Latest Headlines
- FDOT Updates Status Of Century Highway 29 Construction Work
- Tate Grad, UWF Standout Darrien McDowell Selected In 2024 MLB Draft
- Suspect, 19, Indicted For Fatal Drive-By Shooting Of 70-Year-Old
- Blue Angels Select Officers for 2025 Show Season
- ECSO: McDavid Woman Claims Crockpot ‘Magically Makes Meth”, Charged With Child Neglect
- Driver’s License, Tag, Tax Collector Services This Week In Walnut Hill, Century
- Florida Gas Prices Hold Steady Over Last Week
- Register Now For Northview Chiefs Football Camp
- Wahoos Drop Back-and-Forth Road Finale
- Walnut Hill Man Was The Boss Of The Pensacola Beach Air Show. Here’s A Behind The Scenes Look.
State Argues Against Anonymity In Gun Law Challenge
September 27, 2018
Pointing to a “strong presumption in favor of open judicial proceedings,” Attorney General Pam Bondi’s office is asking a federal appeals court to reject arguments that two 19-year-olds should be able to remain anonymous in a challenge to a new state gun law.
Bondi’s office filed a 54-page brief urging the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a district judge’s ruling that the teens — identified as Jane Doe and John Doe — should not be able to keep their identities secret if they take part in a lawsuit filed by the National Rifle Association against the state.
The lawsuit challenges a law passed in March that increases the minimum age from 18 to 21 to buy rifles and other long guns in Florida. The Legislature and Gov. Rick Scott approved the change after the Feb. 14 mass shooting that killed 17 people at Broward County’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
In the brief, state Solicitor General Amit Agarwal and two of his deputies cited a federal court rule about requiring parties to be named in lawsuits. They also took issue with the NRA’s arguments that the teens should be able to remain anonymous because they could face threats and harassment for participating in the case.
“Plaintiffs do not point to any specific facts that establish a ‘real danger of physical harm,’ ” the state’s attorneys wrote, partially quoting another case. “The more general risk that litigants who carry the torch for controversial causes will be illegally threatened or harassed by ideological antagonists should be taken seriously; but the proper solution to that problem is to vigorously enforce existing laws prohibiting such misconduct, not to ignore the ‘clear mandate’ of (the federal court rule) and thereby abridge the rights of the press, the public, and other parties to the litigation.”
But in a June brief, attorneys for the NRA, Jane Doe and John Doe pointed to concerns about the safety of the teens.
“Jane Doe and John Doe, two 19-year-old Florida citizens, seek to participate in this lawsuit challenging Florida’s age-based ban on the purchase of firearms anonymously, based on the reasonable, documented fear that they would suffer harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence if their true identities and participation in this controversial litigation were made public,” the June brief said. “Under the standard for pseudonymous pleading established by this court’s precedents, Jane and John Doe should clearly be allowed to remain anonymous.”
The NRA filed the underlying lawsuit March 9, shortly after Scott signed a wide-ranging piece of legislation that included raising the minimum age for gun purchases. The lawsuit does not challenge other parts of the legislation, which was designed to bolster school safety in the aftermath of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shootings.
The NRA later filed a motion to add Jane Doe, an Alachua County resident, as a plaintiff to the lawsuit. It also has sought to add to the case allegations related to John Doe.
As part of its case, the NRA has cited threatening and often-vile emails received by longtime NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer. But U.S. District Judge Mark Walker in May rejected the request to allow anonymity for Jane Doe and John Doe, though he expressed sympathy for their concerns.
Based on precedent, “this court finds that mere evidence of threats and harassment made online is insufficient to outweigh the customary and constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings,” Walker wrote. “This is especially true where the targets of such threats and harassment are not minors and where the subject at issue does not involve matters of utmost intimacy.”
Comments
6 Responses to “State Argues Against Anonymity In Gun Law Challenge”
We really need to consider that certain counties and cities have more problems than others, and why can’t gun violence issues or legislation be handled at the local level rather than the state and national level. When it is generally predictable one area is going to have more problems, why should it be allowed to affect all? The path that we are on will continue to erode our gun rights. If you want to make a difference pass legislation to make gun violence issues a local matter only and where the state and the national government cannot get involved.
nod, I agree with you, our kids are good enough to die for their country at 18 but they are to immature to par take in its liberties. If 18 is an adult, let them do adult activities, once again the hypocrisy lives on.
if you cannot own a gun till you are 21 then you should not be allowed in the military till you are 21. what a disgrace, a 20 year old comes home from war where he/she killed many enemy and was shot, then he goes to buy a gun and is told, you are too young. same person goes to get a drink, again you are too young. amazing,.
Did y’all hear the one about the guy who forgot that he left his AR-15 on his front porch all day ? The gun was still there when he got home and guess what ? It didn’t kill anyone.
This now law that our district 1 Senator Doug Broxson voted for, that Govornor Rick Scott signed and Attorney General Pam Bondie is defending is an obviously flawed law.
It is obvious that anyone standing up against the liberal left comes under real danger of attacks. We see this every day.
Some of the young NRA members should stand up and join the challenge against this law. As always this is just a stepping stone to totally banning all guns.
What is next? To old to own a gun? That is already being talked about.
If young people can be prevented from owing guns there will be less voters in the future that understand their use and will defend our 2nd Amendment.
The gun banners will take anything they can get to futher their cause.
Question: If under 21 years of age prevents you from purchasing a gun does that mean that you can’t legeally use or posses one? Is that like alcohol? Do you trust every and all law enforcement officers to not arrest any under 21 year old they see hunting or even holding a gun.
Don’t forget that it is also a law that you can not buy a gun for another person. This is called a Straw Purchase.
It is clear that Rick Scott’s possible goal is to gain favor with the liberal South Florida voters and defeat Democrat Bill Nelson, even disregarding the conflict with the 2nd Amendment.
It’s not so clear what Doug Broxson and Pam Bondi’s motives are.
“…after the Feb. 14 mass shooting that killed 17 people .”? A “mass shooting” didn’t kill anyone. A sick, deranged person did. We need to stop letting these perpetrators of the hook through the use of neutralizing language and remember that this was a single person that did this, not some idea or category of behavior.