TexasCHLforum.com

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – The Florida Senate on Thursday approved the so-called warning shot bill, moving to significantly revise the state's self-defense laws for the first time since the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

The bill, which was partly inspired by the case of a Jasonville woman sentenced to 20 years in prison after firing a shot near her estranged husband during an altercation, passed the chamber 32-7. The woman, Marissa Alexander, is out on bail awaiting a new trial.
The bill, which earlier received backing from the Republican-controlled House, now goes to the desk of Republican Gov. Rick Scott.

Alexander had tried to assert a "stand your ground" defense, but a judge rejected her claim. She was sentenced under a 1999 law called "10-20-life" in which mandatory sentences are imposed for using a gun in certain cases.

That law requires that anyone who shows a gun in the commission of certain felonies receive an automatic 10 years in prison. If a gun is fired, it's an automatic 20 years under that law. Shoot and wound someone and the mandatory sentence is 25 years to life.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04 ... ense-laws/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That law requires that anyone who shows a gun in the commission of certain felonies receive an automatic 10 years in prison. If a gun is fired, it's an automatic 20 years under that law. Shoot and wound someone and the mandatory sentence is 25 years to life.

The application of law and order versus justice.

I am not sure I agree with 10-20-life in this case, but don't present a firearm as a method to warn. I tend to think it is dangerous. The perp may have an opportunity to respond to your warning in a way you won't find pleasant.

use the firearm for it"s intended purpose...respond to the threat, not warn the perp.

Texas_Blaze wrote:but don't present a firearm as a method to warn...use the firearm for it"s intended purpose...respond to the threat, not warn the perp.

So you think a Texas CHL holder should only pull a weapon when deadly force is justified? I'm glad the legislature did not take that stance.
I am thankful I have the legal ability to draw my weapon as a deterrent to someone intent on doing me harm prior to deadly force being justified. Otherwise there may not be time to draw my weapon.

With the high cost of ammo at this time, warning shots should be discontinued.

Evidently "warning shots" aren't even mentioned in the bill. According to the author of the bill, it has nothing to do with warning shots but rather the ability of people to defend themselves.

I have a problem with warning shots. The projectile has to go somewhere. I am responsible for every shot I fire. If I fire into the air I am still responsible for where that projectile lands. By firing a warning shot I may hit some(thing, one) I had not intend to.

jmra wrote:Evidently "warning shots" aren't even mentioned in the bill. According to the author of the bill, it has nothing to do with warning shots but rather the ability of people to defend themselves.

I hate when that happens. I heard about this on the radio on my commute home. It's hard to figure out what the bill does without reading the entire text.

A couple people who called into the radio show stated that it would infringe on their rights to protect themselves.

From what I got from their calls, the new law would require people to fire a warning shot prior to shooting at that person.

I don't know the details of this Florida bill but in general I think someone who misses should still be convicted of aggravated assault even if they claim it was a warning shot.

There's a saying that a bad case results in bad case law. Maybe bad case law results in bad laws?

WildBill wrote:

jmra wrote:Evidently "warning shots" aren't even mentioned in the bill. According to the author of the bill, it has nothing to do with warning shots but rather the ability of people to defend themselves.

I hate when that happens. I heard about this on the radio on my commute home. It's hard to figure out what the bill does without reading the entire text.

A couple people who called into the radio show stated that it would infringe on their rights to protect themselves.

From what I got from their calls, the new law would require people to fire a warning shot prior to shooting at that person.

This might help
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/04/fl ... nors-desk/
In summary SB-448 provides:
No statutory authorization for firing “warning shots”—indeed, the statutory language would deny justification to any “warning shot” that “poses a threat to public safety,” which would seem to apply to all but the rarest circumstances.
No substantive change to stand-your-ground.
Where the use of force would have been lawful in defense of a person, the mere threat is also lawful in defense of a person.
Where the use of force would have been lawful in defense of a home, business, or occupied vehicle, the mere threat of force is also lawful in defense of a home, business, or occupied vehicle.
Where the use of force would have been lawful in defense of personal property or to prevent a forcible felony, the mere threat of force is also lawful in defense of personal property or to prevent a forcible felony.
Where immunity would attach to a use of force, immunity will similarly attach to a mere threat of force.
Allows for expunction of criminal history associated with a lawful act of self-defense.

