Ron DeSantis Signs Florida Bill Limiting How Close Bystanders Can Get to Police

The law makes it a misdemeanor to approach within 25 feet of a first responder after receiving a verbal warning to stay away.

Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law today that will prohibit bystanders from getting too close to police and other first responders.

The legislation, Senate Bill 184, makes it a second-degree misdemeanor to approach within 25 feet of a first responder after receiving a verbal warning to stay away. The law includes a requirement of intent to interfere, threaten, or harass the first responder who is in the course of his duties.

It also prohibits harassment of first responders. The law defines harassment as conduct "which intentionally causes substantial emotional distress in that first responder and serves no legitimate purpose."

Similar laws with smaller buffer zones have been struck down by courts in other states, but DeSantis portrayed the law as part of Florida's pro–law enforcement atmosphere. 

"I am proud to support the men and women of law enforcement throughout the state," DeSantis said at the bill signing, where he also signed legislation limiting the power of civilian police oversight boards. "Today's legislation will ensure law enforcement can do their jobs without the threat of harassment. While blue states vilify and defund the police, Florida will continue to be the friendliest state in the nation towards our law enforcement community."

State legislators began introducing bills restricting the ability to film the police in places like South Carolina and Florida as backlash to the George Floyd protests of 2020. Supporters of the legislation, such as police unions, argue that officers shouldn't have to deal with bystanders getting in their faces when they're performing arrests or investigations.

However, the right to observe and film police has been upheld by multiple federal appeals courts as a fundamental First Amendment activity, and civil liberties groups and press organizations argue that such laws are overly broad and chill the free speech rights of citizens and reporters.

Last July, a federal judge struck down an Arizona law restricting how closely people may film police, ruling that the law violates a core First Amendment right to record law enforcement officers.

U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona John J. Tuchi wrote that the Arizona law, which made it a misdemeanor offense to film a police officer within 8 feet after receiving a verbal warning, "prohibits or chills a substantial amount of First Amendment protected activity and is unnecessary to prevent interference with police officers given other Arizona laws in effect." 

Florida press freedom groups find similar faults with the new law.

"These are highly subjective terms which we believe will have a chilling effect on journalists' and citizens' First Amendment rights to observe and record the activities of responders at work," Bobby Block, executive director of Florida's First Amendment Foundation, told the Orlando Sentinel. "Similar laws have been struck down by the courts as being unconstitutional for this reason."

Comments

[sarcasmic]

The law defines harassment as conduct “which intentionally causes substantial emotional distress in that first responder and serves no legitimate purpose.”

Not sure what would change since cops already routinely arrest people for flipping them the bird or recording them, even though the Supremes ruled that conduct Constitutional, because the worst that could possibly happen is the charges get dismissed.

[MWAocdoc]

The only thing this would change is buying Ron more street cred with police unions. He knows this will be shot down eventually by the Supreme Court … again … and he knew it when he signed it. There is no limit to the number of times government agents can violate the constitution because they know that private citizens who object will have to spend their own resources to challenge it in court, and that nothing bad will ever happen to ANY of the officials personally for repeatedly violating the Constitution.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland]

Should I care? The lefty groups are going to throw a ton of money into fighting it. It's about time the right start using lawfare against the dems

[Zeb]

I really dislike the term "first responders". In many real emergencies, the first responders are ordinary, decent people who just want to help. The cops or fire department will show up eventually, but often not first.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

And if you’re lucky, the cops won’t respond to your emergency by shooting you.

[Krenn]

(a) “First responder” includes a law enforcement officer as
21 defined in s. 943.10(1), a correctional probation officer as
22 defined in s. 943.10(3), a firefighter as defined in s. 784.07,
23 and an emergency medical care provider as defined in s. 784.07.

I could look up all those linked definitions to see if ordinary civilian volunteers ever qualify, but I'm too lazy. I nominate someone else to do it.

[Rossami]

That is a correct statement of the law – and no, those linked definitions do not extend to the actual people who show up first and provide first aid. I agree that this cooptation of the term “first responders” to only mean a couple of defined professions is a massive disservice to the many, many more people who voluntarily get medical training and respond in emergencies.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland]

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/indiana-passer-by-hailed-after-shooting-mall-gunman-2022-07-18/

A real first responder. Taking out a target at 60ft

[mad.casual]

I've generally referred to these people as 0th responders. First responders are the first to respond to calls going out for help. The people issuing the calls are responding to the threat directly.

