My Fellow Americans, have we come to a crossroad yet again?

We must take an honest look at where we are and where we may be heading in order to make sure that our country does not collapse around us, and become that very thing many Americans have fought and died so selflessly to prevent.

Many valiant Americans have fought both on American soil, in the formative years of our country, and during conflicts many thousands of miles away, to prevent the loss of the very freedoms that our country was founded to ensure for “we the people”. Shall we allow the very fabric of that to be torn and thrown to the winds to go where it may fall? I pray not.

I feel we are coming to a crossroads again in our country. We have come to these before, during the Revolution, during the Civil War, and during the wars that enveloped most of the world, and we have endured. All fought to preserve the United States in the form that would stand the test of time. All fought by brave Americans who believed that they were standing up for something bigger than themselves, something so important that their lives were put on hold, they traveled away from family, and some paid the ultimate sacrifice of their very lives. What could hold that type of meaning to an American?

I say to you that it is that very thing, FREEDOM, that is what they and many before and now hold so dear. We grasp at it, cherish it, and yearn for it because we know that without it, we are not truly Americans but may as well be part of the very countries subjects we fought to win our freedoms from.

True Americans believe reverently in those iconic words written by Thomas Jefferson so many years ago, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. This was such an important part of why we became the country that we are they wrote those very words down when declaring their independence from others! We fought a war amongst ourselves, and hundreds of thousands of Americans died, fighting to make all men free and citizens. Racism has no place in America that I see. ALL are created equal, and all have the rights we share.

But the meaning of that word that was so important to our founders seems to be losing it’s meaning and it’s worth to many today. And therefore, we find ourselves at the crossroads today. What is freedom and what did it mean, and should it mean to us today? Should it mean anything different than it did to Jefferson, Adams, Washington and the rest? I say NO! It is no different now than before and, in the future, that none can see, it should be the same.

A citizen is free because they are just that a citizen. As those wise Americans said, EVERY citizen must be able to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. And as long as those things do not harm or restrict another’s same rights, it is then an individual thing, this freedom we have. This is where many today fail to see what freedom really meant then and should mean now.

Freedom is that choice of choosing between what is right and what is wrong. Choose wrongly and you may have consequences, some of which could be forever and affect you for the rest of your life. Who decides what is right and wrong? That is already set in the fabric of our founding documents, and our Basic principles as outlined in our Constitution.

Freedom was so important to our countries founders they codified it in our most precious of founding documents, the Constitution of the United States of America. They felt that freedoms all citizens should share were so important that they listed some that they did not even want the very government they were forming to be able to take away. This became known as the Bill of Rights. Many today have never even read this iconic document, yet they call for it to be changed because it is “outdated” or “does not apply” to today’s America. I say to them you are ignorant of the meaning of the document and its entire purpose. I say that you who think that way are not only wrong, but the very kind of threat that the authors were worried about rising up in this great nation and made that very document to stand against.

We have the freedom to choose. We have the freedom to decide our own fates. We have the “Bill of Rights”. No more should one desire to give up their rights than their very lives. As without those rights are our lives any better or for the worse? The founders wrote in the preamble to the Bill of rights these very telling words: “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…” declaring that they wanted to make sure that the Government DID NOT restrict the very thing they were voting on and passed, the rights of the citizens.

So how have we drifted so far away from where we were to where we are today that one may strip the rights from this group or that? By the use of the courts and the controlling parties. America was meant to be a land of the free. A land where citizens ruled themselves and when they had common interest the Government could aid them not restrict them. The Government was established to help make the United States stronger, not more divided, to make the country wealthier not poorer. We have lost the vision of our founders.

I say to you that we are free Americans. We have basic rights that the Constitution does not create but were given to us at the beginning of time, and are PROTECTED by the Constitution. Lest we allow those rights to be given away and restricted by the very government we the people founded we must decide what road we take.

We must choose carefully. If we give up one right what is to stop the rest from falling along with it. Do we want a Government that is all powerful? One that can disregard the rights we have now and say enter you home whenever they wish? Maybe incarcerate you for a crime without a trial of your peers? How about seizing your property or land because they think that they are better stewards of it? And of course one that is hotly debated today, the right to defending yourself and your family and property from lawless criminals.

