LTC 146-2018 City of South Miami Resolution NO. 035-18-15067MIAMI BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
No. 146-2018
LETTER TO COMMISSION
TO: Mayor Dan Gelber and Members of the City ommission
FROM: Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk
DATE: March 19, 2018
SUBJECT: CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI RESOLUTION NO. 035-18-15061
Attached for your information is Resolution No. 035-18-15067, adopted by the Mayor and the
Commission of the City of South Miami on March 6, 2018.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
THE CITY ATTORNEY TO JOIN THE LAWSUIT FILED BY THE CITY OF
WESTON SEEKING A DECLARATION THAT THE PROVISIONS
PUNISHING ELECTED OFFICIALS SET FORTH IN SECTION 790.33,
FLORIDA STATUTES, FOR VIOLATING THE PREEMPTION RELATED
TO THE REGULATION OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION ARE INVALID.
The City of South Miami Clerk has requested that a copy of this resolution be provided to the
Miami Beach Mayor and Commissioners.
If you have any questions, please contact the Office of the City Clerk at 305.673.7411.
REG/Ic
Attachment
F:\CLER\$ALL\LILIA\LTC's - Transmittal's\Resolution 035-18-15067 City of South Miami.docx
RESOLUTION NO. 035-1845067
A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami,
Florida. authorizing and directing the City Attorney to join the lawsuit filed
by the City of Weston seeking a declaration that the provisions punishing
elected officials set forth in section 790.33, Florida Statutes, for violating the
preemption related to the regulation of firearms andammunition are invalid.
WHEREAS, over the past several years there have been an unprecedented number of
mass shootings in American communities including, most recently, at Marjory Stoneman
Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida; and
WHEREAS, national and state leaders continue to fail to act to implement sensible gun
law reforms that are supported by a majority of the nation; and
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2013, the City Commission for the City of Weston adopted
Resolution No. 201303, urging the Florida Legislature to repeal certain sections of Florida
Statutes that prevent local governments from exercising their Home Rule Authority to regulate
and/or prohibit firearms in public parks and other local government-owned facilities and
property; and
WHEREAS, on April 7, 2014, the City Commission for the City of Weston adopted
Resolution No. 2014-34, supporting House Bill 305 and Senate Bill 492, which would have
amended Florida Statutes to permit a local government to exercise its Home Rule Authority to
regulate firearms and ammunition upon local government-owned property; and
WHEREAS, requests by the City of Weston to the Florida legislature to enact legislation
relating to firearms in City facilities and parks, or to allow the City to do so, have been
unsuccessful; and
WHEREAS, in Section 790.33, Florida Statutes, the State of Florida (a) declared that it
is occupying the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition, to the exclusion of all
existing and future county or city ordinances, regulations or rules, (b) prohibit the enactment of
any future ordinances or regulations "relating to firearms," and (c) creates potential liability for
monetary damages and removal from office for actions that violate s. 790.33; and
WHEREAS, Section 790.33's use of the terms "relating to firearms" and "any measure,
directive, rule, enactment, order or policy promulgated," is extremely broad and vague, and
could apply to a panoply of measures that the City would like to consider enacting, including the
restricting of guns in City facilities and parks, the placing of signs relating to guns in City
facilities and parks, the regulation of gun accessories (such as holsters or bump stocks) or the
creating of "gun free zones" or "gun safe zones"; and
WHEREAS, the potential violation of the broad and vague preemption of firearm
regulation in Section 790.33, Florida Statutes, carries the risk of onerous and punitive
consequences, including but not limited to damages up to 5100,000, assessment of attorney fees
Page 1 of 3
Res. No. 035-18-15067
and court costs, fines up to 55,000 (for which the official may be personally liable), removal
from office by the Governor without due process of law, and a prohibition of the use of public
funds to pay or reimburse the official for fines, damages or defense costs (collectively, the
"Onerous Preemption Penalties"); and
WHEREAS, the City Commission and its members fear taking any steps that could even
remotely be viewed as a violation of the preemption due to the Onerous Preemption Penalties
which creates a chilling effect upon City action and it prevents the City Commission from doing
its duty to provide for the safety and welfare of its citizens by protecting them against the
dangers of firearms; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission and its members desire to consider various reasonable
measures related to firearms, including the restriction of guns in City facilities and parks, the
placing of signs related to guns in City facilities and parks, the regulation of gun accessories
(such as holsters or bump stocks), the creation of "gun free zones" or "gun safe zones," or other
measures related to guns, but have refrained from doing so because they could possibly be
viewed as violating s. 790.33 and be subjected to the Onerous Preemption Penalties; and
WHEREAS, the Onerous Preemption Penalties strike at the core of the American system
of democratic representation; they suppress the voice of the local electorate through intimidation
of local elected officials; and
WHEREAS, the Onerous Preemption Penalties infringe on the free speech rights of the
City Commission and its members, and interfere with their ability to perform their official duties;
and
WHEREAS, the Onerous Preemption Penalties infringe upon the legislative immunity
that the members of the City Commission enjoy under law when casting votes in their official
capacities; and
-WHEREAS, s. 790.33 conflicts with Article 4, Section 7 of the Florida Constitution, by
allowing the Governor to remove a municipal official who has not been indicted for any crime,
and violates due process; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission believes it is in the best interest of the residents of the
City to file a lawsuit seeking a declaration that the Onerous Preemption Penalties are invalid.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1: The foregoing recitals contained in the preamble to this Resolution are
incorporated by reference herein.
Section 2: The City Attorney is hereby authorized and instructed to engage with the City
of Weston in its lawsuit seeking declaratory and other appropriate relief to challenge the Onerous
Page 2 of 3
Res. No. 035-18-15067
Preemption Penalties contained in Section 79033, Florida Statutes, based upon any appropriate
legal theories, including those set forth above.