[Fist of Etiquette]

I'm not sure how much deference the public should afford the enforcement arm of things like unconstitutional COVID restrictions.

[Liberty_Belle]

If you are close enough to film me violating someone's rights, that is too close.

[sarcasmic]

Yup. The only purpose of laws like this is to protect the government from lawsuits.

[Mother's Lament]

Exactly.

[JesseAz]

Does your camera on your phone not go out to 25 feet?

Bit larger than my preference. But there are actual videos of crowds attacking officers. There has to be some agreement as to how close. Then again most of you thought 8 feet was too far.

Ironically one of the issues with Floydd was the crowd not allowing first responders in the ambulance to make it quickly.

[MasterThief]

Agree. I share the concern that "first responders" will abuse the law and that courts won't reasonably restrain those excesses but don't really have an issue with the intent. Is someone a part of the problem or the solution? If police, fire, emt, etc. are asking you to back off then I'm inclined to believe you are part of the problem. More people crowding an emergency situation just creates more threats and hazards. If you want to help people then give the space to do it.
I'd argue that the resonable distance is probably more like 10-15' but can understand 25' when responders have been threatened or attacked.
People crowding, being antagonistic, or even just a neutral distraction cause problems and can get people hurt. Beyond that, it's gotten ridiculous how much people want to shove their phones in people's faces or media get in the way.
I don't like laws like this, but honestly we live in a society full of feral people who lack common courtesy and sense. It's the dumbasses and bad actors who necessitate laws to hedge against behaviors that society should (and used to) comdemn.

[JesseAz]

The law includes intent to harass and disrupt. If you're sitting back quietly filming at 20 feet, i don't think the law would qualify. And since you are filming pretty easy defense and suit becomes viable.

I just dont get the demand that cops allow up to the "im not touching you" rule.

I have never seen libertarians complain about the law not to follow an emergency vehicle within 100 ft. So just doesn't make sense to me.

[Vernon Depner]

If you’re sitting back quietly filming at 20 feet, i don’t think the law would qualify.

Unless the cop testifies that you were causing him "emotional distress". How would you go about proving that the cop was NOT feeling "distress"?

[Quicktown Brix]

Sure, but here's how it really works. 99.9% of people will be unaware of the law so they'll film the police brutality at <25 ft. Then the police grab the person and phone and delete the video possibly in exchange for getting off with a warning.

[JesseAz]

And lawsuits exist when that happens. Destruction of evidence is generally on the state.

https://reason.com/2021/03/30/qualified-immunity-cops-free-speech-force-man-delete-video-beating-suspect/

So because we have hypothetical situations of abuse, everyone should be able to get right up to touching an officer making an arrest?

[Quicktown Brix]

Lawsuits? In what...1 out of 10,000 times? How many people wouldn't take the deal of delete the video and go home vs. get in the cruiser and hope a lawsuit might work out in 3 -10 years.

So because we have hypothetical situations of abuse, everyone should be able to get right up to touching an officer making an arrest?

Is that how it worked before this law?

[Get To Da Chippah]

Hilariously, the article you cited says the cops got qualified immunity. How effective do you think that lawsuit was?

[CLM1227]

But that’s not a problem with that specific law and instead an issue in QI.

Generally, assholes exist everywhere and assholes in the gen pop exist in higher absolute numbers than assholes in the cop pop. And sheer numbers can cause serious problems under seriously dangerous conditions – like suppressing a violent criminal or responding to a life/death situation.

These laws are trying to address a problem with Gen Pop assholes and the QI reform efforts are going to dealing with the Cop pop assholes.

It’s possible to recognize a need for both for proper functioning in society. If society hadn’t devolved so far into “whatever makes me feel good” and “modest social expectations of decent behavior oppresses me”, we wouldn’t need laws to force us to not be assholes.

[Rossami]

re: "assholes in the gen pop exist in higher absolute numbers than assholes in the cop pop"

Higher numbers, yes. Higher percentage? The available evidence suggests rather the opposite. The profession tends to attract those wanting to assert authority, then trains and grooms them to see everyone else as the "enemy".

These laws don't, unfortunately, address the problem of the general population assholes - they instead reinforce the bad behavior of the bad cop population by making cases against them even harder than they already are.

