Eleanor Service | Editor
In the aftermath of the horrific Valentine’s Day tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, we have seen the awe-inspiring power of young people’s voices as the survivors have risen up to enact change that will stop this agony from being inflicted on another 17 families. For weeks the news has been flooded with their powerful gun control movement, as they have mobilized protests and debates, and have captured the internet’s attention with the hashtag ‘#NeverAgain’. And on Monday, March 4th, it seemed that some change had finally been enacted after far too many disappointments.
In a rare weekend session, Florida Lawmakers debated for eight hours over a potential new gun control law, SB 7026, which has now been dubbed the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Public Safety Act. The debates then spilled over into Monday, where, in a move that many found surprising, the law was passed by a vote of 20 to 18.
This decision was met with mixed reactions from both Democrats and Republicans, as though many extreme conservatives and a number of Democrats were opposed, most Republicans and a sizeable amount of Democrats voted for the bill. This divide seems to stem from the fact that the bill includes things that both sides wanted to achieve, but those aims do not overlap.
The bill included a number of new regulations, but for many, it boils down to six main points:
- Increases the age to buy a firearm from 18 to 21
- Places a ban on bump stocks
- Enacts a 3-day waiting period on firearm purchases (*With exceptions)
- Provides $400 million in funding for mental health and school safety check measures
- Provides a revision to the School Marshal Program
- Creates the ability to remove firearms from those undergoing “Mental Health Crisis”
One of the most important points here is the revision to the School Marshal Program. Originally, Florida was going to make a blanket allowance for all teachers to carry guns, but it soon became clear that this proposition was not going to work. It was not only wildly unpopular with Democrats and the survivors of the Florida shooting campaigning for stricter gun control, but with Florida Governor Rick Scott as well. In fact, it was believed that he would simply veto it if it ever came across his desk.
To circumnavigate this last issue, Senator Garcia proposed an amendment, now called the Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program, after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas staff member who selflessly gave his life to protect others during the school shooting on February 14th. This would change who could carry a gun on campus, as he explained in this statement:
“Excluded from participating in the Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program are individuals who exclusively perform classroom duties as classroom teachers.”
Essentially, if you are a full-time teacher then you are not permitted to carry a gun, but other staff members such as librarians or coaches will be. However, as stated in a published amendment, there are exceptions: “This limitation does not apply to classroom teachers of a Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program, a current servicemember, as defined in s. 250.01, or a current or former law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(1), (6), or (8).”
It is also important to note that this program is opt-in, as Garcia explained in this statement:
“This is an opt-in program…It’s dependent on the school district and the sheriff to determine if it participates in the program.”
In light of the mounting controversy surrounding the topic of arming teachers, this opt-in feature is predicted to be heavily utilised in both directions across the school districts. If a school does choose to opt-out of this program, it is given the option to continue to use the traditional School Resource Officer.
For those who decide to opt-in, there are strict rules that must be followed by all staff who volunteer for this non-mandatory program. They would have to undergo a psychological exam by the Department of Law Enforcement and have at least 132 hours of approved firearm safety and proficiency training. On top of this, they must continue to train and pass subsequent tests to ensure they continue to be fit to carry firearms. To cover these costs, this program will receive $67 million of the $400 million dollars of funding provided in this bill.
There continue to be exceptions to the provisions outlined in this bill, specifically with regards to the 3 day waiting period. Regardless of the type of firearm, whether it be a handgun, a rifle or a shotgun, there are exceptions to the 3 day waiting period. Also, this only covers purchases made from a licensed firearms dealer, and so deals with private sellers are not included under this new law. There are also technicalities to be dealt with, as it is indeed a 3 day waiting period, or when your background check comes back clean, whichever comes first. The exceptions continue to apply if you have a concealed carry permit or a hunting rifle permit.
The new laws surrounding bump stocks seemed to be stricter, as Section 9 – Section 790.222 of the Florida Statutes states that:
Bump-fire stocks prohibited.—A person may not import into this state or transfer, distribute, sell, keep for sale, offer for sale, possess, or give to another person a bump fire stock. A person who violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s.775.083, or s. 775.084
It goes on to define ‘bump stocks’ as:
any device used with or attached to a firearm which uses the recoil action of the firearm to increase its cyclic firing rate to a nearly automatic rate of fire or to increase the rate of fire to a faster rate than is possible for an individual to operate the firearm unassisted by such a device
However the most controversial point of the bill remains, the ability to obtain a court order temporarily restricting a person’s access to firearms and ammunition. If the police get notified of a person being a threat in the last 12 months, they can take away someone’s arms and ammo and prohibit them from getting more. In addition, the person or authority seeking to enact this must make a good faith effort to notify the family or household of the respondent and any known third party who may be at risk of violence.
The list of criteria that can allow the police to take someone’s firearms away is extensive and includes history of mental illness, domestic abuse or use or threat of violence.
This bill will enact massive changes in Florida if it passes, and in fact, it already has. Governor Rick Scott signed this bill into law yesterday, surrounded by the families of some of the victims of the massacre. Scott addressed the brave survivors of the massacre in his statement surrounding the signing of the bill saying:
“To the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, you made your voices heard,” Scott said. “You didn’t let up and you fought until there was change.
But it has since become apparent that these same students do not wholly believe this is the change they are fighting so hard to achieve. In an interview with CNN, Cameron Kasky, arguably one of the main faces at the forefront of the ‘#NeverAgain’ movement, said:
“Governor Scott is trying to look like he is taking a step in the opposite of the direction of the NRA but we know that’s not really going to happen. And while seeing these two parties move in the right direction together is a positive thing, it’s a baby step. I mean, if you really look at the bill, we need to ban assault rifles and that’s not happening in this bill.”
So it seems that despite this bill being portrayed by the Governor as a massive win for the tirelessly campaigning survivors, they don’t entirely feel the same way. In the coming weeks and months as this campaign builds more and more, and we see increasing pressure on politicians to tackle gun control issues, we can only hope to see bolder and more effective steps being taken. This bill is seen by many as a single step in the right direction, but in a time where children are afraid to go to school, and parents live in fear of losing their kids over their education, we need leaps.
