logo
DeSantis wants Legislature to ‘reevaluate' gun safety laws passed after Parkland

DeSantis wants Legislature to ‘reevaluate' gun safety laws passed after Parkland

Yahoo04-03-2025

Gov. Ron DeSantis, Senate President Ben Albritton, and House Speaker Daniel Perez stand in front of a joint session of the Florida Legislature to hear the governor's State of the State address on March 4, 2025. (Photo by Jay Waagmeester/Florida Phoenix
Gov Ron DeSantis said Tuesday in his State of the State address that he wants the Florida Legislature to re-examine key provisions of the landmark 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act, enacted following the shootings in Parkland that killed 17 students and school administrators.
Specifically, the governor wants the Legislature to repeal language that raised the legal age to purchase a shotgun or rifle in Florida from 18 to 21 and also the state's 'red flag' law, which allows law enforcement or family members to petition a court to temporarily remove a person's firearms if they pose a risk to themselves or others.
'We need to be a strong Second Amendment state. I know many of you agree, so let's get some positive reform done for the people in this state of Florida,' he said.
During a press conference held immediately after the speech, DeSantis reiterated his criticism of those laws, adding once again that he would like Florida to join the overwhelming majority of states that allow open carry.
'I don't know what the Legislature is going to do in those respects but, in spite of us saying that 'we're the free state,' in spite of us being like, 'oh, we're this Republican bastion, conservative bastion,' we definitely lag on that issue.'
Legislative leaders, particularly in the Senate, have opposed open carry in recent years. Senate President Ben Albritton said last fall that he doesn't support it because neither does law enforcement (specifically, the Florida Sheriffs Association), and repeated that opinion on Tuesday. He said he also supports 'Red Flag' laws.
Although the governor focused on guns, perhaps no issue is more important to Floridians than the cost of property insurance. DeSantis insisted the news on that front is good, mentioning how 11 new companies have entered the market over the last year with more than 130,000 new private policies put into effect in 2024, and that 73% of state-backed Citizens Property Insurance policyholders in Miami-Dade County are scheduled to receive a rate decrease of an average of 6.3%.
And he urged the Legislature to provide additional funding for those on the My Safe Florida Home waitlist — people who have been approved for grants to strengthen their homes against hurricane winds.
DeSantis said he supports House Speaker Daniel Perez's plan to order a committee to hold hearings into property insurance companies moving billions of dollars to affiliate companies losses, based on a report from the Tampa Bay Times.
'If there's things that need to be done to be able to make sure that we have transparency and appropriate oversight, I'm all for it,' the governor said. 'What I am not going to support is opening the litigation floodgates. The fact is, our markets were being driven into the ground because of excessive litigation.'
DeSantis took time once again to tout one of his new goals before he leaves office — to make Florida the first state to outlaw property taxes. The proposal could go before voters as a constitutional amendment in 2026 if lawmakers first approve a study of the issue. (Lee County Republican Jonathan Martin is sponsoring a resolution to require the state Office of Economic and Demographic Research to analyze the repercussions).
'Is the property yours or are you just renting from the government?' the governor asked the assembled members of the Legislature.
And he emphasized that no one should believe that removing property taxes would lead to a state income tax, which the Florida Constitution does not allow. 'This body will not pass tax increases, and this governor will not sign tax increases,' he said to applause.
DeSantis was successful in 2024 in stopping two proposed constitutional amendments from securing the 60% vote required for passage. Amendment 4 would have enshrined abortion rights in the Florida Constitution while Amendment 3 would have legalized use of recreational cannabis for adults. Both received majority support, however.
Since then, citing a state report alleging fraud in the petition gathering process by the group advocating for Amendment 4, the governor has been calling for the Legislature to make it even more difficult for citizen-led constitutional amendments, complaining the process had been 'perverted.'
'We need to clean up the petition fraud and we need to clean up this out-of-control amendment process, and you in the Legislature have the opportunity to do just that and protect Florida's Constitution once and for all,' he declared.
This was likely DeSantis' next-to-last State of the State address as governor. It came at an uncertain time in his tenure — while he remains the most powerful person in Florida government, in January GOP legislative leaders and rank-and-file legislators rebuked his initial proposals on illegal immigration.
Whether his wife, First Lady Casey DeSantis, decides to run to succeed her husband in 2026, the governor took time in his speech to give credit to her work in leading Hope Florida, an initiative designed to make it easier for Floridians to access help for mental health and substance abuse.
'By the end of 2024, Hope Florida has helped nearly 30,000 participants reduce or eliminate their reliance on government assistance, netting the taxpayers over $108 million in annual savings,' he said. 'The Hope Florida model is now being replicated by other states around the country. Thanks to Casey for her leadership and ingenuity,' he declared, pointing to Casey, who sat with the couple's son, Mason, in the East Gallery of the Florida House chamber.
Senate Democratic Leader Jason Pizzo praised DeSantis' handling of emergencies but lamented that Republicans have focused on culture wars instead of homeowner's insurance and increasing pay for law enforcement and teachers.
Pizzo, who is expected to run for governor, in a rebuttal speech mentioned one of his bills, which would require all private employers to verify that their new hires are authorized to work in the country.
'You are not serious about curbing illegal immigration if you continue to cower to donors and not listen to our citizens,' he said.
House Democratic Leader Fentrice Driskell delivered her caucus' rebuttal to the address. She hit DeSantis on his recently announced Florida DOGE initiative and push to remove property taxes, saying the governor was merely seeking attention.
But Driskell acknowledged her party's superminority position, making it essentially impossible to pass their priorities, such as expanding Medicaid and universal background checks in gun sales.
'We understand the political reality of Tallahassee, so we know these ideas aren't likely to go anywhere, regardless of how good they are,' Driskell said in her pre-recorded remarks.
'It isn't easy being in the minority party in the Legislature, but we aren't Democrats only when it's easy. We're here to advocate for our communities and make our voices heard, and that's what we'll be doing.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Judge strikes reference to ex-Illinois speaker Madigan's personal fortune from sentencing record
Judge strikes reference to ex-Illinois speaker Madigan's personal fortune from sentencing record

