Res No 035-18-15067RESOLUTION NO. 035-18-15067
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.
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 $100,000, assessment of attorney fees
Page 1 of 3
Res. No. 035-18-15067
and court costs, fines up to $5,000 (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 payor 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 790.33, 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.
Page 3 of3
APPROVE~: /;1 II ~4 MAYR
COMMISSION VOTE: 5-0
Mayor Stoddard: Yea
Vice Mayor Harris: Yea
Commissioner Welsh: Yea
Commissioner Liebman: Yea
Commissioner Gil: Yea
I
2
3
4
CITY OF WESTON, flORIDA
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-30
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
II 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 8ill305 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,
#69019 vl 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 V!OLATING
THE PREEMPTION RELATED TO THE REGULATION OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION ARE INVALID,
AND INVITING OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO JOIN THE LAWSUIT.
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 payor reimburse the official for fines, damages or defense
10 costs (collectively, the "Onerous Preemption Penalties"); and
II
12 WHEREAS, Eleventh, as a result of the Onerous Preemption Penalties, the City Commission
J3 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 Preemption 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
DIRECTINGTHE 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 f\RE iNVALID,
AND INVITING OTHER LOCAL COVERNMENTS TO JOIN THE LAWSUIT.
WHEREAS, Seventeenth, the City Commission believes it is in the best interest of the residents
2 of the City to fi Ie 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
10 Section 2: The City Commission hereby authorizes and directs the City Attorney to file a lawsuit
11 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 v1 Reso!utlon No 2018-30 Page 3 oj 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 ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Weston, Florida, this
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 ATIEST:
10 ~~ q{~,,--y~
13f(:1l( Patricia A. Bates, City Clerk
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Approved as to form and legality
for the use of.aA rei iance by the
City of W~stOn nly:
/'
(~
#69019 vI Re~olllrion No. 2018·30
Daniel J.
Roll Call:
Commissioner Jaffe
Commissioner Feuer
Commissioner Kallman
Commissioner Brown
Mayor Stermer
Pagp 4 <Ii 4
Qltitllupiac 1)()11
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 2-1
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 1 0 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-
1
I
I
~
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 ofthe 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 J)oll.gu.edu or w''''w.facebook.com/quinnipiacpoll
Call (203) 582-5201, or follow us on Twitter @QuinnipiacPoll.
2
17. Do YO',,) support or oppose restorir:g vot:'.ng r1g;,·.:s to lndividuals who r:ave cO;]lDit1:ed a
felony other than m:.;:cder or sexual o:fense a:1d compl.eted their sentences?
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
To~
67%
27
6
AGE IN
18-34
79%
19
2
Gun
HsHld
63%
31
7
Rep Oem Ind
50% 82% 68%
42 15 25
8 3 6
YRS ..............
35-49 58-64 65+
62% 66% 65%
32 30 25
6 4 9
DENSITy ............
City S'cburb Rural
63% 72% 64 %
31 23 28
6 5 8
WHITE ......
COLLEGE DEG
Men Worn Yes No
63% 70% 66% 63%
32 23 25 31
5 7 9 5
WHITE .....
Men Worn Wht Blk
59% 69% 6t:;!l, vO 82%
35 23 28 14
6 8 7 4
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
InPublic
Yes School
62% 63%
31 32
6 5
19. Do you support or oppose stricter gun laws in the United States?
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
Tot
65%
29
6
AGE 11\
18-34
72%
23
5
Gun
HsHld
49%
42
9
Rep Oem Ind
43% 87% 68%
49 10 26
8 2 6
YRS ..............
35-49 50-64 65+
62% 62% &;,09,-VJ 0
34 31 24
4 7 7
DENSITy ............
City Suburb Rural
68% 68% 50%
27 26 41
4 6 9
Men
53%
41
6
Worn
76%
18
6
WHITE ..... .
COLLEGE DEG
Yes No
66%
30
4
57%
34
8
WHITE. ....
Men
48%
46
7
Worn
73%
22
6
Wht
61%
32
6
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Yes
64%
33
3
InPublic
School
63%
34
3
Blk
77%
19
5
Hsp
62%
35
3
Hsp
73%
23
5
3
20, :10 you support 0:'-' oppose requ::.r::.ng backgro'c:;;d checks for all gun buyers"?
