Florida Forces Towns to Pull Local Laws Limiting Guns

[Bluebear]

Kraig Conn, the legislative counsel for the Florida League of Cities, said fining individual mayors and council members for their legislative actions sets a “horrible precedent.” Lawmakers hold immunity that protects them from liability in civil lawsuits for duties they perform. “It pierces legislative immunity,” he said. “This is part of our common law system.”

It also runs counter to the Republican principle that local control is best.

In a state of 18 million people, with rural and urban areas adjacent to one another, “the State Legislature doesn’t know where it makes sense to restrict guns,” Mr. Conn said.


MIAMI — The signs — “No Guns Allowed” — are being stripped from many Florida government buildings, libraries and airports. And local ordinances that bar people from shooting weapons in their yards, firing up into the air (think New Year’s Eve) or taking guns into parks are coming off the books.

The state has spoken, again, on the matter of guns, and this time it does not want to be ignored: since 1987, local governments in Florida have been banned from creating and enforcing their own gun ordinances. Few cities and counties paid attention, though, believing that places like Miami might need to be more restrictive than others, like rural Apalachicola, for example.

But this year the Legislature passed a new law that imposes fines on counties and municipalities that do not do away with and stop enforcing their own firearms and ammunition ordinances by Oct. 1. Mayors and council and commission members will risk a $5,000 fine and removal from office if they “knowingly and willfully violate” the law. Towns that enforce their ordinances risk a $100,000 fine.

To comply with the law, cities and counties are poring over their gun ordinances, repealing laws and removing gun-related signs. In Palm Beach County, that means removing ordinances that bar people from taking guns into county government buildings and local parks and from firing guns in some of its most urban areas. In Groveland, that means they can now fire their guns into the air to celebrate. And in Lake County, firearms will soon be allowed in libraries.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/us/11guns.html?_r=3&hp

[CarmanK]

1. If we ever get our country back from TBAGGERS and FREAKS

it is going to take a long time to undo the damage they are doing to our civilization and our democracy.

[DissedByBush]

39. It's a sad day when cities aren't allowed to violate constitutional rights

Screw the state government enforcing rights, I want to go back to the good old days when cities could enact and enforce any ordinance they wanted, even if it violated the rights of the citizens.

[SteveM]

43. Do you understand the concept of federalism? nt

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[michreject]

3. That's the way it should be

I carry a gun every place I go. Why should I have to concern myself with every local podunk politician who hates guns and tries to usurp the state laws.

If I know state law, I should be good to go.

[Bluebear]

6. Glad you're thrilled

[TheWraith]

38. Flip it around, and see if you still support it.

Should a town be able to pass it's own more restrictive laws on, say, getting an abortion? Or banning gay marriage? Or free speech?

So why, then, should a town be entitled to make up it's own rules on firearms which directly contravene those issued by the state?

[SteveM]

44. Wait, wait! That's Rick Perry's 'philosophy.' Oh, sorry, didn't mean to offend. nt

[Obamanaut]

4. Outstanding! nt

[quaker bill]

5. I was wondering when this would make the news

I have read the bill, it is a short and very aggessive piece of legislation.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. California has had a similar law for years

It does not have some of the teeth the Florida law has, but the effect and intent are identical

[quaker bill]

15. FL has always been very open on gun rights

we hand out carry permits easily. Now the limits on where one can carry will largely be removed. Airports, courthouses and such will probably still be off limits, but little else.

[SteveM]

45. Actually, airports are not "off limits"...

You can carry a firearm into the terminal and check it in. The airline employee will inspect your arm to see if it is unloaded, and if you are carrying ammunition, see to it that it is transported in separate luggage; both items are then checked-in and shipped below the flight deck along with all other non-carry-on luggage.

This has been done for years.

Florida has NOT "always been very open on gun rights." It followed the dictates of Jim Crow, and attempted many sweeping bans on blacks carrying (or even owning) firearms; the latest case which upheld these unconstitutional laws (Florida S.C.) was in the 1940s. These Jim Crow laws have largely collapsed in the South, though the ol' bird has flown North and to S.F. and fluffed its booty before squatting on pockets of similarly-designed gun-control nests. (Suggested research: The context for passage of New York City's Sullivan Laws.)