Section 3: The City Commission invites and urges other local governments and elected
officials to join the City as plaintiffs in the lawsuit and to coordinate their efforts with the City of
Weston.
Section 4: The City Clerk is directed to distribute this Resolution to all local
governments in Miami -Dade County.
Section 5: The appropriate City officials are authorized to execute all necessary
documents and to take any necessary action to effectuate the intent of this Resolution.
Section 6: Severability. If any section clause, sentence, or phrase of this resolution is for
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, the holding shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution.
Section 7: Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon
adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of March, 2018.
READ AND
LAN
E
APPROVED:
M9tf64t4
MAYI5R
ROVED AS 1 FORM, COMMISSION VOTE: 5-0
GALIT XECUTION Mayor Stoddard: Yea
THE' ! Vice Mayor Harris: Yea
Commissioner Welsh: Yea
Commissioner Liebman: Yea
Commissioner Gil: Yea
ORNEY
Page 3 of 3
1 CITY OF WESTON, FLORIDA
2 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-30
3
4
5 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WESTON,
6 FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO FILE A
7 LAWSUIT SEEKING A DECLARATION THAT THE PROVISIONS PUNISHING
8 ELECTED OFFICIALS SET FORTH IN SECTION 790.33, FLORIDA STATUTES, FOR
9 VIOLATING THE PREEMPTION RELATED TO THE REGULATION OF FIREARMS
10 AND AMMUNITION ARE INVALID, AND INVITING OTHER LOCAL
11 GOVERNMENTS TO JOIN THE LAWSUIT.
12
13 WHEREAS, First, over the past several years there have been an unprecedented number of
14 mass shootings in American communities including, most recently, at Marjory Stoneman Douglas
15 High School in Parkland, Florida; and
16
17 WHEREAS, Second, National and State leaders continue to fail to act to implement sensible
18 gun law reforms that are supported by a majority of the nation; and
19
20 WHEREAS, Third, the residents of Weston have repeatedly petitioned that the City
21 Commission take action regarding gun violence, including requests that the City ban, restrict or take
22 other steps that would reduce the threat from firearms in City facilities and parks; and
23
24 WHEREAS, Fifth, on January 22, 2013, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2013-
25 03, urging the Florida Legislature to repeal certain sections of Florida Statutes that prevent local
26 governments from exercising their Home Rule Authority to regulate and/or prohibit firearms in public
27 parks and other local government-owned facilities and property; and
28
29 WHEREAS, Sixth, on April 7, 2014, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2014-34,
30 supporting House Sill 305 and Senate Bill 492, which would have amended Florida Statutes to permit
31 a local government to exercise its Home Rule Authority to regulate firearms and ammunition upon
32 local government-owned property; and
33
34 WHEREAS, Seventh, the City's requests to the State Legislature to enact legislation relating to
35 firearms in City facilities and parks, or to allow the City to do so, have been unsuccessful; and
36
37 WHEREAS, Eighth, in Section 790.33, Florida Statutes, the State of Florida (a) declared that it
38 is occupying the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition, to the exclusion of all existing
39 and future county or city ordinances, regulations or rules, (b) purports to prohibit the enactment of
40 any future ordinances or regulations "relating to firearms," and (c) also purports to create potential
41 liability for damages for actions other than ordinances and regulations, including any "measure,
42 directive, rule, enactment, order, or policy promulgated or caused to be enforced"; and
43
44 WHEREAS, Ninth, the purported preemption, by using the terms "relating to firearms" and
45 "any measure, directive, rule, enactment, order or policy promulgated," is extremely broad and
46 vague, and could apply to a panoply of measures that the City would like to consider enacting,
#59019 v1 Resolution No. 2018-30 Page 1 of 4
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WESTON, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO FILE A LAWSUIT SEEKING A DECLARATION THAT THE PROVISIONS
PUNISHING ELECTED OFFICIALS SET FORTH IN SECTION 790.33, FLORIDA STATUTES, FOR VIOLATING
THE PREEMPTION RELATED TO THE REGULATION OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION ARE INVALID,
AND INVITING OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO JOIN THE LAWSUIT.
1 including the restricting of guns in City facilities and parks, the placing of signs relating to guns in
2 City facilities and parks, the regulation of gun accessories (such as holsters or bump stocks) or the
3 creating of "gun free zones" or "gun safe zones"; and
4
5 WHEREAS, Tenth, the potential violation of the broad and vague preemption of firearm
6 regulation in Section 790.33, Florida Statutes, carries the risk of onerous and punitive consequences,
7 including but not limited to damages up to $100,000 and fines up to $5,000 (for which the official
8 may be personally liable), removal from office by the Governor without due process of law, and a
9 prohibition of the use of public funds to pay or reimburse the official for fines, damages or defense
10 costs (collectively, the "Onerous Preemption Penalties"); and
11
12 WHEREAS, Eleventh, as a result of the Onerous Preemption Penalties, the City Commission
13 and its members fear taking any steps that could even remotely be viewed as a violation of the
14 preemption, creating a chilling effect upon City action and preventing the City Commission from
15 responding to the petitions and requests of the City's residents to do something to protect against the
16 dangers of firearms; and
17
18 WHEREAS, Twelfth, the City Commission and its members desire to consider various
19 reasonable measures related to firearms, including the restriction of guns in City facilities and parks,
20 the placing of signs related to guns in City facilities and parks, the regulation of gun accessories (such
21 as holsters or bump stocks), the creation of "gun free zones" or "gun safe zones," or other measures
22 related to guns, but have refrained from doing so because they could possibly be viewed as falling
23 under the preemption and be subjected to the Onerous Preemptiori Penalties; and
24
25 WHEREAS, Thirteenth, the Onerous Preemption Penalties strike at the core of the American
26 system of democratic representation: they suppress, in an insidious, Orwellian fashion, the voice of
27 the local electorate through intimidation of local elected officials; and
28
29 WHEREAS, Fourteenth, the Onerous Preemption Penalties infringe on the free speech rights
30 of the City Commission and its members, and interfere with their ability to perform their official
31 duties; and
32
33 WHEREAS, Fifteenth, the Onerous Preemption Penalties infringe upon the legislative
34 immunity the members of the City Commission enjoy under law when casting votes in their official
35 capacities; and
36
37 WHEREAS, Sixteenth, the portion of the Onerous Preemption Penalties related to the removal
38 from office by the Governor conflicts with Article 4, Section 7 of the Florida Constitution, by allowing
39 the Governor to remove a municipal official who has not been indicted for any crime, and violates
40 due process; and
41
+69019 v1 Resolution No. 2018-30 Page 2 of 4
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WESTON, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO FILE A LAWSUIT SEEKING A DECLARATION THAT THE PROVISIONS
PUNISHING ELECTED OFFICIALS SET FORTH IN SECTION 790.33, FLORIDA STATUTES, FOR VIOLATING
THE PREEMPTION RELATED TO THE REGULATION OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION ARE INVALID,
AND INVITING OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO JOIN THE LAWSUIT.