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
Tot
96%
3
.L
AGE IN
18-34
99%
1
GU!1
HsHld
95%
4
1
Rep Jem Ir.d
94% 97% 97%
5 3 2
1
YRS ... ,., .. ,' ....
35-49 50-64 65+
94% 95% 97%
5 5 2
1 1
DENSITY." ' ........
City Suburb Rural
96% 97% 94%
3 3 5
1 1 1
Men Wom
95% 97%
4 2
1 1
WHITE ... , .
Men Worn
95% 98%
4 1
1 1
HAVE KIDS <18
WHITE, , , , , ,
COLLEGE DEG
Yes No
96% 98%
3 2
2
Wht Blk
97% 91%
2 9
1
YRS
InPublic
Yes School
96% 96%
3 3
1 1
21. Do you support or oppose a !1a~ionwide ban on t~e sale of assault weapons"?
WHITE ..... .
COLLEGE OEG
Tot Rep Oem Ind Me:1 Wom Yes No
Support 62% 40% 86% 62% 47% 75% 64% 5S%
Oppose 33 53 11 32 50 18 32 37
DK/NA 5 7 3 5 3 7 4 4
AGE IN YRS ... ", .. , ..... WHITE. . , . ,
lS-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Worn Wht Blk
Support 47% 53% 65% 76% 44% 75% 61% 6S%
Oppose 46 43 29 20 53 19 35 25
DK/NA 7 4 7 4 3 6 4 7
HAVE KIDS <IS YRS
Gun DENSITY. , ......... , InPublic
HsHld City Suburb Rural Yes School
Support 0% 65% 64% 48% 50% ~ 9%
Oppose 52 29 32 47 46 46
DK/NA 5 6 3 5 4 5
Hsp
98%
2
Hsp
64%
32
4
4
22. Do yo;.; supporT: or oppose a :1at.~.o:1wlde bar, or: the sale of a 1::. semi-automatic rifles?
WHITE ......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Oem ::nd Men Worn 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 I)I; YRS .............. WHITE .....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Worn 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
HsHld 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 natlonWlde ban on the sale of high-capacity ammunitlon
magazines that hold more than 10 bullets?
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
Tot
62%
34
4
AGE IN
18-34
57%
42
1
Gun
HsHld
46%
50
4
Rep Oem Ind
39% 85% 65%
56 14 31
6 1 4
YRS ..............
35-49 50-64 65+
54% 66% 72%
43 31 24
3 3 4
DENSITY ............
City Suburb R'Jral
65% 62% 55%
32 34 40
3 t; 5
WHIlE ......
COLLEGE DEG
Men Wom Yes No
48% 75% 64% 58%
50 20 30 39
3 5 6 3
WHITS .....
Men Worn Wht Blk Hsp
47% 73% 61% 74% 65%
51 21 34 26 33
2 7 5 1 2
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
InPublic
Yes ScJ;ool
55% 5-=l!l, ~o
42 43
3 3
5
1
I
t
I
24. Do you suppor~ or oppose irnpos~~g a ~a~aa~ory waiting per~od O~ all gu,-?urchases, so
that everyone who purchases a gur. ~~st wa~t a certain numbe~ of days before tak~ng the
gU:1 home?
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
Tot
87%
10
3
AGE IN
18-34
85%
14
1
Gll:1
HsHld
83%
14
2
Rep uern Ina
82% 96% 88%
14 3 10
4 1 2
YRS ..............
35-49 50-64 65+
88% 87% 90%
10 11 6
2 2 (,
DENSITy ............
City Suburb Rural
90% 87% 82%
8 11 13
2 2 5
WHITE ......
COLLEGE DEG
Men Worn Yes No
83% 91% 86% 87%
15 6 9 II
2 3 5 2
WfiITE .....
Men Worn Wht Blk Hsp
81% 91% 87% 93% 90%
17 5 10 7 9
2 4 3
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
InPublic
Yes School
85% 85%
14 14
1 1
25. Do you support or oppose imposir.9 a ~a,-datory walting period on purchases of assa~lt
weapons, so that everyone who p~rchases an assaa~t weapon must wai~ a certain number of
days before
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
Support
O?pose
DK/NA
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
taki~g .!.t home?