Do we become that country of the subjects to a government that is our provider of all or do we work to become that country that the citizens work to provide for themselves and have the right to become whatever they wish and can achieve? I say the later.

I will leave you with this. Freedom is never pretty or safe. It has always had its dangers and perils. Yet it is the very reason we are here where we are and in this wonderful country we are part of, the United States of America. My ancestors came here and fought to free this country. Some of them fought to maintain it, and in the future should it become necessary we must be willing to defend it again. Freedom is not safe, it should not be, it should be hard fought and cherished like the prize that it is.

God Bless you and keep you safe, may he watch over you and your family. God Bless the United States of America.

By Chris Wagoner

Advertisements

Those terrible death machines called “bump stocks”.

Well, I finally got to read the official Las Vegas Mass Murder report. It is 187 pages long and a lot of it is simple documentation of evidence and statement of things we already knew.

But a few interesting things came to light. Probably the most interesting being that it is documented that bump stocks were used in that shooting. Yes it has been documented that bump stocks were used in exactly 1 (one) crime in the entire United States, yet we have a national push to ban them and they have been in 11 states already. Think about that for a minute.

Here is a firearm accessory that when looked at in all honesty is nothing more than a novelty, a “fun” item to shoot with. It definitely is not used for accurate fire. Nor does any serious shooter use one for self-defense as it cuts the accuracy of your shot placement way down. If you know firearms and know how to shoot a rifle, you can fire very quickly (as fast as a bump stock if not faster), with far more accuracy without one.

The Las Vegas murderer used bump stocks on 12 of the 14 rifles that he fired before he killed himself. He fired over 1050 rounds. What became interesting and obvious to anyone with knowledge about firearms is that most of the rifles used had 100 round magazines and when he ran them dry (ran out of ammo) rather than reloading, he just switched rifles. Even though he had multiple loaded magazines ready to go. Also interesting was the fact that many of the rifles used had no optics or sights on them at all. What does that mean? He was not aiming at anyone but just spraying rounds at the crowd. Some of those he did have optics on had red dot style sights. Shooting one of those with a bump stock is not very accurate at all either. And at the distance he was from the crowd, would have been useless.

What does this lead one to think about the shooter and shooting? He was not very experienced with shooting the firearms he used. Had he been, well without giving copycats out there ideas, he could have done much more damage shooting differently. Let’s leave it at that. In fact, I will go out on a limb and say had he not used bump stocks he would have caused many more deaths or injuries as his accuracy would have been much greater.

Now before you go off on a tangent and think I am defending bump stocks, I am not. Personally, I think they are just a novelty item and serve no real purpose other than maybe being fun to waste ammo with. BUT I will say that I also do not support any bans of them. Especially based on the fact they have been used in just one (1) document case of murder. Again we must revisit the fact that it’s not the tool that is at fault it’s the person using the tool.

So why the bump stock bans and cry for a national ban? Because they need something to blame that they can target. It’s is to hard to target human behavior and it’s causes. The real problem in these cases. So let’s target something that really had nothing to do with the causation and may have actually contributed to fewer lives being lost. Let us blame the tool, not the user. Does that make any sense at all? I say no.

http://bit.ly/2G9rUYU

Let’s Try a Gun Control Experiment! Let’s Make These Laws…

Ok with the continued cry for stricter gun control and the call for the removal of assault weapons, adding magazine limits and more, let’s try those and a few more new laws as an experiment and see what happens to the murder rate! As a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and individual rights, I confess that we have to do something to help make people safer right? So let’s try what those calling themselves #gunsense or #guncontrol want.

Let’s start out by enacting laws that require the following:

  • universal background checks
  • gun registration requirements
  • Gun Violence Restraining Orders
  • a ten-day waiting period for gun purchases
  • an “assault weapons” ban
  • one-gun-per-month limit on handgun purchases
  • minimum age of 21 to purchase a firearm
  • ban carrying firearms on campuses
  • “good cause” restriction for concealed carry permit issuance
  • limit the buying of ammunition to state-approved vendors
  • gun free zones mandated for anywhere that sells alcohol

