House to vote on Trayvon amendment

[LegatoRedrivers]

His plan would have docked states with such laws 20 percent of their money under the Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, which are used to fund a wide array of programs, from law enforcement to drug treatment to jails and prosecutor's offices. Mr. Ellison said nearly half of all states now have stand-your-ground laws.

Less funding for law enforcement, jails, and prosecutors?

Sounds like some kind of "Well Regulated Militia" would have to step in to help the career LEOs pick up the slack...



I'm on "the list" again, aren't I?

 

[cobber]

Is no one yet wondering on what basis the federal government proposes to overturn State laws?

This is not a Commerce Clause issue. This is solely within the purview of the States.

The legislators in question are over-reaching beyond anything we have seen to date.

"This is no different than withholding transportation funds from states that don't enforce seat-belt laws."

Right, that is what it is EXACTLY like. Uncanny. And withdrawing federal law enforcement grants would make a lot of sense. What if the States decide to stop playing the War on Drugs/Terror as a result?

These two have to go. I wonder if their constituents are paying any attention?

 

[churchmouse]

Is no one yet wondering on what basis the federal government proposes to overturn State laws?

This is not a Commerce Clause issue. This is solely within the purview of the States.

The legislators in question are over-reaching beyond anything we have seen to date.

Right, that is what it is EXACTLY like. Uncanny.

These two have to go. I wonder if their constituents are paying any attention?

Yes, I was. They do as they please. It seems most of the electorate has no idea who does what to whom and when anymore.

 

[cobber]

Maybe someone should introduce this mess and force a vote on it before November. Let the congress put up or shut up on the idea.

Federal money? The feds give US money? Holy cow, what a country!!

(How about the salaries of congressmen who can't pass a simple test on the Constitution and federalism get an annual 20% reduction?)

 

[churchmouse]

Maybe someone should introduce this mess and force a vote on it before November. Let the congress put up or shut up on the idea.

Federal money? The feds give US money? Holy cow, what a country!!

They do feel it is their money. It is printed by them so it is theirs yes........

 

[BlueEagle]

Maybe someone should introduce this mess and force a vote on it before November. Let the congress put up or shut up on the idea.

Federal money? The feds give US money? Holy cow, what a country!!

Yeah, all that money we give to them? They give some back.

It's like Indiana threatening to stop giving me back my tax returns. Big ****ing whoop, I'll just have to stop giving you that money in the first place.

 

[bullfrog4ever]

Why not just have our tax dollars go towards a personal bubble for everyone. That way we are protected from ourselves, others, natural disasters, etc. Just what we need...

 

[Fargo]

Is no one yet wondering on what basis the federal government proposes to overturn State laws?

This is not a Commerce Clause issue. This is solely within the purview of the States.

The legislators in question are over-reaching beyond anything we have seen to date.

Right, that is what it is EXACTLY like. Uncanny. And withdrawing federal law enforcement grants would make a lot of sense. What if the States decide to stop playing the War on Drugs/Terror as a result?

These two have to go. I wonder if their constituents are paying any attention?

It is the same stupid South Dakota v. Dole "spending clause" BS which has been used to force the 21 year old drinking age, etc.

Best,

Joe

 

[GLOCKMAN23C]

Why not just have our tax dollars go towards a personal bubble for everyone. That way we are protected from ourselves, others, natural disasters, etc. Just what we need...

I love this idea! Everyone needs one or maybe two.

 

[figley]

(thanks to CatieLynn, for her update)

Can someone explain this to me, though? I want to see exactly how the law would look, with the, "SYG", component removed. Let's parse the text, and see what we are left with.

For the purpose of the discussion, let's use FL 776, "Justifiable Use of Force".

I'll check back, but until then, look it up for yourself, and see if you can figure out what will be different, aside from an additional opportunity for the judge to dismiss charges, and protect the accused from civil liability.

It sounds to me, like everyone railing against the law, just wants to eliminate the, "free to murder", notion, promoted by the bills opponents, and adopted by irresponsible gun owners, who were too lazy to look at the law for themselves.

 

[jazzy1993]

Twice as many criminals have been shot!? Holy crap that sounds great! Yes, Treyvon was a tragedy, but I seriously doubt Zimmerman thought that he would shoot him just because of the stand your ground law.

Is it cheaper to shoot them dead, or to keep them in prison, let them out to commit more crimes, and then keep putting them in prison again? Once again the Dems have taken the side of the "poor" criminal than the honest people.

Agreed, Let's just pay to keep them in prison. It must be cheaper to put a tax aided home over these BGs than do away with them.

 

[Caleb]

Stupid people **** me off, ignorant people...hell, Jesse jackson and al sharpton **** me off. For somebody wanting equality, they are pretty damn racist.

 

[griffin]

Can someone explain this to me, though? I want to see exactly how the law would look, with the, "SYG", component removed. Let's parse the text, and see what we are left with.

My guess is the first bolded part would be removed, and possibly the second bolded part.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using 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. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that 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

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force.

 

[MikeDVB]

Yeah, all that money we give to them? They give some back.

It's like Indiana threatening to stop giving me back my tax returns. Big ****ing whoop, I'll just have to stop giving you that money in the first place.

Sad part is, a lot of people I've discussed taxes with are clueless that the "refund" they get is really that - it's what they already paid in.

Meh.

 

[netsecurity]

Let them bring it to a vote. They saw what happened to Lugar because of his gun votes, and the same thing should happen to those freedom hating communists that do the bidding of George Soros instead of the American people and our founding fathers. So let them sign their names on it, let them sign a nice political suicide note.

Ausgehen!

 

[rambone]

The Progressives will be hear to explain how both parties are the same here shortly.

Depends on which part of the Bill of Rights you are OK with gutting.

The endgame is going to be the same.

I'll be brief since you censor my posts anyways. lol

 

[J_Wales]

Time for bacon?

It's always time for bacon.

 

[femurphy77]

whelp, im going to go reload now, God can only help us if this law passes

You think so huh?

That'll be the next law they pass. "President Supports Bill Making Divine Intervention Illegal"!