what was florida gun law before the castle doctrine?
84747
The Castle Doctrine IS the old law. The castle doctrine states that within your home, you have the right to use lethal force to protect yourself without facing prosecution. The new law allows someone to use lethal force if they believe their body is being threatened anywhere, their car or even public places, for instance.
950991
It is a tricky situation to protect yourself and your family, here in Kansas, a man shot and killed an intruder, he was free from federal prosecution, but he could have been held on civil charges by the intruder's family.\nIt is also true that if your dog bites an intruder, or he gets hurt on your property(cuts his arm breaking the window) you can be sued, also if you shoot him it cannot be in the back or it is consider that he is "running away" even if he is facing the wall your stereo is on.\nThe laws need to be changed to protect the people in general, and not the criminals.
111683
Not sure what the law is, however here is a great web site.\n\nhttp://www.armedicalboard.org\n\nThis is the state's licensing agency and they provide a LOT of information.
52279
I will refer you to a jury instruction on self-defense.  It states the law in West Virgina in simple and clear term, and includes legal citations in support.\n\nThe central part is this:  \n\n"if the Defendant was not the aggressor, and had reasonable grounds to believe and actually did believe that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm from which he could save himself only by using deadly force against his assailant, then he had the right to employ deadly force in order to defend himself. By deadly force is meant force which is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm."\n\nBut there is more to it, and you should refer to the instruction.  It is not long.
296163
http://www.suncoastgunshows.com/\n\nSuncoast Gun Shows and International Protective Services now offer the State of Florida Concealed Weapons-Firearms Permit Course at the guns shows. This course is required by the State of Florida to carry a concealed weapon or firearm. \nNo appointment necessary, just show up at the gun show.\n\nConcealed Weapons-Firearms Information\n\n1. The class is offered at every gun show - four times during the weekend.\n2. The class is approximately two (2) hours in duration.\n3. The class is offered on both Saturday and Sunday.\n4. Class times are normally 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. except for Tampa and Fort Myers, where \nthe classes on Saturday and Sunday are 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. .\n5. The fee for the Firearms Safety Course is $35.\n6. After the classroom lecture is completed, all students must go to the firearms \nrange and safely discharge a firearm in the presence of the firearms instructor. \nThis only takes a few minutes.\n7. All students must attend the range training. The range fee is $5.\n8. Your fingerprints, passport pictures, and notary is required to submit your \napplication to Tallahassee. These services are available at the show for $14. \n9. The State of Florida concealed weapons license is good in fifteen (15) other \nstates.\n10. The State of Florida concealed weapons is now good for five (5) years.\n11. The State fee for the license is $117. (Cashiers check or money order only, no \npersonal checks).\n12. All instructors are Police Firearms Instructors or NRA Firearms Instructors and are \ncertified through the State of Florida.\n13. Cash or check is acceptible for payment of training course at Show.\n14. Be sure to bring Photo ID for notary of application.
916904
Both of the current examples are wrong.  Federalism means that there are certain aspects of life that the U.S. Government cannot regulate and MUST leave to the states.  Oftentimes, the Supreme Court will declare a law unconstitutional because it was not enacted purusant to Congress's "enumerated powers" in Article I of the Constitution.  Congress can't make any law it want, but can only make a law pursuant to the powers dedicated to it (Usually article I, section 8 of the Constitution, although there are other sources of Congressional power, such as the Fourteenth Amendement "enabling clause")\nThis was an issue prior to the New Deal.  But here's the most recent example:\nIn the 1990s Congress passed a law that made a federal penalty to possess guns near school zones.  They tried to enact the law pursuant to the "commerce clause" (Congress may regulate interstate commerce, most guns travel in interstate commerce, threatening students harms interstate commerce etc.)  \nThe Supreme Court struck down the law as unconstitutional, finding that Congress didn't have the authority to enact that federal law pursuant to the Commerce Clause.  The regulation of guns near schools wasn't substantially related to the traveling of the guns in interstate commerce, nor did you have to prove the that guns traveled in interstate commerce.  The case was United States v. Lopez.  (See link below.)  If states want to enact such a law pursuant to their general "police powers," they're free to do so, but that law was outside the particular scope of Congressional authority.