[Vernon Depner]

one of the issues with Floydd was the crowd

Floyd was dead anyway.

[JesseAz]

So delays to emergency personnel were fine then? What if he wasn't dead at that point? He was being held until they arrived.

[Vernon Depner]

In retrospect, we can see that the behavior of the crowd made no difference. Floyd was going to die anyway.

[CLM1227]

I bet it would have made a difference to the guy convicted for homicide.

[Vernon Depner]

He, too, was doomed, no matter what.

[CaptainJack]

8ft was definitely too far. It made it illegal to have a dash cam recording a cop pulling you over and taking to you through the window of your car.

The law was intended to stifle exactly that. So they could prosecute anyone who produced a video showing cops acting unethically or illegally in a traffic stop.

[mad.casual]

8ft was definitely too far. It made it illegal to have a dash cam recording a cop pulling you over and taking to you through the window of your car.

This is between selective interpretation and a lie.

[Rossami]

At 25 feet, I can see and record some things but important details might be lost. More importantly, my microphone does not reliably reach to 25 feet. What people say can be as important as what they do in determining motivations and the legitimacy of claimed explanations.

Yeah, even 8' is (in some circumstances) too far.

[mad.casual]

At 25 feet, I can see and record some things but important details might be lost. More importantly, my microphone does not reliably reach to 25 feet. What people say can be as important as what they do in determining motivations and the legitimacy of claimed explanations.

Do you have a valid COC and are collecting evidence or is this the sort of situation where we let anyone with an opinion on skirt lengths chip in just because they have a phone?

Per your own idiocy even under 8′ is too far. “If only somebody had been filming within 3′ ft. we would’ve known if the suspect was innocent or guilty.” is some pretty messed up “Beyond a shadow of doubt.” bullshit.

Assuming half the country isn’t that retarded in their love of Antifa and burgeoning rap stars and against cops and people like Kyle Rittenhouse or Daniel Penny, 8′ in one state and 25′ in the next seems perfectly fine. Especially if the latter is the third most populous state in the union and doesn't want to end up overrun by homeless shoplifters and thugs like some of the other most populous states in the union.

[MWAocdoc]

"I am proud to support the men and women of law enforcement throughout the state ... and fully expect their contributions and official support from law enforcement unions for my re-election!" There! FIFY, Ron!

[Commenter_XY]

Isn't Governor DeSantis term limited? No more FL elections...

[Longtobefree]

For Governor - - - - - - - -

[Jerry B.]

It’s somehow comforting to know that both Democrats and Republicans are willing to blatantly disregard the Constitution.

[SRG2]

"causes substantial emotional distress"

Cut to some cop swearing under oath that his being filmed from 20 feet beating the crap out of a motorist caused him substantial emotional distress,

This legislation is pure and rank authoritarianism.

[JesseAz]

Does this allow cops to beat someone up? Didn't see that part. Can you cite it?

[SRG2]

Being a cunt again, I see.

I never said anything about the law permitting it. But the law would permit a citizen to be convicted for filming a cop doing that if the filming caused the cop substantial emotional distress, and my actual point was that it's conceivable that a cop would claim that under oath.

Funny how you almost always take the police side of these discussions, though. Evidently you have more confidence in agents of the government than I do, when those agents are cops.

[JesseAz]

I mean the law has 2 parts. 25 feet and intent to disrupt. Sitting at 20 feet and being silent just filming doesn't seem to qualify. So why do you think someone not disrupting is at risk?

Do you think someone can start waiving their hands in front of a cops face as they go to arrest someone as well?

[SRG2]

So why do you think someone not disrupting is at risk?

Seriously?

[JesseAz]

Yes. I'm explaining what the law is. Because a position or law can be abused, doesn't mean we should have no laws.

It is an idiotic argument.

Even without this law the cops could still do what you claim they are doing without the law. We see it all the time. So if the abuse you cite can be done with or without the law, then it doesn't matter.

[Vernon Depner]

How do you know you're "disrupting" if the charge hinges on the cop's completely subjective report of his emotional state? If the cop doesn't want you recording, all he has to do is say the magic words, "you are causing me emotional distress".

[JesseAz]

Why is it subjective dependent on the cops say so? Do courts not exist for this law?

