Stuck On Stupid

The Brady Campaign is trying to scare the wits out of tourists planning a visit to Florida.

This courtesy of the Scotsman.com:

"IT IS Britain’s most popular transatlantic holiday destination, attracting more than 1.5 million visitors a year with its sun-drenched beaches, theme parks and wildlife.

But Florida’s £30 billion tourism industry is under threat from a campaign launched by a gun-control group which warns visitors they could be killed.

A series of alarming adverts, to be placed in British newspapers, warns potential tourists about a new law allowing gun owners to shoot anyone they believe threatens their safety."

The Brady Campaign to Control Gun Violence, based in Washington DC, has pledged to "educate" tourists by placing adverts in US cities, and in key overseas markets such as Britain.

"Warning: Florida residents can use deadly force," says one of the adverts. Another reads: "Thinking about a Florida vacation? Please ensure your family is safe. In Florida, avoid disputes. Use special caution in arguing with motorists on Florida roads."

The fact is that Floridians have had a conceal carry law for years.  This just gives residents the right to defend themselves if attacked outside their home or when attacked in their vehicles.

The Brady group just doesn’t want anyone to have 2nd amendment protections.

Here is another article from the Sun-Sentinal .

Michelle Malkin is on the story.

Classical Values has facts that foreign tourists should know about Florida’s Concealed Carry Law.

An update at Michelle Malkin’s Blog:

Update: Important clarification about Florida’s law sent from reader Bob J….

Hi, Michelle,

The first part of your posting about Florida’s new self-defense law is a quite
    wrong, or more specifically, Jim Kouri is wrong. The new law does NOT apply
    ONLY in the gunowners home. The NRA part of your posting gets it right: the
    new law applies anywhere a person "has a right to be" (in the words of the
    law).

Here’s the background: for _decades_, case law in Florida was well defined on
    the topic of self defense: (1) A person had a duty to retreat from a fight if
    they were able to safely do so; and (2) the duty to retreat did not apply in
    your own home (or business, or automobile) if the attacker didn’t also have a
    right to be there; and (3) anyone who broke in to an occupied dwelling was
    assumed to be there to harm the occupants, giving the occupants the right to
    shoot the intruder on the spot. No other evidence of evil intent was
    necessary. The second of these is known as "the Castle Doctrine", i.e. a
    man’s home is his castle, and he has no duty to retreat from it. An
    unfortunate example of this case law in action was a year or two ago in Ocala
    (north central Florida), a paramedic responding to a heart attack call broke
    a window next to the front door of the home in order to gain entry to help
    the victim. Unfortunately, the window belonged to the duplex next door, and
    not to the home of the victim. The elderly occupant next door shot the
    intruder, not realizing he was a paramedic. It was ruled justifiable under
    the Castle Doctrine. Tragic, but not murder.

In south Florida, on the other hand, lawyers and judges began applying rules
    more like those in New York than the established Florida case law, in
    particular with regard to the Castle Doctrine (I assume that the lawyers and
    judges in question moved here from New York and vicinity, bringing their
    idiotic philosophy of crime prevention with them). The assumption of evil
    intent disappeared. The duty to retreat was extended to the home and
    business.

After a few people were convicted for shootings that SHOULD have been
    perfectly legal under decades of established case law, the legislature
    started to take notice, and decided to put things back how they were before
    the Yankee Lawyers got involved. They actually went a bit further than just
    putting it back how it was, because even that was mystifying to some people.
    For example, under the old standard, if some one walked up to your car and
    started smashing it with a baseball bat, there was not much you could do
    about it within the law. You had a duty to retreat from a fight, and as with
    most states, you could not use deadly force to protect property. Most
    prosecutors wouldn’t have bothered to prosecute you if you did beat the snot
    out of the "attacker" (as long as you didn’t get too carried away), but the
    damnyankee lawyers in south Florida don’t work that way.

So now, under the new law, things are pretty much how they were before, but a
    bit less in favor of the criminal. The new law pretty much says:

1) Anyone who breaks into a occupied dwelling or automobile, or kidnaps
    someone from such, is assumed to intend great bodily harm and using deadly
    force against them is automatically justified (there are a lot of details,
    such as the occupants must have a legal right to be there and the intruder
    must not). In other words, it simply re-instated the old "Castle Doctrine"
    from case law.

2) A person who is _anywhere_ they have a right to be, if attacked, may defend
    themselves with appropriate force. The defender may use deadly force only if
    they believe it necessary in order to prevent death or "great bodily harm".
    This is a return to the old case law, although broadened a bit to apply
    anywhere you have a right to be, not just in your "castle". Again, there are
    lots of details, e.g. shooting a police officer is almost always a bad idea,
    even in your home.

What this law does NOT do, contrary to the statements of many anti-gun
    organizations and individuals, is make it legal to shoot someone for a minor
    offense. The requirement that deadly force is authorized in response only to
    (the threat of) deadly force is still in effect. For example, see Florida
    Statutes 782.11, which says that "Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful
    act" is manslaughter. Something that amazed me when this was moving through
    the legislature, was a south Florida _prosecutor_ claiming that this law
    would make it legal to shoot someone in the back after they committed a minor
    offense, a claim that is an outright lie. I wonder if he will stick to that
    claim when someone does exactly that in his jurisdiction? And will the
    defense attorney be allowed to enter the prosecutor’s public statement into
    evidence?

Sorry I got so wordy, but I’d really like to see the reporting on this issue
    be a lot more accurate than it has been.