1049202
No it is not illegal. Actually I think you have the right to defend yourself and your property set out in the Constitution!\n\nThe Castle Rock v. Gonzales Case\nThe estranged husband of Mrs. Gonzales had taken their children in violation of a restraining order issued by the state of Colorado. Police failed to respond even after repeated calls from Mrs. Gonzales. Mr. Gonzales murdered the children and committed suicide by attacking a police station with his hand gun. Mrs. Gonzales sued the Town of Castle Rock, Colorado for monetary damages. She lost. The U.S. Supreme Court held\n\n  "The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that a State shall not 'deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.' ... [but this] does not 'requir[e] the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.' ...\n\nIt is inappropriate here to [infer] that Colorado law gave [Gonzales] a right to police enforcement of the restraining order. ...\n\nColorado law has not created a personal entitlement to enforcement of restraining orders. It does not appear that state law truly made such enforcement mandatory. A well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statues." \n\nThe initial complaint by Gonzales named three police officers. The U.S. Court of Appeals concluded that they had a "qualified immunity." The case was decided June 27, 2005.\n\n   NRS 200.120  “Justifiable homicide” defined.  Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.\n\n      [1911 C&P § 129; RL § 6394; NCL § 10076]—(NRS A 1983, 518)\n\n    NRS 200.160  Additional cases of justifiable homicide.  Homicide is also justifiable when committed:\n\n      1.  In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or\n\n      2.  In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode in which he is.\n\n      [1911 C&P § 133; A 1931, 160; 1931 NCL § 10080]—(NRS A 1993, 932)
726002
Ignoring the Constitutional complications that would arise from such a law, it would not be effective in keeping weapons out of the hands of the "bad guys."  It would, however, make it more difficult for "good guys" who are conscientious about obeying the law to defend themselves.\n\nYou point out that there are already laws against possession of drugs, and yet our prisons are filled with drug offenders.  This demonstrates that laws are not 100% effective at controlling behavior.  Even if all weapons were illegal, those who want them would find ways to get them.  Unfortunately, a large percentage of "those who want them" will be the bad guys out to do harm.\n\nThere will always be people who have weapons.  If you feel threatened by them, you might want to study how to defend yourself against them.  Warning:  this might mean you will have to take up a weapon yourself.  But at least you won't have to be scared anymore.\n\nIt is also important to teach children what to do in the presence of weapons.  It is far easier to teach your children not to touch weapons than it is to prevent them from ever coming in contact with one.
314256
FL is joining Texas and Georgia as shoot first states.  Basicaly, you can shoot without a warning shot.  If you fire a warning shot, do not hit someone else or you will be charged with reckless endangerment (usually 2-5 years prison time).
1075693
You can find the Florida drug laws here:\nhttp://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?StatuteYear=2005&AppMode=Display_Results&Mode=Search%2520Statutes&Submenu=2&Tab=statutes&Search_String=drugs\n\nHope this helps!
638553
http://www.constitution.org/grossack/arrest.htm\nhttp://www.fdle.state.fl.us/
379024
Yes.  I don't want to hit something I'm not aiming at.  According to the constitution it's the only gun control that's allowed in the US.
377207
It is a FEDERAL gun control law...applicable to all states and territories.
988155
They can now and here in Florida it is legal for a person to shoot if they feel that they are in danger for their life. And you know what, if someone bashed my door down I'd shoot first and ask questions later. I think this may be very bad for all the police trying to do their jobs. What in Gods' name were they thinking? Some idiot right wingers may think this is OK but heaven help the cops.
960
The Homestead Act was passed in 1862 to provide land for anyone over 21 in the west of the United States. It never had anythign to do with Florida and is now not in effect.
208087
Well according to the Federalist Papers an armed citizenry is ideal because keeps the government in check.  The government should be afraid of the citizenry not the other way around.\n\nAccording to the 2nd Amendment the States have the right to impose what controls it sees necessary to protect the citizenry, in fact there were rules that every male HAD to carry a weapon at certain times.\n\nIn my state we have very little crime mainly because it is easy for law abiding citizens to get a permit to carry.  In fact Virgina is now suggesting to women who get personal protection orders (restraining orders) also get pistol permits. \n\nI talked to a Secret Service Agent once where he told where he was being wolf-packed, he pulled his weapon and the gang dispersed.\n\nI had someone intentionally hit my pick-up once.  They got out of their vehicle fairly quickly I didn't have a clue what was going on, thankfully I had my pistol with me, I talked my way out of it.\n\nThe thing is training is key.\n\nThe only gun control I believe in is felons never owning any and where I use two hands\n\nThe thing is I have read reports where the use of knives by criminals are up.  The kids in Florida who killed a homeless man didn't use a firearm they beat him.\n\nIt's not the firearm that's evil, it's people.  And because there are evil people we should be able to defend against being harmed, according to the Declaration of Independence we have the right to life.  Criminals try to violate that right and the only way that it's guareteed is if we fight to protect it
1044195
I live in Texas and I can give you the exact answer to this. Texas is one of the few states that allows people (ordinary citizens) to carry concealed handguns as long as they have a permit to do so. You can legally shoot someone on your property in Texas ONLY if you percieve a direct threat to yourself or your family. And you better kill them dead or they can charge you with assault...Kind of a catch 22 situation...When you get a concealed handgun permit in Texas they will tell you...If youre going to pull the trigger...make sure you shoot to kill.