Second Lawsuit Targets New 'Bump Stock' Ban as Unconstitutional
Gun owners have filed a second lawsuit against the state over gun-related provisions in a new school-safety law, this time alleging that a ban on “bump stocks” is an unconstitutional taking of property.
March 21, 2018 at 10:51 AM
4 minute read
Gun owners have filed a second lawsuit against the state over gun-related provisions in a new school-safety law, this time alleging that a ban on “bump stocks” is an unconstitutional taking of property.
The case, filed last week in Leon County circuit court, asks a judge to certify a class action and order “full compensation” for what the plaintiffs' attorneys estimate are “tens of thousands, or more” Floridians who own bump stocks or similar devices.
The ban on bump stocks, which make semi-automatic weapons mimic fully automatic firearms, was included in a law passed this month in response to the Feb. 14 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland that left 14 students and three staff members dead and 17 injured.
The law also raised the minimum age from 18 to 21 and imposed a three-day waiting period for purchasing long guns, such as the AR-15 semi-automatic weapon 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz legally purchased and used during the deadly Valentine's Day shooting spree.
In the 17-page complaint in the bump stock case, lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the Florida Constitution bars the state from taking private property “except for a public purpose and with full compensation therefore paid to each owner.”
Because the new law deprives the plaintiffs and other members of the class of the “economically beneficial uses of their lawfully-owned property,” the statute “constitutes a 'regulatory taking,' ” argued lawyers Aaron Behar and Michael Harper, of the Behar Behar law firm in Sunrise and Puerto Rico-based lawyer Andrew Kagan.
The law “is so onerous that its effect is tantamount to a direct appropriation of property, and therefore, a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment,” the lawyers argued.
But Sen. Bill Galvano, a Bradenton Republican who sponsored the bill that was signed into law by Gov. Rick Scott less than two weeks ago, said he stands by the prohibition.
“I have made a cursory review of the suit and continue to support the ban. At the end of the day, these devices turn semi-automatic rifles into machine guns. A policy decision consistent with the authority of the state has been made that this is not acceptable,” Galvano, a lawyer who will take over as Senate president in November, told The News Service of Florida on Tuesday.
The lawsuit also refers to a 2010 directive issued by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that determined bump stocks are a “firearm part” and not regulated as a firearm under federal gun laws.
Plaintiffs and others relied on the ATF's determination when purchasing bump stocks and similar devices, such as binary triggers, the lawyers argued. The named plaintiffs in the case are identified as Florida residents Jonathan Hunt, Justin Brashear, Christopher Mays, Clayton Woolfe and Joseph Truex, who own bump stocks or binary triggers. The named defendants are Attorney General Pam Bondi and Florida Department of Law Enforcement Commissioner Rick Swearingen.
Shortly after Scott signed the law, the National Rifle Association filed a federal lawsuit that challenges the Legislature's decision to require people to be age 21 before purchasing rifles and other types of long guns. The lawsuit accuses the state of violating the constitutional rights of young adults between the ages of 18 and 21.
Dara Kam reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLatest Boutique Combination in Florida Continues Am Law 200 Merger Activity
3 minute readMiami-Dade Litigation Over $1.7 Million Brazilian Sugar Deal Faces Turning Point
3 minute readMeta agrees to pay $25 million to settle lawsuit from Trump after Jan. 6 suspension
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250