Annette Taddeo, Dan Daley bills would allow local governments to pass stricter gun laws
Image by Brett Hondow of Pixabay.

handgun-231699_1280
State law currently bars local officials from passing gun regulations that are more strict than state law.

Sen. Annette Taddeo and Rep. Dan Daley have introduced legislation to allow municipalities to pass stricter gun regulations by undoing an existing state preemption law.

The two Democrats have stumped for more local control in the past. But those efforts have gone nowhere in the GOP-controlled Legislature and are likely to meet significant resistance again.

Still, the lawmakers have returned to the issue, filing legislation (SB 496, HB 6049) ahead of the 2022 Legislative Session to undo the state preemption law.

“Gun violence is a nationwide problem that requires all hands on deck to solve; restricting local officials from doing their part to combat this effort is dangerous,” Taddeo said Thursday in a written statement backing her and Daley’s proposal.

Current law bars local governments from passing any gun control measures stricter than state law. Those who back the existing state preemption argue conflicting local measures could confuse residents who carry weapons while moving between counties.

But Daley, whose district includes several families affected by the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, argues local officials should have more say.

“Since 2011, local elected officials, those who know their community best, have been prevented from doing what their residents demand,” Daley said. “Gun violence is an epidemic that the entire nation is being subjected to and all levels of government should have a seat at the solution table.”

The gun preemption law dates back to the 1980s. In 2011, the Legislature increased penalties for local officials who approve measures that violate the preemption. That 2011 law subjects officials to fines and even removal from office.

The Florida Supreme Court is set to take up a case challenging those 2011 provisions, though that case would likely not affect the underlying preemption. The bills would repeal the full restrictions, giving local officials full control over the issue.

Older versions of the bill Taddeo and Daley filed have failed to emerge from a single committee in the Republican-controlled Legislature.

Ryan Nicol

Ryan Nicol covers news out of South Florida for Florida Politics. Ryan is a native Floridian who attended undergrad at Nova Southeastern University before moving on to law school at Florida State. After graduating with a law degree he moved into the news industry, working in TV News as a writer and producer, along with some freelance writing work. If you'd like to contact him, send an email to [email protected]


10 comments

  • JmjUSA

    October 14, 2021 at 1:17 pm

    God forbid that the FP typists take an honest look at the problem…
    Legal, local, honest gun owners do not need restrictions…
    Its the underground, gangs, thugs who wont/don’t follow the law to begin with…
    Please demon-rat politicos, stop pretending that a law that will inhibit us will make it safer… It won’t, but instead FP & their demon-o-crat flies, drawn to each other like flies to manure, will sing the same tune….

    Reply

  • Ron Ogden

    October 14, 2021 at 1:57 pm

    This is a blatant attempt by Democrats to entrap law-abiding citizens of Florida, and it is scurrilous. Allowing local governments to enact “scattershot” gun laws means that law-abiding citizens confident of their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms will be put into the position of unwittingly violating these new local laws merely in the act of traveling from one place to another. What could possibly be the purpose of such legislation other than to encourage these citizens to voluntarily give up their rights rather than risk violations? It is the worst kind of sneaky, behind-the back legislating that I can imagine, and it is the hallmark of the Democratic Party.

    Reply

  • martin

    October 15, 2021 at 6:28 am

    Gun Control: means hitting what you are aiming at.
    “……It is the worst kind of sneaky, behind-the back legislating that I can imagine, and it is the hallmark of the Democratic Party.”

    And that my dear fellow Floridians is why we must never allow Florida to devolve into California, NY, or any other deep blue state!

    Reply

  • tjb

    October 15, 2021 at 10:19 am

    “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” and that it is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

    Reply

    • Ron Ogden

      October 15, 2021 at 11:47 am

      Of course not. There is no right to drive a rocket launcher down Main Street for the purpose of defending yourself against invading Martians. But to carry common personal weapons everywhere except where state law bars them and for the purpose of self-defense is the natural right of every American–every human, in fact.

      Reply

      • tjb

        October 15, 2021 at 12:02 pm

        So state law trumps local law? Would that mean that federal law trumps state law?

