General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRick Scott allows guns at GOP convention to ‘protect’ citizens from ‘protests’
Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) has officially rejected a proposal by the city of Tampa to limit firearms outside the Republican National Convention in Florida later this year. Last week, the Tampa City Council formally asked Scott to use his executive power to temporarily suspend a state law that prevents local governments from regulating guns.
The council has already issued a citywide ban on items like pieces of wood, switchblades, slingshots, containers of bodily fluids and even squirt guns. A so-called Clean Zone around the convention area would prohibit string longer than six inches, glass containers, light bulbs, portable shields and gas masks. A smaller protest area would prevent demonstrators from having camping gear, bottles, cans and umbrellas. The Secret Service has said that only law enforcement will be able to carry firearms inside of the convention center.
Council member Lisa Montelione told Scott that a gun ban was necessary to prevent a potential tragedy.
The short answer to your request is found in the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Florida Constitution, Scott said in his letter to the council (PDF). While the government may enforce longstanding prohibitions on the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, an absolute ban on possession in entire neighborhoods and regions would surely violate the 2nd Amendment.
Like you, I share the concern that violent anti-government protests or other civil unrest can pose dangers and the threat of substantial injury or harm to Florida residents and visitors to the State. But it is unclear how disarming law-abiding citizens would better protect them from the dangers and threats posed by those who would flout the law, he added.
The rest: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/02/rick-scott-allows-guns-at-gop-convention-to-protect-citizens-from-protests/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
dkf
(37,305 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)See George Zimmerman.
csziggy
(34,135 posts)Against protestors exercising their free speech rights? After all, the history of the Stand Your Ground (which should be known as Shoot First) is that all that has to happen is for someone to "feel threatened". So if some tea bagger feels threatened by the opinions of an Occupy type, they'd probably feel justified in shooting them.
This has the potential to make Chicago 1968 look like a picnic in the park!
lpbk2713
(42,752 posts)Silly me ... Scott doesn't GAF about that.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)gratuitous
(82,849 posts)I am not, however, optimistic that they will do so.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)I expect this rule would be reversed in about 10 minutes if the protesters showed up with more guns than the GOP'ers.
Just like the repigs in California suddenly called for, and passed, gun control after the Black Panthers started carrying guns to protect themselves from the cops in the 1960s.
maxrandb
(15,318 posts)Bunch of drunk, angry, senile-old-teabaggers at a convention to nominate Mitt Rmoney??? What are they worried about.
But, I can't understand this: "The Secret Service has said that only law enforcement will be able to carry firearms inside of the convention center.
Why the fuck not you ASSHATS!?
Bunch of namby-pamby "so-called" strong supporters of the 2ND Amendment.
It would be a damn shame if they had a "real" circular firing squad and take the entire convention out. The collective IQ in Florida would tripple in an instant.
Fuck it! Let's just go all "Wild, WIld West". Instead of a ballot of delegates, let Rmoney, Santorum, Newt and Paul participate in a duel. Pass out guns in the gift bags and issue them to the protesters. It's not like anything would go wrong.
I mean, it's not like the Repukes are so beholden to and petrified of the NRA that they'd throw common sense out the window...are they?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)it's their law, we need to make it work for us.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Gregorian
(23,867 posts)madinmaryland
(64,931 posts)Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)
Post removed
LASlibinSC
(269 posts)it's all about the bullets. Oh yeah and the string
veganlush
(2,049 posts)can be used to deny people INSIDE the convention center the right to bear?
veganlush
(2,049 posts)is the biggest fraud, why is it so hard for people to see that? ".....and BEAR arms, shall NOT be infringed..."
kentuck
(111,076 posts)Maybe they will kill each other off?
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Because I'm not worried at all about protesters.
But with all the infighting in the GOP, I ought to concerned about delegates and politicians shooting each other.
Really... I'm trying to be concerned. Trying and failing.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)The 2nd Amendment is about militias, not about laissez-faire gun ownership. The SCOTUS (mostly) held this view for a long time, until the super-conservatives appointed by Cheney (thru his assistant Bush) overturned decades of precedent with Heller.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Sheesh.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)Either that or there's a more sinister motive behind this.
One of my speculations when we were talking a lot about Trayvon Martin was that this law was implemented to give private citizens the same immunities from prosecution that the police have always had when it comes to murdering citizens they don't like. I further speculated that it wouldn't be long before this immunity extended to killing the rest of us on the left, not just black folk. After reading this I think that if I were planning on going to FL for the convention protests, I would be going armed. I would LITERALLY be in fear for my life every moment I was there.
Or maybe he's just an idiot.
butterfly77
(17,609 posts)nanabugg
(2,198 posts)Iris
(15,652 posts)Even if they won't admit their policies are radical and designed to create a serfdom then this proves it. Their ideas can't hold up to a civilized debate so they assume violence will have to be the answer.
Response to FarLeftFist (Original post)
Post removed