Tot
85%
11
4
AGE IN
18-34
85%
13
2
Gun
l-IsHld
83%
:;'4
3
Rep Jerr. Ind
82% 89% 87%
13 7 10
5 4 2
YRS ..............
35-49 50-64 65+
86% 86% 85%
12 9 9
2 5 6
DENSITY ............
City Subu:::-b Rural
88% 85% 81%
9 10 17
3 6 2
WHITE ......
COLLEGE DEG
Men \i(forn Yes No
81% 89% 85% 84%
15 6 10 11
4 5 5 5
WHITE .....
Men ~vom Wht Blk Hsp
79% 89% 85% 89% 89%
17 5 10 10 10
4 6 5 1 ~
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
InPublic
Yes School
85% 83%
13 :.5
2 2
6
26. Do yo~ sUpporL or oppose requir:~g indivld~als LO be 21 years of age or older in
order to purchase a gun?
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
TOi:
78%
20
2
AGE IN
18-34
77%
23
1
Gun
HsHld
69%
30
2
Rep Dem Ind
68% 93% 77%
29 7 22
3 1
YRS ..............
35-49 50-64 65+
T .. % 82% 82%
27 17 15
2 1 3
DENSITY ............
City Suburb R~ral
78% 80% 74%
20 19 23
2 2 3
WHI':E ..... _
COLLEGE DEG
Men Worn Yes Ko
67% 88% 76% 74%
31 lO 20 24
2 2 3 2
WHITE: •.••.
Men. Worn Wht Blk Hsp
63% 85% 75% 88% 8:1%
35 12 22 12 18
2 3 2
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
InPublic
Yes School
78% 78%
21 21
1 1
27. Do you support or oppose al:owing the police or family members to petition a judge to
remove guns fro~ a person that ~ay be at ~isk for violent behavior?
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
Supp~rt
Oppose
DK/NA
Tot
89%
8
3
AGE IN
18-34
90%
8
2
Gun
HsHld
86%
11
3
Rep Dem Ind
86% 93% 91%
8 5 7
5 1 2
YRS ..............
35-49 50-64 65+
87% 87% 93%
10 9 4
3 4 3
DENSITy ............
City S:.;bc;~b Rural
91% 91% 83%
6 6 :!-5
4 3 1
WHITE ..... .
COLLEGE DEG
Men Worn Yes No
84% 94% 88% 92%
12 4 7 5
4 2 5 3
WHITE.: ...
Men Worn Wht Blk Hsp
87% 92% 90% 88% 91%
9 4 6 -11 7
4 3 4 1 2
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
InPublic
Yes School
86% 87%
:0 10
4 4
7
28. Do you support or oppose ban~ing the possession or purchase of a gun if an individual
has had a restraining order fi:ed agalnst t~ern for stalking or domestic, sexual, or
repeat violence?
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
Tot
92%
6
2
AGE IN
18-34
·92%
5
3
Gun
HsHld
91%
8
1
Rep Dem :"d
91% 96% 92%
7 3 7
2 1 1
YRS ..............
35-49 50-64 65+
85% 94% 97%
12 4 2
3 2 1
DENSITY ............
Ci;:y Suburb Rural
90% 95% 93%
7 4 6
2 ~ 1
WHITE ......
COLLEGE DEG
Me}; Worn Yes No
89% 95% 94% 94%
8 4 5 4
3 1 2 1
WHITE .....
Men Worn Wht Blk Hsp
91% 97% 94% 86% 93%
7 2 4 12 5
3 1 2 2 2
HAVE KIDS <:i.8 YRS
InPubllc
Yes School
86% 86%
10 10
4 4
29. Do you thi~k t~at local governments should be allowed to enac~ stricter gun laws to
meet tte needs of the~r co~~unities, or should local governments be required to follow
state gun laws?
WHITE ..... .
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Worn 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 Worn 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 ............ InPubllc
HsHld 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
8
30. Do you think ~t: is too easy to ~-uy a gUT: ~!l rlo:::-ida today, too cl:ficult to buy a gun
irl F'lorida today, or about rlght?