Those should be a good start right! If we can only enact all of those new laws we should be able to curtail and maybe even reduce the number of murders by a significant amount I hope. You see many are clamoring for “common sense gun control”, yet they fail to say just what that is. I have asked many a gun control supporter just what they want and they almost always look at me with a vacant look. Like they had not thought out just what they have been led to believe is the answer. To them, gun control of any kind is what they want. Anything that will help. So I suggest the above as a start to see what happens. (bear with me and read to the end)

I mean we have an “epidemic” of gun violence in the US right? That’s what the Doctors told me when I read their posts, tweets, and articles. We have a crisis of gun murders right? That’s what Mom’s Demand Action, Everytown, and Micheal Bloomberg have told us right? The media tells us all the time that we have a huge problem of gun violence in the US. We have a crisis/ epidemic of school shootings in the US now right? That’s what they have blasted all over the media and social networks. So something has to be done about all this right?

OK, so what if I told you a state has already enacted those laws that I listed above? And guess what happened? Well, the murder rate went up 18%. WHAT!?!? That is right, the state of California already has enacted those things (all of them) and the murder rate in that state went up 18%. How is that possible? We have been told over and over that restrictions and new laws will help curb the murder and shooting epidemic. I guess not.

And as for those claims of a national epidemic or crisis of firearms shootings, murders and school shootings being a crisis or epidemic, I had to look at the numbers just to see how bad it was. Imagine how surprised I was (not really) when I discovered that instead of increasing sharply or even being higher than in the past, murder and firearms victimizations have dropped dramatically over the last 25 years or so. And not by a few percentage points, but by more than 45% each! That’s right, according to the FBI Crime database (FBI Crime Statistics) murder and firearms victimization has dropped by almost half over the last 25 years. So what about our crisis and epidemic?

Now I do not profess to be a linguist or language scholar, but even I know that when something drops by almost half it is not anything close to an epidemic or crisis. In fact by anyone’s standards that would be called a very positive trend. So why are we being told it’s a crisis, epidemic or problem? Maybe because if it was known that it’s not, those people would have no basis for these restrictions and laws? So why don’t people point out these facts to those calling for these new laws and restrictions? We do, but of course are told we are lying, or making stuff up, even with the numbers available to all.

And what about the school shooting epidemic? We all can agree that is real right? Well, let us look at the numbers again. NPR (National Public Radio) not known to be a very conservative media outlet, published an article titled “The School Shootings That Weren’t“. In this very interesting article they say:

“This spring the U.S. Education Department reported that in the 2015-2016 school year, “nearly 240 schools … reported at least 1 incident involving a school-related shooting.” 

Now that is alarming! 240 school shootings in just one year. Anyone can agree that is terrible and should be investigated farther. So NPR did just that and looked into that further. And they reported, “We were able to confirm just 11 reported incidents, either directly with schools or through media reports.” They report that two-thirds of the reported school shootings reported by the DOE NEVER HAPPENED. Now that is just downright scary that the U.S. Department of Education would report things that are in such error. But they do. And it is picked up and run with by many who support any kind of firearms restrictions that it takes on a life of its own, even when it’s false. If it’s on the internet it has to be true right?

We hear it over and over that firearms are the problem. Murders, firearms victimization and other gun related things are a crisis. Why do we hear this when the numbers do not support these claims? Because the world has changed. The internet has made the ability to post and have spread around the nation or world in minutes any claim that anyone wants to make. Even if it’s not true. And many people today are just plain too lazy to do any research for themselves. They rely on others, even when those others may not have the facts, or may have an agenda, to tell them what they should think.

Here is a fun experiment to try. Find someone that wants to have stricter gun control laws or restrictions. Ask them simply why they want them. If they say because of all the murders or school shootings simply ask them how much have these things gone up over say the last 25 years or so. Ask them to tell you what the increase in numbers has been. When they can’t, simply ask them then why do you want restrictions? If they point to bogus made up numbers, point them to the FBI Violent Crime Statistics and ask them to again prove their claim. They can’t.

We live in the instant information age, even if that information may be misleading or worse, made up. Information takes on a life of its own and becomes fact because so many people read it and tweet it and post it, it must be true right? The answer? No.

 

 

2020 Florida Amendment Petition Drive to Ban “Assualt Weapons” Will do Nothing Except make Felons out of Law Abiding Citizens.

Recently a group calling themselves “Ban Assault Weapons Now” proposed a Florida Constitutional Amendment that bans assault weapons and requires registration be added to the 2020 Florida election ballot.