[Vernon Depner]

How can the courts determine what a cop was feeling? Are judges psychic?

[5.56]

Some of them are even more than just psych-ic, they are psych-opath-ic.

[Get To Da Chippah]

From the article:

It also prohibits harassment of first responders. The law defines harassment as conduct "which intentionally causes substantial emotional distress in that first responder and serves no legitimate purpose."

It seems that intent to cause distress is as much a requirement as the result of causing distress. We'll see which of those two requirements is ignored by the courts first.

[sarcasmic]

Cop: “You’re honor, the man recording me beating a homeless man to death caused me emotional distress out of fear that the video might be made public and then make me accountable for murder.”

Judge: “Guilty! Thank you officer for your service.”

[Get To Da Chippah]

Defendant: "But Your Honor, the law requires intentional distress., and I did not intend for the officer to become upset."

Judge: "Strike that comment from the record, and the jury shall be instructed to disregard it during deliberations of the defendant's obvious guilt."

[5.56]

Cop: “you’re honor…”
Judge: “that’s damn right, and I’m the law, too.”

(I'm sorry)

[Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick]

You’re usually then one cunting things up guv’na Shrike.

[Get To Da Chippah]

Cut to some cop swearing under oath that his being filmed from 20 feet beating the crap out of a motorist caused him substantial emotional distress,

Makes sense, since they routinely testify to being scared of people with cell phones or car keys in their hands as a justification for the use of lethal force. How could such an emotionally fragile person not be distressed by having their cowardice filmed?

[Sevo]

"...This legislation is pure and rank authoritarianism."

This from the piece of shit more than happy with "official" murder:

SRG2 12/23/23
“Then strode in St Ashli, clad in a gown of white samite and basking in celestial radiance, walking calmly and quietly through the halls of Congress as police ushered her through doors they held open for her, before being cruelly martyred for her beliefs by a Soros-backed special forces officer with a Barrett 0.50 rifle equipped with dum-dum bullets.”

Fuck off and die, asshole.

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

Does anyone believe anymore that the R's are the "party of smaller government"? We Libertarians need to step up our game and make it clear to the electorate that the R's are just as bad as the D's when it comes to government interference into our lives, wallets, livelihoods and bodies. Stop playing footsie with the Republicans, LP!!!

[SRG2]

There are many "asymmetric libertarians" here and in the GOP. They agree with the LP or libertarian principles - when it applies to them. But that doesn't mean they will extend the benefits of liberty to the "wrong sort", i.e., not them.

[JesseAz]

Tell is how Trump is guilty but Biden isn't again.

[SRG2]

Any other irrelevant comments you care to make?

[JesseAz]

I mean you seem to applaud asymmetric use of the law. So I'm asking you to demonstrate. Sorry. Forget you guys base your views dependent on which party it is targeting but don't think you're hypocrites.

[Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick]

Hey cunt, it’s relevant. Biden is currently installed as president. Trump isn’t. That relevant enough for you?

[5.56]

So here's an irrelevant one.

[5.56]

Another irrelevant one, right here. This is what I'll do until reason plus reaps my account.

[Get To Da Chippah]

Tell us how Derek Chauvin only had half his body weight on George Floyd despite Chauvin being pictured with both knees on Floyd (left on neck, right on back).

[Rev Arthur L kuckland]

Your not a libritarian

[5.56]

Reason plus is not a libertarian.

[Sevo]

"We Libertarians need to step up our game and make it clear to the electorate that the R’s are just as bad as the D’s when it comes to government interference into our lives, wallets, livelihoods and bodies. Stop playing footsie with the Republicans, LP!!!"

First,
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
Further, if Trump claimed to be a D, he's still get my vote; my votes go to those whose policies most closely align with mine and who can be elected.

[IceTrey]

Unconstitutional.

[MasterThief]

Go ahead and record cops, but let them do their fucking job. I know I'm in the minority here, but it's reasonable to back off when asked to so they can help people. I think the common ground is that we want to limit harm and violations. Encouraging people to get up in the personal space of first responders doesn't do that

[Longtobefree]

My personal rule of thumb is never piss off an armed man.
So far I go home alive each night.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland]

Spoken like someone who has never seen wrongfully accused

[Muzzled Woodchipper]

But what about my TikTok video, bro? THIS is the video that could go viral and make me some of those seeet, sweet China Bucks.

