UPDATE: Monday is the 86th day of the year. We have had over 100 mass shooting incidents in the United States this year, including, tragically today at a school in Nashville, Tennesse, that left three children and three adults dead. Three children! Dead. Children who got up this morning excited to go to school, and died there at the hands of a crazy woman with a gun.
And the Florida Legislature's solution to the pandemic of mass shootings? More guns and less restrictions on carrying them in public. It's like needing to go on a diet and buying five boxes of cookies and two gallons of ice cream.
Welcome to Florida, where we encourage you to carry a concealed firearm, because there's been no tragic gun violence in this State since, well, maybe never.
As of Sunday, there is no more CCF law in Florida. You can carry your gun to McDonalds now. Or into Thomas Keller's joint in Sunny Isles, and you do not need a permit. Don't you feel safer now knowing the people in your movie theater may be armed? It's not like anyone has ever gotten into an argument and then pulled their gun and shot someone out of anger, only to regret it later when the Dade ASA intones "next of kin wants max".
Florida is run by idiots who are encouraging more guns in public, not less.
Query: You have a pending CCF and now it's legal. Will the State drop the charges, or does "the officer wants the max" still apply?
CIVIL MAYHEM
Do you have a friend or colleague who is a plaintiff's lawyer? Be a nice person and buy them a drink when you see them sitting at a bar staring forlornly off into the distance, wondering how to break into the lucrative traffic ticket defense business because their plaintiffs' practice was just destroyed by the Florida Legislature (Motto: "We can do as much damage as an unlicensed and angry gun owner who isn't seated on time at Cracker Barrel in Two Egg Florida with his family on a Friday night. Maybe more.")
As of Sunday:
Attorney fees multiplier? Zap! Gone (or severely reduced, we don't know a whole lot about this stuff).
Homeowners' attorneys getting fees when the insurance company loses or settles? Zap! Gone.
What this means: Tropical Storm Ron comes through Miami and rips a hole in your roof. The water comes flooding in and damages your 75 inch TV, and MacBook Pro, not to mention your Subzero fridge and your expensive Pakistani hand-woven carpet. The insurance adjuster comes walking though your home. "Hmm, older tv, rug already had pasta sauce stains, the roof was previously damaged, the subzero looks fine to me. $3,500.00 is our offer."
Previously you could hire Dewey Cheetum & Howe and sue your insurance company. Debbie Dewey, the named partner, settles for $110,000.00 and the good news is the insurance company paid her 56 hours of work at $650.00 an hour!
NOW? You have to hire Debbie Dewey and agree to pay her out of the recovery if you win.
Rumpole expert analysis: This is what you pay for. Our in-depth analysis of the issues, seeing things others (and especially judges) do not see.
There are a few big losers here. First is Dewey and other first party defense law firms. But the second big loser here are the banks making loans to buy homes in Florida.
"The Banks" you say, wondering if Rumpole is out of his league on a complex civil issue. We are most assuredly out of our league, and yet, our insight is correct.
Follow this scenario:
A Bank loan Debbie Dewey the money to buy her 2.2 million home in Gables by the Sea. She put 500K down and the bank has a 1.7-million-dollar mortgage and interest in her beautiful home.
The bank wants Debbie to do two things: 1- pay her mortgage; and 2- UPKEEP her home, so their investment remains safe.
If the roof is blown off in Tropical storm Ron and Debbie's insurance company offers her $2,500 and she has 100K in structural and flooding damage beyond 75K for a new roof, and Debbie cannot afford to pay that out of her pocket because her income has gone down because of this new law- then Debbie's house's value is reduced.
Now Debbie defaults on the mortgage because the traffic ticket defense gig isn't as good as it used to be and the bank take's Debbie's home.
The problem is that the home, with all the water and wind damage is now worth 900K and the bank needs to recoup its 1.7-million-dollar loan.
The bank sells the property, loses 800K, Jim Cramer reports this on Squawk Box on CNBC the next day, and then the shares of Gables Savings and Loan tank as there is a run on the bank because Debbie is one of 9,000 homeowners in Gables by the Sea that the bank has loaned money to on houses the owners cannot get adequately repaired after Tropical Storm Ron roared ashore on August 1, 2023.