Now in order to put it on the ballot in 2020, they will have to get upwards of over 750,000 valid signatures on the petitions. Then they must get 60% of Florida voters to vote in favor of it. While we like to think that is unlikely, stranger things have happened. Just look at the recent elections and some of those elected like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and you will see just how far away from the middle of the road we have gone.

Looking into this lunacy further we find the definition that they want to use for “assault weapon”: “Assault Weapons – For purposes of this subsection, any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition at once, either in a fixed or detachable magazine, or any other ammunition feeding device. This subsection does not apply to handguns” 

Read that carefully. If you know anything about firearms this would apply to most semi-automatic rifles, even some shotguns. If that was not bad enough, what the “Limitations” states should make you cringe: “If a person had lawful possession of an assault weapon prior to the effective date of this subsection, the person’s possession of that assault weapon is not unlawful (1) during the first year after the effective date of this subsection, or (2), after the person has registered that weapon by make, model, and serial number with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement or its successor agency, as designated by the legislature. Registration records shall be available to local, state and federal law enforcement agencies for valid law enforcement purposes but shall otherwise be confidential.” So, in other words, they want to grandfather in already owned firearms, but you have to register them within one year.

So what is the punishment or penalty for not doing this? You become an instant FELON! Here are the penalties: “Criminal Penalties – Violation of this subsection is a third-degree felony. The legislature may designate greater, but not lesser, penalties for violations”. So if you fail to register your assault weapon within a year you are a felon. If you buy or take into your possession an assault weapon (by their definition) you are a felon.

So let us look at this logically. Just exactly what would this do to reduce the crime rate or shootings or mass shootings? Nothing. You see MURDER is already against the law. Taking a firearm onto school grounds is already illegal. Harming someone without a lawful reason is illegal. So the only thing this proposal will do is make felons out of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Floridians. There is NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that this would reduce anything.

Then there is the little problem of resistance to this proposed amendment/ law. I for one will go on record saying that I will not comply with this if it becomes part of the constitution. You do not legislate through Constitutional Amendment, you make laws through the Florida House and Senate. The reason for that is to prevent exactly what this group is trying to do. Prevent the possibility of a majority taking away the rights of a minority. As James Madison once said: “The purpose of the Constitution is to restrict the majority’s ability to harm a minority”.

Florida has the highest number of concealed carry permit holders in the US. Currently, it is at 1,941,097 as of October 31st, 2018! While not all of those may be rifle owners, I would be willing to bet a good number are. These are people that have shown less propensity to commit a crime than even the police in Florida, yet they want to restrict them even more. In what reality does that make any sense?

So I guess I should close by going on the official record. As a 35+ year veteran law enforcement officer in Florida and U.S. Army veteran, I will not comply with this should it pass. I am sorry but there comes a time when the purpose of the 2nd Amendment becomes obvious, to protect the citizens from the over-reaching of the government they elected. They tried to take firearms from the citizens of the United States once before, it was in 1775, and we ended up shooting those that tired and kicking them out of the country. Think about that.

Here is a link to the petition.

Trump Derangement Syndrom is Real! Professor Shoots Himself in Protest of President.

Ok just when you think you have heard it all, someone comes along and raises the bar of stupidity to a new level! And that bar just got set very high. A sociology professor at the College of Southern Nevada, Mark Bird, 69, was found collapsed and bleeding from a gunshot wound outside a bathroom on that campus.

Further investigation and on speaking with the Professor the Campus Police discovered that he had shot himself in the arm in protest of President Trump. That’s right, he shot himself in the arm, dropped the firearm in the bathroom and stumbled outside to collapse. All in protest of President Trump.

The police did say that they discovered a hundred-dollar bill taped to the mirror in the bathroom with the note “For the janitor” on it.

Now that he pulled this stunt, he is being charged with multiple firearms-related charges and faces several felonies, including bringing a firearm onto the campus.

When reading this news report, one must ask themselves, just what was he trying to show or prove, besides that he needs some serious mental health evaluation. Anyone that would shoot themselves in protest of anything has some very deep-seated mental health issues and needs to be evaluated. Some states even have laws that allow for involuntary admission to a mental health facility when someone is showing signs of possibly harming themselves. I think Professor Bird meets that criteria.