[Rossami]

What job do they do that requires a 50' diameter circle of roaming "free" space? I get that we don't want people jostling the EMTs' elbow when they're trying to stop an arterial bleed - but that justifies a couple of feet of space, not 50.

[mad.casual]

You do realize that 50' of no parking either side of the hydrant is standard fare, right?

That 50 ft. between where the patient fell and the ambulance is parked actually well short of average right?

Another thing to keep in mind about this whole "KKKOPS AND RETHUGLIKKKANZ IZ VIUHLATING THE KONSTITOOSHUN!" idiocy is that victims can and do have rights defending them from the public as well.

I'm with you, I absolutely agree that this has the danger for establishing free speech zones. But it's got some rather critical considerations that other similar laws don't make and it's not like we aren't already arresting people for praying outside abortion clinics and/or haven't already arrested people for sitting in Church parking lots.

[DaveM]

If the standard were "substantively interfering with the exercise of their duty" instead of "emotional harm", then I'd be in favor. As it is, no.

[JesseAz]

Can agree with this.

[mad.casual]

I don't disagree with the comment but, per the norm, there are massive, systemic libertarian failures well beyond this English-language infraction.

Everybody remembers when we were arrested people for praying outside of churches and abortion clinics, right? Everybody remembers Antifa-types going into privately-owned, publicly accessible spaces, being disruptive and then turning the cameras on and shouting "Muh 1A!" when officers showed up, right? Everybody remembers Andy Ngo showing how professional journalists were intimately tied to Antifa activists and then getting assaulted, right?

This whole "OMG! Cops are setting up anti-1A free speech zones!" is a bit... pissing into the wind... in light of a society that, at its core doesn't appear to believe in the 1A and is largely guided by anti-1A "Whaddya mean freedom of religion?"/"Mostly peaceful" professional jurinalists.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Okay good point. On it's face I don't find this bill particularly objectionable. But the devil is always in the details.

[CLM1227]

+1

[5.56]

What happens if I upvote a comment that represents an upvote? What is that? A meta-upvote?

[Sal Paradise]

If the cops aren't doing anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about.

[ErinS]

Cops are blamed constantly for all the stupid shit criminals do. You can't recruit anyone into that job it's so awful, and video can be manipulated. Just this week there were incorrect reports of police firing on an innocent kid, turns out he was firing on them. They'll probably all end up in jail.

[Lester75]

The 'emotional harm' language is a giveaway. This is an attempt to keep cops safe from having their beat-downs being exposed. Recording isn't interference. Blocking, touching, yes that would be illegal and it already is.

Video can be manipulated whether it's a cops video or a bystanders video. Manipulated video is unlikely to stand up in a trial.

[Yuno Hoo]

The legislation, Senate Bill 184, makes it a second-degree misdemeanor to approach within 25 feet of a first responder after receiving a verbal warning to stay away.

Is it a felony if the warning includes an expletive?

[Get To Da Chippah]

How's that law going to work when it's the 'first responder' approaching you and then telling you to back away? Like if you're standing on your own porch?

https://www.nbc4i.com/news/aclu-lawsuit-columbus-man-assaulted-arrested-for-recording-swat-activity-from-front-porch/

[AT]

OK, now that all the Reason regular kneejerkers have gotten the stupid out of their system, let’s discuss the real problem with this.

(a) “First responder” includes a law enforcement officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), a correctional probation officer as defined in s. 943.10(3), a firefighter as defined in s. 784.07(1), and an emergency medical care provider as defined in s. 784.07(1).

I don’t see how anybody could have a problem with the first three. But that fourth one…

“Emergency medical care provider” means an ambulance driver, emergency medical technician, paramedic, registered nurse, physician as defined in s. 401.23, medical director as defined in s. 401.23, or any person authorized by an emergency medical service licensed under chapter 401 who is engaged in the performance of his or her duties. The term “emergency medical care provider” also includes physicians, employees, agents, or volunteers of hospitals as defined in chapter 395, who are employed, under contract, or otherwise authorized by a hospital to perform duties directly associated with the care and treatment rendered by the hospital’s emergency department or the security thereof.

