re: #21 Daniel Ballard

No not exactly. Good question. I mean he violated the intented coverage of the law when he got out of the truck.

But the law doesn’t state that. It says that as long as he had a right to be where he was, he is covered by the law. Where do you see anything, at all, in the law that says him getting out of the truck moved him outside the coverage of the law?

Who goes where is an important principle in self defense law that is not always explicit in the language. It’s not an issue at home usually. Apart from domestic violence obviously.

The language in the bill is explicit. It says that if he is somewhere he has a right to be.

Florida I presume has a ways and means kind of thing? I can not completely dismaiss the stated intent of the sponsors and signer without taking a look at where the effect left the intent.

You do realize they didn’t actually create the bill, right, that it was adopted from model bill language?

And if you are trying to analyze whether the bill is well or badly written, then the intent of them doesn’t matter except in so far as you can say “Well, the language of this bill doesn’t match your intent at all, so congrats on writing a bad bill.” or “The intent and language match— congrats, the bill is well-written.”