Yahoo

time37 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Judge strikes reference to ex-Illinois speaker Madigan's personal fortune from sentencing record

CHICAGO — A federal judge on Tuesday struck from the court record a reference to former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan's personal net worth of more than $40 million, agreeing with the Democrat's defense team that it should have been kept private, even as the attorneys acknowledged the move was 'hollow' given that it was already widely publicized. U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey said he didn't find any 'bad faith' on the part of the federal prosecutors who included the figure in a filing last week ahead of Madigan's highly anticipated sentencing on Friday, but found that common practice would be to file such personal information under seal. Blakey's ruling came before the attorneys delivered arguments over sentencing guidelines at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse, technically kicking off the sentencing process. Blakey took the matter under advisement until Friday's hearing. Federal prosecutors made Madigan's net worth public for the first time in a response to a sentencing memorandum filed by his attorneys, arguing that the defendant's 'greed is even more appalling given his law firm's success.' Daniel Collins, an attorney for Madigan, called the inclusion of the former speaker's personal fortune improper and a 'gratuitous effort' to publicly identify his net worth. 'It is not necessary to include the number in order for the government to make an argument about greed,' Collins said. But Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Streicker countered to the judge that the defense left the door open by arguing in filings that Madigan was solely motivated by a desire to help people. She also said the figure is relevant as the government seeks a fine in the case. 'It's fair for the government to rebut that narrative and show the defendant was motivated by greed not need,' Streicker said. 'This is a defendant that enjoyed every advantage and significant financial wealth and still turned to bribery and fraud.' In February, Madigan was convicted of 10 of 23 counts, including marquee allegations that he agreed to squeeze lucrative, do-nothing contracts from ComEd for pals such as former Ald. Frank Olivo and Ald. Michael Zalewski and precinct captains Ray Nice and Edward Moody, all while the utility won a series of major legislation victories. Madigan was also convicted on six of seven counts — including wire fraud and Travel Act violations — regarding a plan to get former Ald. Daniel Solis, a key FBI mole who testified at length in the trial, appointed to a state board. Jurors deadlocked on all six counts related to Madigan's co-defendant former ComEd lobbyist Michael McClain. _______

Trump's Double Standard On LA's Protests Couldn't Be More Glaring
Trump's Double Standard On LA's Protests Couldn't Be More Glaring

