Residents' gun rights couldn't be blocked by local officials under new state legislation
New legislation this year that would prohibit local governments from declaring a local emergency that suspends the sale of guns and ammunition cleared its first committee Tuesday.
Sen. Blaise Ingoglia, R-Spring Hill, easily persuaded the Senate's Criminal Justice Committee to support repeal of a Florida statute that empowers a county sheriff, city police chief or other official to proclaim an emergency whenever an imminent threat to the public peace occurs.
Ingoglia said his bill (SB 952) simply clears up confusion created by having separate state laws empowering both the governor and local officials to declare emergencies.
Florida does not restrict gun rights when the governor proclaims a statewide emergency. But it does ban firearm sales and displays when a local government declares one.
Current law says when there is a local state of emergency a person may not:
Sell or offer to sell firearms or ammunition
Display firearms for the purpose of selling
Intentionally possess a firearm in a public place
Jed Carroll, Florida deputy state director of Gun Owners of America, told the committee current law places unconstitutional prohibitions on gun rights 'at the very time when people need to be able to protect themselves.'
Other Second Amendment advocates followed him to the lectern to tell lawmakers that local governments had used the statute to ban firearms sales and rights during the COVID pandemic, civil rights protests, and last September when Hurricane Helene struck.
Gun advocates have sought the right to carry firearms during a declared emergency at least since 2014, when former Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg, filed a bill (SB 296).
'We should be getting rid of the statute (because) it's confusing' – and probably unconstitutional, Ingoglia told the committee.
The panel approved the repeal with a unanimous vote. The measure has one more committee before it can get a hearing by the full Senate. An identical bill in the House was scheduled for its own hearing later Wednesday.
James Call is a member of the USA TODAY NETWORK-Florida Capital Bureau. He can be reached at jcall@tallahassee.com and is on X as @CallTallahassee.
This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Effort to end local gun bans during emergencies moves in Legislature
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
7 minutes ago
- CBS News
GOP leaders cite L.A. immigration protests to push for quick passage of Trump's "big, beautiful bill"
Washington — The White House and Republican leaders in Congress are urging lawmakers to quickly get behind the centerpiece of President Trump's legislative agenda, saying the ongoing immigration protests in Los Angeles adds urgency to the push to secure additional resources for border security. House Speaker Mike Johnson said on X on Monday that the legislation, which addresses Mr. Trump's tax, energy and immigration priorities, "provides the ESSENTIAL funding needed to secure our nation[']s borders." Republicans call the legislation the "one big, beautiful bill." "The lawlessness happening in LA is ANOTHER reason why we need to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill IMMEDIATELY," Johnson said, pledging that Congress will support Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who he said are "fighting to keep Americans safe against illegal aliens AND the radical left." White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt shared a similar message earlier Monday, saying the scenes unfolding in some areas of Los Angeles "prove that we desperately need more immigration enforcement personnel and resources." "America must reverse the invasion unleashed by Joe Biden of millions of unvetted illegal aliens into our country," Leavitt said in a post on X. "That's why President Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill funds at least one million annual removals and hires 10,000 new ICE personnel, 5,000 new customs officers, and 3,000 new Border Patrol agents." Speaker of the House Mike Johnson holds a press conference after the House narrowly passed a bill forwarding President Trump's agenda at the U.S. Capitol on May 22, 2025, in Washington, legislation is now in the hands of the Senate after the House narrowly approved it last month following weeks of intraparty disagreement over its components. Though the bulk of the funding allocated in the legislation goes toward tax cuts, it also includes resources aimed at bolstering border security and defense. It provides $46.5 billion for the border wall, $4.1 billion to hire Border Patrol agents and other personnel and more than $2 billion for signing and retention bonuses for agents. It also imposes an additional $1,000 fee for people who are filing for asylum in the U.S. The disagreement among Republicans over the bill has largely centered on cuts meant to offset the bill's spending, including restrictions to Medicaid. In the House's razor-thin GOP majority, the disagreements threatened to tank the bill's progress at every stage. And as the bill moved to the Senate for consideration last week, Johnson warned the upper chamber against making significant changes that would throw off the delicate balance. Senate Republicans initially voiced support for separating the complicated tax components and border security provisions into two separate bills to deliver Mr. Trump a victory on immigration early on in his tenure. But House Republicans opposed the approach, expressing doubts that the president's agenda could pass through the narrow GOP majority in the lower chamber in separate parts. Senate Republicans are now seeking to amend the House-passed bill, sending it back to the House for approval with a goal of getting the legislation to the president's desk by the July 4 holiday. And with a 53-seat majority, the upper chamber can afford to lose just three Republicans. Last week, opposition from Elon Musk threatened to throw a wrench into the legislation's progress, after he stoked concerns by fiscal hawks about the bill's impact on the deficit. The episode, which began with Musk calling the bill "a disgusting abomination," erupted into a dramatic and public feud between Musk and the president last week. But the dispute did not appear to spark significant new opposition the the bill in Congress. The urgency expressed Monday surrounding securing additional border resources comes as Mr. Trump called for the National Guard to enforce order in the L.A. area amid protests over activity by ICE, prompting a clash with California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Newsom warned that the move would inflame the situation, while urging that there is no shortage of law enforcement. The governor indicated late Sunday that his office plans to sue the Trump administration over Mr. Trump's move. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem defended the president's move on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" Sunday, claiming Newsom "has proven that he makes bad decisions." "The president knows that [Newsom] makes bad decisions, and that's why the president chose the safety of this community over waiting for Gov. Newsom to get some sanity," Noem added.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
MN House, Senate convene for special session to pass state budget
