Tallahassee (FL) mayor calls for new "the merits of what makes sense" gun laws

[Wendell]

Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, a Democrat and gun safety advocate, says policy-makers need to make gun laws based on "the merits of what makes sense."
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article126288119.html

[fishing]

I too am a "gun safety advocate"

[Wendell]

Currently, criminal defendants have to explain at a pre-trial hearing why they deserve immunity from prosecution under the Stand Your Ground law. But the proposal by Sen. Rob Bradley, R-Fleming Island, would shift the burden of proof at that pre-trial hearing so that instead, the prosecutor would need to prove before trial “beyond a reasonable doubt” why a defendant couldn’t claim they lawfully stood their ground.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article131715629.html

[Arbninftry]

I too am a "gun safety advocate"
Please expound. I am sure others would like to opine.

[fishing]

Please expound. I am sure others would like to opine.

i follow generally sound safety practices when doing anything with firearms and advocate the same practices when shooting with others, especially new shooters.

my point regarding the linked news article, journalist/s and mayor involved is that it is simple minded pandering to label someone or one's self as a "blah blah blah" as it tries to reinforce that whatever BS spewed out is for a righteous cause.

[fixer]

I've found that when people start claiming grounds for 'action' based on "what makes sense" it is a red flag for copious amounts of arbitrariness, subjective thinking, and a virtual dog-whistle for group think.

[Hambo]

Not all of Florida is gun friendly. The Tallahassee mayor undoubtedly wants to go the route of Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, and Orange counties, but I'm not sure that will fly up there.

[RJ]

"How do you know a Tallahassian is lying?"

"His lips are moving."

Yeah, good luck with that. Sounds like more "Common sense gun laws" to me.

[jondoe297]

There's been a marked shift in the left over the last few years, when it comes to what terms and euphemisms they use to try to peddle their agenda. Namely, they've been moving sharply away from the term "Gun Control" and using "Gun Safety", likely in an attempt to make the concept more palatable to people who may be on the fence. Trying to bring the "I own a gun, and am against gun control, but don't think we need 'assault weapons'" type into the fold.

[Arbninftry]

i follow generally sound safety practices when doing anything with firearms and advocate the same practices when shooting with others, especially new shooters.

my point regarding the linked news article, journalist/s and mayor involved is that it is simple minded pandering to label someone or one's self as a "blah blah blah" as it tries to reinforce that whatever BS spewed out is for a righteous cause.
Ok thank you

[Arbninftry]

There's been a marked shift in the left over the last few years, when it comes to what terms and euphemisms they use to try to peddle their agenda. Namely, they've been moving sharply away from the term "Gun Control" and using "Gun Safety", likely in an attempt to make the concept more palatable to people who may be on the fence. Trying to bring the "I own a gun, and am against gun control, but don't think we need 'assault weapons'" type into the fold.
Yes, it is the "look at the shiny thing" argument. All while they pick your pocket. Taking away your rights.

[Hambo]

"How do you know a Tallahassian is lying?"

"His lips are moving."

Which would generally include the state government.

[SSalas]

Interesting that they just now "would shift the burden of proof at that pre-trial hearing so that instead, the prosecutor would need to prove before trial “beyond a reasonable doubt” why a defendant couldn’t claim they lawfully stood their ground".

Why wouldn't the prosecutor need to prove that the defendant did not follow the law?

That is the basis of our court system. "Innocent until proven guilty". I am surprised it took them so long to realize that a Kangaroo Court is a bad idea.

Glad it is fixed, but that it just changed is discouraging about the law making process. The fact that you may end up with a default presumption of guilt is just a terrifying concept.

When there are certain things you can do where you need to prove your innocence, it means your rights are not always acknowledged. And what you are presumed guilty for is a value judgement made by the state, not the right they tell you is inalienable.

Know your laws. Fight for your rights.

[blues]

Common sense in the courts...


https://youtu.be/xsOf0TZPPWY

[ssb]

Interesting that they just now "would shift the burden of proof at that pre-trial hearing so that instead, the prosecutor would need to prove before trial “beyond a reasonable doubt” why a defendant couldn’t claim they lawfully stood their ground".

Why wouldn't the prosecutor need to prove that the defendant did not follow the law?

That is the basis of our court system. "Innocent until proven guilty". I am surprised it took them so long to realize that a Kangaroo Court is a bad idea.

Glad it is fixed, but that it just changed is discouraging about the law making process. The fact that you may end up with a default presumption of guilt is just a terrifying concept.

When there are certain things you can do where you need to prove your innocence, it means your rights are not always acknowledged. And what you are presumed guilty for is a value judgement made by the state, not the right they tell you is inalienable.

Know your laws. Fight for your rights.

That's not how any of that works currently, but OK.

[Sero Sed Serio]

Interesting that they just now "would shift the burden of proof at that pre-trial hearing so that instead, the prosecutor would need to prove before trial “beyond a reasonable doubt” why a defendant couldn’t claim they lawfully stood their ground".

Why wouldn't the prosecutor need to prove that the defendant did not follow the law?

That is the basis of our court system. "Innocent until proven guilty". I am surprised it took them so long to realize that a Kangaroo Court is a bad idea.

Glad it is fixed, but that it just changed is discouraging about the law making process. The fact that you may end up with a default presumption of guilt is just a terrifying concept.

When there are certain things you can do where you need to prove your innocence, it means your rights are not always acknowledged. And what you are presumed guilty for is a value judgement made by the state, not the right they tell you is inalienable.

Know your laws. Fight for your rights.

Last I checked, in every state but Ohio, once the defense raises a "colorable claim" of self-defense, it is the state's burden to prove that the defendant DID NOT act in self-defense. Arizona was the last state to shift over, which happened after the Harold Fish case (https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=4266). Under Arizona case law, a "colorable claim" of self-defense is ridiculously easy to raise, the relevant case law being a case where a homicide conviction was overturned when no self-defense instruction was given when a homeless guy threw a cup of water on the defendant, and the defendant beat the homeless guy to death. Generally, all defenses are available to a defendant, so long as they are disclosed timely (an example of an exception is that in AZ a necessity defense is not available in a DUI (i.e. I was driving someone to the hospital)), but generally all relevant defenses are instructed to the jury, and the decision is made there. It is rare that a defense cannot be presented to the jury, and in those cases often there is extensive fact-specific litigation. However, more often than not, the "finders of fact," i.e. the jury, is asked to determine the facts and then apply them to the applicable law. In self-defense cases this often translates to the law, the burden of proof required, and the exceptions to the law (if any).