Florida SB 0438; new bill to allow warning shots....

C

ClydeFrog

Moderator
The Florida State Assembly has a new bill; SB488 that will allow armed citizens & W/concealed license holders to fire "warning shots" in lethal force events & not face formal criminal charges.
A few elected officials in Florida support this bill because of the recent high profile incident in NE Florida. A woman fired a warning shot at her husband during a domestic dispute. Reportedly, she ran into a garage, got a loaded handgun, told her husband to back off & fired a single round into the wall of the house. The couple then continued to fight & the male was shot.
The woman now has a new trial pending.

I, for one, do not support this new bill. I think there is a strong chance it will be used by many Florida residents to fire a gun during a road rage event or fight then claim they were threatened.
Some want this new law to be a part of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" laws. I'm not sure how the bill will address things like injuries caused by a stray bullet or any civil actions involved in a lethal force event.
Florida security officers(G license) & others who carry firearms IAW their jobs(PIs, bodyguards, etc) can not fire warning shots at all. FS493.
That to me is prudent because guns should be for lethal force only.

Recently, a young mother armed with a handgun shot several "warning shots" at a registered sex offender who was going near her kids. The felon ran away & to my knowledge the woman was not charged by law enforcement. I can understand the gun owner/mom's concern but shooting a gun off in public isn't safe or practical.
 
I could see it also hurting a self-defense claim. The question is going to be asked, "Why didn't you fire a warning shot?"
 
True...

I agree.
It's a dark, slippery road. :rolleyes:
It's like the "non lethal" handgun rounds I saw marketed a few years ago.
I'm sorry, but if some violent thug or career criminal is breaking down my door or actively trying to kill me; game on!
I'm not using a loaded firearm as a prop or make threats.
Guns should be deployed for lethal force in situations where you need to defend yourself or others from a violent crime(armed robbery, rape, arson, terrorism, etc). You can not shoot wildly at a bad guy as they run off your property.
You also can't shoot warning shots at a thief who steals a restaurant tip jar(a real incident which took place in West Melbourne Florida). :rolleyes:

Clyde
 
Agreed that it's a stupid idea.

First, where's that shot going to go? You're still responsible for it. A warning shot fired in the direction of another doesn't care that it's a warning shot.

Second, why are you firing a warning shot? Guns aren't negotiating tools. If it comes to where a gun is a legal response to an attack then someone's life is indeed in danger and it's time to quit mucking about.

It seems to me that the only people who think warning shots are a good idea are those too influenced by Hollywood or those who just don't understand the concept of lethal force. Neither of those groups are ones for whom a lethal force event is likely to turn out well for anybody in the vicinity.
 
Recently, a young mother armed with a handgun shot several "warning shots" at a registered sex offender who was going near her kids. The felon ran away & to my knowledge the woman was not charged by law enforcement. I can understand the gun owner/mom's concern but shooting a gun off in public isn't safe or practical.
Click to expand...

Actually in a similar incident in Fla. a woman was charged and sentenced to 20 years http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/2...ars-for-firing-warning-shot-released-on-bond/ The case is still ongoing and is fueling the new law.

Motion for immunity and to dismiss :
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89763177/...termination-of-Immunity-and-Motion-to-Dismiss
Injunction against abusive husband:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/90281395/Marissa-Alexander-Injunction-Against-Her-Abuser
Alleged victim disposition:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/90595503/Marissa-Alexander-Alleged-Victim-Disposition
 
I agree with others....it's a bad idea. That's why legislators may pass it. They just don't know. That bullet has to go somewhere.

My warning is presentation of a firearm.
 
This is a horrendous idea. Do we know who the sponsors are?

The other side keeps blathering about "common sense gun safety" laws and our unwillingness to play ball. If we come out in opposition to this, it not only protects us, it makes us look like we're compromising.

Just a thought. We need to oppose it anyway.
 
If we come out in opposition to this, it not only protects us, it makes us look like we're compromising.
Click to expand...

Well said, Tom. These are exactly the kind of laws we don't need.
What are the basic laws of firearms saftey? Are they found anywhere in this piece of legislation? I would think the state NRA rep would be screaming at the top of his lungs by now.
 
Maybe they got the idea from good ol' uncle joe from the white house. He seems to think warning shots are enough to end any situation, but only if the warning shots are coming from a double barrel shotgun.
 
It is as overreaching as the current draconian penalties for warning shots. At least change the penalty from the current felony with minimum mandatory sentencing to something in the middle that allows each unique circumstance to be weighed. Either extreme fails to serve justice.
 
