DeSantis signed the bill (SB 1884) on Friday after the Republican-controlled Legislature passed it in party-line votes late last month. The bill, which will take effect July 1, will broaden a 2011 law that can make local governments pay as much as $100,000 in damages if they are sued for imposing gun regulations. [More]
Just a thought about unintended consequences, so someone with legal knowledge please give me a read here: Could that be used against "Second Amendment Sanctuary" cities and counties?
[Via Remarks]
6 comments:
"Could that be used against "Second Amendment Sanctuary" cities and counties?"
Now that is a really interesting question. One that I've not seen before. But when you start picking the situation apart, a few things stick out.
One of them being that the Second Amendment isn't really about guns any more than it is about sporting goods. Nor is it about arms as a general class of which firearms are a sub class although it obviously mentions arms in the text. At core it is really about an inalienable right and a (supposed) prohibition against government infringement of that right.
So it would seem that the new enhancements to an existing preemption law, and the existing preemption law itself, are more parallel in purpose than in opposition to any Second Amendment sanctuary declaration by a subordinate government.
However, I do see where some might try to work that angle in opposition to both and wouldn't be at all surprised to see court cases result.
Something else came to mind while re-reading the article.
"But Democrats argued that cities and counties should not be punished for trying to curb gun violence and recounted incidents such as the 2016 mass shooting at Pulse nightclub in Orlando."
No one is suggesting punishing local governments for trying to curb gun violence. What is being said is that local governments will be punished if they continue to infringe on the Second Amendment while supposedly trying to curb gun violence.
Perhaps as an alternative they could try incarcerating violent career criminals. But as one state representative candidate from Richmond Heights once said, that would be unfair to his "constituents." Kind of makes you wonder about who he considered his constituents to be.
Sounds like they need to begin making some hard choices. But weren't they elected to do just exactly that?
Great comments.
Left unsaid by anyone is the cost of fatherlessness.
Bastard children overwhelmingly grow to become sociopaths.
Here's a thought: why not get married first and stop f**king around.
This might be more effective if the representatives that voted for the infringement had to personally pay the penalty. No other group or person would be allowed to pay the penalty for them.
[Obligatory IANAL warning.]
Best thing to do: Read the actual bill. It's really short; about a page and a half.
Specifically, it amends the existing preemption law to declare that if a local government changes or removes a 2A-violating policy, an adversely affected person or organization is defined as the prevailing plaintiff for the purposes of collecting damages. Preemption barring local ordinances was already there; all this changes is that once a lawsuit is filed, localities cannot expect to rescind regulations to moot the case and avoid consequences.
Since Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions are usually a simple statement that, "We won't help enforce state or federal laws that violate the Second Amendment," I'm not sure in what scenarios a person or organization's members could be adversely affected by such a resolution.
Again, IANAL, but the way it's written, I don't see how a 2A Sanctuary resolution -- which didn't violate preemption before -- could be found to suddenly violate this updated preemption; those criteria haven't changed one bit. Then again, partisan judges are creative buggers, and they are certainly capable of ruling without justification when it suits them.
To add: The media's treatment of this "new preemption" is analogous to how they treat "Stand Your Ground" laws. They invariably claim that SYG is a "license to kill" and people will be shot over parking spaces and without provocation.
In reality, SYG doesn't fundamentally change self-defense law. The defender still has to be the innocent party, still has to be in a place they're legally allowed to be, still has to be proportionate and reasonable, etc. The only change is that SYG explicitly removes the requirement to attempt to retreat before using force in self-defense.
But if you listen to the media, SYG is the end of the civilized world. And racist.
This preemption bill is the same. It's not a new ban on local ordinances; that was already there. All it does is remove the ability for localities to avoid penalties by rescinding policies to moot challenges, and declares that if they try, the plaintiff wins and can collect damages. That's all. Nothing else.
But listen to the media, and the bill will enable local murder by not allowing cities and counties to exercise "common sense". It's the end of the civilized world. (And probably racist, too.)
Post a Comment