Morales is a liberal running for Mayor of Miami-Dade County
COMMISSIONER MORALES ANNOUNCES RESOLUTION URGING CONGRESS TO ALLOW COUNTIES TO BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS
MIAMI - On Thursday, September 16 at 2:00 p.m., County Commissioner Jimmy Morales will discuss a County resolution he is sponsoring that
- urges the U.S. Congress to reauthorize the federal assault weapons ban;
- urges the Florida legislature to institute a state ban on assault weapons;
- and urges Congress and the state legislature to lift the preemption presently in place so local governments can impose assault weapons bans of their own.
The resolution, which may go before the County Commission next Tuesday, September 21, also directs the County's federal and state lobbyists to lobby for legislation that accomplishes the goals of the resolution and directs the County's Office of Intergovernmental Affairs to include the resolution in the County's federal and state packages.
"The shooting this week of a Miami-Dade police officer by someone with an assault rifle is just one alarming example of why the sale of assault weapons should be banned as soon as possible at any and all levels of government," said Commissioner Morales.
WHO: County Commissioner Jimmy Morales and other sponsoring commissioners
WHAT: Press conference to announce County resolution regarding local ban of assault weapons
WHEN: Thursday, September 16, 2004 at 2:00 p.m.
WHERE: Ryder Trauma Center, front entrance
901 N.W. 17th Street, Miami
Only in his wet dreams. JB will never let it happen.
well that was a matter of time.
I wonder what the local Cubans think of the possibility of being disarmed. I would think that those with any memory at all would not look kindly on it.
The refuged excrament of Castro-istic ideals washes ashore upon our soil. A liberal gun-grabbing Cuban politician will never hold such a position in office in Miami-Dade county. Anything resembling the destruction of the Cuba of old will be smelled out and stomped long before the actual stench reaches the pallet of exiled Cubans who own the voter numbers in this county.
It'll never happen! I live in Broward, home of BSO's Ken Jenne. Much higher likelihood of this kind of legislation poping up here. And even that chance is slim.
Isn't a liberal Cuban an oxymoron?
I know for damn sure that isn't going to fly down here....and if shit does start flying....texas here I come
He's Puerto Rican.
Jimmy was born in Miami Beach, Florida USA on April 30, 1962.__His mother, Lazara (“Sara”) was born in Matanzas, Cuba, and like many others, she exiled to South Florida in 1959. _Sara worked as a food server with Miami-Dade County Public Schools, ultimately retiring as cafeteria manager at Miami Beach Senior High School in 1994. Jimmy's father, Policarpio (“Jimmy Sr.”) was born in Puerto Rico and moved to Miami in 1947, seeking a better life
And if u dont know Puerto Rico is like Kalifornia in gun laws
Jimmy L. Morales
Stephen P. Clark Center
111 N.W. 1st Street, Suite 320
Miami, Florida 33128
Miami District Office
2000 SW 27th Ave., Suite 102
Miami, Florida 33145
FAX: (305) 529-0599
Im not the best at putting thought to words but I did email him today!
Commissioner Jimmy L. Morales
Stephen P. Clark Center
111 N.W. 1st Street, Suite 320
Miami, Florida 33128
I want to address an issue that you are taking a stance on today at 2pm. Its in regards to the AW ban. I feel that many are misinformed and I believe your stance is not warranted and goes against the 2nd amendment. I understand a Miami-Dade officer was fired upon this week with an "assault" style weapon, but the ban against these guns does not take them off the street. Im sure if you look at the weapon that was used it was most likely a "post" ban rifle. The shoot out was a day before the ban sunset. So the ban sun setting had nothing to do with this incident. A flash hider, a bayo lug, pistol grip, or a collapsible stock would not have been the culprit in this shooting. Do not get on the kick of this AW ban. Please read what you are trying to extend and please read what the constitution states and not some interpretation what you see fit. It is very clear in what it says. I have taken a post from a fellow friend and I would like you to read it in its entirety. I ask that you make your decisions based on the laws and not off emotions. I feel for this officer but extending the ban will do nothing to protect future officers in situations like this.
Thank you for your time.
Getting The Facts STRAIGHT
1. "Assault weapons" are NOT "machine guns".
They are "semi-automatic" meaning one pull of the trigger=one bullet discharged while the next bullet is then chambered ready for the next trigger pull. "Assault weapons" are not full-auto firearms and they do NOT "spray" bullets with a single pull of the trigger.
"ASSAULT WEAPONS" ARE NOT MACHINE-GUNS.
