Bogdanoff went Full Retard and was the only thing that stopped OC from happening last time around. She then got tarred and feathered for it and replaced by an actual Democrat. The only time I've witnessed a more one-sided election, is when it's uncontested.
I don't know of any of the previous RINOs being replaced by anything more favorable.
But, if just one Democrat goes in for it, then the RINOs can't hide anymore. If a DEMOCRAT is OK with it, how can a Republican not? With Sheriff's already speaking in favor, the FSA has to look like a house divided in order to oppose it... Arranging to put that foot forward at the outset is the best move Florida Carry has made to date. Well played.
maybe even a few Democrats.
That would be the tipping point; a democrat smoking out the RINOs. Not in the drug-using sense, but since a democrat was mentioned I figured it needed clarification... You know what I mean.
Democrats around the nation have spent over a decade relying on the Blues behind the Red lines. the RINOs mean that the democrats hold a majority even when it looks like they don't. RINOs still get paid and still get the same benefits, so they play ball to keep their cushy jobs. They lose intentionally and get rewarded for it. Essentially, democrats learned how to extend Welfare to their pretend opponents in the political arena, and RINOs love receiving it.
The "property rights" criers will be allowed to bleat a while, then soundly smacked by simply saying "Property rights have never been an issue in this, nothing on this bill detracts from property rights and anyone who says otherwise is a damn liar." Give them rope, let them out themselves, then pull the lever...
The House is unlikely to be the problem, as last time...
The only property rights issue I see is the desire to create a signage statute that grants power to property owners, and legalizes their desire to persecute a certain class of people that they deem unworthy or less than human. It's no different from making a statute that grants LEOs the power to legitimize color-of-law persecution. It's not property rights, it's about over-enhancing property rights to the point that they can be used as a weapon against gun owners.
It's one thing to have the right to prohibit anyone you want from entering upon your property, upon which this law has no impact. Quite another to grant them an extension of State Power to attack someone who simply didn't notice the tiny, poorly-written, obscured sign... Gun owners generally have no interest in giving their money to businesses who hate them. But, there are plenty of anti-gun zealots looking for any excuse to attack and persecute those with whom they disagree, and that's exactly what signage laws are. I completely agree with a property owner's right to prohibit whatever and whoever they feel like. I don't know any gun owner who disagrees with that, because most of them are also property owners themselves. We have no desire to rob anyone of their property rights. But, to inappropriately enhance those rights to the point of converting the right into a license to persecute and criminalize people that they label a "the enemy," is going too damn far.
It's about converting property rights into the right to persecute with weight of law. Something democrats always, always, always push for in everything they do. It isn't new. Democrats look for a way to persecute everyone they disagree with every single chance they get. They're hiding this particular attempt behind a fraudulent "property rights" argument.
Property owners already have the right to ask people to leave for any reason or no reason. This bill does not change that.
If, once asked to leave, a person does not do so, that's trespassing. This law already exists and this bill does not change it. If a person is armed and refuses to leave, that's armed trespass. A Felony! The law for this already exists and this bill does not change it.
The more you mess with settled law, the more it has to be re-visited and re-settled... Just leave it alone. Property rights are already enshrined and protected. This bill has zero impact on them, and appropriately so.
There is no problem here except for the usual democrat agenda of trying to get a persecution clause added to any and every law they think they can get it to stick to... I ended that sentence with a preposition, among other grammatical offenses throughout.
