Citing Safety, Woman Seeks to Keep Anonymity in NRA Lawsuit
Saying she fears for her safety, a young woman who wants to join the National Rifle Association's challenge to a new Florida law that made it illegal to sell guns to anyone under age 21 is asking a federal court to keep her identity secret.
May 01, 2018 at 01:12 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Business Review
Saying she fears for her safety, a young woman who wants to join the National Rifle Association's challenge to a new Florida law that made it illegal to sell guns to anyone under age 21 is asking a federal court to keep her identity secret.
In court filings seeking a federal judge's permission to proceed with the pseudonym “Jane Doe” for the woman, the NRA relied heavily on a sworn statement by the group's Florida lobbyist, Marion Hammer, who said she has received “scores” of threatening phone calls and emails following a February mass shooting at Parkland's Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that left 14 students and three faculty members dead.
“After news of the Parkland shooting broke, I received numerous harassing emails and phone calls threatening my life and physical well-being. Those threats continue to this day,” Hammer wrote in a statement filed last Thursday.
According to Hammer's declaration, the 79-year-old great-grandmother has received “scores of threatening and harassing phone calls from individuals who have used offensive and derogatory language” and made threats on her life.
Several of the dozen messages, from senders whose identification was blacked out in the court documents, featured derogatory words for parts of the female anatomy.
Another warned Hammer, “there is a special place in hell for nasty old rednecks like yourself.”
The unidentified sender concluded: “Blood on your hands. You're going down.”
On March 10, another critic called Hammer “a dyspeptic nasty old bag” whose “extremist ideology is getting a lot of people killed.”
“May you rot in a prison cell before you rot in hell,” the writer wound up.
Another email accused Hammer of supporting “hatred and murderous intent.”
“Many are holding you accountable. Yes you need your guns because you have no strength of character and are ugly vile Stupid ignorant and murderous. There is no defense for you. Should have been you as one of the victims,” the March 12 message said.
Hammer, who has advocated on behalf of the gun-rights lobby for more than five decades and for years has used Florida as an incubator for model NRA legislation, has repeatedly been the target of vitriol from proponents of stricter gun laws.
But the viciousness this time around has eclipsed even the ugliest messages from the past, Hammer told The News Service of Florida on Monday.
“This is different. This is totally different. The intensity, the filth, the vile nature. We've never had anything like this before,” she said.
The Broward County massacre, one of the worst school shootings in the nation's history, prompted the Legislature to hurriedly pass a school-safety law, signed by Gov. Rick Scott on March 9. Among other things, the new law raised the minimum age from 18 to 21 and imposed a three-day waiting period to purchase long guns, such as the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that 19-year-old alleged gunman Nikolas Cruz legally purchased a year ago without any waiting period and used to mow down students and teachers.
The NRA, which filed the lawsuit in federal court hours after Scott signed the bill, contends the age restriction in Florida's “blanket ban violates the fundamental rights of thousands of responsible, law-abiding adult Florida citizens and is thus invalid under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.”
Under federal law, gun dealers with a federal license in Florida already are banned from selling handguns to buyers under 21. The federal law also allows states to impose waiting periods on the purchase of handguns, something already required in Florida prior to the enactment of the new statute, which extends the three-day waiting period to long guns.
In a copy of the amended complaint posted in federal court Thursday, the NRA's lawyers called Florida's ban on sales of all guns to people under 21 “a significant, unequal, and impermissible burden on the right to keep and bear arms of a class of millions of law-abiding 18-to-21-year-old adult citizens.”
The NRA asked the court to allow potential plaintiff “Jane Doe,” who said she wants to purchase a firearm for self-defense, to join the suit and to keep details about the 19-year-old Alachua County resident private.
“Because of the highly controversial nature of this litigation, however, I am afraid that if my association with the lawsuit became public, I would be subjected to harassment, intimidation, threats, and potentially even physical violence,” the woman wrote in a sworn statement submitted to the court.
Leon County resident “John Doe,” a 19-year-old member of the NRA, also wants his identity to be kept off-limits to the public, the NRA's lawyers wrote.
“Few issues of public policy are as controversial and politically polarizing as the possession and use of firearms,” lawyers for the NRA, who include Tallahassee attorney Kenneth Sukhia, wrote in Thursday's request. “Ms. Doe seeks only to purchase firearms for lawful use in the privacy of her own home as the Second Amendment guarantees; but publication of her identity would expose her to unwanted public attention and censure for exercising her right to challenge a statute denying her a fundamental constitutional right.”
U.S. District Judge Mark Walker gave the state until the end of this week to respond to the NRA's request to use pseudonyms for “Jane Doe” and “John Doe.”
In Friday's two-page order, Walker indicated that the state's lawyers did not oppose the amended complaint but objected to the addition of “Jane Doe” as a plaintiff and “John Doe” as an “associational member” of the lawsuit.
The state has until May 21 to respond to the NRA's challenge to the new age-related law.
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 AllAn ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Travis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Recent Decisions Regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- 2The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 3Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 4For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 5As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
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