TexasCHLforum.com

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews. ... e.amp.html

I remember before Licensed Concealed Carry in Florida it was a victim zone for tourists and residents alike.

You would be robbed killed and car jacked if you had a rental car sticker on you bumper.

So a a Miami judge rules that the law forcing prosecutors to disprove a self-defense claim at pre-trial hearing is unconstitutional?
I am absolutely amazed. Only those of us that carry and have firearms, are first guilty and must prove we are innocent, rather than the government being required to prove we are guilty. Serial killers, rapists, child molesters, all are innocent until proven guilty. But, let someone use a firearm in self-defense and he/she is considered to be guilty and must prove their innocence. I am told that somewhere within the constitution it is written that abortion is constitutional, but being innocent until proved guilty is not constitutional? Maybe it is just me, for I sure aint no Lawyer. But it sure appears that evil is now good and good is now evil, up is down and down is up. No wonder I am waking up dizzy.

A liberal judge legislating from the bench. What else is new?

Wonder how long before this is appealed to the circuit court?

nightmare69 wrote:A liberal judge legislating from the bench. What else is new?

So this judge thinks the Florida Supreme Court should craft the law? Uh! Did he even attend a civics class?

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Milton Hirsch ruled that lawmakers overstepped their authority in modifying the law this year to force prosecutors to disprove a defendant’s self-defense claim at a pre-trial hearing.

The judge ruled that under Florida’s constitution, that change should have been crafted by the Florida Supreme Court, not the Legislature.

So only the judiciary can make changes. Hmmm...

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/c ... 94094.html

Is there anything weird about the way the Florida state constitution sets up the courts and the legislative powers that make this not extreme judicial overreach? Just curious.

chasfm11 wrote:Is there anything weird about the way the Florida state constitution sets up the courts and the legislative powers that make this not extreme judicial overreach? Just curious.

Judge Hirsch actually addresses this on p. 7 of the ruling:

...The version of separation of powers reflected in the Florida constitution differs in a number of respects from that implied by the Constitution of the United States. One instance of that difference is found in Art.V, 2(a), which provides:

The supreme court shall adopt rules of practice and procedure in all courts...

He then goes on to outline how the changes of the law were, in his view, actually matters of procedure assigned by the Florida constitution to the Florida Supreme Court and thus not within the purview of the state legislature.

Maybe the Florida legislature should go make "stand your ground" an exception to assault, homicide, et cetra. That way there's no crime and the legislature isn't interfering with court procedures because there's no crime to try.

Even better, have the "stand your ground" exception apply to all citizens except judges.

Here's a calm explanation of the ruling. I think Florida is strange in how it constitutionally allocates power, but given the way it does so, the ruling is probably correct. In no sense did the court strike down the stand-your-ground defense.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... 3828d73ae8

Eugene Volokh is usually a good read. The comments he elicits, sometimes not so much. . . .