Yahoo

time37 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump's Double Standard On LA's Protests Couldn't Be More Glaring

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump is warning those protesting against his unprecedented immigration crackdown in Los Angeles against targeting police officers and thousands of National Guard troops he's deployed there, promising to exact retribution on anyone who commits violence against them. 'Nobody's going to spit on our police officers. Nobody's going to spit on our military,' Trump told reporters on Monday, before posting on his social media website: 'IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT, and I promise you they will be hit harder than they have ever been hit before. Such disrespect will not be tolerated!' But Trump felt differently about violence against law enforcement when he issued blanket pardons earlier this year for hundreds of people who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 in an effort to keep him in office after his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election. His pardons included those convicted of assaulting or interfering with police officers, roughly 1,000 nonviolent offenders and around 200 people accused of assaulting police. A number of those pardoned have reportedly since been rearrested for other alleged crimes. 'These are the hostages. Approximately 1,500 were pardoned. Full pardon,' Trump said after issuing the pardons on his first day in office. About 140 police officers were injured in the attack on the Capitol, something that Trump has called a 'beautiful day' despite being impeached by the U.S. House for inciting an insurrection by spreading lies about election fraud. 'Their hypocrisy just smacks you in the face,' Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who investigated the Capitol attack as a former member of the House, told HuffPost in response to Trump's response to LA's unrest. 'Violence is never appropriate. It wasn't appropriate on Jan. 6 and it's not appropriate in LA or anywhere else. We need to be consistent about that.' Trump quickly deployed thousands of troops to California over the weekend — including 700 U.S. Marines — despite no request from the state's governor, Gavin Newsom, who has warned the president's actions will further inflame the unrest. The protests initially began after Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents executed raids at a Home Depot store in Los Angeles at the direction of the White House. As president on Jan. 6, 2021, however, Trump issued no order or formal request for National Guard troops to aid beleaguered U.S. Capitol police who were overrun by hundreds of his supporters. 'On Jan. 6, both the Democratic and Republican leadership in Congress were begging Donald Trump to make a statement, to call off the MAGA mob that invaded the Capitol,' Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) told HuffPost. 'People were begging him to call out the National Guard, and he sat there and did nothing, and now he's acting in a situation where the officials in charge are telling him that federalizing the National Guard and sending in the Marines will only exacerbate a situation which is under control.' Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House speaker at the time, also slammed Trump for federalizing the National Guard and sending troops to Los Angeles, something he refused to do when Congress was under attack. 'We begged the president of the United States to send in the National Guard. He would not do it,' Pelosi told reporters on Tuesday. 'And yet, in a contra-constitutional way, he has sent the National Guard into California. Something is very wrong with this picture.' While Democrats have slammed Trump's response to the protests, Republicans are broadly welcoming the federal intervention in California — even those who have long espoused the importance of state's rights and the ability of local governments to enforce their laws. In 2024, for example, a group of 24 conservative House Republicans warned then-President Joe Biden not to federalize the Texas National Guard as some Texas Democratic lawmakers had been urging him to do, saying it would be an 'encroachment on Texas' constitutionally protected sovereignty.' Asked Tuesday if Trump is being inconsistent by sending troops to Los Angeles after pardoning Jan. 6 rioters, meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) dodged the question entirely. 'The issue that's in front of us is the chaos in LA. The political leadership there wasn't up to the task,' he said at his weekly press conference. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who has disagreed publicly with Trump's pardons of Jan. 6 rioters, said Democrats aren't being consistent on the issue by not sufficiently condemning violence in Los Angeles. 'I think Democrats who feel like the president is wrong to bring out force would be on firmer ground if they denounce the actions of violence in Los Angeles, Kenosha, and Portland,' he said, without specifying which Democrats have refused to speak out. Even Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a Libertarian-leaning voice in the Senate, suggested Trump was within his rights to federalize the National Guard and send troops into California without approval from the state's governor. 'Democrats have failed to have law and order,' Paul said. 'I've always preferred local law enforcement to federal but this is a time in which it looks as though the state government is resisting enforcing federal law.' It's not clear what federal law the senator is referring to. Newsom has also condemned violent protesters and urged the demonstrations to remain peaceful. 'The federal government is taking over the California National Guard and deploying 2,000 soldiers in Los Angeles — not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle,' Newsom said Sunday. 'Don't give them one. Never use violence. Speak out peacefully,' he added. Arthur Delaney contributed reporting.

