Orlando officials weigh ending late-night alcohol sales amid spike in downtown violence
The Brief
City leaders debate cutting alcohol sales after midnight to curb violence.
Police report over $6 million spent annually on downtown patrols.
Bar owners say they're being unfairly blamed without proper input.
ORLANDO, Fla. - As downtown Orlando continues to experience a wave of late-night violence, city leaders are considering a controversial proposal to halt alcohol sales after midnight — a move that has sparked intense debate among business owners, residents, and public officials.
What we know
City leaders in Orlando are considering a proposal to ban alcohol sales after midnight in an effort to address rising late-night violence in the downtown area.
According to Orlando police data, the majority of violent incidents over the past four years have occurred in a concentrated area along North Orange Avenue, particularly between Washington Street and Central Boulevard.
Heat maps show this corridor as a persistent hotspot for crime, including a mass shooting in July 2022, an attempted murder of a police officer in September 2021, a fatal shooting on Halloween last year, and the killing of an innocent bystander in May 2021.
From May 2024 to May 2025, police responded to thousands of calls downtown, including over 6,000 suspicious person stops and multiple seizures.
Orlando Police Chief Eric Smith said maintaining safety downtown requires more officers than the rest of the city combined and costs more than $6 million a year.
What we don't know
It remains unclear whether halting alcohol sales would have a measurable impact on reducing violent crime. City officials have not released details on how the policy would be enforced or whether it would apply to all alcohol-serving establishments uniformly. Additionally, no clear timeline has been established for when a decision could be finalized.
The backstory
Downtown Orlando has been grappling with violence and safety concerns for several years, particularly during late-night hours. The area around North Orange Avenue has consistently emerged as a hotspot, with frequent police calls and major criminal incidents drawing public scrutiny. Despite past efforts such as increased patrols and surveillance, officials say violence has persisted.
What they're saying
Orlando Police Chief Eric Smith said some nights require more officers in the downtown entertainment district than in the rest of the city combined — at a cost exceeding $6 million annually.
"We have tried everything to curb violence," Smith said. "This time we really don't see any other viable options."
"We have to ask whether that's what our vision is for our downtown and our community," said Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer.
City leaders are now debating whether restricting alcohol sales past midnight could reduce crime. But the proposal has divided the community. Commissioner Shane Rose questioned whether cutting off alcohol sales would have the intended effect, pointing to other cities that have similar restrictions but still face gun violence.
"I think what we do have to look at is how do we create safe environments," Rose said.
Commissioner Patty Sheehan placed the onus on business owners to help manage late-night crowds.
"It's up to the business owners to control themselves, and they will not do that," Sheehan said. "We keep having conversations and none of the behavior changes."
Bar owners like Maddie Bullet say they're being unfairly blamed and left out of key discussions.
"We're not here to police the streets," Bullet said. "We do the best we can when it comes to safety prevention measures."
What's next
No final decision has been made yet.
