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
© 2024 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 All'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
3 minute readFlorida-Based Law Firms Start to Lag, As New York Takes a Bigger Piece of Deals
3 minute readFowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
3 minute readDisbarred Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Lawsuit Against Miami-Dade Judges
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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