City Of Miami Considers Challenge to Florida’s State Preemption Law

In the pre-Parkland world, Florida had a reputation for being one of the more accommodating states for gun owners. In fact our dead tree rivals at Guns & Ammo ranked The Gunshine State 12th best in the nation in that regard. What a difference a year (not to mention incompetent school administrators and bungling, Keystone cops-like law enforcement) makes.

If G&A updates their list this year, look for Florida’s ranking to drop. Precipitously. In the post-Parkland rush to be seen as doing something about gun violence, Governor Rick Scott signed an expansive new gun control bill last week which, among other affronts to the right to keep and bear arms, raises the age to purchase long guns, bans bump fire stock, creates a waiting period to purchase rifles and shotguns, and enables gun confiscation via due process-free “extreme risk protection orders.”

And even these limits on Floridians’ Second Amendment rights were weak sauce to anti-gunners in the state. Somehow, no matter how far a gun control measure goes, it’s never far enough for the forces of civilian disarmament. Despite the best efforts of Democrats in the house and senate, Florida did not enact an “assault weapons” ban or prohibit “high capacity” magazines. And since the state has a strong preemption law, individual cities can’t enact these on their own.

But that may change if the City of Miami has anything to say about it.

One month after a school shooter killed 17 people one county to the north, Miami commissioners have made strides to challenge a Florida law preventing local officials from enacting their own gun rules at the risk of fines or removal from office.

Miami Commissioner Ken Russell [above] has sponsored a resolution, which passed unanimously last week, asking the city attorney to evaluate a 2011 law supported by the gun lobby that would impose a $5,000 fine on municipal officials who try to enact local gun rules, while giving Florida’s governor the authority to remove elected officials who violate the law.

And Miami isn’t the only town feeling its anti-gun oats.

Last month, commissioners in Coral Gables thumbed their nose at the law, stating they would pursue a ban on AR-15-style weapons in defiance of the state government. The move was largely symbolic, though, since no merchants sell the weapons within city limits. A Coral Springs commissioner has also said he would propose an ordinance to limit the sale and transfer of large-capacity gun magazines in the city, which sits next to Parkland.

Will the state vigorously defend the preemption law in court? Will they enforce the current statute should towns like Coral Gables and Coral Springs enact new laws no matter what the law and the courts say? Stay tuned.

comments

  1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Stay tuned. Same Bat Channel, same Bat Time.
    Maybe they could be like Oakland with the ICE.
    of course, this could be flipped in that some towns could just nullify the state and federal laws with their own more libertarian laws. I do what I want.

  2. avatar Joe R. says:

    Oklahoma’s Pre-emption Laws carry personal and municipality law suits and jail time.

  3. avatar Dan Griffin says:

    Preemption will hold, but it’s going to be hard to withstand a fine/jail penalty challenge for city officials.

  4. avatar AlanInFL says:

    I’m not surprised by the morons from down south. Then again, I believe there is a loser pay clause with penalties in the state law. Then it us tax payers get the shaft anyways.

  5. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Let some idiot libitard politician try and make a local law.
    If it isn’t worth at least 5 grand to them. Then it really isn’t a real try at the state.
    Or the one proposing the law to mean it.

  6. avatar Alex Waits says:

    Well, isn’t the The Constitution of the United States supposed to be, ya know.. preemption?

    Nah, fu<k it, feelings! Amirite??

  7. avatar barnbwt says:

    Why, it’s almost as if meeting these people halfway on bump stocks, restraining orders, and age limit increases is counterproductive…

  8. avatar Ralph says:

    I just read that a candidate for President of Mexico was campaigning in Los Angeles. I wonder what candidate is campaigning in Miami for the Presidency of what Central American sh!th0le.

  9. avatar Geoff PR says:

    “I’m not surprised by the morons from down south.”

    Just *one* hour ago on the radio news, I heard a blub about a Lakeland, Florida city commissioner pushing for “assault weapon registration”.

    I have to say, I admire the balls on that guy. Lakeland is in Polk County, and the county sheriff is none other than Grady “Because they ran out of bullets” Judd…

    *snicker*

  10. avatar Disgruntled Floridian says:

    I’m from Marion County and have never heard of this tool. Why’s he known as Grady “Because they ran out of bullets” Judd?