All because the Florida Legislature likes insurance companies more than banks.
Property Values Plummet:
Last domino to fall: Citibank and Bank of America see Gables Savings and Loan fail and don't want to be lending money to people to buy homes in Florida, the land of hurricanes and storms, when they now know the homeowners are at the mercy of insurance companies who will be offering pennies on the dollar when their roofs blow away.
Judge Sally Goldstein-Tegucigalpa has worked diligently for the last thirty years. She has raised a family, and paid off her home, all while avoiding an opponent in her election cycles by diligently following the prosecution on every case where "victim wants max".
Now Judge Sally wants to retire to Sun City in Arizona. Her house in Pinecrest has gone from $224,000. to 2.4 million over the last 30 years, and she wants to sell it. Her two kids are both heading to medical school, and she wants to give each of them $750,000.00 for college and medical school and take the rest of the money and buy that adobe condo in Sun City she has her eye on.
Miranda Castro-Schwartz, age 31, a lawyer for 5.1 years has just won a judicial election defeating some male judge who is sixty and been a judge for 17 years. Miranda has 300K left from her election that she wants to use to buy Sally's home. All is good until Miranda finds out no bank will lend her the money to buy Sally's home.
Judge Sally reduces the price to 2.2 million and Judge Miranda still cannot get a loan. 2 million, 1.8 million, 1.5 million, still no dice. No lending institution will do business in Florida real estate anymore.
Judge Sally's kids take second jobs at Starbucks to help with expenses. They get B's in organic chemistry because they have less time to study and that means they cannot get into medical school, so both of them are forced to do the only thing they have left. Go to law school, become a lawyer, wait 5.1 years and win a judicial election because of their multi-ethnic hyphenated last names.
Then they spend their days on the bench smiling as the State says "victim wants max."
25 comments:
This entire story is impossible. Why you ask. You stated “ Tropical Storm Ron roared ashore on August 1, 2023.” There would never be a Tropical Storm beginning with the letter R on August 1. Maybe Claude or Diane. But not Ron. They get to the R by maybe late October. You lost all credibility after that.
Interesting on the gun issue. The 2d Amendment states the right to carry a gun "shall not be infringed." Sort of like "Congress shall make no law. . " If I have to get a license to carry a gun, my right to so has been infringed. I don't need to get the government's permission to express my opinion about current events because the Constitution forbids it. Ditto for guns. If you disagree, start the process for amending the Constitution. Difficult? Yes. And that is by design.
1:04 pm- no you are wrong for several reasons. First, in honor of the governor who created this mess, its been decided to name every storm in 2023 after him, e.g., RonI, RonII, etc. Also, because of Global warming, which 1:06 doesn't believe in, we will get to R by July 10.
1:06 PM, you're an idiot.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You have to read the statute in pari materia. You cannot read the infringement clause without reference to the Militia clause. But no worries, the way shootings are going, all the Republicans who want more guns in public will quickly just be killed in the cross fire of the public shootings they are envisioning. Then we can get some rational justices on the supreme court and interpret the second amendment in light of the plain language of the statute and not legislate from the bench advancing the political agenda of the right wing judges on the bench.
Honestly, I have had a concealed permit for years. I am too fing scared to carry now. There are so many fucking jackasses armed that all they have to do is get in an argument with you and see a bulge and they will shoot you dead.
But judge…I was standing my ground.
All you really need to know if that people are not permitted to carry a gun into the legislature or governors mansion, or their political rallies, where the jerks who keep passing these laws work. Who by the way, have addresses that are protected by law and protection details. Real heros they are.
It reads as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
To secure this new nation, especially in light of aggressors like England, France, and the Barbary Pirates, it was realized that some kind of military force would be necessary. In this case, a well regulated militia. So it was important that building up and maintaining well regulated militias should not be infringed. And it stood that those militias would be composed of those who would bear arms. But again, these militias were well regulated.
