeted the boat wearing toilet paper neckties and toilet paper flying out of trumpets and horns. The men of the Skipjack would not have to do without toilet paper again, as they were greeted upon every return with cartons of the precious paper.

Back to my story: we had an upcoming deployment, and I had to order supplies to get us through the first six months. I was told to order some superglue and some wooden handled cotton swabs. I looked them up, and the superglue was listed as “adhesive, cyanoacrylate” with a unit of issue of CS (meaning case) and a unit cost of $1.44. The cotton swabs were listed as “applicator, cotton tip, wood handle” with a unit of issue of BG (bag) and a cost of $0.29. No mention in either case of how many were in a case or a bag. At the time, the military was known to be paying $400 for a hammer, so I had to guess.

I guessed that there were at most 2 tubes of superglue per case, and ordered 12 units of superglue, and that there were at most 10 swabs per bag, so I ordered 100 bags of them. What it turned out was that there were 144 tubes of glue per case, and 100 swabs per bag. I wound up with 1,700 tubes of superglue and 10,000 cotton swabs. This mistake was legendary. I caught shit about it for the entire deployment.

When I passed the job on to the newly promoted guy a few months later, I was evil about it. We sent him down to supply to get a can of eh-eye-arr. He came back to supply with a bottle marked “Air, room temperature.” He got the best of me.

Florida Legislature Leaves a Mess

As a follow up to yesterday’s post on hospitals and businesses prohibiting carry in the wake of the new constitutional carry law that went into effect in Florida on Saturday, we will address the next two claims:

  • Concealed carry isn’t allowed in police stations, and our hospital contains a “police substation”
  • Concealed carry isn’t allowed in hospitals

First, let’s look at the claim that concealed carry isn’t permitted in hospitals. There are two laws that can be applied here, with the first of them being 394.458:

Except as authorized by law or as specifically authorized by the person in charge of each hospital providing mental health services under this part, it is unlawful to introduce into or upon the grounds of such hospital, or to take or attempt to take or send therefrom, any of the following articles, which are hereby declared to be contraband for the purposes of this section:

1. Any intoxicating beverage or beverage which causes or may cause an intoxicating effect;

2. Any controlled substance as defined in chapter 893; or

3. Any firearms or deadly weapon.

Note that this is uncharted territory. The law as it existed in 2022 specifically says “except as authorized by law” and Florida’s 790.06 does authorize one to carry a concealed weapon, and paragraph (12) gives a specific list of places off limits to carry. The addition of constitutional carry (PDF alert) also states that a person who is otherwise qualified for a permit may carry a weapon under the same conditions as a person with a permit.

The problem here is that one could make the argument that 790.06 authorizes (by law) carry in places except those listed in 790.06(12), and 790.06(15)(c) specifically says:

This section does not modify the terms or conditions of s. 790.251(7).

Meaning that the legislature means for this law to supersede others in restricting carry at certain locations, and when they don’t want it to do so, make it clear in the statute. The issue with this argument is that it can only be made in court after you have been arrested. Since no one has yet done so (as evidenced by the fact that there is no case law spelling out the limits here) this is an issue that has not yet been tested in the courts, so you do so at your own peril.

What is interesting is the second law that affects hospitals: 790.145. That law specifically says:

Unless otherwise provided by law, any person who is in possession of a concealed “firearm,” as defined in s. 790.001(6), or a “destructive device,” as defined in s. 790.001(4), within the premises of a “pharmacy,” as defined in chapter 465, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2) The provisions of this section do not apply:
(a) To any law enforcement officer;
(b) To any person employed and authorized by the owner, operator, or manager of a pharmacy to carry a firearm or destructive device on such premises; or
(c) To any person licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

Since a person who is carrying without a permit under Florida’s constitutional carry law -IS- carrying without a permit, and most hospitals are or contain pharmacies, is it still illegal for a person who is otherwise legally carrying a concealed weapon without a permit to have a firearm while inside of a pharmacy? Is this one of those cases that I mentioned above, where the legislature exempts a law when it intends to? Or has the legislature left a legal mess that the courts will have to deal with later? In my opinion, this is another case where the law is confusing and unclear, and the courts will have to deal with it after someone is arrested and charged with the crime, whereupon his lawyer will have to make this argument.

