The five-member Okeechobee, Florida city council and Police Chief Donald Hagan may each be forced to pay $5,000 personally – without using taxpayer dollars – for violating Florida’s powerful preemption statute, which only allows the state legislature to regulate firearms.
As previously reported, the city adopted an illegal ordinance shortly before Hurricane Helene made landfall, which banned the sale of guns and ammunition and prohibited firearm possession in public by anyone other than law enforcement or members of the military.
After learning of the civil rights violation, Florida Carry, Inc. sent a demand letter titled Written Notice of Preemption Violation and Offer of Settlement, to the city council and Chief Hagan, warning the recipients they have violated Florida’s preemption statute.
The letter, which was written by Florida Carry, Inc. General Counsel Eric J. Friday, spelled out that the pro-gun group has sufficient standing to bring a lawsuit if the ordinance is not repealed within 30 days, and demanded the payment of $30,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees to “resolve this matter prior to initiation of litigation.”
Okeechobee City Attorney John J. Fumero, in a response sent Wednesday, claimed that the city’s Second Amendment violation was merely an “inadvertent mistake in using an outdated emergency ordinance form that, legally and factually, did not apply to the circumstances at hand regarding Hurricane Helene.”
Besides. Fumero wrote, no one ever enforced the illegal ordinance.
“At no time did the City, or the Police Chief, contemplate, nor take any action, to prohibit, confiscate or otherwise regulate firearms or ammunition in any fashion or manner. This was never the intention of the City. This was never implemented by the City. Moreover, to ensure this never happens again, the City has developed and implemented a new emergency ordinance form and process,” the city attorney wrote.
Fumero’s boss, Okeechobee Mayor Dowling R. Watford, Jr. and police spokesman Detective Jarret Romanello, gave numerous interviews to local media claiming city officials were reviewing the entire incident to determine how the “mistake” occurred. Romanello also claimed he looked forward to “providing more answers as soon as the review is complete.”
In his response, Fumero also balked at Florida Carry’s monetary demand.
“We see no legal, factual or public policy basis for your organization demanding payment of taxpayer dollars to satisfy your assertion of ‘damages and attorneys’ fees. The City is a rural small town that fundamentally believes in gun rights and the Second Amendment. From any standpoint, for Florida Carry, Inc. to take legal action against the City, under the circumstances described herein, is patently inappropriate and unjustified,” he wrote.
In an email reply to Fumero, Friday advised the city attorney to re-read Florida statute Sec. 790.33, which does not require actual enforcement of a preemption violation, since enactment itself is enough to prove liability.
“Inadvertence and ignorance of the law by government is no more of an excuse for violating civil rights than when a citizen ‘inadvertently’ violates the law and is arrested and prosecuted,” Friday wrote. “I will begin drafting my Complaint seeking relief, including personal fines against the city officials under whose jurisdiction this knowing and willful enactment occurred. You may want to inform the relevant officials that they are not allowed to use tax dollars to defend themselves from such liability, and that any fine assessed will be personally payable by them, to alleviate your concerns about tax dollars.”
The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.
This story is part of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and is published here with their permission.
Lee Williams is the communications director and a board member of Florida Carry.
Well aimed punch in the shorts.
Should have had your cup of coffee before signing anything that morning, Chief…
Does the gov’t ever hesitate to make an example out of any citizen if they can? How can there be anything inadvertent about this?
Hold them accountable!
Yes they did “contemplate” doing it, their signature is on it!
Sue for thirty grand and hold o blowout range day and BBQ in his honor when you collect.
BYW Dan, my phone keeps telling me Kat’s article on diamond sights isn’t a secure website and won’t let me read it…
“Fumero’s boss, Okeechobee Mayor Dowling R. Watford, Jr. and police spokesman Detective Jarret Romanello, gave numerous interviews to local media claiming city officials were reviewing the entire incident to determine how the ‘mistake’ occurred. Romanello also claimed he looked forward to “providing more answers as soon as the review is complete.”
1. The ‘government’ has a legal and moral and constitutional responsibility to ensure its actions are correctly based in factual and applicable law BEFORE issuing such things as this.
2. The police chief signed it.
3. Obviously, when dealing with civil liberty and civil right (the 2A is a civil liberty, but also a civil right was impacted here also), a ‘government’ has a constitutional, moral, and legal responsibility to make sure these are not infringed in any manner even ‘mistakenly’.
This was intentionally printed, cited, referenced, approved by the city council, and signed by the police chief.
Review complete.
1. There was no ‘mistake’ even if incompetence was in play. The intent was clearly, by action, to publish such an order for actual enactment even if it was not enforced and was in error. The city ‘government’ had a responsibility to make sure it was ‘accurate and correct’ BEFORE such action took place.
2. Had Florida Carry, Inc. not jumped on it when they did, it would have been in full force and would for a fact have continued to exist as an ‘infringement’ even if not enforced.
3. The very fact that it was intentionally printed, cited, referenced, approved by the city council, and signed by the police chief, even if not enforced or was a ‘mistake’, is a ‘deliberate’ act of infringement on a civil liberty and civil right and was for a fact a violation of state law.
Make them pay.
(note: The terms “civil rights” and “civil liberties” are often used interchangeably, but their meanings are different and distinct. Civil liberties are freedoms guaranteed to you by the Constitution to protect you from tyranny and give you protection from federal or state government actions. For example, the first 10 rights (and all rights) in the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution are civil liberties. Civil rights, in contrast, are the legal rights detailed in federal (and in some cases state) laws and statutes that protect you from discrimination or some other detrimental ‘government action something’ that can impact civil liberty. An example of a civil right is the right to be free from employment discrimination based on a protected factor such as, for example, race or disability.)
***********
clarification for “or some other detrimental ‘government action something’ that can impact civil liberty.”
It doesn’t need to always be a government action, it can be a private sector action. For example: As an employee, you don’t have the legal (civil) right to a promotion because getting a promotion is not a guaranteed civil liberty. However, as a female employee, you have the legal (civil) right to be free from discrimination in being considered for that promotion, and legally can’t be be denied a promotion based on your gender or any other protected factor. By choosing not to promote a female worker solely based on gender, an employer commits a civil rights violation. In doing so, the employer engages in unlawful employment discrimination based on sex or gender, thus affecting a civil liberty under the 14th Amendment because the 14th Amendment equal protection clause provides the basis for civil rights against such discrimination.
So overall, Civil liberties concern the actual basic freedoms and Civil rights concern the treatment of a person regarding certain rights.
Why did the city have this so called outdated “emergency ordinance form” in the first place?
Because they are wannabe tyrants is the only reason.
All they had to do is print it and the chief sign it, but nobody read it first? BS!
Make them pay. Personally.
Then vote them out.