2. The Columbine-Killers did not violate any provision of "Assault Weapon" ban.
The firearms used in Columbine included two shotguns (like those used for duck hunting), a pistol and a legally-produced TEC-9 "assault weapon". The AWB did not stop those two UNDERAGE killers from illegally acquiring them or illegally bringing them to school or illegally murdering 13 people.
THE "ASSAULT WEAPON" BAN DID NOT TAKE GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS.
3. The "Assault Weapon" Ban did NOT actually ban "assault weapons"
The ban only prohibited the NEW PRODUCTION of certain firearms based on cosmetic features. There were hundreds of thousands of "assault weapons" legally owned, bought and sold before the ban was implemented - and there were STILL hundreds of thousands of "assault weapons" legally owned, bought and sold during the past 10 years of the ban's existance.
EXISTING "UZIs, AR-15s AND AK-47s" HAVE STILL BEEN COMPLETELY LEGAL TO OWN, BUY AND SELL FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS.
4. The "Assault weapon" Ban had NOTHING to do with silencers.
One of the cosmetic features addressed by the "Assault Weapon" Ban was 'flash-suppressors' which simply reduce the bright muzzle-glare ONLY in the eyes of the shooter in low-light conditions. Flash-suppressors do NOT "hide" the bright flash from any other observer and do NOT "silence" the very loud report of the gunshot sound.
"FLASH-SUPPRESSORS" ARE NOT "SILENCERS" AND DO NOT MAKE A SHOOTER "INVISIBLE" AT NIGHT.
5. Studies demonstrated that the "Assault Weapon" ban "FAILED" to reduce gun-murders:
"We were unable to detect any reduction to date in two types of gun murders that are thought to be closely associated with assault weapons, those with multiple victims in a single incident and those producing multiple bullet wounds per victim. We did find a reduction in killings of police officers since mid-1995. However, the available data are partial and preliminary, and the trends may have been influenced by law enforcement agency policies regarding bullet-proof vests."
5.2.3. Assault Weapons and Crime -
"...assault weapons do not appear to be used disproportionately in violent crime relative to other guns"
"Overall, assault weapons accounted for about 1% of guns associated with homicides, aggravated assaults, and robberies" and "only 2% of guns associated with drug crimes were assault weapons."
5.2.4. Unbanned Handguns Capable of Accepting Large-capacity Magazines -
"The ban on large-capacity magazines does not seem to have discouraged the use of these guns."
6.2.1. Trends in Multiple-Victim Gun Homicides -
"[Studies] failed to produce any evidence that the ban reduced the number of victims per gun homicide incident."
6.3.4. Conclusions -
"[Studies] failed to produce evidence of a post-ban reduction in the average number of gunshot wounds per case or in the proportion of cases involving multiple wounds."
6.4.2. Assault Weapons and Homicides of Police Officers -
"In sum, police officers are rarely murdered with assault weapons."
THE DENFINITIVE CONGRESSIONAL REPORT (linked here) ON THE "ASSAULT WEAPON" BAN SHOWED IT "FAILED" TO REDUCE GUN-MURDERS.
6. The 2nd Amendment is NOT about "duck hunting".
Military-style firearms (like "assault weapons") are specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment according to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in U.S. v. Miller (1939) and Lewis v. U.S. (1980).
* In the Miller decision the Supreme Court stated, "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that [a particular gun] 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".
* In the Lewis decision, the Supreme Court stated, "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'".
SO ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT, MILITARY-STYLE FIREARMS ARE EXACTLY THE TYPE OF FIREARMS THAT ARE PROTECTED BY THE 2ND AMENDMENT.
7. Nobody NEEDS to infringe on the 2nd Amendment in order to reduce crime.
Our RIGHTS do not ebb and flow or come and go with the annual crime reports.
Our RIGHTS do not depend upon what today's gangbangers or psychopaths decide to do to get their next thrill or rage out.
Our RIGHTS are not contingent upon, qualified by nor based on what CRIMINALS use to commit crimes!
Our RIGHTS are derived from natural law, specifically protected by the Constitution and are NOT dependant on the findings in any crime studies!!!
Banning the possession of "assault weapons" because of some crime statistics is like banning the possession of sports cars because of drunk driving deaths or like banning the possession of the boxcutters because of 9-11.
OUR RIGHTS ARE NOT PREDICATED ON THE MOST RECENT CRIME STATISTICS!
Very well put!
I sent him a message too. I am in Dade County and would be worried. Those hard lined Cubans that you used to read about protesting all time are now old, retired and in Broward. Their offspring’s are the new liberals.
Chetchat, I glad to brought this to light. I would have never known. I am passing the word out.
It cant happen. Counties have and will not have any authority to pass such law