On a side note, to all the parents of college students there at the College of Southern Nevada, just think this man was teaching your young adults the subject of sociology One has to wonder just what he was teaching them in that classroom if he is unhinged enough to shoot himself in protest, how safe are his students?

One must wonder if the anti-Trump movement has become so deranged that if they are feeling the need to shoot themselves in protest, how long before they start shooting others in protest? Oh, never mind, that has already happened, and they have tried to stab other GOP members with knives, shoot up GOP baseball games and more. And the part that makes one wonder is why they accuse the GOP and law-abiding firearms owners as being those who are dangerous. I think I will continue to legally carry my concealed firearm everywhere, just in case an unhinged anti-Trump protestor wants to take a few of us with them when they decide to shoot themselves in protest. A word to all of them, get help for your mental disorder before you harm yourself or anyone else.

http://bit.ly/2NfrIuf

Florida’s Justifiable Use of Force Laws…

OK, I think it’s time to educate the public on something that they have been so misled on in the media and from the anti-firearms, gun control, and other anti-rights groups.

With the recent shooting in Clearwater, the media and many others seem to be misquoting and misunderstanding Florida’s “Justifiable Use of Force” laws. So maybe a bit of simple education is in order.

First Florida does not have any law titled “Stand Your Ground Law” or “Castle Doctrine” law. Those are names given by the media and anti-self-defense legislators to a very simple, and for a law, easy to read law that governs when you can and cannot use force to defend yourself or another person. It also spells out when you can and cannot use force in defense of property and gives immunity from arrest and prosecution when self-defense is lawful. So, let’s break it down for everyone.

Florida’s self-defense law is Chapter 776 of the Florida statutes and is titled “Justifiable Use of Force”. The first subsection is “776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.” In subsection (1) it discusses when you can use physical force (but not deadly force) to defend yourself against another using illegal force against you.

“(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.”

It says that you can threaten to use (make verbal threats or raise and shake your fist for example) or use physical force against another when that person is using illegal physical force against you. And that you do not have to run away or try and flee before doing so. Pretty simple. But it specifically says you cannot use deadly force to do this. That comes next.

“(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.”

Now subsection (2) spells out when you can threaten to use or use deadly force. And this is the whole thing that the recent shooting in Clearwater was viewed under. You can threaten or use deadly force (that includes shooting someone, stabbing them, even running them over with a car if that is all you can do) to stop or prevent someone else from killing you, causing you great bodily harm, or to stop or prevent the commission of a forcible felony. So let’s break those down. Killing you, I think most people understand that one, but what many do not know is that what does it take to kill you? Can being shoved hard to the ground kill you? Yes, it can. If you Google it you will find many examples of it already happening. And the law allows you to prevent this from happening if you think the criminal is about to try this, they do not have to already have tried and failed or try a second time.

While the term “great bodily harm” is not defined in Florida Statute it is in many cases citing’s taken as “face value” meaning that it is talking about an injury that causes great harm. Or more importantly “imminent” great bodily harm, meaning it does not have to already have occurred, you can use force to stop it from happening if you feel it is going to happen unless you do something.

The last part of that subsection is the forcible felony part. This is where the law spells out crimes that it considers so serious that you can use deadly force to stop them if they are being committed against you, or another person (person not property). Those forcible felonies must be committed against a person and are spelled out in:

776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

If you are having any of those crimes committed against you, or another person, you may use the threat of, or actual deadly force to prevent them. The important part to remember is that those crimes must be committed against a person not just a piece of property. So the burglary listing must be a burglary of an occupied house, not an empty one. You can’t shoot someone for stealing property, although in some states you can!

In both subsections, the law states that you have a right to not flee your attacker as long as you are legally where you are allowed to be. That is the entire “stand your ground” part. As you see a very small part of the law itself.

So, in summary, you can use non-deadly force to stop a non-deadly attack on you. TASER’s, pepper-spray, and other devices are non-lethal and can be used. You may use deadly force ONLY if you fear that you are going to be seriously (great) injured or possibly killed by the attack. And you may use it to stop the attack once it has started or even to prevent it from happening, like someone threatening you with a knife and trying to rob you.

Next lesson will be on the law allowing the defense of your home. If you like this and find these lessons helpful, please leave a comment so I know they are useful to people to help them understand the practical application of Florida Law.

