After reading what may be the worst piece of Fuddish propaganda I’ve seen in decades, I decided it was high time to pass on a few tools to help spot a Fudd when they intrude into the public discourse about firearms.

Top 10 ways to spot a Fudd – Lee Williams.

Lee is one of the blogs in my Reader. You need to read this article and keep track of him, specially Floridians as he takes on Guns and State 2A issues.

When the Florida Legislature in one of its last recorded Pro-Gun & Pro-Self-Defense acts changed the Statutes so the burden of proof of those seeking Stand Your Ground was shifted to the prosecution, which was a correction added to clarify a gaping legal hole left from the original statute.

In a criminal prosecution, once a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity from criminal prosecution has been raised by the defendant at a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence is on the party seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution provided in subsection (1).

I know (or I think) I covered that a Miami judge ruled against it because only the Florida Supreme Court can enact procedural provisions in which was then a celebrated triumph for the Opposition. Unfortunately for the judge and Gun Control fascist, the ruling on that sense was deemed invalid by Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal.

Article V, section 2(a) gives the Florida Supreme Court the authority to adopt rules of practice and procedure. However, the Legislature has the constitutional authority to enact procedural provisions in statutes that are intertwined with substantive rights.

The Third Court goes on to say that this is a well established and accepted practice and then goes on to the specifics for Stand Your Ground:

The amendment shifts the burden of proof to the prosecution after the defendant has made a prima facie claim of justified use of force, and it requires that the State meet this burden of proof with clear and convincing evidence. § 776.032(4), Fla. Stat. (2017). This is consistent with the well-established legislative practice of passing statutes allocating the burden of proof in judicial proceedings. In addition, section 776.032(4) does not conflict with any rule of procedure promulgated by the Florida Supreme Court because no such rule was added to the Florida Rules of Criminal procedure regarding section 776.032 before subsection (4), nor was there a rule of procedure set forth by the Legislature before January 2017.2 The Legislature, thus, had the constitutional authority to enact the burden of proof provision of section 776.032(4) in order to give effect to the substantive right to immunity in the Stand Your Ground statute.3

About the only “challenge” I see the Florida Executive trying to forward in an appeal (IANAL Warning applies) is that they try to make the case that Stand Your Ground is not a substantive right, thus the Third Court of Appeals ruling needs to be vacated.  I my inexperienced legal opinion, this would be not only stupid as it would legally diminish the worth of Self Defense in Florida so it would probably be tossed out and Pam Bondy sent to the corner wearing the dunce hat in punishment, but it would political suicide for a Florida GOP already severely wounded for the lack pro-gun bills passed by the Legislature and the outright treason of SB 7026.

So what did the Third Court of Appeals did not approve? That the application of the amendment to the law was retroactive. The particular case argued in front of the court involved Ms. Tashara  Love:

The decision came in a case in which Tashara Love sought to use the “stand your ground” law to be shielded from prosecution after a November 2015 altercation outside a Miami-Dade County nightclub. Love shot a man as he was about to hit her daughter, according to the decision.

But the appeals court Friday ruled against Love on a key issue —- and created a conflict with a May 4 decision by the 2nd District Court of Appeal in a Hillsborough County case.

The issue centers on whether the 2017 shift in the burden of proof should be applied to cases that occurred before the change took effect, an issue known as applying the change retroactively.

The 3rd District Court of Appeal turned down Love’s argument that she should be able to use the 2017 change in a “stand your ground” hearing. Such a hearing had not been held in her case at the time the Legislature approved the change, but the appeals court focused on the law that was in effect at the time of the November 2015 shooting.

South Florida court upholds constitutionality of revised ‘stand your ground’ law 

There was another case taken to the Second Court of Appeals which ruled the opposite and that will probably take this specific section of “our” case to the Florida Supreme Court. There might be another renegade judge who, in a new case,  may want to be activist and declare the shift of burden of proof unconstitutional, but there is already a precedent for smacking it down and hard.

So, rejoice! This is great news for all of us. Who knows? Maybe as with Shall Issue thirty years ago,  we are witness to the beginning of a new defensive rights’ chapter that will sweep the nation’s legal system.

This seen in Twitter:

For a good part of my life, I had dogs. Not little cute fuzzballs but “working dogs”: German Shepherds, Belgian Malinois and Dobermans.  And never just one but the usual was three. And they were trained to attack intruder, not just bark at them.

Here is the truth: Dogs at best are roving alarm systems who may delay an incursion in your property by determined individuals. They can be poisoned, shot, scared, incapacitated, etc and your luck resides if you are smart enough to hear and translate a yelp or heaves into danger.

We don’t have a dog now because the missus and I agree to only have one of the above-mentioned or other large dog and our location does not have the backyard to support such animal. But as much as I loved all my dogs, I never thought for a second they were invincible knights that would take on all comers. The poor woman is deluded, but it is her life and may God keep her safe.

One requires a government training, background check and fingerprints and the other requires an intern with a photo ID camera to take a picture.

Damned Gun Lobby!

Certain areas of Miami Dade county have lately seen an uptick in violence. We won’t delve into what is causing it because nobody is being told so you are free to assume the causes.

Last Saturday night, a car crashed into the fence of a house. The driver was found with a gun shot to the chest. He was taken to the hospital where he died.

Soon it was known that he had gotten shot as he tried to rob three people a couple of blocks away and he got shot for his troubles. Other than that, we don’t know much.

The local ABC station posted this in their front page”

Oh damn! Another innocent victim of gun violence! Damn you NRA! (shakes fist in anger)

Clicking on the link, we are taken to the story, which now has a small change.

Then added an angelical photo of the deceased subject:

And the obligatory “he didindu nuffin, he was a good boy” comment from relatives:

 Martinez’s family came to the scene of the crash Sunday morning to thank the neighbor who tried to save the man’s life.
Osma Martinez said he doesn’t know the circumstances of what happened and that his cousin was by no means an angel, but he didn’t deserve to get shot.

Fatally wounded, driver crashes car into yard in Miami, police say

Amazingly, the Miami Herald was less PC and went cold facts and a recent photo:

Yes, that photo is from the Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department. And you can bet he did not get the picture as celebration for employee of the month.

So, we seem to have a defensive use of a firearm that one TV station seems to have tried to re-arrange into something else. But that would be par for South Florida news media.

One of the most chilling scenes in Jericho.