Minnesota lawmakers returned to the Capitol Monday morning to complete the state's next two-year budget as agencies prepared to warn thousands of government employees of a potential government shutdown next month. Most of the state government only has funding through the end of June after the Legislature failed to pass the majority of the bills that form the roughly $66 billion state budget by the end of the regular legislative session on May 19. Gov. Tim Walz called a special session so lawmakers can finish their work. State leaders finalized the details in a series of mostly closed meetings over the last few weeks. The Senate and House went into session at 10 a.m. and are expected to finish their work by Tuesday morning. However, there's no guarantee that will happen. Democratic-Farmer-Labor and Republican legislative leaders and the governor may have signed an agreement to finish up the special session by 7 a.m. Tuesday, but nothing can stop other state senators and representatives from introducing amendments and engaging in lengthy debate on controversial bills. Some bills that are part of the budget deal between Walz, the tied House and DFL majority Senate may pass on thin margins. A proposal to end state-funded health insurance for adults in the U.S. without legal immigration status is opposed by many DFLers and may only pass with the support of Republicans and the DFL leaders who signed the agreement. Senate Majority Leader Erin Murphy, DFL-St. Paul, and House DFL Leader Melissa Hortman, of Brooklyn Park, have said they agreed to remove coverage for adults to avert a government shutdown, which would interrupt services on a much larger scale. The immigrant care proposal was the first bill the House took up Monday morning, and representatives continued to debate the matter as noon approached. If the measure passes both chambers, Walz would have a tough time vetoing it. Republicans managed to get DFLers to agree to tie the activation of health care spending to ending MinnesotaCare for around 17,000 adults in the state who came to the U.S. illegally. Meanwhile, GOP lawmakers have expressed reservations about the tax and transportation bills. The tax bill includes an increase to the sales tax on cannabis, and Republican leadership had initially said it wouldn't support any new taxes, and some members may stick to that pledge. There were also questions on Friday about whether a proposal to shift $93 million in sales tax revenue from metro counties to the Metropolitan Council would survive floor votes, as members of both parties might turn on shifting money from local governments to a central planning agency. This is a developing story that will update throughout the day. Letters: It's unfortunate that we can't have certain conversations Gov. Tim Walz calls for special session for Legislature Monday Timeline for Minnesota special session blurry as budget talks continue MN government return to office order kicks in as shutdown layoffs loom Ramsey County: Economic Development Authority to allow flexibility on housing projects
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Congress should seize this big, beautiful chance to REIN in regulatory overreach
A provision that would have benefited the public tremendously by enabling Congress to rein in out-of-control, costly regulations was stripped out of the budget reconciliation bill recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. This was a sad turn of events that hopefully will be corrected in the Senate. Nearly a decade ago, Congress considered legislation to fundamentally alter how regulations are adopted, defending personal and economic freedom in the process: the Regulations of the Executive In Need of Scrutiny or REINS Act. REINS provisions that were a part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act until shortly before its passage would have put Congress back in the driver's seat regarding regulations. The importance of the REINS Act and the efforts to get it passed as part of the reconciliation bill cannot be overstated. Tens of thousands of new regulations are imposed by unaccountable agency bureaucrats each year, limiting individual liberty and choice and increasing costs in myriad, often unrecognized ways. Regulations are hidden taxes that siphon hundreds of billions of dollars from individual households and businesses every year. They represent the largest single fiscal burden on the economy outside of individual and corporate income taxes. The measure has been misleadingly described as a 'wholesale rollback of federal regulations.' In fact, it would merely force Congress to take responsibility for regulations developed by executive agencies to execute the laws it passes. Under REINS, if Congress disagrees with an agency's interpretation of what a law requires or imposes, Congress could prevent the regulations in question from taking effect. The scare-tactics used to vilify REINS inevitably involve a focus on regulations that protect human health and the environment. But many regulations — especially in energy and environmental policy — provide little or no measurable benefits in these areas despite imposing huge costs. The rules are often designed to expand the budgets and power of bureaucrats, creating make-work ventures and guaranteeing lifetime employment for agency staff. In a craven attempt to evade responsibility, past Congresses found it easy to delegate lawmaking power to executive agencies. Congress took credit for passing vague feel-good laws, only to blame agencies for going overboard, claiming they never intended the resulting onerous outcomes. Congress then publicly assails agencies for going beyond what lawmakers intended but does nothing to correct the supposed overreach. Recognizing the growing problem of overregulation, in 1996 Congress passed the Congressional Review Act, which granted Congress the power under limited circumstances to review and block major regulations retroactively. The Congressional Review Act, however, has been used to overturn only 20 out of tens of thousands of regulations enacted in the nearly 30 years since it passed — in part because the president is allowed to veto resolutions under that law. The REINS Act is superior because it reverses this dynamic by requiring congressional approval for all major regulations — an opt-in system, so to speak, instead of opt-out. And under REINS, the president would not be authorized to ignore the will of Congress and its interpretation of its own laws, because no veto is available. The REINS provisions House Republicans inserted into the reconciliation bill are even more expansive than the original REINS legislation, requiring that any 'major rule that increases revenue' be approved through a joint resolution of the House and Senate. The provisions would have also allowed lawmakers to retroactively terminate countless rules that federal agencies have already implemented by requiring agencies to submit them to Congress for review. Rules that Congress fails to approve would automatically sunset. Also, multiple recently finalized regulations could be rescindedwith a single resolution rather than each individually as the Congressional Review Act requires. House sponsors had to remove the REINS provisions to avoid letting Democrats filibuster the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in the Senate. However, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) reportedly believes he can make some of the provisions pass muster with the Senate parliamentarian, so that they can be reinserted and the bill can still pass with a simple majority. I believe the REINS provisions maybe the single most beneficial law Congress could adopt to get regulators' boots off the throats of average people and businesses. Congress alone was delegated the power to regulate interstate commerce. It didn't jealously guard that power before now; it should do so going forward. H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
