Florida Carry challenges four Alachua County gun ordinances as illegal under state law

Florida Carry’s challenge to Alachua County’s firearms ordinances rests on solid legal and constitutional ground, and the county commission should take it seriously before August 11 arrives. Florida’s firearms preemption statute — one of the strongest in the nation — explicitly strips local governments of the authority to enact gun regulations that go beyond state law. The legislature did not write that law carelessly; it did so precisely because a patchwork of county-by-county gun rules creates confusion for law-abiding gun owners who may unknowingly violate local codes simply by traveling across a county line. Alachua County’s ordinances, if they truly restrict firearms in ways state law does not authorize, put residents at legal risk for conduct that is perfectly lawful everywhere else in Florida.

The specific provisions at issue make this more than an abstract legal dispute. Restricting firearms during emergencies is particularly troubling: emergencies are precisely the moments when law-abiding citizens may need to defend themselves or their families, and stripping that right when threats are highest inverts the entire logic of self-defense law. Similarly, prohibiting firearms on a specific body of water or at the courthouse entrance through warning signage — if those prohibitions exceed what state law allows — represents the county substituting its policy preferences for the legislature’s considered judgment.

Florida’s preemption law also carries financial teeth. Local governments found to have enacted unauthorized gun ordinances can face fines and be held liable for legal fees. The county’s exposure here is not hypothetical; Florida courts have enforced preemption against municipalities in the past. Commissioners owe their constituents a clear-eyed accounting of whether these ordinances can survive legal scrutiny — and if they cannot, the responsible course is to repeal them rather than spend taxpayer money defending rules the legislature has already displaced.

At its core, this is about the rule of law. Local officials may sincerely believe their ordinances make their community safer. But good intentions do not override a state preemption framework that the Florida legislature enacted and the governor signed. A government that selectively complies with the laws it likes and ignores those it dislikes undermines the very legal order it is supposed to uphold. The Alachua County Commission should use the August 11 meeting to bring its code into compliance.

Florida Carry’s demand that Alachua County repeal its firearms ordinances is a familiar play from a familiar playbook — use the threat of litigation to bully local governments into abandoning any meaningful local governance on gun safety. But the commission should not capitulate simply because a gun rights group sent a letter. Local ordinances deserve a rigorous legal review, not a reflexive surrender, and the August 11 meeting is an opportunity for commissioners to defend rules their community has chosen to live by.

Florida’s preemption statute is sweeping, but it is not infinitely broad. Courts have consistently recognized that certain locations — courthouses, in particular — carry heightened security interests that justify firearms restrictions regardless of preemption arguments. A courthouse is not a public park or a roadway; it is a venue where judges, jurors, witnesses, and parties in emotionally charged legal disputes come together. The warning signage and access restrictions Florida Carry is challenging at the Alachua County courthouse may well fall within categories the legislature itself has carved out. The county’s lawyers, not Florida Carry’s press releases, should determine where the legal lines actually fall.

Beyond the legal question, the democratic principle at stake deserves attention. Alachua County residents, through their elected commissioners, adopted these ordinances because they reflect the community’s judgment about where guns are and are not appropriate. State preemption already strips counties of enormous discretion on firearms policy; the provisions that remain on the books represent what little space local government has to respond to local conditions. Surrendering even those rules at the first sign of outside pressure sends a troubling message: that a well-funded advocacy group can override local democratic decisions with a single letter.

The county should also weigh whether capitulation actually prevents litigation or merely invites more of it. Organizations like Florida Carry do not send one letter and move on; they systematically target local governments to reshape gun policy county by county. Engaging seriously with the legal arguments, defending ordinances that have legitimate legal grounding, and repealing only those that clearly cannot survive scrutiny is a more principled approach than blanket compliance. The commissioners were elected to exercise judgment, not to fold whenever outside pressure arrives.