TALLAHASSEE --- A legal battle over a Florida law that raised from 18 to 21 the age to purchase rifles and other long guns has ramped up this month, with attorneys for the National Rifle Association and state officials trying to discredit each others鈥� expert witnesses.
The age requirement was included in a sweeping law passed in the weeks following the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. Fourteen students and three faculty members were killed after Nikolas Cruz, who was 19 at the time, opened fire at the school using a semi-automatic rifle.
While the law banned sales of long guns to people under age 21, it does not block them from possessing the guns or receiving the guns as gifts. Federal law has long prohibited the sale of handguns to people younger than 21.
The NRA in 2018 quickly challenged the constitutionality of the state age requirement, and a trial was slated to begin Jan. 11 in Tallahassee. But this month, Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker, who presides over the case, indefinitely postponed the lawsuit and all of his other civil trials until the coronavirus pandemic 鈥渋s under control.鈥�
Meanwhile, lawyers for the national gun-rights organization and the state are squabbling over who should be allowed to offer testimony.
One of the legal quarrels involves Pradeep Bhide, a Florida State University College of Medicine professor who has spent nearly four decades as a developmental neuroscientist. The state is paying Bhide $500 per hour to testify as an expert on adolescent brain development.
In a report filed with the court, Bhide said the Florida law makes sense because 鈥渄ifferent parts of the brain mature at different times.鈥�
鈥淏rain regions that exercise voluntary control over our actions develop at a slower pace compared to brain regions associated with emotional and impulsive actions,鈥� Bhide wrote in the 12-page report. 鈥淭hus, a developmental 鈥榤ismatch鈥� emerges within the brain during development,鈥�
The 鈥渕ismatch鈥� is 鈥減articularly pronounced in adolescence 鈥� and it fades away in adults, by 21 years of age,鈥� he wrote.
鈥淚n other words, certain human behaviors that we perceive as the actions of a 鈥榤ature鈥� or 鈥榓dult鈥� individual emerge, on average, at 21 years of age,鈥� he wrote. 鈥淒elaying gun purchase until 21 years of age can offer the cognitive brain the 鈥榚xtra鈥� time needed to be able to exert adequate control over emotional and impulsive behaviors.鈥�
Distinguishing between 18-year-olds and 21-year-olds ito limit gun sales 鈥渋s thoroughly justified from the perspective of neuroscience,鈥� Bhide wrote.
But the NRA鈥檚 lawyers argue that Bhide鈥檚 conclusions are unfounded, accusing him of failing to provide 鈥渁ny hard evidence that young adults age 18 to 20 are more likely to commit criminal violence with a purchased firearm than other adults.鈥�
Bhide鈥檚 opinions 鈥渁re extrapolated from emerging research of others in the very specialized and controversial area of adolescent brain development,鈥� the NRA鈥檚 lawyers wrote in court documents.
The gun-rights group also argued that Bhide isn鈥檛 qualified to offer expert opinions in the case 鈥渂ecause he never studies human brain development and cannot pinpoint the age of brain maturity in humans.鈥�
When asked by the NRA鈥檚 lawyers about his research on developmental differences between adult and teen brains, Bhide 鈥渁dmitted that he had only studied mice, not humans,鈥� the gun-rights group鈥檚 attorneys wrote in a Dec. 3 court filing.
鈥淒r. Bhide may be qualified to opine in other areas of neuroscience but his deposition testimony confirms that animal research and studies by others of different age groups do not provide him the specialized knowledge in the subject matter at issue that would qualify him to offer an admissible opinion,鈥� they argued.
But in a Dec. 8 response to the NRA鈥檚 motion to exclude Bhide鈥檚 testimony, the state鈥檚 lawyers defended the neuroscientist, pointing out that, although he has only performed lab experiments on mice, the professor 鈥渉as studied and published on human-brain development for decades.鈥�
In a pair of 鈥渁lerts鈥� to supporters this month, NRA Florida lobbyist Marion Hammer, a former president of the national organization, also targeted Bhide. Hammer referred to the former Harvard Medical School professor as a 鈥渞at-brain expert鈥� and a 鈥渕ouse-brain expert.鈥�
Hammer also poked the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, a defendant in the lawsuit, for relying on 鈥渏unk science鈥� to support their defense of the law.
In court documents this month, the NRA also urged Walker to bar Bhide鈥檚 testimony 鈥渂ecause he has not actually applied any scientific process in this case and because the data upon which he relies in his opinions does not address the alleged risk of firearm purchase by young adults and neurological development.鈥�
Bhide鈥檚 testimony 鈥渃annot assist the trier of fact in this case because the only 鈥榝act鈥� for which his testimony has been offered is the link between a handful of articles on brain maturation and the speculation that young adults are more likely to commit criminal violence with a purchased firearm,鈥� the NRA鈥檚 lawyers wrote.
But lawyers for the state bristled at the NRA鈥檚 criticism of Bhide, saying the professor鈥檚 37-year career as a developmental neuroscientist makes him qualified as an expert in the case.
The NRA鈥檚 鈥渞equest to exclude Dr. Bhide鈥檚 testimony is based on a strawman,鈥� the state鈥檚 attorneys wrote. The neuroscientist 鈥渄oes not opine on the likely effect鈥� of the age requirement on crime, they added.
Bhide 鈥渄oes not wade into whether (the law) will impact crime or whether a 鈥榣ink鈥� exists between age, firearm use, and crime. He does not mention crime even once in his report, and during his deposition, he underscored that he offers no opinions on firearm use,鈥� they wrote.
The NRA鈥檚 experts are also under fire.
The state is trying to exclude testimony from Gary Kleck, a retired Florida State University criminology professor, and William English, an assistant professor at Georgetown University鈥檚 McDonough School of Business.
Walker has not ruled on the experts.