So to sum up the answer to the claim that you can’t carry in a hospital in Florida: The answer is maybe. It is specifically illegal to carry a firearm into a hospital or pharmacy in Florida, but not if you are authorized by law to do so. The law is unclear on whether or not people can carry into a hospital, or whether those who are carrying under constitutional carry may do so into a pharmacy. This question will not be cleared up unless the legislature cleans up the law, or until the courts rule on this one way or the other.

The legal issues here are quite a mess, and the only people who benefit from what the legislature has done here will be lawyers and those who write books about what the law means (in many cases, lawyers who are also authors). It will be interesting to see Jon Gutmacher’s take on this when my copy of Florida Firearms book gets here later in the week. That book is the bible for those who carry or use firearms in Florida, and there are more than a few judges who have his books on their bookshelf. If you own or carry a firearm in Florida, you should have a copy of it.

We will address the last of the three claims tomorrow when we look at “Concealed carry isn’t allowed in police stations, and our hospital contains a ‘police substation'” I think that this post is long enough already.


Now, the disclaimer: I don’t advertise, and receive nothing for my reviews or articles. I have no relationship with any products, companies, or vendors that I review here, other than being a customer. If I ever *DO* have a financial interest, I will disclose it. Otherwise, I pay what you would pay. No discounts or other incentives here. I only post these things because I think that my readers would be interested.

In this case, I have had a relationship with the author of the book that I mention in this post. You can read about it here. I wrote an email to Mr. Gutmacher at the time, letting him know that the property records of Florida showed that the property licensed for explosives manufacture and the resorts were two different pieces of property, as they must be, because under the fire code, you can’t have a hotel on the same property with an explosives factory. He was interested in my point, but I don’t know if he made that point in his legal case or not.

I do not make any money from the book, or from Mr. Gutmacher, but I still want to disclose the relationship, however tenuous it was.

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.

Department of Education

From the DoE website:

Although the Department is a relative newcomer among Cabinet-level agencies, its origins goes back to 1867, when President Andrew Johnson signed legislation creating the first Department of Education. Its main purpose was to collect information and statistics about the nation’s schools. However, due to concern that the Department would exercise too much control over local schools, the new Department was demoted to an Office of Education in 1868.

Over the years, the office remained relatively small, operating under different titles and housed in various agencies, including the U.S. Department of the Interior and the former U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare (now Health and Human Services).

Beginning in the 1950s, political and social changes resulted in expanded federal funding for education. The successful launch of the Soviet Union’s Sputnik in 1957 spurred nationwide concern that led to increased aid for science education programs. The 1960s saw even more expansion of federal education funding: President Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” called for the creation of many programs to improve education for poor students at all levels—early childhood through postsecondary. This expansion continued in the 1970s with national efforts to help racial minorities, women, people with disabilities and non-English speaking students gain equal access to education. In October 1979, Congress passed the Department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88). Created by combining offices from several federal agencies, the Department began operations in May 1980.

In the 1860s, a budget of $15,000 and four employees handled education fact-finding. By 1965, the Office of Education had more than 2,100 employees and a budget of $1.5 billion. As of mid-2010, the Department has nearly 4,300 employees and a budget of about $60 billion.

In 1868, there was concern that the DoE would exert too much control over local schools, so it was demoted to an “Office of Education” with four employees and a budget of $15,000. It was made into a cabinet level department in 1979, under Jimmy Carter. Since then, it has grown to 4,300 employees and a $60 billion budget. It now issue orders to local schools encompassing everything from curriculum to what they must serve for lunch. I would say that the fears of “too much control over local schools” was well founded.