I WHEREAS, Seventeenth, the City Commission believes it is in the best interest of the residents
2 of the City to file a lawsuit seeking a declaration that the Onerous Preemption Penalties are invalid
3 and urging other local governments to join the lawsuit as plaintiffs with the City.
4
5 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of Weston, Florida:
6
7 Section 1: The foregoing recitals contained in the preamble to this Resolution are incorporated by
8 reference herein.
9
to Section 2: The City Commission hereby authorizes and directs the City Attorney to file a lawsuit
I 1 naming the City and those any individual Members of the Commission (in their official capacity) who
12 choose to participate, as plaintiffs, seeking declaratory and other appropriate relief to challenge the
13 Onerous Preemption Penalties contained in Section 790.33, Florida Statutes, based upon any
14 appropriate legal theories, including those set forth above.
15
16 Section 3: The City Commission invites and urges other local governments and elected officials to
17 join the City as plaintiffs in the lawsuit and to coordinate their efforts with the City.
18
19 Section 4: The City Clerk is directed to distribute this Resolution to all local governments in Broward
20 County.
21
22 Section 5: The appropriate City officials are authorized to execute all necessary documents and to
23 take any necessary action to effectuate the intent of this Resolution.
24
25 Section 6: This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption.
26
27
#69019 vi Resolution No. 2018.36 Page 3 of 4
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WESTON, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO FILE A LAWSUIT SEEKING A DECLARATION THAT THE PROVISIONS
PUNISHING ELECTED OFFICIALS SET FORTH IN SECTION 790.33, FLORIDA STATUTES, FOR VIOLATING
THE PREEMPTION RELATED TO THE REGULATION OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION ARE INVALID,
AND INVITING OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO JOIN THE LAWSUIT.
1 ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Weston, Florida, this
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 ATTEST:
10
11
12
13Patricia A. Bates, City Clerk
14
15 Approved as to form and legality
16 for the use of .an reliance by the
17 City of W"sfon nly:
18
19
20
21 Jamie A. C
22
City Attorney
Fi
Daniel). Site h,er, Mayor
uary 2018.
Roll Call:
Commissioner Jaffe
Commissioner Feuer
Commissioner Kallman
Commissioner Brown
Mayor Stermer
yes
\_size.5.5
#69019 v t Resolution No. 2018.30 Page 4 of 4
Qunnipiac " ..'(
UNIVERSITY /
FOR RELEASE: FEBRUARY 28, 2018
Peter A. Brown, Assistant Director
(203) 535-6203
Rubenstein
Pat Smith (212) 843-8026
FLORIDA VOTERS OPPOSE TEACHERS WITH GUNS,
QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY POLL FINDS;
SUPPORT FOR `ASSAULT WEAPON' BAN ALMOST 24
Florida voters oppose 56 — 40 percent allowing teachers and school officials to carry guns on
school grounds, according to a Quinnipiac University Poll released today. Voters with children
under 18 years old in public schools oppose arming school personnel 53 — 43 percent.
But 51 percent of voters say "increased security at school entrances" would do more to
reduce gun violence in schools, compared to 32 percent who say stricter gun laws would do more
and 12 percent who say armed teachers would do more to keep schools safe, the independent
Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds.
Florida voters support 62 — 33 percent a nationwide ban on the sale of "assault weapons."
In a separate question with different wording, voters support 53 — 42 percent a nationwide ban on
the sale of all "semi-automatic rifles."
Voters support 65 — 29 percent "stricter gun laws," with strong support for other gun
control measures:
• 96 — 3 percent for requiring background checks for all gun buyers;
• 62 — 34 percent for a nationwide ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines that hold
more than 10 rounds;
• 87 — 10 percent for a mandatory waiting period on all gun purchases;
• 78 — 20 percent for requiring that all gun buyers be at least 21 years old;
• 89 — 8 percent for allowing police or family members to petition a judge to remove guns
from a person who may be at risk of violent behavior;
• 92 — 6 percent for banning gun ownership by anyone who has had a restraining order for
stalking, domestic abuse or other reasons.
"The notion that we are bitterly divided on political matters — the case for past decades —
has found an exception to that rule. Florida voters — be they young or old, white or black, man or
woman — have a common enemy," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac
University Poll.
-more-
275 Mounu Carmel Avenue, Hamden, CI 06518.1908 '1' 203.582.5201 F 203.582-8790 w%vw.qu.edu
Quinnipiac University Poll/February 28, 2018 — page 2
"Floridians are strongly united that more needs to be done to reign in guns, especially the
type of gun used this month to massacre 17 people in Parkland," Brown added.
"Depending on how questions are asked, large majorities support efforts to restrict gun
purchases; to require background checks for buyers and to ban certain types of guns.
"These numbers show remarkable agreement across the electorate, the kind not seen very
often these days."
