Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced plans to restore gun rights to nonviolent felons in a move that faces criticism from people on both sides of the gun debate.
Uthmeier posted a video on social media arguing, “For the government to restrict Second Amendment rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that an individual must pose a credible threat to the physical safety of others.”
“For instance, a man who is convicted of carrying a firearm without a permission slip from the government in another state—who poses no danger to the community—should not be disarmed or dragged to prison as a felon for exerting his right to self-defense,” the attorney general continued. “As Attorney General, I'm required to support and defend your rights before all else, no matter the cost. That's why we've submitted legal briefs defending the Second Amendment against certain past state prosecutions of non-dangerous felons.”
While Florida law barring dangerous felons from possessing firearms is constitutional, it may only be applied to those who are a danger to the public—not someone who should have never been a felon in the first place. My office will continue to enforce this law. We'll hold wrongdoers accountable, and we step in when government infringes on your constitutional rights."
Under our Constitution, someone who poses no danger to the community should not be disarmed or dragged to prison for exerting the right to self-defense.
— Attorney General James Uthmeier (@AGJamesUthmeier) March 31, 2026
That’s why we are defending Second Amendment rights against certain past state prosecutions of non-dangerous felons. pic.twitter.com/DiD0CkzBZx
Recommended
Some Florida state prosecutors are challenging Uthmeier over the effort. The Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association says he is stretching the law to undo “a long-standing state law that denies gun ownership to anyone convicted of a felony” and that “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by convicted felons are consistent with the historical tradition.”
The argument about America’s historical tradition appears to be aimed at suggesting that the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen would not apply to these laws. The ruling mandates that current gun restrictions must be similar to laws passed during the Founding era or the early 1800s.
The prosecutors argue that altering Florida’s law would create “needless uncertainty, confusion, and inconsistent application of the law” and that, “from a constitutional perspective, all felons are dangerous felons,” so attempting to separate “dangerous” from “non-dangerous felons” is “contrived and forced.”
However, Uthmeier argues that felons who do not threaten public safety still deserve to have their Second Amendment rights protected.
The dispute comes from the case of Christopher Michael Morgan, a felon convicted of having a gun. His case is now before the First District Court of Appeal in Florida.
I’m with Uthmeier on this one. Regardless of what his critics claim, there IS a difference between a nonviolent felon and a violent felon. The former may have committed crimes, but if they have not shown themselves to be an imminent threat to public safety, the state has no business preventing them from possessing the means to defend themselves.
Moreover, if someone is too dangerous to have a gun, they are probably too dangerous to be on the streets. The Second Amendment is clear: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed — even if it involves someone who committed crimes.
Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member