It’s well past time to get rid of the Department of Education. There is no reason for this bloated department to make decisions for each state and how it will run its schools. You can’t say that test scores are any better or worse, because it is impossible to know. There is no way to measure performance of students in 1979 and compare it to now. Tests that were taken by students have been changed several times over the years, so that it is impossible to determine whether or not students today are any better or worse off than counterparts from other time periods.

Maybe They Will Get Around to Drug Dogs

The Maryland Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that firearms experts will no longer be able to testify that a bullet was fired from a particular gun. Many forensic methods that rely on pattern-matching, like bite mark and tool mark analysis, rely on subjective interpretations that are presented as scientific conclusions with definitive solutions.

In the case of bite mark evidence, government watchdogs report that examiners not only cannot identify the source of bitemark with reasonable accuracy, they cannot even consistently agree on whether an injury is a human bitemark. It turns out that using rifling groove patterns to match an unknown bullet to a known firearm is not repeatable, reproducible, or accurate to any statistically valid level of certainty. I have previously reported similar reports suggesting that drug dogs are even more inaccurate. Cops know they are inaccurate, but refer to drug K9s as “4 legged money generators.

Dogs are very good at reading people. They know that if they give their handler what he wants, they get a reward. If the cop wants the dog to alert on a car, the dog will alert on a car. There was one study that actually supported that, but once the study was published, cops have refused to participate in any more studies unless those studies are being performed by pro-policing organizations.

Cops don’t even keep records of how often dogs alert to drugs and then no drugs are found. The police say:

“There’s been cars that my dog’s hit on… and just because there wasn’t a product in it, doesn’t mean the dog can’t smell it,” says Gunnar Fulmer, a K9 officer with the Walla Walla Police Department. “[The drug odor] gets permeated in clothing, it gets permeated in the headliners in cars.”

The problem here is obvious- even giving the dog the benefit of the doubt, probable cause means that the search is being done because drugs are probably there. What the cop in the above quote is saying is that by alerting, the dog is indicating that drugs may have been there at some time in the past. The dog indicates the odor of drugs, but not the presence of drugs. That isn’t the same thing and shouldn’t be enough to trigger a warrantless search of someone’s property.

It isn’t just police dogs, or bite marks, or even bullet matching. Falsifying evidence to get higher conviction rates is widespread among police, and the FBI lab itself has been caught falsifying lab tests. Much of what is called “forensics” is little more than pseudoscientific nonsense that hides behind the public’s virtual ignorance of what science really is, but it sounds good and is nothing more than snake oil designed to fool a jury into convicting the defendant.

When I worked for the fire department, we participated in the United Way. One of the things I used to donate money to was the Innocence Project. They use scientific results to prove that people were wrongly convicted- things like DNA evidence to prove that a man on death row was actually innocent. It’s a worthy cause.

This is why I don’t Trust Cops

It began on Saint Patrick’s day in 2004, when my live in girlfriend announced that she wanted to see other people and moved out. During the time we were living together, her car had broken down, and I had been letting her drive my second car while she was awaiting repairs. The car was 100% mine, and my name was the only one on the title and registration. She had also been using a second cell phone on my Nextel account. (Trust me, I am not rambling- this is all important later)

When she moved out, I turned off the cell phone and I asked for my car back. She refused. I called the cops, but the arriving cops told me that since I had given her the keys, it was a civil matter. I didn’t know where she had moved to, so my car was gone. A month later, I saw the car parked at the mall, but there was a “club” on the steering wheel. I had it towed to my house.

That night, she came to my house at 2 in the morning, pounding on my door and demanding that I give her the car back. I told her to go away, and she refused. I called the police. They arrived, and explained to me that I had to let her in the house, because she had a 2 month old bill with her name and my address on it, and that constituted enough proof in their minds that she lived with me.