WHITE ......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Worn Yes No
Too easy 63% 38% 89% 64% (;9% 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 ,; 9 6 9 8 8
AGE: IN YRS .............. WHITE .....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Worn 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 rigi:t 25 37 28 20 50 19 33 14 19
DK/NA 4 3 6 :4 7 9 8 9 5
HAVE !<IDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITy ............ InPublic
HsHld City Suburb Rural Yes School
Too easy 48% 66% 64% 53% 60% 58%
Too difficult -1 2 1 1 1 ...
About nght 46 24 27 41 34 35
DK/NA 5 9 7 6 5 5
31. If rno:::e people carrled g .. :.ns, do yoa t.hlnk thar. Florida would be safer or less safe?
WHITE ......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot !'/.ep Cern Ind Men Worn Yes No
Safer 34% 64% 6% 30% 48% 21% 36% 45%
Less safe 56 21 91 58 43 67 52 46
DK/NA lO 15 3 13 8 12 12 9
AGE IN YRS .... --_ .. --.. -WHITE. .. __
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men WOD 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
HsHld Clty SClburb Rural Yes School
Safer 54% 32% 33% 6,9, • _ 0 37% 38%
Less safe 34 59 56 48 53 53
9K/NA 12 10 11 9 9 9
9
32. Do you suppor~ or. oppose a110wi~g teacr.ers a~o school o:fic~als to carry guns on
school. grounds?
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
Support
Oppose
DK/NA
Tot
40%
56
4
AGE IN
18-34
32%
66
2
Gun
HsHld
57%
38
4
Rep Dem Inci
72% :1% 37%
21 86 60
7 3 3
YRS ..............
35-49 50-64 65~
46% 42% 35%
51 55 59
3 4 6
DENSITY ............
Ci'i:y S;]bu:::-b Hural
38% 38% 50%
58 57 45
3 5 6
WHITE ......
COLLEGE DEG
Men Worn Yes No
48% 33% 45% 51%
48 63 51 45
4 5 4 4
WHIiE .....
Men Worn Wht Blk Hsp
59% 39% 48% 19% 27%
37 56 48 78 68
3 5 4 3 5
HAVE KILlS <18 YRS
InPublic
Yes School
43% 43%
52 53
5 4
33. Which of these do you think would co more to reduce gun violence in schools, having
st~icter gu~ laws, ar~ed teacr:ers in sc~ools, or inc~eased security a~ school entrances?
WHITE ..... .
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Worn Yes No
Stricter gun laws 32% 8% 59% 29% 25% 38% 34% 26%
Armed teachers 12 24 12 18 8 16 16
I:1creased 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 Worn Wht 3lk Esp
Stricter gu'n 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. Vo you approve or disapprove of Pres::.cer::t Tru!:"tp t s response t.o Lhe rece:;t school
shooting 1n Florica?
Approve
Disapprove
DK/NA
Approve
Disapprove
DK/NA
Approve
Dlsapprove
DK/NA
Tot
39%
50
:1.0
Arr \.:J~ IN
18-34
24%
56
20
Gun
Hs:-lld
54%
34
12
Rep Dem Ind
75% 9% 34%
14 85 53
11 6 12
YRS ..............
35-49 50-64 65+
42% 41% 41%
50 52 49
8 7 10
DENSITy ............
City Suburb Rural
36% 40% 49%
53 52 40
11 9 '1 "i
WHITE ..... .
COLLEGE DEG
Men Worn Yes No
45% 34% 44% 49%
44 57 l;9 38
12 9 8 13
WHITE .....
Men Worn Wht Blk HSp
55% 39% 46% 13% 34%
33 51 43 77 55
12 9 1e 11 11
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
InPublic
Yes Scl-:ool
38% 3t:.Sl, JO
50 51
12 14
35. Do you ·think Congress 1S doing e~oligh to reduce gun violence or do you think Cor.gress
needs to do more to red~ce gun violence?
1J0ing enough
Do more
D!</NA
DOing eno;Jgh
Do more
DK/NA
Doing enough
Do more
DK/NA
Tot
16%
79
6
AGE IN
18-34
17%
81
1
Gun
HsHld
25%
67
8
Rep Dem Ind
28% 2% 16%
63 98 78
10 6
YRS ..............
35-49 50-64 65+
17% 17% 10%
76 78 84
7 5 6
DENSITY ............
