Join BayouShooter For Free
Meplat

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 123 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 48
  1. #11
    Professional Amateur

    Premium Member

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Horrible View Post
    legislating the right to freely assemble.
    I don't believe that's what's happening here. The professional demonstrators have clearly overstepped their boundaries. It's past time to start sending them a hard message that actually has teeth.
    Sam
    Central/Pride, Evil Black Rifle Parish(EBR), LA

    “Remember the first rule of gunfighting... ‘have a gun.’"
    -Col. Jeff Cooper

  2. #12
    Marksman

    User Info Menu

    Can someone elaborate on the RICO portion. Is that the portion that really has teeth?
    Those who live by the sword, get shot by those who don't.

    Tim

  3. #13
    On Target

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by John_ View Post
    Nothing in this law prevents anyone from freely assembling or lawful protest. Not one iota of it. What it does prevent is unlawful behaviors stemming from unruly assembly, blocking off roadways or freeways to draw attention, damaging private or public property, or harassing or intimidating people.

    I'm not an expert on FL laws but I'd bet these are already unlawful activities. It just increase the penalties for committing such offenses while gathered in large crowds.

    Like several have stated earlier, good on FL for having the balls to address illegal behaviors while under the guise of lawful assembly or protest. It isn't a free pass to intimidate, destroy property, or infringe on the rights of other citizens. Pretty clear really.
    Nothing in 2A calls for its limits either. Not one Iota. In fact, it clearly states *shall not be infringed* yet today we find over 25,000 pages of gun laws on the books. Do you trust your govt through all times ahead to responsibly care for your rights enough to provide them additional tools to violate them? I sure don’t. Sure the Repubs are in power. Now. I sure as hell wouldn’t trust Dems with this type of power.
    Last edited by Horrible; September 25th, 2020 at 08:57 PM.

  4. #14
    On Target

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by oleheat View Post
    I don't believe that's what's happening here. The professional demonstrators have clearly overstepped their boundaries. It's past time to start sending them a hard message that actually has teeth.
    Agreed. Burning buildings, cars, etc, looting, shooting Cops, breaking into businesses, all crimes violating laws currently on the books. No new legislation required to jail all of these thugs.

  5. #15
    On Target

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocko68 View Post
    I see your opinion as well but the actual outcome of these "peaceful protests" in some places have Illustrated that not all Americans know how to act accordingly without looting and destruction of property, even death.
    I figure we all have these rights and a huge majority would and do stay in the realm of the proper way to protest but given the current events, i feel it's clearly obvious that some can't handle the privilege/right.
    I could make the same argument about gun ownership. Not all people deserve to own guns, right? In fact I have heard many leftists and gun control activists make this exact argument with the recommended action to have the state be the arbiter or who gets to exercise these rights and who doesn’t.

  6. #16
    On Target

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by thperez1972 View Post
    I don't believe the right to peacefully assemble is really affected by this.

    "Prohibition on Violent or Disorderly Assemblies: 3rd degree felony when 7 or more persons are involved in an assembly and cause damage to property or injury to other persons."
    -If the assembly is peaceful, this does not apply.

    "Prohibition on Obstructing Roadways: 3rd degree felony to obstruct traffic during an unpermitted protest, demonstration or violent or disorderly assembly; driver is NOT liable for injury or death caused if fleeing for safety from a mob."
    -If the peaceful assembly has a permit, the city is able to block off streets accordingly. If the goal of the assembly is to restrict the movement of other citizens and cause chaos, I don't think I'd agree to call it peaceful. So this would not apply either.

    "Prohibition on Destroying or Toppling Monuments: 2nd degree felony to destroy public property during a violent or disorderly assembly."
    -Criminal Damage to Property isn't peaceful.

    "Prohibition on Harassment in Public Accommodations: 1st degree misdemeanor for a participant in a violent or disorderly assembly to harass or intimidate a person at a public accommodation, such as a restaurant."
    -If your actions are designed to harass and/or intimidate people, saying those are peaceful actions is a stretch.