NOTE! Of course, I must state that I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but I have a fair amount of experience teaching this law to police officers (almost 28 years’ worth, and also using the law myself as a LEO for 35 years).

Florida’s misnamed “Stand your Ground” law and the term “Castle Doctrine”.

OK, I think it may be time for some education and clarification on the history and use of Florida’s misnamed “Stand your Ground” law and the term “Castle Doctrine”.

First a little history, how did Florida’s “Justifiable Use of Force” statute, Chapter 776 in the Florida State Statutes, become referred to as the Florida “Stand Your Ground” (SYG) law? Why if those words do not appear in the statute do we keep hearing it referred to as that?

Well, you must go back to when the law was being debated on the floor of the Florida Legislature prior to being passed. Prior to 2005, Florida residents already had the right to use deadly force to defend themselves, but they had to prove they could not have escaped the threat. Basically, requiring them to try and run away, or be cornered and not able to before they could use deadly force to defend their own lives. A terrible way to live and putting people at the mercy of violent criminals. In a quote from a 2005 article (https://wapo.st/2LJzEio) on the law being considered Rep. Dan Gelber is quoted as saying “”It’s almost like a duel clause” and “People ought to have to walk away if they can.” Meaning that if you did not retreat from a threat, you cannot use force to defend your life.

The press needed something to call the law that had negative connotations to it and they figured that something uttered by an opponent to the law at the time, was a good choice. It makes the law sound like, as it was also referred to, as a “dueling” law. When it is nothing of the sort.

Something of interest from back then also is this little tidbit from the same article “Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist, a leading candidate for the Republican governor’s nomination in 2006, was among those who wrote letters of support.” So back then Ole Charlie was a Republican and in favor of the Self defense rights of Floridians. What happened to Charlie?

In a CBS article dated April 26th, 2005 (https://cbsn.ws/2LKU5f1), CBS legal analyst Andrew Cohen said: “It says to people: You can stand your ground and if you feel reasonably threatened that harm is going to come to you, you can fire away.” This is the first reference to the term “Stand your ground” that can be found in the press. The term caught on and the bill and law were forever after referred to by the anti-self-defense rights as the Florida “Stand your ground law”, even though the words in the text of the bill is “stand his or her ground” and only a small part of the statute.

The term “stand your ground” is a huge disservice to the statute that allows a person to defend themselves, wherever they have a legal right to be, without having to run away or flee first, or try to flee. There are several parts to the law and the ability to defend yourself is not bound by location and should not be.

So where did the term “Castle Doctrine” come from? Well, that now the famous term that describes the ability to defend your home (and in Florida your vehicle or other places you are residing or occupying). Several studies try and show that the original reference to “castle” refers to English common law rules protecting a person’s home and the phrase “one’s home is one’s castle.” It is also reported the actual coining of the phrase “Castle Doctrine” to refer to Florida’s and now other states similar laws came from none other than our very own 2nd Amendment rights supporter, Marion Hammer! The Washington Post article I used above for some quotes also states that the Florida bill was given the name the “castle doctrine” by Florida lobbyist Marion P. Hammer, a former National Rifle Association president.

But in researching the actual 2005 Bill that was submitted we find that the drafters of the bill wrote the following in the preamble of the bill; “WHEREAS, the castle doctrine is a common-law doctrine of ancient origins which declares that a person’s home is his or her castle, and…” so in reality the first reference to it being called the “Castle Doctrine” law was written in the preamble of the law itself. (http://laws.flrules.org/files/Ch_2005-027.pdf)

What has happened is that the law repeatedly being called these terms has diluted the true meaning and understanding of the law by the public, and they have no clue what the law really says or actually means. They now believe the media’s portrayal of the law and have never even bothered to read the law. Maybe now understanding where those terms come from and why people might want to learn more about the law that allows them to defend themselves and not have to flee criminals. A basic human right that should not even have to be written into law, but as humans we have this tendency to do just that, have to write down common sense to make sure those without it can read it. (http://bit.ly/2Lzis2g)

If you are going to rely on a law for your safety and that of your family, maybe you might want to actually read it, and not base your knowledge on the media and biased reports by those who want you to have to run away when threatened by a criminal.