It is "too easy" to buy a gun in Florida today, 63 percent of voters say, while 28 percent
say it is "about right" and 1 percent say it is "too difficult."
Florida voters oppose 56 — 36 percent allowing local governments to adopt gun laws that
are stricter than state law.
If more people carried guns, Florida would be "less safe," 56 percent of voters say, while
34 percent say the state would be "safer."
Florida's state government must do more to reduce gun violence, 75 percent of voters
say, while 18 percent say government is doing enough.
Voters give Gov. Rick Scott. a split 42 — 45 percent approval rating for his handling of the
issue of gun violence.
Voters disapprove 54 — 40 percent of President Donald Trump's handling of gun violence
and disapprove 50 — 39 percent of the president's response to the Parkland school massacre.
Voters disapprove 52 — 31 percent of Sen. Marco Rubio's handling of gun violence and
give Sen. Bill Nelson a divided score as 36 percent approve and 37 percent disapprove.
Voting Rights for Former Felons
Florida voters support 67 — 27 percent restoring voting rights to convicted felons, other
than those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who have completed their sentences.
Every listed party, gender, education, age and racial group supports this idea, with
support ranging from 50 — 42 percent among Republicans to 82 — 15 percent among Democrats.
From February 23 — 26, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,156 Florida voters with a
margin of error of +/- 3.6 percentage points, including the design effect. Live interviewers call
landlines and cell phones.
The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts
nationwide public opinion surveys, and statewide polls in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey,
Connecticut, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa and Colorado as a public service and for research.
Visit noll.ou.edu or www.facebook.com/ouinniniacnoll
Call (203) 582-5201, or follow us on Twitter @QuinnipiacPoll.
2
17. Do you support or oppose restoring voting rights to individuals who have committed a
felony other than murder or sexual offense and completed their sentences?
WHITE
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Support 67% 50% 82% 68% 63% 70% 66% 63%
Oppose 27 42 15 25 32 23 25 31
DK/NA 6 8 3 6 5 7 9 5
AGE IN YRS WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Support 79% 62% 66% 65% 59% 69% 65% 82% 62%
Oppose 19 32 30 25 35 23 28 14 35
DK/NA 2 6 4 9 6 8 7 4 3
HAVE KIDS <18 .YRS
Gun DENSITY InPublic
HsHld City Suburb Rural Yes School
Support 63% 63% 72% 64% 62% 63%
Oppose 31 31 23 28 31 32
DK/NA 7 6 5 8 6 5
19. Do you support or oppose stricter gun laws in the United States?
WHITE'......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Support 65% 43% 87% 68% 53% 76% 66% 57%
Oppose 2.9 49 10 26 41 18 30 34
DK/NA 6 8 2 6 6 6 4 8
AGE IN YRS WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Support 72% 62% 62% 69% 48% 73% 61% . 77% 73%
Oppose 23 34 31 24 46 22 32 19 23
DK/NA 5 4 7 7 7 6 6 5 5
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY InPublic
HsHld City Suburb Rural Yes School
Support 49% 68% 68% 50% 64% 63%
Oppose 42 27 26 41 33 34
DK/NA 9 4 6 9 3 3
3
20. Do you support or' oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?
WHITE
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Won Yes No
Support 96% 94% 97% 97% 95% 97% 96% 98%
Oppose 3 5 3 2 4 2 3 2
DK/NA 1 1 - - 1 1 2 -
AGE IN YRS WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Bik Hsp
Support 99% 94% 95% 97% 95% 9B% 97% 91% 98%
Oppose 1 5 5 2 4 1 2 9 2
DK/NA - 1 - 1 1 1 1 - -
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY InPublic
HsHld City Suburb Rural 'Yes School
Support 95% 96% 97% 94% 96% 96%
Oppose 4 3 3 5 3 3
DK/NA 1 1 1 1 1 1
-21. Do you support or oppose a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons?
WHITE
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Den Ind Men Wom Yes No
Support 62% 40% 86% 62% 47% 75% 64% 58%
Oppose 33 53 11 32 50 18 32 37
DK/NA 5 7 3 5 3 7 4 4
AGE -IN YRS WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom • Wht Blk Hsp
Support 47% 53% 65% 76% 44% 75% 61% 68% 64%
Oppose 46 43 29 20 53 19 35 25 32
DK/NA 7 4 7 4 3 6 4 7 4
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY InPublic
HsHld City Suburb Rural Yes School
Support 43% 65% 64% 48% 50% 49%
Oppose 52 29 32 47 46 46
DK/NA 5 6 3 5 4 5
4
22. Do you support or oppose a natIonwide b r.on the sale of all semi-automatic rifles?
WHITE
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Support 53% 27% 78% 55% 36% 68% 53% 48%
Oppose 42 66 19 39 59 26 40 48
DK/NA 5 7 3 6 5 • 6 7 5
AGE IN YRS WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Support 50% 41% 58% 62% 31% 67% 50% 66% 58%
Oppose 48 55 38 31 65 27 44 33 38
DK/NA 2 4 4 7 4 7 6 2 4
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY............ InPublic
HsHid City Suburb Rural Yes School
Support 32% 57% 56% 34% 44% 42%
Oppose 64 38 38 60 52 52
DK/NA 4 5 5 6 4 5
23. Do you support or oppose a nationwide ban on the sale of high-capacity ammunition
magazines that hold more than 10 bullets?
WHITE
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Support 62% 39% 85% 65% 4.8% 75% 64% 58%
Oppose 34 56 14 31 50 20 30 39
DK/NA 4 6 1 4 3 5 6 3
AGE IN YRS .............. WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Support 57% 54% 66% 72% 47% 73% 61% 74% 65%
Oppose 42 43 31 24 51 21 34 26 33
DK/NA 1 3 3 4 2 7 5 1 2
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY............ InPublic
HsHld City Suburb Rural Yes School
Support 46% 65% 62% 55% 55% 53%
Oppose 50 32 34 40 42 43
DK/NA 4 3 4 5 3 3
5
24. Do you support or oppose imposing a mandatory waiting period on all gun purchases, so
that everyone who purchases a gun must wait a certain number of days before taking the
dun home?