They told me that I had to let her get her stuff. I told him that I wanted her to give me back the keys to the car. The cop said, “Car? What car?” I told him that the car was parked right around the other side of the apartment. He said, “If I I don’t see a car, there is no car.” He then asked me to put my hands on the wall and frisked me. He then made me stand in my living room in “the position” with my hands on the wall.

While that was going on, he let her into my apartment, where she proceeded to steal about $2,000 of my stuff and began loading it into the car. I pointed that out, and he said that my ex-girlfriend was claiming it to be hers. I said, “I thought you said this was a civil matter. Since when do cops come and help people settle a civil matter without a court hearing?” I asked him to run the tags on the car. He refused and told me not to tell him how to do his job. (Note here that they had no problem getting involved in the “civil matter” on her side, but would not get involved on my behalf.)

I told the cop that my arms were getting tired and asked if I could wait outside. He told me that was fine, so I grabbed my set of keys to that car (that she had helpfully removed the “club” from) and walked outside.

While the ex was in the house with the cops getting more of my stuff, I got in the car and drove it down the street. I pulled the wires that ran from the distributor to the spark plugs out of the car and tossed them in the bushes before heading back to my place.

When I got back, the cop asked me where the car was. I pointed out to him that if he didn’t see a car, there was no car. He became furious and told me I was under arrest for auto theft and obstructing a LEO. He even put the cuffs on me. I told him that he had just made my day, and he was going to get sued for wrongful arrest. I pointed out that he was arresting me for stealing my own car, and since this was a “civil matter” and therefore no crime had occurred, there was nothing for me to obstruct. He must have realized that he had screwed up, because after about ten minutes, he took the cuffs off and let me go. I found out later that before he left, he instructed her on how to go down to the courthouse and file a domestic violence complaint against me, gave her his personal phone number, and was coaching her on how to do it. The sonofabitch even dated her for several months.

The next day, there was a sheriff’s deputy at my door with a domestic violence injunction, ordering me to appear at a hearing a week later. At the hearing, she produced a statement that I had been beating her while we were together. No witnesses, no police reports, no medical records, no marks on her, no corroborating evidence of any kind, just her say-so. It turns out that there is a “domestic violence victims advocates office” at the court house that coaches these women on what to say, and juggles the judicial calendar to make sure they get sympathetic judges. (Witness tampering?)

While in court, she began crying as she told the judge that I had taken away “her” phone, that I had taken away “her” car, and left her with no way to get to work. She also told the judge that she was afraid of me because I owned a lot of guns.

This infuriated the judge, and he ordered me to turn my guns in to the police, revoked my CCW, and ordered me to provide her with a cell phone at my expense. Luckily, the attorney had warned me before the hearing, and I had already “sold” all of my guns to my brother in law for $10 two days earlier.

While doing this, he said, “Is this true? You own two cars, and she doesn’t have one?” I replied that this was true, but that she didn’t own a car before we began dating, so I didn’t see how that made a difference. He told me to be quiet and said “Not any more. Give her one. In fact, give her the car you drove in here today. You can hitch a ride or take a cab, for all I care.” Now I wasn’t about to give her my primary car, which was worth much more than the one she had been driving, so I lied and told him that the car I arrived in wasn’t mine. The judge then ordered me to deliver the car to the courthouse the following day, also entering into the order that the car have “No defects, nothing wrong with it, and it had better have a full tank of gas, or I will hold you in contempt.”

My attorney objected, and pointed out to the judge that my girlfriend and I had never been married, had no children together, and he was therefore not within the law to enter such an order. The judge told him to sit down and shut up. The order also said that since my 2 jobs as a paramedic could potentially bring me near her, that I was prohibited from going to work.

The order said that it was temporary, and that there would be a final hearing in 120 days.

One job was willing to work with me and came up with a plan for vacation and administrative reassignment, the other one fired me the next day. The one willing to work with me (the fire department) placed me on paid suspension. I was told that if the order was made final, they would have to terminate me.

Since this was not a final judgment, we could not appeal. The judge also said that my taking away “her” car and phone was a kind of violence, in that I was using my financial influence and the threat of firearms to control her.

