Push to Let Florida Voters Decide Gun Control Restrictions Fails
Floridians won't get a chance to vote this fall on adding gun control restrictions to the state constitution.
March 22, 2018 at 12:28 PM
4 minute read
Floridians won't get a chance to vote this fall on adding gun control restrictions to the state constitution.
A powerful but somewhat obscure state panel on Wednesday rejected several proposed restrictions, including a ban on types of semi-automatic rifles, on procedural grounds.
The move by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission comes more than a month after 17 people were shot and killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. The killings shook Gov. Rick Scott and the Republican-controlled Legislature into action. Legislators defied the National Rifle Association by passing a far-reaching law that raised the age limit to purchase a rifle to 21 and put in waiting period for rifle purchases.
Some Stoneman students and family members of victims wanted voters to be able to weigh in as well. Tony Montalto, whose daughter was among those slain, had asked commissioners earlier this month to take action because the NRA filed a federal lawsuit against the new law.
The commission meets every 20 years and has the authority ask voters to make changes to the state constitution. Its members were appointed by Gov. Rick Scott, legislative leaders and the chief justice of the Supreme Court.
A majority of commissioners said it would be wrong to waive the panel's rules in order to consider the gun control measures since they were being attached to another proposal that had nothing to do with guns.
“I do agree that ideas should not scare us, but not following the rule, the rules that we all share by being on this commission, should scare everyone,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi, one of the commission's 37 members.
After the meeting, Bondi said she did not agree with placing any of the restrictions in the constitution because the Legislature had already acted.
A handful of commissioners pleaded with the panel to respond to the shootings and act now. They noted the Parkland massacre came after the deadline passed for most proposals to be considered.
Roberto Martinez, a former federal prosecutor, wanted the commission to put before voters a proposal that would place in the constitution the same restrictions that were in the recently enacted state law. He said he had recently met with some of the students who were at Marjory Stoneman Douglas on the day of the shootings.
“They're not gun-grabbers,” Martinez said. “What these students and these young people are asking for are reasonable laws to make sure that guns don't get into the hands of the wrong people. That's all they want. And they want an opportunity to vote.”
The procedural votes against the gun control measures came several hours after House Speaker Richard Corcoran sent a letter to the commission saying he had “grave concerns” about the measures. Corcoran, who has been sharply criticized by the NRA for backing the newly enacted law, said in his letter that “all firearm policies flow” from the right to bear arms and “should remain policy matters for the Legislature.”
Two of the proposals rejected on Wednesday would have asked voters whether they wanted to ban a type of semi-automatic rifle.
Hank Coxe, a Jacksonville attorney who backed the ban, said he could not understand how the commission was unwilling to waive its rules to consider having a full debate on the measure. He noted that the commission was currently considering other wide-ranging measures, including whether to eliminate greyhound racing in the state.
“We worry about the greyhounds, but, because of adherence to this rule, we do not worry about reducing the number of people murdered in the state of Florida,” Coxe said.
Gary Fineout reports for the Associated Press.
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
- 1Apply Now: Superior Court Judge Sought for Mountain Judicial Circuit Bench
- 2Harrisburg Jury Hands Up $1.5M Verdict to Teen Struck by Underinsured Driver
- 3Former Director's Retaliation Suit Cleared to Move Forward Against Hospice Provider
- 4New York Judge Steps Down After Conviction for Intoxicated Driving
- 5Keys to Maximizing Efficiency (and Vibes) When Navigating International Trade Compliance Crosschecks
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