Libertarian Chat

LPF LAC AGENDA 2019 08 19

Discussion started on Legislative Action Committee

ATTACHED VERSION IS MORE READABLE

LPF LAC AGENDA 2019 08 19
LEGISLATIVE ACTION COMMITTEE
Agenda for LAC meeting of August 19, 2019
Email this to: legislative@lpf.org and Chair@lpf.org and vicechair@lpf.org and secretary@lpf.org and AtLarge1@lpf.org  and AtLarge2@lpf.org and AtLaqrge3@lpf.org

01.   ATTENDANCE.
02.   APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AGENDA. (HINT: any new items, either for now or for next time?)
03.   NEXT MEETING: Monday September 09 (NB: not Labor Day) at 7:00 PM Tel: 605-313-5312; Access  692834
04.   OLD BUSINESS: See below: (emails are posted after the Appendices)
05.   STANDING AGENDA ITEMS: (Breakout below)
a. Bill Topics and Drafting. LPF bills for next legislature (Appendix A)
b. Dirty Dozen. (FL laws or regulations that deserve repeal) (App B)
c. Scrutiny. (pending FL bills for scrutiny and comments) (App C)
d. Local Regs. (Ridiculous local regulations that deserve repeal) (App D)
e. Recommendations to EC. (App E)
06.   NEW BUSINESS: (please e-mail proposed text to Chair in advance, if possible).
Red Flag Law: It was brought up at the EC meeting last night that we might look at any pending “Red Flag” proposals, which typically allow police intervention on gun possession if mental health or other indicia emerge, ones that suggest the possibility of some incipient violent acts. We are to develop a position and monitor, with reccs. We might also want to coordinate our efforts with other interested groups (e.g., Florida chapter of the NRA).
Proposals for LAC “budget”: The EC also wants us to identify any budget items specific to our Committee, either long-term or for the coming quarter. So, do we have any spending proposals?
Repeal “Scalping” Law: Below is an email suggestion from an EC member Jim Turney. You may recall that we shamelessly solicited suggestions from that group and he was the only one (except Suzanne Gilmore) to respond.
07.   NOTES FOR THE RECORD: (a) I have resigned as an interim Director member of the EC, so I will hopefully be able to attend better to the business of this committee in the future. FYI, the term ends at the next State Convention. An interim replacement will be named); (b) An EC “Committee Chairs” meeting will be held by teleconference on Sunday September 08 at 7:00 PM (it is held each month on the second Sunday). This meeting can give a quick overview of what the EC. The public -– including you -– are invited to attend; (c) none.
08.   OPEN DISCUSSION: no agenda here.
09.   CONFIRM MEETING: Monday September 09 (NB: not Labor Day) at 7:00 PM Tel: 605-313-5312; Access  692834
10.   ADJOURN: motion to adjourn
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
STANDING AGENDA ITEMS: (Appendix items)

a. Bill Topics and Drafting. LPF bills for next legislature (Appendix A)
1.   Ballot Access in Florida (pending?)
2.   Ranked voting
3.   Presumption Against State Action (drafted) (withdrawn);
4.   blank
b. Dirty Dozen. (FL laws or regulations that deserve repeal) (App B)
      1. see https://www.flrules.org/
2. Scalping (Jim Turney email, below)
2. blank

c. Scrutiny. (pending FL bills for scrutiny and comments) (App C)
1.   Red Flag laws (Suzanne Gilmore, Director, EC meeting)
2.   blank

d. Local Regs. (Ridiculous local regulations that deserve repeal) (App D)
1.   [see “Institute for Justice” list of their pending lawsuits]

e. Recommendations to EC. (App E)
1.   Proposed LAC quarterly/annual budget items.
2.   blank


……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
INCOMING EMAIL TOPICS:

/////(NEW) //////////// (SCALPING) //////////////////
From: candidates@lpf.org
To: Toujours Petanque <toujourspetanque@comcast.net>
Cc: legislative@lpf.org, lac@lpf.org
Date: August 3, 2019 at 6:05 PM
Subject: RE: LAC: REQUEST FOR SUGGESTIONS

With a lot of current attention on criminal justice reform, it seems an easy case can be made to remove "ticket scalping" on-site at events from criminal code chapter 817. I recommend we include this in our Dirty Dozen and try to find Republican sponsors for repeal (Ds will go for it but we can't get it thru committees with them as sponsor).