STAY CONNECTED WITH FOX 35 ORLANDO:
Download the FOX Local app for breaking news alerts, the latest news headlines
Download the FOX 35 Storm Team Weather app for weather alerts & radar
Sign up for FOX 35's daily newsletter for the latest morning headlines
FOX Local:Stream FOX 35 newscasts, FOX 35 News+, Central Florida Eats on your smart TV
The Source
This story was written based on information shared by the City of Orlando, the Orlando Police Department.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with Smith & Wesson, blocks Mexico's $10B suit against gunmakers over cartel violence
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a $10 billion lawsuit Mexico filed against top firearm manufacturers in the U.S. alleging the companies' business practices have fueled tremendous cartel violence and bloodshed. The unanimous ruling tossed out the case under U.S. laws that largely shield gunmakers from liability when their firearms are used in crime. Big-name manufacturers like Smith & Wesson — which still produces guns in Springfield, Massachusetts — had appealed to the justices after a lower court let the suit go forward under an exception for situations in which the companies themselves are accused of violating the law. But the justices found that Mexico hadn't made a plausible argument that the companies had knowingly allowed guns to be trafficked into the country. 'It does not pinpoint, as most aiding-and-abetting claims do, any specific criminal transactions that the defendants (allegedly) assisted,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court's opinion. Mexico had asked the justices to let the case play out, saying it was still in its early stages. Asked about the case during her daily news briefing, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum pointed to another suit the country filed in 2022 against five gun shops and distributors in Arizona. 'There are two trials,' she said. 'We're going to see what the result is, and we'll let you know.' The case the Supreme Court tossed Thursday began in 2021, when the Mexican government filed a blockbuster suit against some of the biggest gun companies, including Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt and Glock. Smith & Wesson moved its headquarters and much of its operations from Springfield to Tennessee, but the company retains about 1,000 employees at its plant in Western Massachusetts. Operations that remain in Springfield include its forge, metal working, machining, finishing the assembly of Colt 1911-style handguns and revolver assembly. On Thursday, Mark Smith, Smith & Wesson president and CEO, said in a statement that the court's unanimous decision 'shutting down this ridiculous lawsuit' represented 'a big win for Smith & Wesson, but our industry, American sovereignty and, most importantly, every American who wishes to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights.' 'This suit, brought by Mexico in collaboration with U.S.-based anti-Second Amendment activist groups, was an affront to our nation's sovereignty and a direct attack on the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans,' Smith said in the statement. He called it the latest attack on the firearms industry 'in a blatant abuse of our legal system to advance their anti-constitutional agenda. 'To all American patriots — you can rest assured that Smith & Wesson will always stand and fight for your constitutional rights at every turn,' Smith said. Mexico has strict gun laws and has just one store where people can legally buy firearms. But thousands of guns are smuggled in by the country's powerful drug cartels every year. The Mexican government says at least 70% of those weapons come from the United States. The lawsuit claims that companies knew weapons were being sold to traffickers who smuggled them into Mexico and decided to cash in on that market. The companies reject Mexico's allegations, arguing the country's lawsuit comes nowhere close to showing they're responsible for a relatively few people using their products to commit violence. The trade group National Shooting Sports Foundation applauded the ruling, adding that gunmakers work with U.S. authorities to prevent gun trafficking. 'This is a tremendous victory for the firearm industry and the rule of law,' said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel. A federal judge tossed out the lawsuit under a 2005 law that protects gun companies from most civil lawsuits, but an appeals court revived it. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston found it fell under an exception to the shield law for situations in which firearm companies are accused of knowingly breaking laws in their business practices. That exception has come up in other cases, including in lawsuits stemming from mass shootings. Families of victims of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, for example, argued it applied to their lawsuit because the gunmaker had violated state law in the marketing of the AR-15 rifle used in the shooting, in which 20 first graders and six educators were killed. The families eventually secured a landmark $73 million settlement with Remington, the maker of the rifle. The Supreme Court's ruling doesn't appear to affect similar cases, said David Pucino, legal director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. 'All survivors, in the United States, in Mexico, and anywhere else, deserve their day in court, and we will continue to support them in their fight for justice,' he said. Read the original article on MassLive.
