NRA Lawsuit against Florida

[TomSlick]

I have two ideas about the NRA lawsuit against Florida over its gun law signed today. The Complaint can be found at the following link.
[link:https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4406233-Document-NRA-lawsuit.html#document|

Idea One: I think it curious that the NRA brought the lawsuit in its own name. Bringing the lawsuit in the name of the NRA immediately raises a standing issue. The federal courts take standing seriously. There are any number of twenty year old NRA members who would have happily been the name on the lawsuit. Such a person could easily show the necessary "harm" to have standing. I haven't done the research to firmly convince myself that the NRA doesn't have standing but cannot imagine what is gained by sowing that issue in the case.

Idea Two: This idea is more complicated so stay with me before you start flaming. I think the question of whether the State can impose an age limit above majority to purchase a firearm to needs to be resolved by the Supreme Court. I get it, States can and do limit alcohol purchase to twenty-one year old persons but there is no constitutional right to buy alcohol. The Supreme Court has told us in DC v. Heller that the Second Amendment confers a personal right that is subject to reasonable restrictions. What the Heller decision did not do is provide real guidelines to what is a reasonable restriction.

The test for what is a reasonable restriction is whether it is reasonably related to an important State interest. It seems clear to me that protecting society against the dangers presented by immature people buying firearms is an important State interest. The question is going to be whether limiting purchase to adults under twenty-one is reasonably related to that State interest. I think (or maybe just hope) that a Court would find that given the dangerous nature of firearms, that while a twenty-year old is competent to vote, there is a rational relationship in such a State law.

In a challenge to the Florida Statute, one of two things will happen. Either the Court will uphold the statute and we will have some better idea what types of restrictions are permissible after Heller or the Court will strike the statute and we will know that the limits of reasonableness under Heller is very small. I am just not convinced the Supreme Court is going to find this Statute unconstitutional (although I have concerns about how seriously Florida AG Bondi will take the defense of the case) but either way, we need to know the answer to the question. As a result, I am not too upset about the NRA filing the lawsuit.

What I cannot work out is why the NRA would file this lawsuit. Some state is going to pass a far more restrictive statute than the Florida statute. I would expect the NRA to file its first lawsuit against one of these more restrictive statutes in hopes of having a better case before the Supreme Court.

[hlthe2b]

1. Why did they file it? They are clearly on the offensive after this shooting and this is big time PR

Last edited Fri Mar 9, 2018, 11:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Just part of their "line in the sand" strategy, devil may care the consequences.

[TomSlick]

2. I think you are correct but it's a bad long term strategy.

If you are looking to make public policy in the Supreme Court, you need to carefully consider the factual vehicle.

[hlthe2b]

3. Maybe they see the writing on the wall with recent polling showing public opinion rapidly changing

and are hoping for a Supreme Court "Hail Mary" to reestablish the NO COMPROMISE line.

Maybe I am just too ingrained in common sense, but I take the "important state interest" and "public health & safety" arguments to be well entrenched in other areas of law where there are competing constitutional rights. Take issues of life or death medical treatment for children in opposition to religious beliefs. Courts have pushed back on religious rights of the parents for decades when the life/well-being of the child or the public's health have been at stake.

[TomSlick]

4. Concur.

That's why I think the Florida statue will ultimately be upheld if Bodi seriously defends the case.

I wonder if the NRA may have started to believe its own nonsense about slippery slopes and holding the line.

[hlthe2b]

6. I think if Bondi attempts a half-assed defense, there will be pro-gun control legal groups that will

file enough "friend of court" briefs that any attempts to sabotage the case/ treachery would backfire.

[LeftInTX]

5. There are states that do not allow firearm or severely limit firearm purchases b4 21

fords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/minimum-age/

(For some reason the link won't work - if from the Giffords Law Center.