  11. avatar Grumpster says:

    Illinois democrats are trying to do the same thing right now and repeal the state preemption from the Illinois CCW law that is only a few years old. They are trying to do it via an amendment to the “bump stock ban” bill forcing weak kneed republicans to vote for it for fear that they don’t want to see a campaign ad against them saying they did not vote for the “bump stock ban” during the fall election.

    If this happens is will be a nightmare for those of use who CCW in Illinois where every town could have their own gun ban/restriction laws.

    https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180314/illinois-senate-attempts-to-repeal-preemption-law

    “Originally a bill to ban certain firearm accessories and historical firearms, House Bill 1467 received Senate Amendment 1, sponsored by Senator Kwame Raoul (D-13). Firearm preemption laws ensure that fundamental Second Amendment rights are not diluted or distorted through controversial local policies and help prevent a confusing patchwork of gun control laws which make it difficult for gun owners to ensure that they are following the law. Furthermore, Second Amendment rights are guaranteed to all citizens, regardless of where they live”.

  12. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    This article blames the Democrats, as if the Republicans held their ground and stopped them against all odds. The the Republicans are firmly in control of the house, Senate, and executive branch, and could pass anything they like (or that the people who elected them desire), open carry, campus carry, $200 rebate for Floridians who purchase a silencer, constitutional carry, support school shooting clubs, basically anything. Except… The Republicrat leadership is firmly against making any forward progress on gun rights.

    Senate President Joe Negron and Florida Republican leadership have ensured that anti gun right republicans are in control or have critical roles in important justice committees, effectively blocking bills on open carry or campus carry, and publicly having Moms demand action photos. It should be no surprise then that Anita Flores, after blocking pro gun bills in committee, sided with Democrats on AWB amendment votes.

    Republican Senate President Joe Negron pressured and pushed the gun control bill, along with next Senate President Galvano. Negron even had a voice vote to make a two year ban on AR 15 sales, which he declared passed, until other Republicans demanded a roll call.

    The Republicrats organized this bill from the top down in Florida, they just got the Democrats to join them, but the blame is 100% with the Republicrats leadership and all who caved and voted for it, and if course, Rick Scott. They could have delayed action as the session was pretty much over, or told the Democrats and Bloomberg a solid NO.

    There Florida Republicans who broke faith must be voted out. My rep Clay Yarborough
    actually voted no, so props to him. My senator Aaron Bean voted yes, so good riddance to him.

  13. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    Ralph,,,, The candidate running for president of Mexico had to come to Calimex to campaign because every one is in Calimex.

  14. avatar J says:

    Please help save our 2nd Amendment rights. Please pass the first link to others so we can get this petition sent to the White House.

    Oppose Gun Control and Weapons Ban Legislation

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/oppose-gun-control-and-weapons-ban-legislation

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov

  15. I hope that everyone here signed the petition that “J” has put on this post. again , thank you J.

  16. avatar Geoff PR says:

    “Why’s he known as Grady “Because they ran out of bullets” Judd?”

    A cop was killed here in 2006. A *massive* manhunt had the suspect cornered in a patch of woods. He wouldn’t surrender. So they shot his ass.

    Here’s the ‘Snopes’ summary :

    “Rumor: A sheriff attributed a suspect’s being shot 68 times to ‘that’s all the bullets we had.'”

    True.

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ammo-dump/

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/10/01/florida-police-shot-suspected-cop-killer-68-times.html

    Needless to say, Grady Judd is *very* popular ’round here…

    *snicker* 😉

  17. avatar J1K says:

    If the courts allow municipalities to defy preemption laws to infringe on the 2nd Amendment, then rule of law is truly dead. Long live the Republic.

  18. avatar ironicatbest says:

    It’s all out confiscation, how “they” can do it by ones( DV, charges, EROPs, DUI’s, persons with misdeamnor’s on probation etc.) Is theoretically impossible. If I was the man, I’d put such s heavy Federal tax on firearms, ammunition and FFL licenses and all things related with firearms, that it would be impossible for the “regular guy” to own a firearm. Ironic we fled from England, won our freedom, and now are turning America into that from what we fled.

  19. avatar r smith says:

    Right to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and certain accessories–exception–rights to be unalienable.
    Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity.

    Source: Const. of 1875, Art. II, § 17.

    (Amended August 5, 2014)

    (2016) Section does not prohibit the state legislature from regulating the possession of firearms by nonviolent felons. State v. Clay, 481 S.W.3d 531 (Mo.).

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email