WHITE
_ COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Worn Yes No
Support 87% •82% 96% . 88% 83% 91% 86% 87%
Oppose 10 14 3 10 • 15 6 9 11
DK/NA 3 4 1 2 2 3 5 2
AGE IN YRS WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Nen Wom Wht Bik Hsp
Support 85% 88% 87% 90% 81% 91% 87% 93% 90%
Oppose 14 10 11 6 17 5 10 7 9
DK/NA 1 2 2 4 2 4 3 - -
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY InPublic
HsHid City Suburb Rural Yes School
Support 83% 90% 87% 82% 85% 85%
Oppose 14 • 8 11 13 14 14
DK/NA 2 2 2 5 1 1
25. Do you support or, oppose imposing a mandatory waiting period on purchases of assault
weapons, so that everyone who purchases an assault weapon must waic a certain number of
days before taking it home?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men • Wom Yes No
Support 85% 82% 89% 87% 81% 89% 85% 84%
Oppose 11 13 7 10 15 6 10 11
DK/NA 4 5 4 2 4 5 5 5
AGE IN YRS WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Bik Hsp
Support 85% 86% 86% 85% 79% 89% 85% 89% 89%
Oppose 13 12 9 9 17 5 10 10 10
DK/NA 2 2 5 6 4 6 5 1
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY InPublic
HsHld City Suburb Rural Yes School
Support 83% 88% 85% 81% 85% 83%
Oppose 14 9 10 17 13 15
DK/NA 3 3 6 2 2 2
6
26. Do you support or oppose requiring individuals to be 21 years of age or older in
order to purchase a gun?
WHI._
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Support 78% 68% 93% 77% 67% 88% 76% 74%
Oppose 20 29 7 22 31 10 '20 24
DK/NA 2 3 - 1 2 2 3 2
AGE IN YRS WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men. Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Support 77% 71% 82% 82% 63% 85% 75% 88% 81%
Oppose 23 27 17 15 35 12 22 12 18
DH/NA 1 2 1 3 2 3 2 - . -
RAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY InPublic
HsHld City Suburb Rural Yes School
Support 69% 78% 80% 74% 78% 78%
Oppose 30 20 19 23 21 21
DK/NA 2 2 2 3 1 1
27. Do you support or oppose allowing the police or family members to petition a judge to
remove guns from a person that may be at risk for violent behavior?
WHITE
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Support 89% 86% 93% 91% 84% 94% 88% 92%
Oppose 8 8 5 7 12 4 7 5
DK/NA 3 5 1 2 4 2 5 3
AGE IN YRS WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Support 90% 87% 87% 93% 87% 92% 90% 88% 91%
Oppose 8 10 9 4 9 4 6 .11 7
DK/NA 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 i 2
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY InPublic
HsHld City Suburb Rural Yes School
Support 86% 91% 91% 83% 86% 87%
Oppose 11 6 6 15 10 10
DK/NA 3 4 3 1 4 - 4
7
28. Do you support or oppose banning the possession or purchase of a gun if an individual
has had a restraining order filed against them for stalking or domestic; sexual, or
repeat violence?
WHI^+_E...... .
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Nen Wom Yes No
Support 92% 91% , 96% 92% 89% 95% 94% 94%
Oppose 6 7 3 7 8 4 5 4
DK/NA 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 1
AGE IN YRS WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Nen Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Support •92% 85% 94% 97% 91% 97% 94% 86% 93%
Oppose 5 12 4 2 7 2 4 12 5
DK/NA 3 3 2 1 3 1 2 2 2
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY InPublic
HsHld City Suburb Rural Yes School
Support 91% 90% 95% 93% 86% 86%
Oppose 8 7 4 6 10 10
DK/NA 1 2 1 1 4 4
29. Do you think that local governments should be allowed to enact stricter gun laws to
meet the needs of their communities, or should local governments be required to follow
state gun laws?
WHITE
COLLEGE DEG
Tot • Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No.
Allow stricter laws 36% 20% 52% 38%. 29% 43% 40% 31%
Follow state laws 56 71 43 55 64 49 54 62
DK/NA 8 9 5 7 7 8 6 7
AGE IN YRS WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Allow stricter laws 35% 35% 38% 37% 26% 43% 36% 43% 38%
Follow state laws 59 60 56 52 67 51 58 57 50
DK/NA 5 5 6 11 7 6 7 1 12
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY InPublic
HsHid City Suburb Rural Yes School
Allow stricter laws 26% 36% 40% 29% 34% 31%
Follow state laws 69 53 55 67 57 60
DK/NA 6 11 5 4 8 9
30. Do you think it is too easy to buy a gun in Florida today, too difficult to buy a gun
in Florida today, or about right?
WHITE
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Too easy 63% 38% 89% 64% 49% 75% 61% 55%
Too difficult ' 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 -
About right 28 50 6 26 43 15 29 37
DK/NA 8 11 4 9 6 9 8 8
AGE IN YRS WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Too easy 68% 59% 64% 65% 42% 71% 58% 76% 74%
Too difficult 2 1 2 - 1 1 1 1 1
About right 25 37 28 20 50 19 33 14 19
DK/NA 4 3 6 14 7 9 8 9 5
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY InPublic
HsH1d City Suburb Rural Yes School
Too easy 48% 66% 64% 53% 60% 58%
Too difficult _ 1 2 1 1 1
About right 46 24 27 41 34 35
DK/NA 5 9 7 6 5 5
31. If more people carried guns, do you think that Florida would be safer or less safe?
WHITE
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Safer 34% 64% 6% 30% 48% 21% 36% 45%
Less safe 56 21 91 58 43 67 52 46
DK/NA '•0 15 3 13 8 12 12 9
AGE IN YRS WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Won Wht Elk Hsp
Safer 35% 39% 35% 26% 57% 27% 40% 10% 25%
Less safe 59 50 56 63 35 61 49 85 63
DK/NA 6 10 8 12 8 13 11 5 12
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY InPublic
HsHid City Suburb Rural Yes School
Safer 54% 32% 33% 43% 37% 38%
Less safe 34 59 56 48 53 53
DK/NA 12 10 11 9 9 9
9
32. Do you support or oppose allowing teachers and school officials to carry guns on
school grounds?
