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
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NIH scientists speak out over estimated $12 billion in Trump funding cuts
By Chad Terhune (Reuters) -Dozens of scientists, researchers and other employees at the U.S. National Institutes of Health issued a rare public rebuke Monday criticizing the Trump administration for major spending cuts that 'harm the health of Americans and people across the globe,' politicize research and 'waste public resources.' More than 60 current employees sent their letter to NIH director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress who oversee NIH. Bhattacharya is scheduled to testify Tuesday at the U.S. Senate appropriations committee about his agency's budget. Overall, more than 340 current and recently terminated NIH employees signed the letter, about 250 of them anonymously. In their letter, NIH staff members said the agency had terminated 2,100 research grants totaling about $9.5 billion and an additional $2.6 billion in contracts since President Donald Trump took office Jan. 20. The contracts often support research, from covering equipment to nursing staff working on clinical trials. These terminations "throw away years of hard work and millions of dollars" and put patient health at risk, the letter said. NIH clinical trials "are being halted without regard to participant safety, abruptly stopping medications or leaving participants with unmonitored device implants." Officials at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees NIH, didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. In prior remarks, Bhattacharya has pledged support for Kennedy's Make America Healthy Again agenda, and he has said that means focusing the federal government's "limited resources" directly on combating chronic diseases. At his Senate confirmation hearings in March, Bhattacharya said he would ensure scientists working at NIH and funded by the agency have the necessary resources to meet its mission. NIH is the world's largest public funder of biomedical research and has long enjoyed bipartisan support from U.S. lawmakers. The Trump administration has proposed cutting $18 billion, or 40%, from NIH's budget next year, which would leave the agency with $27 billion. Nearly 5,000 NIH employees and contractors have been laid off under Kennedy's restructuring of U.S. health agencies, according to NIH staff. Dr. Jenna Norton, a program director within NIH's division of kidney, urologic and hematologic diseases, was one of 69 current employees who signed the letter as of early Monday. She said speaking out publicly was worth the risk to her career and family. "I am much more worried about the risks of not speaking up," Norton said. "There are very real concerns that we're being asked to do likely illegal activities, and certainly unethical activities that breach our rules." About 20 NIH employees who were recently terminated as probationary workers or "subject to reductions in force" added their names to the letter. In the letter, Norton and other NIH employees asked Bhattacharya to restore grants that were delayed or terminated for political reasons, where officials ignored peer review to "cater to political whims." They wrote that Bhattacharya had failed to uphold his legal duty to spend congressionally appropriated funds. One program director at the NIH's National Cancer Institute, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation, said she has repeatedly been asked to cancel research grants for no valid reason and in violation of agency rules. She said she fears she could become the target of lawsuits from grantees challenging those decisions. Dr. Benjamin Feldman, a staff scientist and core director at NIH's Institute of Child Health and Human Development, said he and other researchers want to work with Bhattacharya on reversing the cuts and restoring the NIH as a "beacon for science around the world." "This is really a hit to the whole enterprise of biomedical research in the United States," Feldman said. Dr. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH, signed the letter and said he has heard from university researchers about patients losing access to novel cancer treatments in clinical trials due to the uncertainty over NIH funding. He also worries about the long-term effect from gutting NIH's investment in basic science research that can lead to lifesaving treatments years later. The NIH employees, based in Bethesda, Maryland, named their dissent the "Bethesda Declaration," modeled after Bhattacharya's Great Barrington Declaration in 2020 that called on public health officials to roll back lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. "Our hope is that by modeling ourselves after the Great Barrington Declaration that maybe he'll see himself in our dissent," Norton said.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's cuts to National Park Service rankle Republicans