The 2A doesn't say the right to carry a gun shall not be infringed. It says well regulated militias composed of those bearing arms shall not be infringed. So, well, join the Florida National Guard.
Fireworks went off yesterday to celebrate U of Miami's basketball win. Half the people
sitting outside dived under their dinner tables. Is this the way we want to live? I say,
Hell no. We need gun regulation badly.
5:39, with you all the way excluding those aggressive Barbary pirates rampaging across the US from their base in North Africa.
Gun control today, gun control tomorrow, gun control forever....
New slogan for the left to combat Florida, where woke goes to die: Florida, where neofascism goes to thrive.
Who needs gun control when we have thoughts and prayers?
Civil lawyer here. Rumpole's analysis is right on.
106 is dead wrong.
Not only did the 2nd amendment relate to well regulated militias, it was also conditioned on the existence the "free state" and the free state's need for security. But the "free state[s]" ceased to exist after the Civil War. The Civil War was a war over states' rights (the right of the states to hold people as slaves was where the rubber hit the road). The states' rights side lost. There are no free states. The 14th Amendment abrogated the 2nd Amendment, effectively making it a dead letter.
So, 106, not only was the 2nd amendment, on its face, subject to the existence of a "well regulated militia," your wish that the constitution be amended before further action on gun control was granted 160+ years ago.
Mass shooting checklist 1. Mass shooting occurs. 2. Law enforcement response 3. Media goes to the scene 4. Shooter killed, commits suicide, apprehended, or sought- almost always caught within hours.5. Ascertain numbers of victims - living and deceased. 6. Begin intensive thorough investigation into background of shooter. 7. Fingers someone to label as a hero and interview them on cable TV. 8. Stake out the crime scene for days, hold press conferences, slow a large post shooting police presence with body armor and assault rifles. 9. Follow legal proceedings if shooter alive and charged. 10. Purpose no real solutions, do not attempt to reduce the number and likelihood of future shootings, express condolences, wait patiently several days for the next. one.
Hey 1:06 PM and 5:59 PM, R
Real life murders take precedence over esoteric academia. Try getting some empathy. Not trying to take your precious guns from you, I just would like for the slaughter of children to stop.
Should be more business for criminal attorneys and "stand your ground" hearings. So, buckle up BOZO.
Whether it is a "people's" right or a militia's one is now irrelevant. The right belongs to the people as does every other right in the Constituion where the word "people" is used. The Supremes have ruled on this issue repeatedly. Thus, if the right to carry a gun is owned by people, that right belonging to them cannot be infringed. Once you apply supreme court precedent, it is the only interpretation that makes sense.
@733 - supreme court precedent is no longer worth the paper it's written on and is subject to change at whim. See, e.g. Roe and Dobbs.
@733 - so much for conservative strict construction and/or originalism
You can argue this issue as long as you want. There are already hundreds of millions of firearms in the US. And ammunition without measure.
You. Will. Never. Confiscate. Them.
Never ever ever. You could mobilize the entire US Army and every police force (presuming, ludicrously, that every solder and cop agrees with gun confiscation and obeys the orders), and you have something like 2% of the population trying to disarm 70% of the population. How do you think that is going to go? What would be the cost of this war, in dollars and lives? It would bankrupt the US.
The confiscators would all be shot dead if even five percent of gun owners refuse to submit. Remember, the hold outs only have to defend their homes. The seizers have to breach the home and disarm them. Lol.
So the proper starting point for any of these discussions should be: We are never getting rid of the guns and ammo Americans already own. If you want to start there, have at it.
From the desk of Judge Milton Hirsch:
The Prohibition-era gang wars – the Valentine’s Day machine-gunning of Bugsie Moran’s boys by Al Capone’s boys in a garage on Clark Street in Chicago, for example – led to the enactment in 1934 of the National Firearms Act. The statute imposed certain taxes and certain registration requirements, and regulated the movement of firearms across state lines.
In April of 1938 Jack Miller, a bank robber on the run from both the law and his former business associates, was arrested and charged with transporting a sawed-off shotgun across state lines. Miller had every reason to pack a shotgun: he had ratted out some of his fellow bank robbers in exchange for avoiding imprisonment.