WHITE
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Support 40% 72% 11% 37% 48% 33% 45% 51%
Oppose 56 21 86 60 48 63 51 45
DK/NA 4 7 3 3 4 5 4 4
AGE IN YRS WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65� Nen Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Support 32% 46% 42% 35% 59% 39% 48% 19% 27%
Oppose 66 51 55 59 ' 37 56 48 78 68
DK/NA 2 - 3 4 6 3 5 4 3 5
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY InPublic
HsHld City Suburb Rural Yes School
Support 57% 38% 38% 50% 43% 43%
Oppose 38 58 57 45 52 53
DK/NA 4 3 5 6 5 4
33. Which of these do you think would do more to reduce gun violence in schools, having
stricter gun laws, armed teachers in schools, or increased security at school entrances?
WHITE
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Nen - Wom Yes No
Stricter gun laws 32% 8% 59% 29% 25% 38% 34% 26%
Armed teachers 12 24 - 12 18 8 16 16
Increased security 51 64 38 53 54 48 45 52
DK/NA 5 4 3 7 4 6 5 6
AGE IN YRS WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Bik Hsp
Stricter gun laws 33% 26% 34% 35% 22% 37% 30% 35% 34%
Armed teachers 11 9 16 12. 23 11 16 4 8
Increased security 54 60 45 47 52 45 48 55 56
DK/NA 1 5 5 6 3 7 5 6 3
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY InPublic
HsHld City Suburb Rural Yes School
Stricter gun laws 17% 30% 36% 26% 25% 23%
Armed teachers • 19 12 12 16 13 14
Increased security 59 52 49 52 58 58
DK/NA 5 5 4 6 4 4
10
34. Do you approve or disapprove of President Trump's response to the recent school
shooting in Florida?
WHITE
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Approve 39% 75% 9% 34% 45% 34% 44% 49%
Disapprove 50 14 85 53 44 57 49 . 38
DK/NA 10 11 6 12 12 9 8 13
AGE IN YRS WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Won Wht Bik Hsp
Approve 24% 42% 41% 41% 55% 39% 46% 13% 34%
Disapprove 56 50 52 49 33 51 43 77 55
DK/NA 20 8 7 10 12 9 '1C 11 11
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY InPublic
Hs_31d City Suburb Rural Yes School
Approve 54% 36% 40% 49% 38% 35%
Disapprove 34 53 52 40 50 51
DK/NA 12 11 9 11 12 14
35. Do you •think Congress is doing enough to reduce gun violence or do you think Congress
needs to do more to reduce gun violence?
WHITE
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Doing enough 16% 28% 2% 16% 22% 1C% 16% 20%
Do more 79 63 98 78 71 86 78 70
DK/NA 6 10 •- 6 7 4 6 10
AGE IN YRS WHITE...,.
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Bik Hsp
Doing enough 17% 17% 17% 10% 26% 12% 18% 3% 13%
Do more 81 76 78 84 64 82 74 97 84
DK/NA 1 7 5 6 11 6 8 - 3
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY InPublic
HsHld City Suburb Rural Yes School
Doing enough 25% 11% 16% 25% 18% 19%
Do more 67 83 80 65 78 77
DK/NA 8 5 4 10 4 4
11
36. Do you think Florida's state gove_nmen: is doing -enough to reduce gun violence or do
you think Florida's state government needs to do more to reduce gun violence?
WHITE
COLLEGE DEG
Tot • Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Doing enough 18% 32% 3% 18% 26% 11% 18% 24%
Do more 75 58 96 75 67 83 75 68
DK/NA 6 10 1 7 6 6 7 8
AGE IN YRS..... ......... WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht B1k Hsp
Doing enough 14% 21% 21% 14% 31% 13% 21% 3% 17%
Do more 81 74 74 78 62 80 72 95 80
DK/NA 5 5• 5 8 6 8 7 1 3
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY InPublic
HsHid City Suburb Rural Yes School
Doing enough 28% 15% 17% 29% 22% 21%
Do more 64 79 77 64 76 76
DK/NA 8 6 6 8 3 3
37. Do you think that the NRA, or National Rifle Association, supports policies that are
good for. Florida or supports polices that are bad for Florida?
. WHITE
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wore Yes No
Good 35% 64% 9% 30% 48% 23% 37% 45%
Bad 50 17 81 .53 40 58 51 42
DK/NA 16 19 • 10 17 12 19 12 14
AGE IN YRS WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk ' Hsp
Good 26% 37% 39% 30% 55% 29% 41% 18% 24%
Bad . 58 40 52 55 35 56' 46 66 52
DK/NA 16 23 9 15 10 15 13 16 24
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY............ InPublic
HsHld City Suburb Rural Yes School
Good 55% 30% 33% 52% 36% 36%
Bud 31 51 57 31 45 42
DK/NA 14 20 10 17 20 22
12
38. (Intro c38-42: For each of the following, please tell me if you approve or disapprove
of their handling of the issue of gun violence.)
Do you approve or disapprove of - President Trump's handling of the issue of gun
violence?