President Trump's proposed cuts to the National Park Service (NPS) are troubling some Republicans. The Trump administration has proposed a 30 percent cut to the park service's operations and staffing budgets. In addition, the administration's budget calls for transferring some park service sites to the states — a provision that is sparking particular ire from the GOP. Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) told The Hill the administration's proposed cuts were 'concerning.' 'We want to have some discussions on it and exactly how it's going to affect the Park Service and exactly what units the states are going to take over management … we need more information,' added Simpson, who chairs the House appropriations subcommittee in charge of funding NPS. Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), who described himself as a 'strong supporter' of national parks, said he wants 'to make sure they're adequately funded.' The lawmaker, who faces reelection next year, hails from a state with two major national parks in Glacier and Yellowstone, as well as a number of other NPS sites. He said the congressional appropriations process will 'sort all this out.' During a recent Senate hearing — Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) also expressed concerns about the administration's 'skinny budget' where some of the NPS cuts and the plan to move some parks to the states were floated. 'It's hard to square it with the claims that DOI is focused on fostering the American economy,' said Murkowski, referencing the Interior Department. The National Park Service is part of Interior. Murkowski chairs the Senate appropriations subcommittee that funds the agency. During the same Senate hearing, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said he doesn't want to get rid of park rangers or wildland firefighters. At the same time, Burgum said he does think the NPS budget can be reduced by eliminating office workers, including those working in human relations and information technology. 'I want more people in the parks, whether they're driving a snowplow in the wintertime or whether they're working with [an] interpreter in the summertime or they're doing trail work … I want more of that. I want less overhead,' he said. A former NPS employee who spoke with The Hill, however, noted such cuts can have negative implications. 'Park support personnel in those back of the house functions deal with things like employees displaced from wildfires,' the former employee said. 'When wildfires are happening right now and parks are being burned over, and you have to find other accommodations for those people to move. If you don't have that HR staff, where is that support coming from?' Burgum has also stressed that none of the nation's 'crown jewel' national parks would be transferred to states. 'The National Parks, with a capital N capital P — the 63 national parks, none of those are under consideration for transfer that would include all the national parks in Alaska,' he told Murkowski during the hearing. He said the sites that are under consideration for transfer are mostly 'historic sites, cultural sites that … have got low visitation … that might better fit into a state, historic society site or some other designation.' The proposed cuts include a 19 percent reduction for park visitor services, a 39 percent reduction for facility operation and maintenance and a 51 percent cut for resource stewardship, which includes 'the protection of unique natural and historical features of units of the National Park System.' The former NPS employee who spoke with The Hill said that the cuts to these park operations, particularly the resource stewardship cut, could impact experiences at the park. 'That's making sure that air and water are clean,' the person said. 'That has a direct effect on the ability to swim in parks and make sure that water is clean in our rivers.' The ex-employee noted it could also have impacts on fishing and whether fish are safe to eat as well as 'planning for the future, for climate change and understanding those impacts and how we would manage through those.' The proposed cuts come as the Trump administration seeks to cut federal spending across the board — seeking to make federal agencies leaner and more 'efficient.' But such cuts have come at a price. At Yosemite National Park in California, a seasonal hiring delay has reportedly resulted in scientists, IT workers and rangers having to clean the bathrooms. Other parks have reportedly had to close bathrooms and visitor centers. The National Parks Conservation Association estimates that 13 percent of the agency's staff is already gone because of buyouts, early retirement and deferred resignation programs pushed by the Trump administration. Parks advocates say that these cuts have already caused issues and that even more cuts would exacerbate the problems. 'There won't be as many Rangers, won't be as many maintenance people … there will be some closures in picnic areas … it's a widespread issue that's going to affect every park I think in the country,' said Phil Francis, chair of the Coalition to Protect America's Parks. 'I don't think it will be popular,' added Francis, whose 41-year career at the National Park Service included working as superintendent of the Blue Ridge Parkway. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Democrats ignore Nevada's upside down, regressive, and unfair tax structure. Again.