For the next five months, we had numerous hearings, and I was eventually able to return to my fire department job. I had to endure her showing up everywhere I went. I started making sure I had witnesses wherever I was, so that she couldn’t accuse me of anything. I hung out with friends and family, so that way it wouldn’t be my word against hers.

It would go like this: I would be at a sports bar owned by my partner, and she would show up and call the police. Since I was there first, they couldn’t arrest me, but they would make me leave. She would go grocery shopping at the store across the street from my house, and tell the cops I was watching her from my window, and they would come over and hassle me. She called the cops and told them her doctor’s office was in my mom’s neighborhood, and they would even throw me out of my mom’s house, and make me leave until she was finished at the doctor.

One night, she called me and told me that the whole thing would go away if I paid her $10,000 in cash and let her keep the car. I refused. My attorney was finally able to trip the judge on a legal technicality and got him recused from the case. With a new judge, we got the whole thing thrown out, and I got my car back. By the time I got it, it had been damaged by some sort of tool or keys. Someone had drawn large male genitalia in the side of the car by scratching it into the side of the car with a sharp object. My deductible for the insurance claim was $750, and it cost the insurance company $3,500 to repaint the entire car.

Another month, $1,100 in fees, and some administrative appeals later, I managed to get my CWP back. I bought the guns from my brother in law, and my life returned to normal.

All of this was done on a statement filled out by her, with no witnesses, and no evidence whatsoever. All of this because I pissed off a cop who decided to help my ex-girlfriend steal my stuff. The other cops he worked with? They all knew about it and thought it was funny as hell. I caught shit about it at work for almost a year.

So yeah, if you know that another cop is breaking the law and you don’t say anything, you aren’t a good cop. You are a criminal with a badge.

My Comments to Miguel:

Over at Gunfreezone, Miguel posts about people abusing claims of domestic abuse in order to gain leverage in divorce cases. I have twice been accused of this by angry ex-girlfriends who were trying to get revenge on me for daring to be their ex:

the law is abused. Here are the disturbing statistics:

25% of all divorces include accusations of domestic violence.
50% of all domestic violence restraining orders are issued without allegations of violence.
70% of domestic violence restraining orders are trivial or false. (PDF warning)
85% of restraining orders are against men

In fact, a New Mexico woman filed a restraining order against David Letterman in 2005, alleging that she was a victim of his domestic abuse. He had never met the woman. She said that he was using secret code words during his television show to threaten her. The judge in the case found her claims to have merit and granted the order, even though it was later overturned.

The law says that women can make an accusation of domestic violence and the court will punish the man by issuing a restraining order without him being allowed to defend himself. He gets a hearing two weeks later, but by that time his guns have been taken and his concealed weapons permit revoked. There is no fee for the woman to do this.

She gets a free lawyer. He does not. When it is discovered that she lied, nothing happens to her. She will not be prosecuted, and cannot be sued or punished in any way.

The Florida State Supreme Court has this to say on the matter:

Unfortunately, the current version of section 784.046 does not seem to permit the trial court to simply dismiss a sworn petition that does not allege facts that fall within the statutory language. Instead, section 784.046(5) requires that “[u]pon the filing of the petition, the court shall set a hearing to be held at the earliest possible time.” The result is the use of scant judicial resources to conduct unnecessary hearings based on pleadings that could never support the issuance of an injunction. These same hearings often serve only to inflame the parties’ emotions and foster further uncivil behavior. I would encourage the legislature to consider amending the domestic violence and repeat violence statutes to allow judges to dismiss petitions that, on their face, do not contain allegations sufficient to meet the statutory requirements without prejudice to the petitioner refiling a legally sufficient petition if he or she can do so.

Women who lie to use the law as a weapon cannot be punished. From the same decision:

Further, nowhere in section 784.046 is there any provision for an award of sanctions against a petitioner who uses the statutory provisions concerning injunctions as a sword rather than a shield.