WHITE
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Approve 40% 75% 10% 35% 48% 33% 44% 50%
Disapprove 54 18 88 59 46 61 53 42
DK/NA 5 8 2 7 5 6 3 8
AGE IN YRS WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Nen Wom Wht B1k Hsp
Approve 28% 43% 43% 39% 58% 39% 47% 17% 35%
Disapprove 61 51 55 56 36 56 47 79 ' 61
DK/NA 11 5 3 5 6 5 6 4 4
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSIT`_' InPublic
HsHld City Suburb Rural Yes School
Approve 56% 35% 42% 48% 42% 42%
Disapprove 38 58 55 44 53 53
DK/NA 6 6 3 8 5 5
39. Do you approve or .disapprove of - Governor Scot's handling of the issue of gun
violence?
WHITE
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem ind Men Wom Yes No
Approve 42% 68% 21% 38% 48% 37% 41% 51%
Disapprove 45 21 71 43 44 46 48 33
DX/NA 13 11 8 19 9 17 11 16
AGE IN YRS
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Bik Hsp
Approve 32% 40% 45% 45% 54% 39% 46% 32% 37%
Disapprove 46 44 49 43 37 44 41 61 47
DK/NA 22 16 6 13 9 17 13 7 16
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY InPublic
HsHld City Suburb Rural Yes School
Approve 57% 42% 39% 49% 41% 42%
Disapprove 32 44 50 34 45 43
DK/NA 12 14 11 16 14 14
13
40. Do you approve or disapprove of - the state leg_.slat;:re's handling of the issue of
gun violence?
WHITE
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem • Ind Men Worn Yes No
•Approve 22% 35% 9% 21% 30%. 15% 21% 23%
Disapprove 59 38 83 5°. 53 64 61 54
DK/NA 19 27 8 20 ;.7 21 18 23
AGE IN YRS..,...a........ WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Elk Hsp
Approve 23% 27% 24% 15% 31% 15% 22% 22% 22%
Disapprove 53 56 61 64 52 62 57 72 58
DK/NA 24 16 15 21 17 23 20 6 19
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY InPublic
HsHld City Suburb Rural Yes School
Approve 30% 21% 21% 30% 26% 26%
Disapprove 46 60 65 43 55 54
DK/NA 24 19 15 27 19 20
41. Da you approve or disapprove of - Senator Rubio's handling of the issue of gun
violence?
WHITE
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Approve 31% 52% 13% 30% 38% 26% 35% 33%
Disapprove 52 24 81 50 48 56 52 42
DK/NA 17 24 6 19 14 19 14 24
AGE IN YRS .............. WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Slk Hsp
Approve 25% 36% 34% 28% 44% 26% 34% 29% 25%
Disapprove 55 48 55 53 40 53 47 63 62
DK/NA 20 16 11 19 16 22 19 8 13
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY InPublic
HsHld City Suburb Rural Yes School
Approve 39% 29% 33% 34% 35% 35%
Disapprove• 41 55 53 42 49 50
DK/NA 19 16 14 24 16 15
14
42. Do you approve or disapprove of - Senator Nelson's handling of the issue of gun
violence?
WHITE
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Approve 36% 17% 57% 33% 33% 38% 38% 32%
Disapprove 37 53 24 31 43 30 36 38
DK/NA 28 29 1.8 36 24 31 25 30
AGE IN YRS .............. WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Bik Hsp
Approve 27% 34% 39% 40% 32% 38% 35% 51% 29%
Disapprove 32 33 42 37 45 31 37 33 38
DK/NA 41 33 19 23 24 31 28 15 33
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY............ InPublic
HsHld City Suburb Rural Yes School
Approve 31% 35% 36% 35% 35% 31%
Disapprove 41 36 38 36 34 36
DK/NA 28 29 26 29 31 33
43. If you agreed with a candidate for United States Senator on other issues, but not on
the issue of gun laws, could you still vote for that candidate, or would you definitely
not vote for that candidate?
WHITE
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dern Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes/Still vote 47% 38% 33% 51% 52% 43% 45% 50%
No/Not vote 42 29 59 38 38 45 42 40
DK/NA. 11 13 8 11 10 13 13 11
AGE IN YRS WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Elk Hsp
Yes/Still vote 50% 50% 47% 42% 53% 42% 47% 50% 50%
No/Not vote 41 39 44 43 38 44 41 45 36
DK/NA 9 11 9 14 9 14 12 6 13
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY In?ublic
HsHld City Suburb Rural Yes School
Yes/Still vote 53% 46% 51% 46% 46% 46%
No/Not vote 37 42 40 43 41 42
DK/NA 10 12 9 '11 13 13
15
44. If you agreed with a candidate for governor on other issues, but not on the issue of
gun laws, could you still vote for that candidate, or would you.definitely not vote for
that candidate?
WHITE
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men • Wom Yes No
Yes/Still vote 46% 58% 32% 50% 5a% 43% 45% 47%
No/Not vote 44 31 60 40 41 46 46 44
DK/NA 10 11 8 10 8 11 10 9
AGE IN YRS.....4 WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men. Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Yes/Sti11 vote 49% 50% 49% 40% 52% 40% 46% 51% 51%
No/Not vote 43 40 45 48 40 49 45 43 37
DK/NA 9 10 6 12 8 11 10 6 12
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY InPubiic
HsHid City Suburb Rural Yes School
Yes/Still vote 51% 45% 49% 48% 49% 50%
No/Not vote 39 45 42 44 38 38
DK/NA 10 10 10 8 13 12
45. Has the recent mass shooting made you more likely to support stricter gun laws, less
likely to support stricter gun laws, or hasn't it had an impact either way?