        Reply

      • tjb

        October 15, 2021 at 12:21 pm

        Their bill is not about taking personal weapons away.
        Please tell me what their bill is stating? It is not about taking your gun away from you.

        Also, are saying that every human has the right to carry a firearm … would that include felons that need to defend themselves?

        Reply

        • Ron Ogden

          October 15, 2021 at 12:51 pm

          “So state law trumps local law? Would that mean that federal law trumps state law?”
          It is sophistry–or else cynical political maneuvering–to try to entangle a straight forward discussion of individual rights in an argument about federalism. This is was Taddeo et al are trying to do. In general, the oft-quoted and reasonable theory that government that is closest to the people should be the most powerful is the theory to follow, and local governments should dominate. But not always, as any thinking person knows. In the case of protecting individual rights to self-defense, it is far better for their to be as much uniformity as possible across the state, for the reasons cited elsewhere. Likewise, there are functions that only the federal government logically can serve: national defense, for example. One of the reasons you do not have the right to drive a rocket launcher down Main Street to defend against space aliens is that, if there are invading space aliens, it is the federal government’s job to defend the country, not yours. The debate over federal supremacy d–n near destroyed America in 1860, and there are rumblings that it is about to resurface. This discussion is evidence of it. It’s not a good idea.
          Now, on to “. . . would that include felons that need to defend themselves?” In some circumstances, yes. Why should an individual who commits felony tax evasion not have the right of self-defense? Of course, what you meant is “violent” felons. Everyone has the natural right of self defense, just like they have the natural right of freedom. But sometimes those rights are taken away from felons, and sometimes they are restored.Someone who committed felony assault in a bar fight as a youth, who has paid his penalty and who has lived a good life since certainly has reason to ask for the right to be restored. There are reasonable laws concerning the restoration of such rights and they should be followed.

          Reply

          • Tjb

            October 15, 2021 at 3:59 pm

            Now explain what specific rights that the Taddeo-Daley bill would take away from a gun owner such as myself? Will by weapons for self defense be taken away?

  • Ron Ogden

    October 16, 2021 at 8:51 am

    TJB, read the bill: “relating to the preemption of the field of regulation
    5 of firearms and ammunition to the Legislature, to the
    6 exclusion of local jurisdictions;”

    The bill itself does not change existing state law in the moment, Taddeo et al are too clever to try that. But read between the lines: “We, Taddeo et al, are not going to try to take away your Second Amendment rights because we know that’s a lost cause and we’d probably lose our seats as a result. But we are willing to make it easier for individual counties, cities and towns to take away your Second Amendment rights.”
    In Florida, county and city elections are nonpartisan. Your candidates do not have to show which party is supporting them (in fact, it is technically illegal). So that is LESS information that you will have about your city council people, just at the time when they suddenly will be empowered by Taddeo et al to change your gun rights. Let’s say the Democrat controlled St. Petersburg City Council decides that the way to reduce gun crime in their ridiculously unsafe city is to prohibit concealed carry. “Well, you can’t do that because state law says I have 2nd Amendment rights,” you respond. “Not any more,” they answer. “Senator Toddeo and the rest of us liberals did away with that right. May we invite you to visit our local jail for, say, 60 days?”
    What I said originally stands: this is lawmaking by trickery, it is underhanded, and it is typical Democrat.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


#FlaPol

Florida Politics is a statewide, new media platform covering campaigns, elections, government, policy, and lobbying in Florida. This platform and all of its content are owned by Extensive Enterprises Media.

Publisher: Peter Schorsch

Contributors & reporters: Phil Ammann, Jason Delgado, Renzo Downey, Rick Flagg, A.G. Gancarski, Anne Geggis, Joe Henderson, Janelle Irwin, Ryan Nicol, Jacob Ogles, Jesse Scheckner, Scott Powers, Andrew Wilson, and Kelly Hayes.

Email: [email protected]
Twitter: @PeterSchorschFL
Phone: (727) 642-3162
Address: 204 37th Avenue North #182
St. Petersburg, Florida 33704




Sign up for Sunburn


Categories