Florida CRC Seeks More Gun Restrictions
Recently, members of the Florida Constitutional Resource Committee (CRC) met and put forth considerations seeking more gun restrictions, to further set the Sun on gun ownership in Florida; adding to the Florida Constitution when the ink on raising the age requirement to own a firearm is not even dry yet. As if increasing the age to own a firearm was not enough and where the Second Amendment indicates no age restriction at all. If the states and the federal government are successful in disarming the populace, illegally, they will have all Americans in their grip, exposing them to more crime, while holding all the firearms for their use to include military grade weapons at their disposal.
Since the very beginning of European settlements in America, as far back as the 1600’s, guns were an integral part of everyone’s life, used for hunting and self-protection. Knowing what early settlers had in their possession in the way of guns, then why was the Second Amendment added to the U.S. Constitution in the first place? First, informing the federal and state governments by placing it in print in the U.S. Constitution is our right to own and bear arms; and as to the rest of the Bill of Rights, these rights are non-negotiable as well, in fact the government does not grant rights, they are natural rights which cannot be legislated into submission or taken away. Second, to warn the government if any attempt is made to enslave us through government tyranny, we have guns; we are the sovereign over government, the first nation to do so in all history. These two points, in no other way, can’t be construed to mean anything else that one can come away with concerning the Second Amendment or even the Bill of Rights as a whole. Finally, what is written in the U.S. Constitution cannot be usurped or changed in anyway by the states or congress without invoking Article V of the U.S. Constitution as outlined by the methods contained therein.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Question: How do you add or take away from this statement concerning the Second Amendment? How can one possibly come away with a different conclusion about it?
The following is a list of what the Florida Constitutional Resource Committee wanted to add to the Florida Constitution—
*An “assault weapons” ban which bans the distribution, sale, transfer, and possession of so-called assault weapons and any detachable magazine that has a capacity of more than 9 rounds. (Makes possession illegal with no compensation provided for those already possessed that must be surrendered)
*A ban on any semi-automatic rifle that is able to accept a detachable magazine or has a fixed magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds. (that means almost all semi-automatic rifles)
*A ban on the sale and transfer of “assault weapons” and defines “transfer” as the conveyance “from a person or entity to another person or entity WITHOUT any conveyance of money or other valuable consideration.” (Note: to “convey” between persons without compensation could mean the simple act of handing the firearm to another person while hunting, on the range, or anywhere)
*A 10 day waiting period (excluding weekends and legal holidays) on all firearms to facilitate a background check.
*A ban on the purchase of any firearm by a person under 21 years of age.
*A ban on the sale, transfer and possession of bump stocks and other accessories, tools, kits, etc.
These are the links to the proposed changes to the Florida Constitution:
These are the Commissioners that serve on the Constitutional Resource Committee—
firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
These are the Commissioners that voiced opposition to the draconian changes to the Florida Constitution proposed by so many members of the committee:
Former Sheriff/Commissioner Emery Gainey raised a point of order and presented the case that the amendments were not germane and argued to uphold the rules. Rules Chairman Tim Cerio advised the Chair that the point was well taken and Chairman Carlos Beruff ruled the amendments were out of order and could not be introduced.
The Commissioners proposing the gun ban and gun control amendments appealed the ruling of the Chair and tried all avenues to convince other Commissioners to ignore the rules, waive the rules and just plain violate the rules. But the majority of Commissioners overwhelmingly upheld the Chair, demonstrating respect for the rule of law.
So for today, responsible leadership prevailed and our Constitution is safe from those who have no respect for its sanctity.
Among those Commissioners who fought to support, protect and defend the Constitution and the rule of law were: Former Sheriff Emery Gainey, former Senator Don Gaetz, Rep. Chris Sprowls, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Commission Chair Carlos Beruff.1
As to the rest of the Commissioners, you can easily locate them in the email addresses posted in this Column by copying their email address and doing an online search or copy and paste their address in your email service and send them a note.
Now look what our U.S. government has been up to when it comes to interpreting the Second Amendment, yes our U.S. government. Suggesting the Second Amendment is not so clear. Opinion should not be part of this statement only federal court could comment of such matters. They are pushing the meaning as they see it—
The Second Amendment, one of the ten amendments to the Constitution comprising the Bill of Rights, states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Here is the opinion which should not be in their overview! “The meaning of this sentence is not self-evident, and has given rise to much commentary but relatively few Supreme Court decisions.” There is no need for the Left to read the rest of the overview at the federal government website, this gives them all the “ammo” they need to twist the meaning of the Second Amendment.
What public education is doing and now what the U.S. government is spreading begs one to think about what this is really leading to2—
1Extract from NRA Email dated March 21, 2018
2Fordham Law Review