[xchrom]

7. i guess florida should just give up the idea of local governance. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. Multiple duplicate threads

[Bluebear]

10. Links?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Looks like two were combined

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x459774#459776

Similar

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x459777

[Bluebear]

14. Sorry for the inconvenience I don't visit the gun forum

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. The search function does

They were elsewhere and were moved as well

[Bluebear]

19. Oh good heavens stop

[Fumesucker]

11. The only "Republican principle" is that Republicans should rule...

They can turn policy on a dime and give you nine cents change.

Local control is good when it advances Republican rule, bad when it does not.

Federal control is good when it advances Republican rule, bad when it does not.

Remember this one thing and it's easy to figure out what Republicans will say next.

[tinymontgomery]

12. If I can carry a gun in court house

does that mean I can also carry a huge knife if? Can this also be a cost saving device, if I can carry a gun in then get rid of the metal detectors and guards at the door.

[Exilednight]

17. I'm not surprised. At times it's a bassakwards state. n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. True blue California has had the same law on the books for quite some time

Not having a patchwork of laws on things like guns, voting, etc is a good thing and quite progressive

[Exilednight]

20. Easier access to guns is not progressive. Paint it however you like, but it's right wing teabagger

shit passed off as freedom. The California law is not the "same" as Florida's law, it's similar, but not the same.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. The key concept is uniformity of important areas of the law, which is clearly progressive

For example, if a state had a patchwork of laws that varied from locality to locality about voting, such as voter ID requirements, would that be acceptable?

FL already had a state preemption law. This latest go around put some teeth in the penalty area for those localities that did not follow it. In CA whenever a locality got stupid (Frisco anyone?) it would go to court and which would mandate compliance with state law. The bottom line is the net effect is the same.

The gun laws in Florida are indeed more liberal than many states. But both extremes, (CA and FL) have state preemption laws.

[Exilednight]

22. We do have a patchwork of laws for voting. It's in the constitution. Progressivism is not about

uniformity of laws, it's whether a law is good or bad. Easier access to guns is right wing teabagger bullshit, and forcing upon communities makes it smell even more.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. Odd, the courts do not agree and have struck down patchwork approaches often

When it comes to rights, uniformity and transparency are indeed progressive. What is coloring your thinking is that it is about guns. I suggest you generalize it, substitute other rights (voting, property, association, etc) and see if your rejection of state wide if not nationwide approaches is still rational.

[Exilednight]

24. I go by the merit of the law. I don't agree with every states' voting laws, but

it's a constitutional guarantee. Guns are not.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Courts disagree with you there as well

Start with Heller...

[Exilednight]

28. Heller holds no merit to state or local laws. DC is a federal property, not a state or

municipality.

Edit: I'll also point out that the 2nd amendment has been interprited by right wing nut cases appointed by BushCo.

[Hoopla Phil]

32. Um, yes it does, please see the Parker decision which

Incorporated the Heller decision to the states.

[DissedByBush]

40. Then check out McDonald, which incorporated it

"I'll also point out that the 2nd amendment has been interprited by right wing nut cases appointed by BushCo."

And interpreted properly.

Back through the 1800s the ONLY court interpretations allowing infringement of the RKBA hinged on blacks not really having constitutional rights.

Infringements that applied to whites were uniformly struck down.

It was only in the 1900s that infringements started to be allowed in an era when they thought the government could do whatever the hell it wanted regardless of the Constitution.

Surprisingly, the modern court reversed this trend and upheld the rights of the people over a government seeking to restrict their rights.

[DonP]

46. You're right, that would be McDonald v Chicago

Heller applied only to the District, but the McDonald made it apply universally to all states.

Even our President said that the 2nd amendment clearly protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Or is he a BushCo plant/GOP shill too?

[S_B_Jackson]

51. Then read McDonald v. Chicago....2nd Amendment was included under the court's Incorporation Doctrine

agains the states and all of their subordinate governmental entities - INCLUDING municipalities.

[Euromutt]

26. I don't know about "progressive" but it certainly supports the Rule of Law

After all, if the maxim that "ignorance of the law is no defense" is to have any validity, the average citizen must be able to readily understand the law without having to consult a lawyer. If local governments want to not have their local ordinances preempted, they should accept a concomitant responsibility to post all their local ordinances at every road crossing the county line or city limits, and keep those postings up to date. If that's too much hassle, tough, then you don't get to prosecute people who are merely passing through.

