You may not agree with everything he’s doing, but at least Florida’s GOP Gov. Rick Scott is taking ACTION to protect kids in school shooting aftermath

As Marxist Democrats and their allies in the American Pravda meeting continue to beat the gun control drum and throw shade at the National Rifle Association following the most recent school shooting in Parkland, Fla., the state’s Republican governor is actually taking concrete steps to prevent a repeat occurrence.

And while you may not agree with every single one of his measures (I don’t), they are, in sum, practical, common-sense, innovative measures that, I believe, will save lives.

The governor announced his $500 million plan on Friday, Fox News reported, just days after admitted gunman Nikolas Cruz walked into the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and killed 17 students and faculty, despite being known as a dangerous, deranged individual to the FBI, local law enforcement and students themselves.

“Unfortunately none of the plans I’m announcing today will bring any of them back, but it’s important to remember them,” Scott said Friday, adding he will be working in tandem with the legislature “aggressively over the next two weeks” to get his plan implemented. (Related: CNN condemns heroic student who shielded others as a “liar” because he won’t parrot left-wing gun control talking points.)

Here is a breakdown of Scott’s plan:

Raise the minimum age to purchase a rifle from 18 to 21. This is the one provision of Brown’s plan that I don’t agree with.

I don’t think three years’ difference in age would have stopped Cruz from committing his heinous crimes. He often posed on social media with handguns, and it’s already illegal for anyone under 21 to buy a handgun from a dealer (you can be 18 and buy one from a private individual seller). Also, I believe if we can draft teens into the military as young as 17, then we shouldn’t prevent them from being able to buy a rifle as a civilian. Maybe a better idea is to keep the limit at 18 and require some sort of firearms safety/education course like some states do for hunters.

Ban those with mental illnesses from having guns. I do agree with this so long as the process is not tainted by politics, as was the case with the Obama administration’s Department of Veterans Affairs restricting veterans from owning guns who were ‘too mentally ill’ to take care of their own finances.

“I want to make it virtually impossible for anyone who has had mental issues to use a gun,” Scott said. “I want to make it virtually impossible for anyone who is a danger to themselves or others to use a gun.”

Cruz was on mental health meds, according to published reports.

Scott’s plan allows a family member, welfare expert or law enforcement officer to sign a sworn affidavit that a person poses a “threat” involving guns. Anyone who had guns taken away during this process would get “speedy due process” and fraudulent statements made against the person “would face criminal penalties.”

Place police officers in schools. I definitely agree with this, and Scott’s plan provides $450 million to schools in order to ensure each one has an officer for every 1,000 students, to be in place at the start of next school year (in the fall).

Also, sheriff’s departments could provide training for school personnel or reserve police personnel in protective measures on a school’s request; Homeland Security active shooter training would be mandatory for all schools; and “hardening measures” would be implemented such as adding bulletproof glass, metal detectors, steel doors and additional locks.

Mental health counselors at schools. One of the most under-funded areas of health is mental health, so I am very much in favor of this.

Gun access would be restricted for those who have committed acts of domestic violence or stalking. I’m lukewarm on this proposal. Scott said, “We will prohibit a person from possessing or purchasing a firearm if they are subject to an injunction for protection against stalking, cyberstalking, dating violence, repeat violence, sexual violence or domestic violence.”

That seems overly broad — dating violence? And what constitutes ‘domestic violence?’ Couples fight; it happens. We shouldn’t just automatically take away their gun rights and what does this have to do with school security?

There you have it. I do applaud Scott for acting so quickly with actual, tangible solutions, even if I don’t agree with all of them.

Meanwhile, Democrats continue to complain about the NRA…

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for and, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources include:

comments powered by Disqus