Running a red light or stop sign can put lives at risk but those are civil violations. Scalping is sort of like parking meter violations in severity (potentially inconveniencing someone else) and should be treated as such. No criminal record should be possible for simply selling an extra ticket for more than face value. Perhaps non-libertarians may consider scalping businesses and/or multiple violations to justify criminal sanctions but that's not the current law, a single resale of an extra ticket is enough to get a criminal record.

Jim Turney, chair
Candidates Committee of the Libertarian Party of Florida
Candidates@LPF.org
407-587-6462 mobile


///////////////(FRIED)///////////////////////////////

STATUS: NO ACTION (IF ANY) UNTIL DOCUMENTATION OF CRIMINAL CASE STATUS IS RECEIVED AND REVIEWED. NONE RECEIVED YET.
---------- Original Message ----------
From: chair@lpf.org
To: Stacey Selleck <legislative@lpf.org>
Cc: atlarge3@lpf.org
Date: July 8, 2019 at 2:15 PM
Subject: Investigate Claims of Nikki Fried Anti-CCW

Hello Mr. Gillis,

This morning, I spoke to the owner of my local gym who I have been courting over to the Libertarian Party and he seems like a real enthusiastic supporter, especially on our 2nd amendment and anti-war stances. Today, he approached me with an issue, he has been a concealed carry holder for over 10 years. In 1999, he was arrested for disorderly misconduct in a bar incident, arrested, and released the next day with the charges dismissed. Fast forward to today, he is a productive member of the community, hosting programs for troubled kids in the gym, he has become completely sober, and is a world traveler. He is also a strong supporter of our right to bear arms. After moving and letting his CCW expire, he went to reapply, except this time he was denied on the basis of the incident (which was a misdemeanor allegation in Kentucky). He is currently in the process of appealing his denial, I offered to help by writing a letter to Nikki and the Agricultural Department as the Chair of the LPF. Apparently this is a part of a larger issue, Nikki Frieds office has turned CCW applications into a "bureaucratic nightmare", and it seems to be on purpose. 

I believe there could be a rather significant minority that this is effecting, and possibly even a great majority of gun owners who would find this issue extremely troubling. As the ONLY political entity in Florida that is standing up to gun rights, I believe this may present itself as an opportunity to bang the drum. I have CC'd J Mark Barfield in this communication as I believe this could be a fantastic human interest story to piggy back on our mission of firearms freedom in Florida. It will also be a great way to rally our base in the face of the recent controversies. I would like for your committee to investigate the matter further to present in a report at the next EC meeting if ready, or as a written report if not. Let me know your thoughts.

Sincerely,

Steven Nekhaila

///////////////////////////(GREYHOUNDS)/////////////////////////////////

STATUS: NO ACTION TO BE TAKEN. NONE TAKEN.

Subject: Request for Support to Overturn Amendment 13
From: endorse@overturn13.org
Date: Mon, July 08, 2019 1:27 pm
To:


To Whom It May Concern:

Following the passage of Amendment 13 in FL, Support Working Animals
(SWA), a 501c4 nonprofit registered with IRS, has chosen to explore
every avenue possible in order to protect the racing greyhound breed
and the members of the greyhound community who have loved and cared
for them for generations. We have retained a legal team to pursue our
options in rectifying a situation that, in our opinion, should not
have happened in the first place. We are exploring all angles to
preserve the tradition of greyhound racing in Florida.

A logical follow-up to the passage of Amendment 13 is a future attack
on other sporting and working animals and activities such as lure
coursing, agility competitions, fly ball, hunting, fishing, working
animals in agriculture and horse racing. Therefore, we are asking for
support in backing our efforts to get Amendment 13 overturned. We
would love to add your group to the growing list of organizations that
stand with us. This would not require donations; we are simply asking
your permission to include your organization's name and/or logo on a
public list of those in support of overturning Amendment 13.

To learn more about our case, and/or if your organization is
interested in donating, please visit www.supportworkinganimals.org or
www.overturn13.org. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free
to include them in your reply. Thank you so much; I hope we can count
on you.