Texas_Blaze wrote:I am not sure I agree with 10-20-life in this case, but don't present a firearm as a method to warn. I tend to think it is dangerous. The perp may have an opportunity to respond to your warning in a way you won't find pleasant.

use the firearm for it"s intended purpose...respond to the threat, not warn the perp.

I certainly agree that if one is pointing a firearm at someone, one needs to be prepared to shoot. Mere display of a firearm is not a magic talisman guaranteed to make a BG disappear.

However, looking at only the phrase "don't present a firearm as a method to warn", I'd like to observe there are over 2 million times a year when the simple display or threat of a firearm by a law abiding citizen prevented a crime. Also, having a firearm at low ready or pointed as a threat is a useful tactic, or the police would not be routinely using that approach thousands of times every day.

MeMelYup wrote:I have a problem with warning shots. The projectile has to go somewhere. I am responsible for every shot I fire. If I fire into the air I am still responsible for where that projectile lands. By firing a warning shot I may hit some(thing, one) I had not intend to.

And, although I haven't read the bill so I don't know what it says or does, if it "authorizes" warning shots, you can bet that the next time some teenage thug get shot down while he's holding up a 7-11, his mother and Al Sharpton will be out there not onlu crying about what a good kid who never hurt anybody he was, by insisting that the good citizen who saved others' lives be put in prison for ever because he didn't fire a warning shot.

If I found myself in that sort of situation, you can bet that at least one of the shots I fire would go in some safe place, even if not quite in the right sequence.

jimlongley wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:I have a problem with warning shots. The projectile has to go somewhere. I am responsible for every shot I fire. If I fire into the air I am still responsible for where that projectile lands. By firing a warning shot I may hit some(thing, one) I had not intend to.

And, although I haven't read the bill so I don't know what it says or does, if it "authorizes" warning shots, you can bet that the next time some teenage thug get shot down while he's holding up a 7-11, his mother and Al Sharpton will be out there not onlu crying about what a good kid who never hurt anybody he was, by insisting that the good citizen who saved others' lives be put in prison for ever because he didn't fire a warning shot.

If I found myself in that sort of situation, you can bet that at least one of the shots I fire would go in some safe place, even if not quite in the right sequence.

"Warning shots" are not even mentioned in the bill. I expect the media and antis gave the bill this label in hopes of it being defeated.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2 ... ext/__/PDF
Florida SB 448

My gun holds 6 in the mag and 1 in the chamber. There's no chance if I felt the need to shoot it would be to fire a shot into the ground or air, or wherever I choose to shoot. Plus I'd imagine it would put you in a rough spot legally. "You were afraid for your life so you shot at something other than your assailant? If you were in such fear for your life that you had to shoot, how did you have time to calculate and plan a safe discharge path? And how could you be certain that it was a safe place to fire into?" Not to mention if things escalated and you needed to shoot the assailant, you now have to refocus your aim, plus to fire the warning shot you've taken your eye off of the threat. I would imagine that if a situation was so iffy that I'd need to warn someone then I could just display my weapon. If that didn't do it and they came at me, I'd then be authorized to use deadly force. Plus I can only imagine, especially as I'm a woman, that to fire a warning shot could give an attacker the idea that you wouldn't actually shoot them which defeats the purpose of using force (not deadly unless it progressed). Now if someone was coming at me and their intentions to harm me were clear, I'd have to be ready to fire to stop the threat, and a warning shot isn't guaranteed to do that.

What an incredibly bad idea.