    "RICO Liability: RICO liability attaches to anyone who organizes or funds a violent or disorderly assembly."
    -This does not apply to peaceful protests.
    “Prohibition of violent OR disorderly” protests. Disorderly could be widely defined or not defined at all. Think of the Michigan protests against Whittmier’s draconian tyrannical Covid Lockdowns. With a statute like this one being proposed in FL, she would have the legal authority to shut those down immediately

  7. #17
    ESSAYONS

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Horrible View Post
    “Prohibition of violent OR disorderly” protests. Disorderly could be widely defined or not defined at all. Think of the Michigan protests against Whittmier’s draconian tyrannical Covid Lockdowns. With a statute like this one being proposed in FL, she would have the legal authority to shut those down immediately
    It doesn’t shut down “disorderly protests.” There’s another component involved. So if your disorderly protest isn’t damaging property or injuring people or blocking the street or harassing people at a restaurant, you’re good.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #18
    On Target

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by thperez1972 View Post
    It doesn’t shut down *disorderly protests.* There’s another component involved. So if your disorderly protest isn’t damaging property or injuring people or blocking the street or harassing people at a restaurant, you’re good.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    *Disorderly* can be defined in any way those in power will want to define it. And to my earlier point, if people are rioting, looting and becoming violent there are several other statutes already codified in existing law that would allow law enforcement to do what is necessary to take back the streets. This additional legislation is unnecessary.

    This is one of the major problems I see right now in our nation. We see a problem, we automatically assume that a new law will fix it. The local cities have the power to stop this madness right now. They simply choose not to for political reasons.

  9. #19
    ESSAYONS

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Horrible View Post
    *Disorderly* can be defined in any way those in power will want to define it. And to my earlier point, if people are rioting, looting and becoming violent there are several other statutes already codified in existing law that would allow law enforcement to do what is necessary to take back the streets. This additional legislation is unnecessary.

    This is one of the major problems I see right now in our nation. We see a problem, we automatically assume that a new law will fix it. The local cities have the power to stop this madness right now. They simply choose not to for political reasons.
    Ok. You keep saying “disorderly” can be defined however those in power want to define it but you keep failing to address the issue of that statement’s irrelevancy. So let’s look at an extreme definition of “disorderly protest.” Let’s define it as at least two people simply standing next to each other. So now you and a buddy decide to disorderly protest by standing next to each other in front of a governmental building. If you’re not destroying property or blocking traffic or intimidating others or injuring others, your actions are not covered by the new law.

    I haven’t researched that new proposed law yet but I would bet it does more than just repeat things located elsewhere in the law. I won’t be at all surprised if it takes existing penalties and enhances them if the crimes are committed while disorderly protesting.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #20
    On Target

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by thperez1972 View Post
    Ok. You keep saying *disorderly* can be defined however those in power want to define it but you keep failing to address the issue of that statement’s irrelevancy. So let’s look at an extreme definition of *disorderly protest.* Let’s define it as at least two people simply standing next to each other. So now you and a buddy decide to disorderly protest by standing next to each other in front of a governmental building. If you’re not destroying property or blocking traffic or intimidating others or injuring others, your actions are not covered by the new law.

    I haven’t researched that new proposed law yet but I would bet it does more than just repeat things located elsewhere in the law. I won’t be at all surprised if it takes existing penalties and enhances them if the crimes are committed while disorderly protesting.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    It says *or* not *and*. Small difference but tyrants have a way of twisting words (and laws) like a pretzel to fit their political ends. Why give them more rope?
    I am certainly no expert in FL law, but I will go out on a limb here and say that if I am destroying property and injuring or intimidating others, I am already breaking laws that are currently on the books making this new legislation completely unnecessary.

    You still haven’t addressed my basic point that there are enough laws on the books already to completely shut down this rioting. Local leaders simply choose not to do this for political reasons.

    Admittedly, I haven't researched the new law I have only read the text of the legislation that was posted here.

    More simply, I will use this quote to articulate where I am coming from on this "No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session." - Gideon John Tucker
    Last edited by Horrible; September 26th, 2020 at 07:20 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •