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
© 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 AllFlorida Judge Threatened With Assault, Kidnapping and Death
Appeals Court Affirms Everglades Foundation Scientist Conviction
Shareholders Sue Arc Global for Wrongful Withholding of Trump Media Shares
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Greenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
- 5Data-Driven Legal Strategies
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