Miller moved to dismiss the federal charges, asserting that the Second Amendment protected from federal interference his right to carry a sawed-off shotgun. The district judge granted the motion. (Legend has it that the district judge assumed – correctly, as it turned out – that Miller would flee after the charge was dismissed, and that justice would then be done in an ad hoc fashion somewhere in a dark alley.)
Thus when the government pursued its appellate rights, there was no one on the other side. Oral argument before the Supreme Court was had on March 30, 1939. (Four days later, Miller’s body was found shot full of lead near Ketchum, Oklahoma. The crime remains unsolved, in case you happen to have any information about it.)
The High Court’s unanimous opinion in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) was a triumph of what today would be termed “originalism.” The Court cited the original Constitution itself; Blackstone’s Commentaries; Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations; and 1780's-era legislative enactments from Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia; all for the proposition that, “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U.S. at 178.
Hey all you legal Geniuses that say the 2nd amendment only applies to a militia-read McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) and then say that again.
from Judge Milton Hirsch’s Constitutional Calendar for March 30
The Prohibition-era gang wars – the Valentine’s Day machine-gunning of Bugsie Moran’s boys by Al Capone’s boys in a garage on Clark Street in Chicago, for example – led to the enactment in 1934 of the National Firearms Act. The statute imposed certain taxes and certain registration requirements, and regulated the movement of firearms across state lines.
In April of 1938 Jack Miller, a bank robber on the run from both the law and his former business associates, was arrested and charged with transporting a sawed-off shotgun across state lines. Miller had every reason to pack a shotgun: he had ratted out some of his fellow bank robbers in exchange for avoiding imprisonment.
Miller moved to dismiss the federal charges, asserting that the Second Amendment protected from federal interference his right to carry a sawed-off shotgun. The district judge granted the motion. (Legend has it that the district judge assumed – correctly, as it turned out – that Miller would flee after the charge was dismissed, and that justice would then be done in an ad hoc fashion somewhere in a dark alley.)
Thus when the government pursued its appellate rights, there was no one on the other side. Oral argument before the Supreme Court was had on March 30, 1939. (Four days later, Miller’s body was found shot full of lead near Ketchum, Oklahoma. The crime remains unsolved, in case you happen to have any information about it.)
The High Court’s unanimous opinion in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) was a triumph of what today would be termed “originalism.” The Court cited the original Constitution itself; Blackstone’s Commentaries; Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations; and 1780's-era legislative enactments from Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia; all for the proposition that, “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U.S. at 178.
Thoughts? And thank you Judge Hirsch for your excellent analysis of this issue.
It is true that the Second Amendment has outlived its usefulness as written by at least 200 years. Right now parts of the country where hunting is still common or even feasible have more need for hunting rifles than more developed areas. Rural places where the nearest police officer is dozens of miles away may have more of a need to have anti-people weapons like handguns. Places where your home has a neighbor on the other side of your bedroom wall have a need for weapons that are less likely to accidentally penetrate and harm them (shotguns maybe?). Would like to hear how anyone could write an amendment to replace the Second that conforms to these categories. But the U.S. has no more hostile Indians, British or Spanish, so military style weapons are not needed anywhere outside of a well-organized militia armory.
Rump: I’d really like to hear your take on Senate bill 686, formally known as the “Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology” (RESTRICT) act. It seems to go so far beyond banning TikTok. I’m not an expert, and this is just my lay reading of it, but it seems like it would give the government extremely far-reaching surveillance and censorship powers with virtually no oversight, and it also carries severe penalties for violations.
Please: spare us any more of the verbal regurgitation from the evidently-not-very-busy-actually-doing-judge-work, Hon. Milton Hirsch.
Interesting comments on both sides of the gun issue, as long as we are speaking hypothetically, but when 9-year-olds are in the sights, it is long past time to act --- at the very least --- with respect to assault weapons.
Alternatively, we can teach (probably Hon Hirsch would be ready to prose on about this) that in a "murder/suicide" situation, the shooter should always do the suicide first.
Post a Comment