Tammy Bruce, in her “Trigger Happy Florida?” post, argues that the Brady Campaign’s “warning” to tourists is misleading.

The ad reads:

Thinking about a Florida Vacation?
Please Ensure Your Family is Safe.

A new law in the Sunshine State authorizes nervous or frightened residents to use deadly force.

In Florida, avoid disputes. Use special caution in arguing with motorists on Florida roads.

Police and prosecutors are concerned about the potential for unnecessary violence.

Travelers: Be very aware of Florida’s Shoot First Law.

Friends of mine who thing gun control is a good idea often ridicule me for repeating the Heinlein quote, “An armed Society is a polite society.” Here, though, is the Brady Campaign saying, when you go to an armed society, be polite.

An armed society encourages people who aren’t even a part of that society to be polite!

Of course, all joking aside, Tammy is right.

This is what Florida’s “Shoot First Law” actually says (starting at line 16, page 1):

…[A] person has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be and the force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible felony;

Despite what opponents of the law would have you believe, the law confers no right to shoot people that you’re arguing with, and, in fact, Florida flatly discourages people from using their gun as “leverage” in a dispute. Police are still entitled to investigate a crime, but not to prosecute if there exists a reason to believe that the shooting was in fact in self defense. Opponents, however, have worries that citizens may interpret the law wrongly:

His only concern, Colton said, is that some people might now wrongly interpret the law to mean that “if you bother me on the street, I can shoot you.”

There is absolutely nothing in the law to support the “bother me and die” argument. Might some people misinterpret it if they read it? Sure, but the fact that some people misinterpret a good law doesn’t make the law bad. The bigger problem, in my opinion, isn’t that citizens might misintepret the law, but that people with an agenda might (and, indeed, are) deliberately mislead people about what the law says. If there was a shooting tomorrow in Florida, and someone said that he did it because he’d heard about Florida’s “Shoot First Law”, whose fault is that? Florida isn’t the entity using the “Shoot First Law” terminology. If the false information that gun control groups are spreading about this law leads to shootings, would they take responsibility? Or would they blame Florida?

If you believe they’d take responsibility, I’ve a bridge in San Fransisco to sell you.