Vox
an hour ago
- Vox
Why the Supreme Court just handed a big victory to gun manufacturers
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Weapons seized from members of the gang Los Zetas are displayed by police during a presentation to the press, in Mexico City. Luis Acosta/AFP via Getty Images The Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion on Thursday that shuts down a lawsuit brought by the nation of Mexico against US gun companies. In Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Mexico sued seven American gun manufacturers, claiming that their products are often sold to gun traffickers who then provide these guns to Mexican drug cartels. The Mexican government claims that up to 90 percent of guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico come from the United States. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Unfortunately for Mexico, however, a 2005 law known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) gives American gunmakers broad immunity from lawsuits seeking to hold them liable for harms 'caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.' PLCAA does contain some exemptions to this general rule. As Justice Elena Kagan explains in the Court's Smith & Wesson opinion, a gunmaker can be held liable for 'aiding and abetting someone else's firearms offense.' Mexico claims that the gunmakers aided and abetted illegal sales to cartels by 'supply[ing] firearms to retail dealers whom they know illegally sell to Mexican gun traffickers.' Mexico also faults the companies for allowing bulk sales of guns, which can enable illegal sales, and for practices such as designing guns that appeal to Mexican culture. One such gun, for example, features an image of the Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata, along with a quote from Zapata: 'It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.' But Kagan's opinion concludes that the mere fact that US gun companies likely knew that some of their guns were being resold in the illegal market, much less that some of their guns are designed to appeal to Mexicans, is not enough to overcome PLCAA. As Kagan explains, this conclusion largely flows from the Court's fairly recent decision in Twitter v. Taamneh (2023). Twitter concerned an attack by the terrorist group ISIS that killed 39 people at a nightclub in Istanbul, including a man with American relatives. Those relatives sued several social media companies in US court, claiming that the companies aided and abetted the Istanbul attack by allowing ISIS to post content which promotes ISIS's ideology and that attempts to recruit people to the terrorist organization's cause. But Twitter warned against a legal regime where 'ordinary merchants could become liable for any misuse of their goods and services, no matter how attenuated their relationship with the wrongdoer.' As a general rule, someone who provides a good or service to all comers is not legally responsible if a bad actor uses their product for a wicked purpose. If Ford sells a truck to a man who intentionally uses it to run over and kill his wife, Ford normally will not be responsible for this homicide. And so Kagan concludes that it's not enough for Mexico to show that gunmakers could have taken additional steps to prevent their products from winding up in the hands of drug cartels. Instead, 'the merchant becomes liable only if, beyond providing the good on the open market, he takes steps to 'promote' the resulting crime and 'make it his own.'' Of course, one thing that distinguishes Smith & Wesson from Twitter is that social media platforms are not weapons whose entire purpose is to injure people. If PLCAA did not exist, Mexico might have argued that the gun companies' decision to make and sell an inherently dangerous product should make them liable for the consequences of selling such a product.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court rules in favor of U.S. gun makers in Mexico's lawsuit
June 5 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday against a lawsuit filed by Mexico that accuses seven American gun manufacturers and one wholesaler of unlawful sale practices, and arming drug dealers. "The question presented is whether Mexico's complaint plausibly pleads that conduct. We conclude it does not," wrote Justice Elena Kagan in the opinion of the court. Mexico filed suit in March against a group of companies that includes Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt and Glock, alleging that the defendants violated the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, which can allow for some lawsuits against the makers and sellers of firearms. As stated in the case document, Mexico purports the accused companies "aided and abetted unlawful gun sales that routed firearms to Mexican drug cartels," and failed to exercise "reasonable care" to keep their guns from being trafficked into Mexico. Kagan explained that it falls on the plaintiff in this case to properly show that the defendant companies directly committed violations of PLCAA, or otherwise "the predicate violation opens a path to making a gun manufacturer civilly liable for the way a third party has used the weapon it made." Kagan did include that "Mexico has a severe gun violence problem, which its government views as coming from north of the border." She added that the country has only a single gun store, which is slightly inaccurate as Mexico currently has two, but in regard of the one store she mentioned, Kagan claimed that it "issues fewer than 50 gun permits each year." She also purported gun traffickers can purchase weaponry in the United States, often illegally, and then take those guns to drug cartels in Mexico. Kagan further noted that as per the Mexican government, "as many as 90% of the guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico originated in the United States." Nonetheless, the court ruled "that Mexico has not plausibly alleged aiding and abetting on the manufacturers' part." This is why, Kagan explained, that the defendant companies are immune under the PLCAA. In a concurring statement, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the court's opinion hasn't resolved what exactly a future plaintiff will have to show to prove a defendant has committed a PLCAA violation, and that Mexico hadn't "adequately pleaded its theory of the case." Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also included a concurring statement that Congress passed PLCAA in order to decide "which duties to impose on the firearms industry," and that ignoring PLCAA's set reasons that do "authorize lawsuits like the one Mexico filed here" would twist PLCAA's main purpose.