Georgia Supreme Court rejects changes sought by Trump-aligned board ahead of 2024 election
Georgia Supreme Court rejects changes sought by Trump-aligned board ahead of 2024 election

Yahoo

time37 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Georgia Supreme Court rejects changes sought by Trump-aligned board ahead of 2024 election

Members of Georgia's State Election Board sit during a Sept. 23 meeting at the Georgia state capitol in Atlanta. Ross Williams/Georgia Recorder (file photo) The Georgia Supreme Court has permanently blocked four rules the State Election Board approved last fall, concluding Tuesday that members of the board exceeded their authority in attempting to implement rules that went beyond the scope of Georgia's election laws. A total of seven rules were approved by the Republican-led board ahead of the 2024 general election, with supporters claiming that the changes were necessary to ensure accuracy and restore public confidence in Georgia's election integrity. If enacted, the rules would have ordered poll workers to hand count all ballots cast on election day, made it easier for local election officials to delay certifying election results and required family members and caregivers to present a photo ID when dropping off absentee ballots on behalf of another voter, among other changes. Election officials and voting rights groups opposed the rules, arguing that last-minute changes could sow confusion and doubt into the election process, and that implementing the new rules would violate Georgia's election laws. Last October, the Georgia Republican Party and Republican National Committee filed an emergency motion urging the state Supreme Court to reinstate the rules ahead of the general election, but the court declined to expedite their appeal. In a 96-page opinion, Chief Justice Nels Peterson upheld most of the Fulton County Superior Court's ruling, declaring that the State Election Board 'can pass rules to implement and enforce the Election Code, but it cannot go beyond, change, or contradict' existing Georgia law. The October ruling from Judge Thomas A. Cox Jr. argued that the seven rules were 'illegal, unconstitutional and void,' and that the State Election Board had exceeded its authority by passing them. However, in a slight reversal of the lower court ruling, the state Supreme Court allowed a rule mandating video surveillance of ballot drop boxes to take effect, finding that the rule was consistent with current election laws. Two other rules that would have expanded mandatory poll-watching areas and required election workers to publicly post daily totals of early and absentee voters were sent back to the Fulton County Superior Court for further consideration. The State Election Board is tasked with writing rules to ensure that elections run smoothly and hearing complaints about alleged violations. The three most conservative members of the Republican-led board — Janice Johnston, former state Sen. Rick Jeffares and Janelle King — made national headlines last fall after approving seven election rules in spite of Attorney General Chris Carr's warnings that the changes likely would not stand up in court. Then-presidential candidate Donald Trump also praised King, Jeffares and Johnston during a campaign rally in Atlanta for supporting changes to election certification rules, calling them 'pit bulls' for 'victory.' State Election Board Chairman John Fervier did not respond to a request for comment on the Supreme Court's ruling. The ACLU of Georgia, which helped represent the plaintiffs, applauded Tuesday's ruling. 'This is a resounding affirmation of voters' rights,' said Theresa Lee, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU Voting Rights Project. 'The court recognized what we've argued all along — that this rule was unlawful and entirely unnecessary. Today's decision safeguards not just the letter of Georgia election law, but the democratic principle that every vote must be counted accurately and without interference.' Eternal Vigilance Action, a conservative election advocacy organization that sued the State Election Board over the rule changes, also celebrated the ruling. 'This ruling makes clear: the legislative power belongs to the General Assembly, not executive agencies operating without proper constraints,' Eternal Vigilance Action founder and former Republican state Rep. Scot Turner said in a statement. As new election laws passed in 2024 begin to take effect, including a ban on the use of QR codes to tabulate ballots, the board will likely continue to draft rules to guide local election officials tasked with implementing the changes. However, this year the board is workshopping changes to the rulemaking process in the hopes of avoiding a repeat of the chaos that defined the 2024 election cycle. During a May meeting, state election board members discussed the possibility of forming a rules committee with election directors, legislators, Georgia residents, and election law attorneys. Rules would be vetted by the committee before being presented to the full board. Senior reporter Stanley Dunlap contributed to this report. s25a0362 SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store