OK – potentially unpopular take here. Medical professionals should NOT be covered under this. EMTs and on-site triage doctors, sure. But everyone else? All those folks just sitting in the ER waiting for the ambulances to show up? It’s never sat right that we started looping in doctors, nurses, volunteers, hospital staff, etc. as “first responders.” A) It places more importance on them than they deserve by equating them with people who are out in the thick of it with their lives in actual jeopardy; B) It waters down the meaning of the term “first responders.” At best, they’re second responders.

And because we’ve watered down that term (in no small part due to our overreaction and hypochondria during the ‘rona – “gotta praise our “MeDiCaL hErOeS!”) they’re going to get lumped in with this law. Meaning some pissant nurse aide or orderly with some BS “medical” certificate from some BS online Univ. of Phoenix courses can put you on the hook for a misdemeanor if they decide they’re in the mood to do so.

And given that we’ve flooded our emergency departments with these cut-rate “helpers” in scrubs and with attitudes?

Take out that last line of the bill. Don’t let “emergency medical care providers” get a claim to this. At the very least, limit it to EMTs and on-site triage doctors.

[Muzzled Woodchipper]

They’re not responders at all.

They take whoever IS BROUGHT TO THEM.

[Rossami]

I think the intent was to extend a very weak form of good samaritan protection to an ER doc on her way home from shift who stops at the scene to help the police or EMTs.

I call it a weak form a) because it's arbitrarily limited to ER staff regardless of actual medica competence and b) because (as above) it excludes all the actual first responders - the common citizens who get medical training and provide aid long before the "professionals" ever show up.

[Krenn]

With some usual caveats and additions to the law, it wouldn’t be so bad. I do wish we had better bill-writers available, the ones we have keep skipping so many steps.

Let’s see here….

(2)(a) It is unlawful for a person, after receiving a
verbal warning not to approach from a person he or she knows or
reasonably should know is a first responder, who is engaged in the lawful performance of a legal duty, to knowingly and willfully violate such warning and approach or remain within 25
feet of the first responder with the intent to:

1. Impede or interfere with the first responder’s ability to perform such duty;
2. Threaten the first responder with physical harm; or
3. Harass the first responder.

Possible changes:

A. Interfering with a first responder who is engaged in their duty INCORRECTLY or DANGEROUSLY, but nonetheless lawfully, is still fine. For example, if you happen to see that an EMT grabbed the wrong vial, or can prove that he made the wrong diagnosis and needs your help.

B. WHEN the EMT gives the warning, they must have good reason to believe that the warning actually is necessary to permit them to continue carrying out their duties in an orderly way, and it must be reasonable to expect the listener to understand that under the circumstances.

C. Warnings given to fellow first responders or otherwise legitimate volunteers or family members who are legitimately helping with the problem don’t count. A mother continuing to actually help her child doesn’t commit a misdemeanor by ignoring an EMT’s order to step away from the child.

D. First Responders may not abuse the warning by, say, erecting large black screens at TWENTY feet away.

E. The true distance for all such warnings must take into account the physical limitations of the crowds and the spaces in question. Lining up on one side of a twenty-foot-wide corridor is fine, not the crowd’s fault that 25 feet of space doesn’t exist there.

F. Force Majeure is a defense. if a crowd is fleeing from a fire, you can’t charge them with getting within 25 feet of a firefighter when they had thousands of people behind them pushing them forward in that direction.

And doubtless there are many more such edits that need to be made. I wish I could say that laws used to be better written than this, but I really can’t.

[CLM1227]

I think laws should be written simply and under better juirisprudence and a less corrupted (by money) judicial system would work out the details.

Our legislators should reflect the population at large, not be an elite political and criminal philosophers and lawyers.

I don’t mind such a thing in the courtroom where the limitations of a law can be adjudicated by an elite philosopher of the law AND the wisdom of the common jury.

[AT]

Our legislators should reflect the population at large

The ones who think that the evil sun monster is going to cook them all, or the ones who have parades and widespread media coverage to celebrate the fact that they don't know which bathroom to use?

But sarcasm aside, I agree with you - our laws should reflect the nation's Christian population, which remains the extreme majority in all 50 states. And growing, what with all our new border jumping Latin American/African squatters. (Well, maybe not Vermont.)

[5.56]

hello this comment is irrelevant

[Henweigh]

21 feet is the generally accepted distance that a threat can be dispatched. The 25 foot law seems in keeping with that with a 4 foot buffer zone to accommodate people that are distance illiterate.