Full Federal Appeals Court to Take Up Controversial Gun Restriction
The Legislature and then-Gov. Rick Scott approved the law after a February 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. Nikolas Cruz, who was 19 at the time, used an AR-15 rifle to kill 17 students and staff members and injure 17 others at the school.
July 17, 2023 at 02:47 PM
4 minute read
Cases and CourtsA full federal appeals court said it will take up a legal battle over a 2018 Florida law that bars sales of rifles and other long guns to people under 21.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated a March decision by a three-judge panel that upheld the constitutionality of the law. The Atlanta-based court said the case will be "reheard en banc," meaning by the full court.
The one-paragraph order did not explain the court's reasons. But the National Rifle Association, which challenged the constitutionality of the law, sought a rehearing by the full court.
The Legislature and then-Gov. Rick Scott approved the law after a February 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. Nikolas Cruz, who was 19 at the time, used an AR-15 rifle to kill 17 students and staff members and injure 17 others at the school.
Federal law already prohibited the sale of handguns to people under 21.
The NRA filed a lawsuit after the 2018 law passed. But Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker in 2021 rejected the challenge, ruling that previous court opinions have given states leeway to impose Second Amendment restrictions in some instances.
The NRA appealed, with the three-judge panel issuing its ruling on March 9.
The panel decision relied heavily on guidance from a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in a case known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which said gun laws must be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
The panel said the Florida law is consistent with such tradition and pointed to age restrictions since the Reconstruction era. It also said the law allows people under 21 to possess or use guns, such as guns they receive as gifts.
"To begin with, the act is no more restrictive than its forebearers: While the act burdens 18-to-20-year-olds' rights to buy firearms, unlike its Reconstruction era analogues, it still leaves 18-to-20-year-olds free to acquire any type of firearm — including 'the quintessential self-defense weapon,' the handgun … in legal ways, as long as they don't buy the weapons," Judge Robin Rosenbaum wrote in an opinion joined fully by Judge Anne Conway. Judge Charles Wilson wrote a short concurring opinion.
But the NRA on March 30 filed a motion seeking a rehearing by the full court. Along with disputing the panel's historical analysis, the NRA said in the motion that "denying hundreds of thousands of law-abiding, responsible citizens a fundamental right raises a question of exceptional importance warranting" a rehearing.
Friday's order did not set a date for arguments.
The order came after a renewed debate in the Legislature this spring about the 2018 law. The House in April passed a bill that would have allowed people under 21 to buy rifles and other long guns, but the Senate did not take up the issue.
During a House debate, sponsor Bobby Payne, R-Palatka, said the bill "corrects the wrong we did in 2018." He also argued it would leave intact other parts of the 2018 law that addressed mental health and school safety.
"You see the gun as the problem," Payne said. "I see the interventions and the policies as the answer."
But Rep. Christine Hunschofsky, a Democrat who was the Parkland mayor at the time of the shooting, pleaded with her colleagues to keep the age restriction in place.
"This law has stood the test of time because we have not had another school shooting in the state of Florida, and I hope to God we never do so that children will no longer hide, hit the ground when a balloon pops. … We are going down the wrong path here," she said.
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
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 AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Trending Stories
- 1How Qualcomm’s General Counsel Is Championing Diversity in Innovation
- 2Jury Awards $1.25M to Police Officer Who Claimed Sexual Harassment
- 3Lawyer as Whistleblower? Associate Sues Firm
- 4New Class Action Points to Fears Over Privacy, Abortions and Fertility
- 5Ex-Big Law Attorney Disbarred for Defrauding $1 Million of Client Money
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