City Suburb Rural
1 % 16% 25%
8 80 65
4 10
WHITE ......
COLLEGE DEG
Men Worn Yes No
22% 10% 16% 20%
71 86 78 70
7 4 6 10
WHITE .....
Men Worn Wht Blk Hsp
26% 12% 18% 3% 13%
64 82 74 97 84
11 6 8 3
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
InPublic
Yes School
18% 19%
78 77
4 4
11
36. Do you think r:orida's state gove=nmen: is doing eno~gh to reduce gun violence or do
you think Florida's state government. needs to do rr.ore to reduce glm violence?
Doing enough
Do more
DK/NA
Doing enough
Do more
DK/NA
Doing enough
Do more
DK/NA
Tot:.
18%
75
6
AGE IN
:8-34
14%
81
5
Gun
HsHld
28%
64
8
Rep Dem Ind
32% 3% 18%
58 96 75
10 :i. 7
YRS ..............
35-49 50-64 65+
21% 21% 14%
74 74 78
5 5 8
DENSITY ............
C1ty Suburb Rural
15% 17% 29%
79 77 64
6 6 8
WH:;:TE ......
COLLEGE DEG
Men Worn Yes No
26% 11% 18% 24%
67 83 75 68
6 6 7 8
WHITE .....
£l!ien Worn Wht Blk Hsp
31% 13% 21% 3% :;'7%
62 80 72 95 80
6 8 7 1 3
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
InPublic
Yes School
22% 21%
76 76
3 3
37. Do you think that the NRA, or National Rifle Association, supports policies that are
good for Florlda or supports policles that a~e bad fo= Florida?
Good
Bad
DK/NA
Good
Bad
DK/NA
Good
Bad
DK/NA
Tot
35%
50
16
AGE IN
18-34
26%
58
16
G<ln
HsHld
55%
31
14
Rep De!ll Ind
6li% 9% 30%
17 81 ·53
19 10 17
YRS ..............
35-49 50-64 65T
37% 39% 30%
40 52 55
23 9 15
DENSITy ............
City Subu=b Rural
30% 33% 52%
51 57 31
20 10 17
WHI':'E ..... .
COLLEGE DEG
Men Wom Yes No
48% 23% 37% 45%
40 58 51 42
12 19 12 14
WHITE .....
Men Wom Wht B1k Hsp
55% 29% 41% 18% 24%
35 56 46 66 52
10 15 13 16 24
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
InPublic
Yes School
36% 36%
45 42
20 22
12
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
t
i ; ,
!
i
38. (intra q3B-42: For each of Lhe £oi:OW~~gf please tell me lf you approve or c~sapprove
of theJr handllng of the issue of gun violence.)
Do yo~ approve or disapprove of -?reslcent Tru~p's hand11ng of the issue of gun
violence?
Approve
Disapprove
. DK/NA
Approve
Disapprove
DK/NA
Approve
Disapprove
DK/NA
Tot
40%
54
5
AGE IN
18-34
28%
61
11
Gun
HsHld
56%
38
6
Rep Cerr. ~:1ci
75% 10% 35%
18 88 59
8 2 7
YRS ..............
35-49 50-64 65+
43% 43% 39%
51 55 56
5 3 5
DENS IT" ............
City SLiburb Rural
35% 42% 48%
58 55 44
6 3 8
WHITE; ..... .
COLi.SGE DEG
Men Worn Yes No
48% 33% 44% 50%
46 61 53 42
5 6 3 8
WHITE .....
Men Worn Wht Blk Hsp
58% 39% 47% 17% 35%
36 56 47 79 61
6 5 6 4 4
HAVE KI,)S <18 YRS
InPL:blic
Yes School
42% 42%
53 53
5 5
39. Do you approve or disapprove o~ -Governor Scott'S handllng of the issue of gu~
violence?
WHITE ..... .
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Oem Inc Men Worn Yes No
Approve 42% 68% 21% 38% 48% 37% 41% 5i%
Disapprove 45 21 71 43 44 46 48 33
DK/NA 13 11 8 19 9 17 11 16
AGE IN YRS .............. WHITE .....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Worn Wht Blk Hsp
Approve 32% 40% 45% 45% 54% 39% t; 6% 32% 37%
Disapprove 46 44 49 43 37 44 41 61 47
DK/NA 22 16 6 13 9 17 13 7 16
I·lAVE KIDS <18 YRS
Gun DENSITy ............ InPuDllc
HsHld Clty SUD"c;rb Rural Yes School
Approve 57% 42% 39% 49% 41% 42%
Dlsapprove 32 t;tj 50 34 45 0
DK/NA 12 14 11 16 14 14
13
40, Do you approve 0:::-disapprove of -the Si:a"Ce leg::!.s2.at:...;.re's handling of the issue
gun violer,ce?
WHITE" "',
COLLEGE DEG
Tot ~ep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
App:::-ove 22% 35% 9% 21% 30% 15% 21% 2<'9, ~ 0
Disapprove 59 38 B3 59 53 64 61 54
DK/NA 19 27 8 20 :7 21 IB 23
AGE IN YRS, ' , " , ,", , .. ,' . WHITE .....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Worn Wht Blk Hsp
Approve 23% 27% 24% 15% 31% 15% 22% 22% 22%
Disapprove 53 56 61 64 52 62 57 72 5B
DK/NA 24 16 15 21 17 23 20 6 19
HAVE KIDS <1B YRS
Gun DENSITy., ....... , .. InPublic
HsHld City Suburb Ru.::a1 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, Do you approve or disapprove of -Senator Rubio's handling of the issue of gun
v~ole:1ce?
Approve
Disapprove
DK/NA
Approve
Disapprove
DK/NA
Approve
Disapp.::ove-
DK/NA
~ot
31%
52
17
AGE IN
18-34
25%
55
20
Gun
HsHld
39%
41
19
Rep Dem Ind
52% 13% 30%
24 81 50
24 6 19
YRS, .. ".,"', .. ,
35-49 50-64 65+
36% 34% 28%
48 55 53
16 11 19
DENSITY .. , . , , " . , ..
City Suburb Rural
29% 33% 34%
55 53 42
16 14 24
WHITE ..... .
COLLEGE DEG
Men Worn Yes No
38% 26% 35% 33%
48 56 52 42
14 19 14 24
WH~TE,., ..
!'lien Worn Wht Blk Hsp
44% 26% 34% 29% 25%
40 53 47 63 62
16 22 19 8 13
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
InPublic
Yes School
35% 35%
49 50
16 15
of
14
42. Do you approve or d.~sapp!:"ove of -Senate:::-Ne:'son's hanoli:1g of t:-te issue of gun
violence?
WHI?E ......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Worn Yes No
Approve 36% 17% 57% 33% 33% 38% 38% 32%
Disapprove 37 53 24 31 43 30 36 38
DK/NA 28 29 :8 36 24 31 25 30
AGE IN YRS .............. WHITE. ....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65-!-Men Worn Wht Blk 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 ~es 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 Sta~es Senator on other issues, but no~ on
t~e issue of g~n laws, could you still vote !or that ca~didate, or would you deflnltely
no~ vote for that candidate~
WHITE ..... .
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dero Ind Men Worn Yes No
Yes/Still vote 47% 58% 33% 51% 52% 43% 45% 50%
No/Not vote 42 29 59 38 38 45 42 40
DK/NA. 11 13 8 1 " -~ 10 13 13 11
AGE IN YRS .............. WHITE .....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Worn Wht Blk 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 ............ InPublic
HsHld City Suburb Rural Yes Schoo:'
Yes/Still vote 53% 46% 51% 46% 46% t:6%
No/Not vote 37 42 40 43 41 42
DK/NA 10 12 9 J 1 13 13
15
44. If you agreec wich a candida~e for governor o~ other ~ss~es, but not O~ t~e iss~e of
gu~ laws, coulti you s~ill vote for tha~ candltiate, or would you definitely not vote for
that candidate?
Yes/Still vote
No/Not. vote
DK/NA
Yes/Still vote
No/Not vote
DK/NA
Yes/Sti.ll vote
No/Not vote
DK/NA
Tot
46%
44
10
AGE IN
18-34
49%
43
9
Gun
HsHld
51%
39
10
Rep Dem Ind
58% 32% 50%
31 60 40
11 8 10
YRS ..............
35-49 50-64 65+
50% cQ~ .J 0 4 G%
40 tJr .::> 48
10 6 12
DENS:~Y ............
City Sub:.:rb Rural
45% 49% 48%
45 42 44
10 10 8
WHITE. .....
COLLEGE DEG
Me~ Worn Yes No
--0 ::>_15 43% 45% 47%
t;,-4.6 46 44
8 11 10 9
WHITE .....
Men. Worn Wht Blk Hsp
52% 40% 46% 51% 51%
40 49 45 43 37
8 11 10 6 12
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
InPublic
Yes School
49% 50%
38 38
13 12
45. Has the recent ~ass s~oot~ng ~ade yo:.: More l~kely ~o support stri.cter g~n laws, less
likely to support strlcter gUl: laws, or hasn't it had an impact either way?
More :;'ikely
I,ess likely
No impacc.
D!<:/NA
More likely
Less likely
No impact
DK/NA
More Ii kely
Less Ekely
No iMpact
DK/NA
Tot
56%
6
35
3
AGE IN
18-34
51%
5
41
3
Gun
HsHld
42%
9
44
4
Rep Dem Ind
40% 79% 52%
11 3 6
44 18 42
5 1
YRS ..............
35-49 50-64 65+
52% 54% 62%
5 8 4
41 35 29
1 3 4
DENSITy ............
City SubGrb Rural
59% 56% 48%
6 4 l3
33 38 36
3 2 3
WHITE ......
COLLEGE DEG
Men Worn Yes !\I a
45% 65% 50% 50%
8 5 5 7
45 27 44 39
2 3 2 4
WHITE. ., ..
Me:', WOill Wht Elk Hsp
37% 60% 50% 77% 62%
7 5 6 6 5
52 32 41 15 30
3 3 3 2 3
HAVE KIDS <18 YRS
InPublic
Yes School
54% 55%
7 9
36 34
2 2
16
.:16. Is being the victim of a mass shooting somethlng you personally worry abo\:t or not?
WHITE ......
COL!.EGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Worn Yes No
Yes/Worry 42% 37% 53% 38% 33% 50% 31% 39%
No 57 62 45 61 66 49 68 60
DK/NA 1 , 2 J.
~ 1 1 1 J.
AGE IN YRS .............. WHITE .....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Worn Wht i31k 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 Yes School
Yes/Worry 34% ~8% 41% 30% 52% 52%
No 65 52 58 68 47 47
DK/NA 1 1 1 2 2 2
17
I
j
t
I
NO~ FINAL UNTIL TIXE 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. 3001-1027
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 As~istant 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 Kational Rifle Association and others have appealed the
-Crla..L court's sU~illary judgme~~, favor of the City of South
Miami, concluding that this action for declaratory judgment is not
ripe for determination . Involved is Ci ty of South Miami ordinatice
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 amrnuni tion regulation by enactment of section 790.33,
Flor:ida 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 aIT@unition, including the purchase,
sale, transfer, taxation, manufacture, ownership,
possession, and transportation thereof, to the
excl usion 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 VOld which have been enacted by any
jurisdictions other than state and federal,
which regulate firearms, ammunition, or
componer:ts thereof; to prohibi t the enactment
of any future ordinances or regulations
relating to firearms , ammunition or components
thereof llnless specifically authorized by this
section or general law; and to require local
jurisdictions to enforce state firearms laws. "
In Penelas v. ArrEs Technoiocy, Inc., 778 So. 2d 1C42 (Fla. 3d DCA),
2
1
I
i
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
i
j
I
I
I
rev. denied, 799 So. 2d 218 (F~a. 2001), this court specifically
stated that the legislature, through section 790.33, has indeed
expressly pree~pted the entire field of firearm and aMuunition
reg-ula tion.
Authority for the state courts to render declaratory judgments
regarding munlcipal 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."
In the recent Florida SupreTI',e Court decision construing
Chapter 86, Florida Statutes, Olive v. Maas, 27 Fla.L.Weekly S139
(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
uCA), 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."
Eere we ~ave various'well-~eaning litigants eye-ball to eye-
ball across counsel table, the City wonderlng whether its ordin2nce
3
has been preeGP~ed or whe~her it ca~ 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 ~riaJ. court for fu:::-ther proceedings consistent
herewith.
Reversed and remanded.