Elected officials from 10 Florida cities, led by Weston Mayor Daniel Stermer [official profile], filed a lawsuit [complaint, PDF] in Florida state court Monday against Governor Rick Scott, Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi [official profiles] and other Florida officials challenging a state law that imposes penalties whenever a municipality or its officials are found to impinge on the state legislature’s purportedly exclusive occupation of firearm regulation.

The statute in question is the Joe Carlucci Uniform Firearms Act [statute], which was enacted in 1987 to state that the Florida legislature “declares that it occup[ies] the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition, including the purchase, sale, transfer, taxation, manufacture, ownership, possession, storage, and transportation thereof, to the exclusion of all existing and future county, city, town, or municipal ordinances or any administrative regulations or rules adopted by local or state government relating thereto.”

The complaint asserts that the permissible actions by local officials under the Act are vague and ambiguous. One section mentions, but does not define firearm “components,” which in turn makes it difficult for municipal attorneys to give assurances to elected officials that any desired act relating to or impacting firearms is risk free of being found to be preempted by the Act.

Additionally, the complaint mentions the penalties that were specifically added to the Act in 2011 were designed to stave and deter local governments from taking any action that might affect firearms, even when these actions were not preempted by the Act. These penalties include potential removal from office, a civil fine up to $5,000 and the prohibition of using public funds for legal defense.

Citing the mass shootings in American communities over the last several years, including the Parkland shooting in February, the complaint contends that the inability for local officials to make reasonable legislative actions such as preventing guns to be brought into municipal-owned facilities and parks, and creating “gun free zones” violate their constitutional authority to represent the interests of their constituents.

The complaint states:

Because of the actual and imminent threat of the imposition of the Onerous Preemption Penalties, the [local Florida officials] are uncertain as to their rights and responsibilities and fear taking any action that could even remotely be viewed as a violation of the [Act].

Accordingly, the [local officials] have suspended or refrained from consideration of reasonable firearms measures that express the political views of the [local officials] and their citizens, which may be appropriate for the specific circumstances of that municipality (as opposed to the “one size fits all” approach of the state), thus making the constitutionality of the penalties an issue that is capable of repetition, yet evading review. In short … the … penalties have created the intended chilling effect upon taking any action and preventing the [local officials] from responding to the petitions and requests of their constituents relating to firearms.

For relief, the complaint requests that the court find the penalty provisions of the Act unconstitutional and grants any other such remedy as it deems proper.