Comments on: FAC Weekly Update 2026-02-09-URGENT Call to Action-Stop SB 212

By: Logically_Aware2026

Logically_Aware2026 — Fri, 13 Feb 2026 03:41:58 +0000

Can somebody explain the dates noted,
“33 (c) This subsection applies to any person convicted of a
34 violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, s. 827.071, s. 847.0135(5),
35 or s. 847.0145 for offenses that occurred on or after
36 October 1, 2004, and before July 1, 2026,…”
Are we to read this as though people affected are those convicted/pled guilty between Oct 2004 and July 2026? These dates and the wording don’t add up? What am I missing?

At what point will we argue real property rights to quiet enjoyment and peaceful possession. If I purchase a home or condo in a subdivision that includes a pool (even if my home is somehow outside the radius), I have purchased and am likely paying for the upkeep of said pool that I own an interest in as community property. I could similarly argue the same quiet enjoyment and possession when I go to court, plead guilty, am sentenced to probation, and leave the courthouse with no place to reside since my home is within a radius that didn’t matter prior to me walking into that court room. I never gave up my residence or my property rights, but they are being taken from me.

Anyway, back to those dates? How do those even work?

By: tearfuleagle

tearfuleagle — Wed, 11 Feb 2026 01:37:12 +0000

So after reading the Amended Bill, SB212, I have a few observations. Please keep in mind that I am not a lawyer, never played one on TV, and these comments are strictly my reading of the bill. I do not see the “200 Foot” verbiage in the bill at all. However, I do still see the restricted sites, but it appears now you cannot be physically at the restricted site. My read is that if your grocery store is within that old 200 ft limit you are good to go. Etc. However, if you want to stay in a hotel that has a pool you still restricted. Seems they took way the ‘within 200 ft’ verbiage and put in the physical location ie building.

I also do not see the “any body of water” verbiage either. I only see restrictions on pools, not lakes, rivers, streams, the gulf, the atlantic etc.

FAC please fix anything I have wrong. Just trying to help.

By: tearfuleagle

tearfuleagle — Tue, 10 Feb 2026 21:50:03 +0000

In reply to RayO. I do believe you are Correct. Fac can you clarify this?

By: RayO

RayO — Tue, 10 Feb 2026 19:49:46 +0000

It looks like the Judiciary Committee substitute for the Senate bill (subst. #764964) has changed the 200 foot exclusion zone to exclusion from “the premises” of schools, parks, etc.

By: tearfuleagle

tearfuleagle — Tue, 10 Feb 2026 19:09:31 +0000

Wow no debate on the bill at all. Incredible.