That isn’t just your opinion it’s a demonstrable fact. Any laws limiting possession and carry that don’t result from one’s own actions (convicted of a serious crime, demonstration of mental instability/incapability and court finding of same) by definition infringe on said right.
Why? You think the SCOTUS is beyond reproach? They’re the reason for a lot of the mess we’re in now. Fox guarding the hen house and all that.
…and you still can’t admit that your claim that brandishing a firearm and firing a warning shot both constitute use of deadly force in all states is errant…even when the text of the law saying the opposite in plain English is put before your eyes.
Then change the law making the SCOTUS the final arbiter of constitutionality.
I’d rather undo Marbury v. Madison so the SCOTUS goes back to functioning the way the Founders intended instead of legislating from the bench.
You don’t appear to read to well.
Brandishing is specifically defined under the law as an unlawful act.
For a defensive display of a firearm to even be lawful you must first meet the criteria governing the use of force in self defense or you go to jail. The “defensive display of a firearm” is an over threat that you are willing and able to use deadly force.
Even under the FL law you will go to jail for a “warning shot” if the same criteria is not met.
It is you that doesn’t read well. I said that brandishing and firing a warning shot do not constitute use of deadly force. I did not say that they were legal in all cases.
Your comprehension skills need polishing.
The SCOTUS is political.
They are written in English
How?
Ah, but that’s not what the law says.
…which can be interpreted differently when subjective terms are used.
This is a non-answer.
Never mind.
Only by those with an agenda.
It’s a question. You made a definitive statement.
How does it give anybody less exposure to any type of crime?
Everybody has opinions.
I was referring to it as an “answer” to my question. The answer to yours should be obvious. To reduce the definition of an action from that of being use of deadly force to one of not being use of deadly force decreases the chance of being convicted of improperly using deadly force.
Duh!
“This law sucks” is an opinion.
“Shall not be infringed means we can infringe” is an agenda.
Firing a gun, even at the ground, is use of deadly force. Even if the use is to scare.
“Warning shots” are stupid. They violate 3 of The Four Rules. Mark of an amateur.
I don’t care much for the police. Necessary evil.
Tell that to Joe Biden. 
1 Like
Police can clean up the mess.
2 Likes
Wow. They picked the wrong house to rob.
To hell with them!..
1 Like
And they say guns cant save lives? ha
Im guessing the surviving idiot with his three dead buddies learned a valuable lesson its not a good idea to rob people houses especially when the homeowner owns guns.
One small victory for gun owners and a giant mistake for idiot thieves
2 Likes