Hate ads?! Subscribe for just $5 a month!

Bradford County Settles Lawsuit Over Fair Ground Open Carry Ban

July 10, 2026
2:40 am

▶

Listen to Article

In a move that underscores just how costly it can be for local governments to ignore the plain text of Florida’s preemption statute, Bradford County has quietly settled a lawsuit brought by open-carry advocates who challenged the county’s attempt to disarm law-abiding citizens at the county fairgrounds. Rather than risk a court ruling that would have cemented the principle that counties cannot create their own gun-free zones where state law already guarantees the right to bear arms, officials chose to pay out taxpayer dollars and drop the restriction. The settlement sends a clear message: when elected bodies try to carve out exceptions to constitutional carry, they do so at their own legal and financial peril. What makes the case especially instructive is how little factual dispute existed from the outset. Florida’s 1987 preemption law was written precisely to stop a patchwork of local ordinances from eroding the uniform right to keep and bear arms; yet Bradford County officials apparently believed a fairground policy could survive judicial scrutiny. The plaintiffs, backed by groups committed to enforcing preemption, simply pointed to the statute’s unambiguous language and the absence of any statutory exception for county events. Once litigation costs began to mount and the likelihood of an adverse precedent grew, the county folded—an outcome that will likely deter neighboring jurisdictions from testing the same limits. For the broader Second Amendment community the takeaway is twofold. First, enforcement litigation remains one of the most effective tools for rolling back incremental infringements that never should have existed in the first place. Second, every settlement like this one chips away at the assumption, still held in some quarters, that local officials can quietly disarm citizens under the banner of “safety” or “event management.” As more Floridians exercise their right to carry without a permit, stories like Bradford County’s serve as both warning shot and rallying point: the Constitution and state preemption statutes mean what they say, and the courts—and taxpayers—will ultimately enforce them.

Best FFL Software Ranked and Compared!

What makes the case especially instructive is how little factual dispute existed from the outset. Florida’s 1987 preemption law was written precisely to stop a patchwork of local ordinances from eroding the uniform right to keep and bear arms; yet Bradford County officials apparently believed a fairground policy could survive judicial scrutiny. The plaintiffs, backed by groups committed to enforcing preemption, simply pointed to the statute’s unambiguous language and the absence of any statutory exception for county events. Once litigation costs began to mount and the likelihood of an adverse precedent grew, the county folded—an outcome that will likely deter neighboring jurisdictions from testing the same limits.

For the broader Second Amendment community the takeaway is twofold. First, enforcement litigation remains one of the most effective tools for rolling back incremental infringements that never should have existed in the first place. Second, every settlement like this one chips away at the assumption, still held in some quarters, that local officials can quietly disarm citizens under the banner of “safety” or “event management.” As more Floridians exercise their right to carry without a permit, stories like Bradford County’s serve as both warning shot and rallying point: the Constitution and state preemption statutes mean what they say, and the courts—and taxpayers—will ultimately enforce them.

Share this story