WHITE,......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Nen Wom Yes No
More likely 56% 40% .79% 52% 45% 65% 50% 5C%
Less 'likely 6 11 3 6 8 5 5 7
No impact 35 44 18 42 45 27 44 39
DK/NA 3 5 - 1 2 3 2 4
AGE IN YRS WHITE
•18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
More likely 51% 52% 54% 62% 37% 60% 50% 77% 62%
Less likely 5 5 8 4 7 5 6 6 5
No impact 41 41 35 29 ' 52 32 41 15 30
DK/NA 3 1 3 4 3 3 3 2 3
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY InPubiic
HsHld City Suburb Rural Yes School
More likely 42% 59% 56% 48% 54% 55%
Less likely 9 6 4 13 7 9
No impact 44 33 38 _ 36 36 34
DK/NA 4 3 • 2 3 2 2
16
46. Is being the victim of a mass shooting something you personally worry about or not?
WHITE..,,.o
COLLEGE DEG
. Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes/Worry 42% 37% 53% 38% 33% 50% 31% 39%
No 57 62 45 61 66 ' 49 68 60
DK/NA 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
AGE IN YRS WHITE
18-34 35-49 50-64 65÷ Nen Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Yes/Worry 54% 53% 38% 31% 26% 42% 35% 51% 61%
No 45 46 61 68 74 56 64 45 39
DK/NA 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 4 -
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITY InPublic
HsHld City Suburb Rural _'es School
Yes/Worry 34% 48% 41% 30% 52% 52%
No 65 52 58 68 47 47
DK/NA 1 1 1 2 2 2
17
1
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES
TO FILE REHEARING MOTION
AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
THIRD DISTRICT
JANUARY TERM, A.D. 2002
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION
OF AMERICA, INC., UNIFIED
SPORTSMEN OF FLORIDA, INC.,
W. DAVID TUCKER, SR., and
JOHN DOE,
Appellants,
vs.
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,
Appellee.
Opinion filed March 20, 2002.
CASE NO. 3D01-1027
LOWER TRIBUNAL
CASE NO. 00-17530
An appeal from the Circuit Court of Miami -Dade County, Thomas
S. Wilson, Jr., Judge.
Montero, Finizio, Velasquez & Reyes (Ft. Lauderdale); Stephen
P. Halbrook (Fairfax, Virginia), for appellants.
Nagin, Gallop & Figueredo and .Earl G.- Gallop, for City of
South Miami; Paul F. Hancock, Deputy Attorney General; Parker D.
Thomson, Special Assistant Attorney General; Michael J. Neimand,
Assistant Attorney General, as amicus curiae for Attorney General
Robert A. Butterworth, for appellee.
Before COPE, FLETCHER, and RAMIREZ,. JJ.
FLETCHER, Judge.
The National Rifle Association and others have appealed the
trial court's summary judgment, in favor of the.0 ty of South
Miami, concluding that this action for declaratory judgment is not
ripe for determination. Involved is City of South Miami ordinance
14-00-1716, regulating firearms by establishing certain safety
standards therefor. The declaration the appellants are seeking
includes a determination that the City's ordinance is ultra vires
because the legislature expressly preempted the entire field of
firearm and ammunition regulation by enactment of section 790.33,
Florida Statutes (2000). This statute reads in pertinent part:
"(1) PREEMPTION. - Except as expressly provided by
general law, the Legislature hereby declares that
it is occupying the whole field of regulation of
firearms and ammunition, including the purchase,
sale, transfer, taxation, manufacture, ownership,
possession, and transportation thereof, to the
exclusion of all existing and future county, city,
town, or municipal ordinances or regulations
relating thereto. Any such existing ordinances are
hereby declared null and void.
(3) POLICY AND INTENT. -
(a) It is the intent of this section to
provide uniform firearms laws in the state; to
declare all ordinances and regulations null
and void which have been enacted by any
jurisdictions other than state and federal,
which regulate firearms, ammunition, or
components thereof; to prohibit the enactment
of any future ordinances or regulations
relating to firearms, ammunition or components
thereof unless specifically authorized by this
section or general law; and to require local
jurisdictions to enforce state firearms laws."
In Penelas v. Arms Technolocv, Inc., 778 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA) ,
2
rev. denied, 799 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 2001), this court specifically
stated that the legislature, through section 790.33, has indeed
expressly preempted the entire field of firearm and ammunition
regulation.
Authority for the state courts to render declaratory judgments
regarding municipal ordinances may be found in section 86.021,
Florida Statutes (2000):
"Any person . . . whose rights . are
affected . . . by municipal ordinance
may have determined any question of .
validity arising under such . . . municipal
ordinance . . . and obtain a declaration of
rights . . . thereunder."
I,n the recent Florida Supreme Court decision construing
Chapter 86, Florida Statutes, Olive v. Maas, 27 Fla.L.W'eekly 5139
(Fla. Feb. 14, 2002), the court made it clear that the Declaratory
Judgment Act is to be liberally construed. The court cited and
quoted from X Corp. v. Y Person, 622 So. 2d 1098, 1100 (Fla. 2d
DCA), rev. denied, 618 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1993):
"The goals of the Declaratory Judgment Act are
to relieve litigants of the common law rule
that a declaration of rights cannot be
adjudicated unless a right has been violated
and .to render practical help in ending
controversies which have not reached the stage
where other legal relief is immediately
available. To operate within this sphere of
anticipatory and preventive justice, the
Declaratory Judgment Act should be liberally
construed."
Here we have various'well-r easing litigants eye -ball to eye-
ball across counsel table, the City wondering whether its ordinance
3
has been preempted or whether it can enforce its own collective
will over firearms, others wondering whether they are going to be
illegally prosecuted by the City come next dove hunting season, and
the Florida Attorney General wondering whether the judiciary will
agree with his opinion on municipal regulation of firearms (AGO
2000-42) . In light of these doubts and confrontations and in the
liberal spirit of the Declaratory Judgment Act, we hold that this
action is not premature and that the trial court erred in entering
its final summary judgment for the City. We also hold that the
City's ordinance no. 14-00-1716 is null and void as it is in
conflict with section 790.33, Florida Statutes. We remand this
case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent
herewith.
Reversed and remanded.