No products in the cart.


Florida Gun Grab Betrayal Demands Examining ‘Perfect is Enemy of Good’ Excuse

Florida Gun Grab Betrayal Demands Examining ‘Perfect is Enemy of Good’ Excuse
“True friend” FL Gov. Rick Scott appeases the gun-grabbers. (FL.Gov – Photographer, Jesse Romimora)

“Hundreds of gun owners in Florida have been ordered to give up their guns under a new law that took effect after the deadly Parkland shooting in February, according to a report published Monday,” Fox News reports. “Every petition filed under the order in Pinellas County has so far been granted by the judge…

“In addition to confiscating guns, the law also raised the age to buy a rifle to 21 and established a three-day waiting period on gun purchases,” the report notes. What it does not address is the level of due process afforded citizens who have not been charged with, let alone convicted of any crimes of violence; how government can justify ignoring the right to keep and bear arms of citizens old enough to vote, marry, form legal contracts and to fight and die for their country; and how a prior restraint delay on the “law-abiding” will have any impact whatsoever on the lawless.

This was all passed only with the support of supposedly “pro-gun” Republican legislators, and signed into law by a supposedly “pro-gun” Republican governor.

“We can count on Rick Scott to defend our Second Amendment rights!” NRA’s Political Victory Fund assured gun owners in its gushing endorsement for the politician they gave an “A+” rating to:

Rick Scott has an unmatched record of support for the Second Amendment in Florida … Rick has signed more pro-gun bills into law in one term than any other governor in Florida history. Law-abiding gun owners in Florida have a true friend in Rick Scott.

I don’t have any “true friends” that want to disarm me by force. You? But that was then. This is now. The fact of the matter is, when the political winds changed, so did Scott. And that leaves Florida’s voting gun owners with a dilemma.

That’s because Scott has decided to take on incumbent Democrat Bill Nelson for the Senate race in November. And Nelson has made no secret of his affinity for infringements, with his latest affront being a public hindquarters kissing of the Demanding Moms on a scheme to ban … knowledge.

Again, per NRA:

  • Bill Nelson voted to confirm Barack Obama’s anti-gun nominees to the Supreme Court – including Sonia Sotomayor, who signed a Supreme Court opinion saying that Americans do not have an individual right to own firearms.
  • Anti-Gun Bill Nelson voted to allow America’s firearms manufacturers to be sued into bankruptcy – which would have eliminated tens of thousands of American jobs.
  • Anti-Gun Bill Nelson voted to spend $15 million of taxpayer dollars on a federal gun control program.
  • Anti-Gun Bill Nelson voted for a ban on millions of commonly owned firearms, which included many popular hunting and target rifles.

Who represents the greater danger to gun owner rights, Scott or Nelson? And is that the right question to ask?

“Politics is the art of the possible,” those who advocate “lesser of two evils” voting advise. “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”

That assumes the alternative actually is good, and that those who encourage “pragmatic compromise” and discourage pushing envelopes are the best judges of what is possible.

Years back, Republican strategist Lee Atwater was reputed to have asked “Who else are they going to vote for?” meaning the GOP could basically do whatever they wanted and desperate gun owners would let them get away with it.

How has that worked out for us? If we keep letting politicians betray us every time things require them being the principled leaders they promised us they’d be, what “or else” incentive does that give them to change?

I’ve used a couple analogies over the years, one being would you ally yourself with someone if his history demonstrated he’d switch sides and shoot you in the back when things heated up?

Would you accept that rate of betrayal from a spouse? What’s more important to you, a partner or a politician?

What’s more dangerous, the enemy at the gate or an opportunistic traitor inside?

What will be needed to teach the object lesson that betrayal will not be rewarded but will instead be punished — every time? Can it be done without forcing the gunquislings out?

Does it make more sense to take the hit now so that next time the Party won’t dare offer a dud, to make known beforehand you are doing it, to let everyone know afterward what you did and to make sure they know why? That is, if you’re serious about sending the right message and getting an acceptable candidate next time around…?

Yeah, but…

No doubt about it—Nelson will continue to be a threat if he retains his seat and the Senate needs all the help it can get to stay out of overt enemy hands. Same with the House. And it’s undeniable that we will never be presented with a perfect candidate.

Whatever decision gun owners make, I just hope the questions and concerns raised above are at least considered. Because the choices facing us now are easy compared to what will be confronting us after enough “friends in high places” cave.


If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.


David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?



