FL: Attempt to Ban Shooting on most Private Property Fails

An attempt to ban shooting on private property was stopped in the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee, with a vote of 5-8.   From theledger.com:

Under current Florida law, it is a crime to "recklessly or negligently discharge a firearm" outdoors on any property used primarily as a residence or zoned residential.

Rouson's bill would have stripped the words "recklessly" and "negligently," from the law, as well as the mention of "outdoors," effectively banning shooting on a residential property under many conditions.

The bill bill did far more than what was mentioned in the article.  It was a blatant attempt to stop nearly all shooting on private property,  in urban, suburban, and rural areas.   From the bill, HB 623(pdf):

(2)
A person who discharges a firearm for target practice
32 or recreational purposes within 1,000 feet of a person or
33 developed real property, other than at an authorized sport
34 shooting range that meets the standards of the National Rifle
35 Association for gun safety and shooting ranges as provided in
36 the 2012 edition of the NRA Range Source Book or on a property
37 expressly approved for hunting by the Fish and Wildlife
38 Conservation Commission, commits a misdemeanor of the first
39 degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

If you are shooting, and there is another person within 1,000 feet of you, you would be in violation.  If there was a pole shed within 1,000 feet of you, would be in violation.   No private property in Florida is "expressly approved for hunting by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission". 

Notice how this bill turns the fundamental concept of government on its head.  It is a consistent theme with disarmist laws.  The fundamental philosophy of American government is that if it is not forbidden, it is permitted.  The Statist philosophy is: If it is not permitted, it is forbidden.  There is an entire universe of difference between the two.

There have not been *any* problems with the current law.  There has not been even one case brought against someone for reckless and or negligent discharges by prosecutors under the current law.   Not one was mentioned in the testimony for the passage of the bill.   Both sides, proponents and opponents, would have searched diligently to attempt to find that one example. Not one was found.

What we have, yet again, is disarmists attempting to create a problem where none exists, in order to restrict second amendment rights.  It happened with the banning of short barreled rifles and shotguns in 1932.  It happened with switchblade knives in 1958.  It happened with nun-chucks in the 1980s and with so called "assault weapons" in 1994.

It did not happen with shooting on private property in Florida 2015, thanks to common sense, some Florida legislators, and grass roots opposition.

What is worrisome is that five legislators voted to violate peoples rights on a made up non-issue, including one Republican, Chris Latvala (R-St Petersburg). 

It shows the power of the old media that this bill was even considered, and the power of the new media and the grass roots that it was killed so quickly.

Definition of  disarmist 

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch