Florida State Supreme Court rejects "Assault Weapon" ban proposition.

[natman]

https://www.tampabay.com/florida-po...an-in-florida-quashed-by-state-supreme-court/

The Florida State Supreme Court rejected a ballot proposition to ban "Assault Weapons" because the ballot summary did not accurately reflect the language of the proposition itself. The proposition makes it illegal to buy "Assault Weapons" or to transfer them to others. The summary says that existing "Assault Weapons" were exempt, but in fact existing weapons could be kept, but NOT transferred to others.

In addition to the issue the court used to reject the proposition, the advertising for the proposition states that it is intended to ban "Military Grade Assault Weapons". However the actual proposition sought to ban ALL semiauto rifles and shotguns that were capable of holding more than ten rounds in a fixed or detachable magazine. So your Ruger 10-22 would be banned because it can accept a magazine of over 10 rounds. Your Marlin 60 tube fed 22 would be banned, etc.

 

[Johnm1]

EDIT: I didn't notice that the article had a link to the actual ruling. I apologize for being premature.

The moderators have been pretty clear that we need to be discussing the actual ruling not a new article about the ruling. I'm still reading it, so right now I don't have a comment. Maybe this will allow this thread to stay open.

https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/637052/7237090/file/sc19-1266.pdf

 

[Johnm1]

I'm still reading the below, but it should help to understand the legal requirements for an initiative to make it to the ballot. There are links to the actual constitution and legal statutes in the below.

https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_Florida

So far all I can confirm is that the AG is bound to test the initiative through the Florida Supreme Court to verify that the initiative has only a single subject.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ng=&URL=0000-0099/0016/Sections/0016.061.html

"The attorney general is required to petition the Florida Supreme Court for an advisory opinion on the measure's compliance with the single-subject rule, the appropriateness of the title and summary, and whether or not the measure "is facially valid under the United States Constitution."[4]"

But I cannot find any reference to anyone making sure that the proposition is not misleading. Which appears to be what the supreme court referenced in rejecting the proposition. Initiatives are bound by the same rules that the legislature is bound to in rulemaking.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0100-0199/0120/Sections/0120.54.html

But there doesn't appear to be any reference to the specific initiative process or an indication that the initiative cannot be misleading.

Chapter 101 of the statutes might be what the AG/Supreme Court are relying on, though it doesn't really identify conflicts between the summary and the text of the initiative as being a defect in an initiative:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ng=&URL=0100-0199/0101/Sections/0101.161.html


"101.161 Referenda; ballots.—
(1) Whenever a constitutional amendment or other public measure is submitted to the vote of the people, a ballot summary of such amendment or other public measure shall be printed in clear and unambiguous language on the ballot after the list of candidates, followed by the word “yes” and also by the word “no,”

Is this a case where it is obvious that an initiative summary cannot be misleading? I just don't see where the statutes or the constitution of the state requires that the initiative be so crafted that the summary and actual text not be misleading. Unlike the 'single subject' rule, I don't see a process specified that allows anyone, the AG or the supreme court, to make a determination that the differences between the summary and the text of the initiative is a defect or defining a process for the Supreme Court to make that determination.

Not a lawyer and Lord knows I may have missed something in one statute referencing another statute/constitution. I don't have a pile of books to look through, just links and Google.

By the way, I understand the logic that the Supreme Court used and agree that the summary implies that object is exempt while the text states that it is only the current owner that is exempt. My question is more "how are they allowed to rule on that"?

 

[Johnm1]

Dang, there was one footnote that brought me to a section of the statutes that I had not read prior to the previous post. From the previous post:

The attorney general is required to petition the Florida Supreme Court for an advisory opinion on the measure's compliance with the single-subject rule, the appropriateness of the title and summary, and whether or not the measure "is facially valid under the United States Constitution."[4]" (that number 4 almost got to me)

and here is where it leads you to. I don't think it changes my original question though it proves that the devil is in the details.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2020/1794/BillText/er/PDF

 

[Frank Ettin]

The thing to do is read the Florida Supreme Court's opinion. It's relatively short and tells us all exactly why the ballot initiative was rejected.

See the opinion (No. SC19-1266) slip op at 7-8:

....the ballot summary fails to satisfy the requirements of section 101.161(1) and is affirmatively misleading because the meaning of the text of the ballot summary does not accurately describe the meaning of the Initiative’s text regarding the exemption.

Specifically, the next to last sentence of the ballot summary informs voters that the Initiative “[e]xempts and requires registration of assault weapons lawfully possessed prior to this provision’s effective date” (emphasis added), when in fact the Initiative does no such thing. Contrary to the ballot summary, the Initiative’s text exempts only “the person’s,” meaning the current owner’s, possession of that assault weapon....

That's it. Some sloppy drafting resulting in a technical, but material error, kept a sweeping AWB initiative off the Florida ballot.

And that's why we must have the actually opinion in other to have a productive discussion.

 

[Johnm1]

By the time of my last posts I had read the entire ruling. Reading comprehension apparently isn't my forte.

From 101.161(1) above

"The attorney general is required to petition the Florida Supreme Court for an advisory opinion on the measure's compliance with the single-subject rule, the appropriateness of the title and summary, and whether or not the measure "is facially valid under the United States Constitution."[4]"

I kinda read over the bolded part. And that is why I am not a lawyer.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I'm hoping they'll actually be stupid enough to use a phrase like "Military Grade Assault Weapons" in such a bill.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

I grew up in Florida. That whole citizen initiative Constitutional Amendment system, while being well intentioned I'm sure, is actually quite scary. It essentially provides an end-run around a republican form of government.

About twenty years ago, there was an amendment to grant pigs a constitutional right to at least... x sq feet of space per pig in a pig pen. (I forget the actual number.) It actually passed. So folks in Florida and other states with this sort of end-run in their state Constitution need to really stay on guard.

And for the record, I have no doubt in my mind that an AWB constitutional amendment in Florida would pass.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

This is one favorable gun case I wish the Supreme Court had punted. This was not going to be on the November ballot. The Organizers were about a half million signatures short of getting this on the ballot at the deadline earlier this year, despite emailing everyone in the state almost daily (at least that was my experience). An article about it is here:
https://www.tampabay.com/florida-po...ons-misses-deadline-for-floridas-2020-ballot/

Given the increase in new gun owners in March, and more recent events -- I doubt gun control has gotten any more popular (at least among law abiding citizens). But Bloomie won't stop. He will keep coming for our guns. Now his ilk, knows how to better draft ballot language.