Mandatory sentencing law is the center piece IMO. Previously failed attempts to change the 10, 20 life law:: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.087.html
and cases like the one I referenced in post #6 are stirring up support for the new bill as well.

Automatic sentences :
1. 10-year prison sentence on anyone convicted of committing or attempting to commit any of the above felonies (with certain exceptions), while armed with a firearm or destructive device;

2. 20-year prison term if the accused fired the firearm; and

3. 25-year to life term if the accused discharged the firearm and killed or seriously hurt someone.
Click to expand...
Even in cases of self defense or in Marissa Alexander's case, the mandatory sentencing allows no room in the law for a judge or jury to take circumstances into consideration if charged and convicted.

Talking about extremes? Seems a bit much to bypass a believed problem with mandatory sentencing laws.

Post note: Alexander was not a felon. Here conviction under the 10,20, life law seems a little fuzzy, but not done digging yet.
 
Personally I think this is better than the current law that will get you a felony just for doing it regardless of outcome.

I say make the warning shots legal and deal with the issue of bystanders or other property getting hit the same way it has always been dealt with.
If someone fires a warning shot and hits an innocent, charge them for that.
But if they fire a warning shot, noone is hurt, no property is damaged and the attacker flees. Then I see no sense of sending them to prison just on that fact alone.

That way there is room for judgement on a case by case basis. Did they hurt anyone? No? Fine, no harm no foul. Yes? Then look into that as it's own issue.

Never been a huge fan of mandatory sentencing.
Isn't the whole point of a judge to look at the individual circumstances and decide the sentence, if any, based on that? If we just have mandatory sentences for everything, then why hire all these judges? Just put the charges in a computer and let it crunch the numbers on how many years each charge "requires". Efficiency.
 
Last edited:
Wreck-n-Crew wrote;
Recently, a young mother armed with a handgun shot several "warning shots" at a registered sex offender who was going near her kids.
Click to expand...

It is possible she fired the shots with the intent that they should hit him. Could a "miss" be construed as a "warning shot" ?
 
Post 09, Post 17....

As for post #17, to my knowledge the gun owner/mother told the local media she fired warning shots at the RSO(sex offender) to scare him away from the kids. I'll do some research on the event but I recall that point.

EDIT: The Orlando area incident was 10/20/2013 in Ocoee Florida. The subject was a RSO named Bobby Lee Harris. Harris was reportedly peeping in the back windows of the woman's house. A male neighbor yelled at Harris & home owner/mother fired a few rounds into the ground near the RSO(Harris). Harris then fled the scene on a bike & was later arrested by local police.
www.Orlandosentinel.com

I'd add re; post #09 I think the Florida political officials wanted to address the event in NE Florida where a woman in a domestic violence event fired a warning shot.
To me it's like how the state officials in AZ changed the laws/use of lethal force standards after the Harold Fish court case. Under the new AZ laws, Fish would not have faced the same criminal charges.
FWIW; Harold Fish was given a chance at a new court trial but the DA's office & law enforcement decided not to push it. Fish was cleared but his personal life was ruined. :mad:

I see the rational behind wanting to prevent domestic violence or to aid armed citizens in critical incidents but allowing warning shots or other acts that involve weapons(brandish, open carry, etc) requires a lot of careful consideration & due diligence.
Elected officials & leaders need to be smart and avoid pandering to hot button issues.
 
Last edited:
Personally I think this is better than the current law that will get you a felony just for doing it regardless of outcome.
Click to expand...
Why not just strike out the part of the law that makes firing a warning shot a felony w/out passing a new law?
Could that be done?
 
I've corrected the bill number in the thread title.

A few things in the language concern me. We have this in the preamble:

Therefore, it is the intent of 49the Legislature that a person be immunized from prosecution if he or she acts in such a manner as to protect life, home, or property from an imminent or actual unlawful activity.
Click to expand...

First off is the defense of property clause, with no real limitation given. The second is the definition of "unlawful activity."

“Unlawful activity” means:

1) Commission of a crime involving the use or threat of violence.
2) Illegal distribution of a controlled substance; or
3) Use of a residence, commercial structure, or occupied vehicle to commit a crime involving the use or threat of violence or the illegal distribution of a controlled substance.
Click to expand...

Then, on line 62:

Use force sufficient to effect a lawful arrest.
Click to expand...

So, does this authorize folks to take potshots at the drug dealer down the street? The provisions of this law are worryingly broad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top