Assault weapons ban in Florida quashed by state Supreme Court

[Daryl Hunt]

“TALLAHASSEE — A proposal to ban assault weapons in Florida was rejected by the state Supreme Court on Thursday, with a majority of justices ruling that the proposal was misleading.”

Assault weapons ban in Florida quashed by state Supreme Court

Justices found the proposal misleading, but one of the justices disagreed.

www.tampabay.com

This would have been a ballot measure to amend the Florida constitution, not a legislative measure.

Regardless, AWBs are devoid of merit because they don’t work.

Whomever wrote that law knew it would never stand in court. Every Federal and State Court has ruled against banning "Assault Rifles". You word it that way it won't pass the muster. It was meant to fail from the very beginning. Someone is just trying to get votes.

Now, word it like this. "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones" has been upheld in every upper Federal Court. There a few States and Cities that have that law in place. I will not say whether I agree nor disagree but that's the way the law works.

Actually, it was a proposal to amend the Florida constitution via referendum – a 60 percent vote in favor would be needed for the amendment to pass.

The challenge is to word amendment proposals so they’d fit on a ballot and be understood by the average voter.

Otherwise, yes – AWBs have been upheld in the lower courts, the Supreme Court refusing to hear such a case.

Of course, that an amendment or measure is bad law doesn’t make it un-Constitutional – although Constitutional, AWBs are bad law.

It’s possible the conservative Florida supreme court rejected the proposed amendment because they feared it might pass, hiding their opposition behind the façade of ‘misleading language.’

It gets rejected in other places because of the Wording. Exactly what IS an Assault Rifle? It's too broad a statement. It can be interpreted to mean almost any clip fed (don't you gunnutters love that word) rifle made that is a semi auto. The ones that stick are the ones that are very specific with the wording "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones". Not once has a bill or any kind been left standing that uses the word "Assault Rifle" in it's wording. I still hold that whomever wrote it never intended it to be accepted and was catering to the anti gun crowd for votes.

Lawmaking bodies determine what constitutes an assault weapon – not the military, not firearm manufactures, and not message board commandos.

New York’s SAFE Act, for example, contains the phrase ‘assault weapon’ along with a definition and itemized list of regulated firearms.

The courts have upheld the SAFE Act as Constitutional.

Otherwise, there’s no reason to question the intent of the organization behind the proposed Florida amendment, Ban Assault Weapons Now, regardless how naïve and misguided that intent.

And that an organization might seek to enact an AWB doesn’t necessarily mean it is ‘anti-gun.’

The fundamental failing of an assault weapon ‘ban’ is that it won’t work; indeed, it’s not a ‘ban’ at all, the consequence of the grandfather clause – thousands of weapons will remain in the possession of individual gunowners.

Interestingly, the courts have essentially acknowledged this, holding that AWBs are valid because they afford citizens a ‘sense of public safety.’

Yes, you can have the phrase "Assault Weapon" in your law but you need to clarify what you mean by it by stating clearly what you mean. Just by saying "Assault Weapon" is meaningless. And you are wrong, it's a Military Term that has been hijacked by many civilians.

Of course, we’re not talking about a law – rather, we’re talking about a proposed amendment to the Florida constitution where the language of that proposal must fit on the ballot in a space half the size a post card, where further details and specifics would be impossible to enumerate.

As for AWBs enacted pursuant to legislative action, they’ve been upheld to be Constitutional because they seek to promote an important governmental interest to ensure public safety and the reduction of crime, not because of their detail as to what constitutes an assault weapon.

Certainly details as to what constitutes an assault weapon are necessary for the enforcement of the law, but that has never been at issue with regard to the constitutionality of such a measure.

To date, all but Oregon's new law (which has yet to be contested) that uses the phrase "Assault Rifle" has been bounced by the Courts. But the successful ones that have been upheld by the courts with the phrasing of "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones" have been found constitutional by the courts. Fact remains, Assault Rifle is too much of a generic term and can be conscreued as almost any kind of semi auto rifle. You have to be specific in your wording.