David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (, and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

Oath Keepers Merchandise


  1. that’s why most of my votes lately have been write-ins of “NONE OF THE ABOVE”. got to send a message somehow. not voting doesn’t do it, it’s seen as apathy, and voting for the “lesser evil” doesn’t do anything good either. but I’m damned sure not going to vote for the greater evil.

  2. “I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States…”

    Support – furnishing funds or means for maintenance; to maintain; to provide for; to enable to continue; to carry on. To vindicate, to maintain, to defend, to uphold with aid or countenance. To provide a means of livelihood.

    to agree with or approve of (someone or something); to show that you approve of (someone or something) by doing something; to give help or assistance to (someone or something)

    Defend – To prohibit or forbid. To deny. To contest and endeavor to defeat a claimor demand made against one in a court of justice. To oppose, repel, or resist. In covenants of warranty in deeds, it means to protect, to maintain or keep secure, to guaranty, to agree to indemnify.
    to promote the interests or cause of; to uphold or defend as valid or right; to hold up or serve as a foundation or prop for; to keep (something) going

    Section of the Supreme Law of this land, Constitution of the United States of America, Second Amendment: “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.”

    Color of Law: “The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

    INFRINGE, verb transitive infrinj’. [Latin infringo; in and frango, to break. See Break.]
    1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
    2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.
    3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]

    28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

    Treason – Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States provides:
    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
    The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

    Three elements are necessary for an offense to constitute treason:
    — an obligation of allegiance to the legal order,
    — intent to go against the legal order, and then
    — action to violate that obligation.

    They do not have the Lawful authority.
    Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859): “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.”

    Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822): “For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.”

    Yoshimi Ishikawa, Japanese author, in the LA Times 15 Oct 1992: “Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don’t have a gun, freedom of speech has no power.”

    Colin Greenwood, in the study “Firearms Control”, 1972: “No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever before.”

    So what does that make anyone who serves within our government that is going against the supreme CONTRACT they serve under, the compact between the states, and our LEGITIMATE form of government? They most certainly are breaking their Oaths, working AGAINST our LEGITIMATE government. Does OUR Oaths means as little to us as it does to them?

  3. When some necks get stretched, these lawless law making hate mongering control freaks might get the message. Oh… that would be too much like 1776.

  4. Our so-called pro gun Republicans legislatures could have nipped this legislation in the butt, but they didn’t. Both of my so-called pro gun state electives voted for this crap. and yes no we have a dilemma.
    Make no mistake about it Bill Nelson is a Chuck Schumer puppet and we do everything possible to outlaw our Freedoms. It is absolutely necessary to fire him, unfortunately Rick Scott is the only alternative.

    1. Why can’t someone run as a Write-In and beat both of them? Why can’t we pass the word and get a somebody that will stand-by the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment no matter what? Write me in I’m a Registered Republican and Veteran…..we got to start running for Office….it’s the only way now to protect ourselves….we got to stick together and vote for those who have our backs!

  5. Just how bad us it? You put your name out there, you get doxed, you get cocktailed at night, your lefty boss fires you, the banks close your accounts, the IRS suddenly owns you, drive by shooters frequently visit, you suddenly have a massive heart attack, your family dies in a single car accident, the flight you are on crashes, you die in a dentist chair, you fall from the 10th floor hotel balcony, you go missing, found dead in a park, suicided…but other than that, it’s a cake walk.

  6. Is this the law that provides for a government employee (aka law enforcement officer) to file a ‘protection order’ in order to confiscate the firearm of someone? So, LEO’s are now the victim in these cases? What the heck?! Who are they trying to fool with this garbage? Any LEO who goes along with this fraud and abuse should be held accountable and lawsuits should be filling the courtrooms in Florida. All LEO’s who go along with this, as well as the Florida judiciary and the Florida legislature are guilty of fraud, dishonorable conduct while in office, abuse of authority, willful neglect of duty. All of them should be held accountable for their unconstitutional actions. They should themselves be arrested, prosecuted, imprisoned and fined. Never again allow any of them to hold any public office what-so-ever.

  7. I am a law abiding citizen, veteran United States Marine, Vietnam 1968, Military Police Officer 29 Palms, former LEO and I do not need permission from the government to own a firearm or rifle for self protection or hunting. Our founding fathers gave us the 2nd amendment and I live by it. Rick Scott better get his act together and quit cow towing to the liberals and certain conservatives pushing Gun Control.

Leave a Reply