Sincerely,

Jennifer

Jennifer Newcome
Chairperson, Support Working Animals


//////////////////////(COMMISSIONERS)//////////////////////////////////

STATUS: NO ACTION TAKEN (SO FAR). NO ACTION TAKEN.

m: info@lpf.org
To: Legislative Chair <legislative@lpf.org>
Date: July 10, 2019 at 9:30 AM
Subject: [FWD: non-partisan Florida Re-Districting Commission idea]

FYI... sounds interesting
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: non-partisan Florida Re-Districting Commission idea
From: Keith Kloock < kloock@att.net>
Date: Tue, November 13, 2018 12:34 pm
To: patricia@lwvfl.org
Cc: admin@floridagreens.org, selfgovernment@gmail.com,
southflorida@pslweb.org, ron@cpflorida.org, chairman@reformpartyfl.org,
chair@ecologyparty.org, info@lpf.org
I have developed the bulk of an idea for creating a non-partisan Florida Re-Districting Commission (see attached).  I'm merely wondering what the League of Women Voters of Florida would think of such an idea for a constitutional ballot proposal?
Clearly, this is still only a work in progress.  In fact, the smaller blue text within Principle 1 are merely my notes regarding how Commissioners should possibly be selected, how long to serve, etc.
•   Pages 1-2 are the bulk of the concept.
•   Page 3 is merely me stating why I believe such a change is needed.
•   Pages 4-5 represent an example of what 7 regions of the Commission could possibly look like (following a 2020 Census).
FYI, I have copied many of the smaller 3rd Party political organizations as well.  I have not bothered copying the Democratic or Republican parties as I'm fairly sure neither would support something like this.  Yet I suspect that if the LWV and most 3rd Parties could agree on a common language for a ballot proposal and then would cooperate in meeting signature requirements then this or something similar could vastly improve our Florida politics.
Please feel free to offer any suggestions and/or criticisms.
Best regards,
Keith Kloock

///////////////// (PRESUMPTIONS) ///////////////////////////////

STATUS: DRAFT BILL E-MAILED TO COMMITTEE. WITHDRAWN.

A Florida statutory override of the judicially-created Presumption of Constitutionality (of any legislation passed by the Legislature).

////////( STATUTORY NON-PRESUMPTION)(WITHDRAWN) ////////////
LPF LAC PRESUMPTIONS BILL 2019
For the current text of statutes, see:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Index&Title_Request=I#TitleI

Be it enacted: that Florida Statutes are hereby amended as follows:
Title I (Construction of Statutes), Chapter 1.01 (Definitions) is hereby amended by adding the following new section: ”(20) The term ‘presumption’ shall not be used to extend any presumption of constitutionality or lawfulness to any law or regulation enacted, promulgated, amended, interpreted, or applied under the authority of the State of Florida, any of its departments or agencies or courts, or any subdivision thereof, including counties, special-purpose districts or special-purpose authorities or any municipalities.”
Title VII (Evidence Code), Chapter 90.301 (Presumption defined; inferences) is hereby amended to add the following sentence to the current end of subsection (1) thereof: “No facts shall be assumed if such an assumption would sustain in whole or in part  any presumption of constitutionality or lawfulness to any law or regulation enacted, promulgated, amended, interpreted, or applied under the authority of the State of Florida, any of its departments or agencies or courts, or any subdivision thereof, including counties, special-purpose districts or special-purpose authorities or any municipalities. The preceding sentence shall apply in all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings of any sort.”
Title VII (Evidence Code), Chapter 90.302 (Classification of rebuttable presumptions) is hereby amended to add the following sentence: “There shall be no presumption of constitutionality or lawfulness to any law or regulation enacted, promulgated, amended, interpreted, or applied under the authority of the State of Florida, any of its departments or agencies or courts, or any subdivision thereof, including counties, special-purpose districts or special-purpose authorities or any municipalities.”
Title VII (Evidence Code), Chapter 90.303 (Presumption affecting the burden of proving evidence defined) is hereby amended to add the following sentence: “When the constitutionality or lawfulness of any law or regulation enacted, promulgated, amended, interpreted, or applied under the authority of the State of Florida, any of its departments or agencies or courts, or any subdivision thereof, including counties, special-purpose districts or special-purpose authorities or any municipalities is in issue, the proponent of constitutionality or lawfulness shall have the burden of producing evidence as to that issue.”
Title VII (Evidence Code), Chapter 90.304 (Presumption affecting the burden of proof defined) is hereby amended to add the following sentence to the current end of this section: “There shall be no presumption of constitutionality or lawfulness to any law or regulation enacted, promulgated, amended, interpreted, or applied under the authority of the State of Florida, any of its departments or agencies or courts, or any subdivision thereof, including counties, special-purpose districts or special-purpose authorities or any municipalities.”
Title XLVI (Crimes), Chapter 775.021 (Rules of construction) is hereby amended to add the following sentences to the current of this section: “There shall be no presumption in favor of the constitutionality or lawfulness of any criminal law or any administrative enactment which purports to impose criminal penalties of any sort. The State or any of its subdivisions shall have the burden of production and the burden of proof of constitutionality or lawfulness”.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
#1 - August 19, 2019, 03:40:07 PM