[Exilednight]

27. If that's your argument, then we should have federal and stae laws posted on every sign. n/t

[petronius]

33. Towns and counties are free to do that, of course. But the key difference is that

federal and state laws are consistent across large areas, and it's relatively easy to look them up and understand the requirements. When municipalities develop their own laws (especially on matters already regulated by the state) it creates an unreasonable morass of conflicting regulation that makes it difficult or near-impossible to be continuously in the clear.

There are certainly areas of law where the appropriate level of regulation is local, but I'd argue that any law that directly affects individuals as they travel from area to area within the state (when such travel generally unrelated to the particular law) is most appropriately a state responsibility...

[Euromutt]

37. Excellent rejoinder; thanks (n/t)

[Kennah]

41. And Florida's preemption law I believe dates back to 1987, not like this was new or news

[rrneck]

31. Why is easier access to guns not progressive? nt

[slackmaster]

35. "access to guns" is code language for people who want to ban them

Either you HAVE access to guns or you do not.

[SteveM]

50. Good point. Succinct and clear as usual. nt

[SteveM]

49. The issue here is local compliance with state powers and authority...

You have merely asserted "...it's right wing teabagger shit passed off as freedom." The authority for states to check local government when it challenges state laws/constitution was around long before Lipton put strings on their bags.

I would point out that "gun-control" did not appear in the Democratic Party Platform until after the Zombies had charted in the 60s. From before that time until the present, Gallup has surveyed the U.S. population as to whether or not the Second protected an individual's right to keep and bear arms. The results have been consistently 73 - 75% "yes."

I am glad for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the other civil rights measures which did away with Jim Crow laws in the South. That, Exiled, is "progressive." The adaptation of harsh, unconstitutional laws controlling/banning guns in some Northern cities and in S.F. is a repugnant throw-back to those apartheid days in the South.

[SteveM]

48. Actually, most states will step in when their authority is challenged...

Localities (cities and certainly counties) which pass laws which countermand or come into conflict with state law may and have been challenged. This is a case in point. The relationship between states and the national government is outlined in the constitution (often called federalism); while the states do NOT have such a constitutional "power-sharing" arrangement with its subdivisions: Cities are created creatures, chartered or incorporated by the state within which they are located, and counties are actually arms of the state with even more limited autonomous authority. BTW, states existed even before the United States of America.

While some states provide for "local control" -- in Florida this includes the ability to consolidate local governments, Jacksonville/Duval Co., Metro Miami/Dade -- they do not grant "independence" to local government to take actions or pass ordinances which go against state law or the constitution on which these laws are based. This is not "states rights," as Rick Perry likes to think, but state powers.

Before looking at a state as "backward," keep in mind that all the states regularly step into their own doo-doo. This doesn't appear to be one of these cases.

[madrchsod]

29. so it`s legal to take a loaded firearm into a court room?

shooting a gun into the air is really really, stupid.

what the hell happened to the concept of home rule?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. Where did you get that idea?

[gravity556]

34. Pretty sure that courtrooms and the sterile area of airports

are off limits everywhere. No need to soil yourself in terror.

Good to see they enacted a preemption law-state law should apply everywhere in the state rather than some podunk mayor deciding that his town should have different gun laws from the next town (and on and on). Gives the citizens a chance, at least. After all, criminals aren't going to obey a law disarming them, so why should law abiding gun owners be forced to disarm?

[slackmaster]

36. Of course not.

Where on Earth did you get that idea?

what the hell happened to the concept of home rule?

Florida has home rule with respect to guns. It's at the state level, as it is in many states including California.

[Euromutt]

42. No; it'll just (continue to) be illegal under state law

As I remarked in another thread concerning this topic, I assume Florida has some kind of state-level law against "reckless endangerment" under which some idiot who discharges a firearm into the air if there's any chance of the bullet hitting someone on the way down can be prosecuted. Similarly, there is very likely a state-level law against carrying a firearm into certain areas of a courthouse, police station, county jail etc.

The main change will be not that certain behaviors will become legal, but that they will be illegal in the exact same manner state-wide.

[akvo]

47. Another total BS thread, and plain incorrect

Florida passed a law that says state law has precedence over local law. This law was always on the books but there was no penalty imposed for violating the law. The new law simply added a penalty.

The problem was that Florida allows permitted concealed carry, yet a few communities decided they would ban concealed carry or harass CC holders. CC holders who were harassed went to court and won (every time), but since there was no penalty the offending communities continued their law breaking.

Most of the "examples" (such as a shooting gallery in every backyard) are idiotic.