The Nevada Legislature Building underwent a face lift prior to this year's session, but the Democratic legislative leadership's economic agenda, inasmuch as there is one, remained the same as it ever was. (Photo: Richard Bednarski/Nevada Current) Democrats nationwide are awash in conflicting opinions about how to stanch the loss of young and working class voters before the U.S. backslide into autocracy is irreversible, if it's not already. Some Democrats blame 'wokeness.' Some Democrats say the party needs to lean in on kitchen-table issues. Some think they should do nothing and just wait for Trump and Trumpism to collapse under the weight of its self-generated slagheap of corruption, lawlessness, malice, and counterproductive policies. Some Democrats, including at least half of those in Nevada's congressional delegation, seem to think the best way to inspire the electorate is to make sure every sentence they mutter includes a noun, a verb, and the word 'bipartisan.' And on and on. And then there are Nevada's Democratic state legislative leaders. They chose to meet this inflection point by yet again allowing generous public subsidies for deep-pocketed Californians to serve as the featured attraction of this year's recently concluded Nevada legislative session. Yes, ding dong, the film tax credit bill is dead. Praise be, etc. But Democratic legislative leadership — Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro and Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager — whether by design or neglect, allowed a government giveaway scheme to film corporations to become the one and only thing about the 2025 Legislature working class voters, especially young ones, most likely ever heard about. Assuming they heard about anything legislative at all. Ever since it was plopped onto the Nevada policy landscape more than a decade ago by then-Democratic state senator, now Democratic state Attorney General Aaron Ford, the film tax credit has always been a predominantly Democratic production. One of the chief legislative sponsors of this year's version was state Sen. Daniele Monroe-Mareno, who also currently serves as chair of the state Democratic Party. To reiterate, a critical mass of voters nationwide, including voters on which Democrats once relied, are marinading in nihilism and cynicism, and evidently don't grasp the goals, agenda, priorities — the point — of the Democratic Party, or just cold stopped caring. Against that backdrop, Democrats in Nevada put on a big show about a scheme to use nearly $2 billion of public money to enrich two of California's largest film corporations and one of the nation's most prominent corporate developers of master-planned communities. Weird. In Nevada, Democrats over the last ten years have been very successful at doing what(ever) it takes to win and maintain majorities in both houses of the state Legislature, an endeavor which, luckily for them, had more to do with voter registration numbers and redistricting power than policy positions. As a result, mean-spirited reactionary policies that are racist, poverty-shaming, misogynistic, anti-LGBTQ, anti-democracy, anti-immigrant, and anti-rights — policies designed first and foremost to feed the MAGAfolk — are (mostly) not enacted here. Keeping such pernicious policies (mostly) at bay in Nevada is no small consideration. Winning enough elections to block Republicans from enacting that stuff is arguably the crowning state-level achievement of contemporary Nevada Democrats. But when it comes to pro-active progress, specifically on economic policy, the Nevada Democratic legislative agenda, inasmuch as there is one, is tired (they're 'for' education), and worse than useless (inveterate footsie-playing with industries, mischaracterizing public giveaways to private corporations as 'economic development'). In the meantime, with only the occasional exception, they can rarely be bothered to acknowledge, let alone confront, the fact that the state has one of the country's most upside-down tax structures, in which the smaller your income, the higher the percentage of it you pay in taxes. Giving working families a break by lowering the state's aggressively high sales tax rate would leave a budget hole that would have to be filled by generating revenue elsewhere (evergreen suggestion: raising Nevada's lowest-in-the-nation gaming tax). Under Nevada's constitution, raising or creating taxes requires a two-thirds vote of both legislative houses, majorities Democrats have not had and would probably be afraid to use if they did. In Washington state, which is bluer than Nevada but whose residents have also suffered under a regressive tax structure, it took 15 years of advocacy from organizations and politicians to finally enact a tax on the ultra-wealthy (another good suggestion). Reforming Nevada's tax structure would likewise be a long process. That's assuming Democrats and, for that matter, their most powerful progressive organizational allies, would do something they so far haven't: get started on a public education campaign advocating tax fairness that would also enable the state to be a little less cheap and a little more responsible when it comes to funding public services, programs, and projects. If only the state's Democratic legislative brain trust had spent as much time advocating for an equitable tax system as they've spent advocating and/or rubber-stamping government handouts to corporations and billionaires. The first quarter of the 21st century has been economically harder on Nevada than any other state. It's perhaps a testament to the state Democratic Party's long-hailed organizational oomph that Nevada didn't go for Trump in 2016 and 2020, and only finally fell to Trump last year. It remains to be seen if and how Democrats nationally can generate enough trust and optimism to pull the country out of its degenerative spiral. If they do, there might be some Nevadans, including some state legislators, who will make a meaningful contribution to the effort. But if prior performance is any indication of future results, it's hard to imagine Nevada legislative and party leadership having much of a role in that. At least not in a good way. A version of this column originally appeared in the Daily Current newsletter, which is free and which you can subscribe to here.
