Image 01 Image 03

Florida Poised to Become 26th Constitutional Carry State

Florida Poised to Become 26th Constitutional Carry State

“The bill (HB 543) would eliminate a concealed-weapons licensing process that includes people undergoing criminal background checks and completing firearms-training courses.”

If all goes as planned, Florida will become the 26th ‘Constitutional Carry’ state, which would allow people to carry concealed weapons without a permit.

The NRA approves.

This would be a massive win for the Second Amendment, but some people think it doesn’t go far enough.

Orlando Weekly reports:

Floridians may soon be able to legally carry concealed firearms without licenses, as proposal clears committee

A proposal that would allow Floridians to carry concealed firearms without licenses began moving through the state House on Tuesday, as a debate emerged about whether the bill lives up to the “constitutional carry” label given by supporters.

The House Constitutional Rights, Rule of Law, & Government Operations Subcommittee voted 10-5 along party lines to approve the measure, after an at times tense three-hour meeting.

The bill (HB 543) would eliminate a concealed-weapons licensing process that includes people undergoing criminal background checks and completing firearms-training courses. Under the proposal, people with concealed firearms would need to carry valid identification and “must display such identification upon demand by a law enforcement officer.”

The majority of more than 100 people who testified or signed up to testify about the measure Tuesday opposed the bill — with numerous gun-rights supporters criticizing it for not going far enough. They urged lawmakers to allow what’s known as open carry, meaning firearms would not have to be concealed. Many said the bill’s “constitutional carry” moniker was a misnomer.

Chris Rose II of Gainesville described the measure as watered down and expressed frustration at what he characterized as a promise that was not delivered.

“This bill is not constitutional carry. This bill is not close to constitutional carry. This bill is not what the other half of the country has, and I am fed up with being a second-class citizen to those folks,” Rose told the panel.

On the other side of the aisle, at least one Florida Democrat is objecting. Rep. Max Frost, one of the newest and youngect members of Congress thinks Constitutional Carry is fascism.

Townhall reports:

He’s only 26 years old, and I’m not trying to eviscerate the young man. He does have more guts than most, sacrificing his 20s and his privacy for a career in public life, making him susceptible to a slew of political attacks. That comes with being a duly elected member of Congress, and he painted a massive target on his back regarding Florida’s constitutional carry push.

There are arguments against this gun policy. They’re nonsensical, but they exist. Frost fell into the trap that most in his generation fall into when something upsets them: they use words and phrases that are incongruent or irrelevant to the debate. Frost said that Gov. Ron DeSantis’ push to loosen its gun laws to something more in keeping with the Second Amendment is “fascism.”

No, Mr. Frost, fascist governments don’t encourage the right of their citizens to own firearms, let alone carry them in public. If there are people carrying guns, it will be the many agents from the secret police and intelligence agencies that keep everyone in such a society under constant surveillance.

Watch below:

Didn’t Frost swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“It’s fascism!” is just the mating cry of the leftist. It doesn’t mean anything except “look at me!” None of them understand the meaning of the word and use it in place of “I don’t like this.” Attempting to reason them out of it is useless.

    BierceAmbrose in reply to Evil Otto. | February 10, 2023 at 2:29 pm

    Orwell says pretty much this about “fascism” in his essay Politics and the English Language.

    That one should be required reading, but be warned. If you grok what it says, you’ll never see politics or language the same again.

Washington DC just overrode the veto by the mayor on a law that reduced enormously the penalty by criminals who use a gun during a crime. They are actually making it less onerous for criminals to use gun in a criminal act. Meanwhile, these same fools are demanding more and more restrictions for lawful ownership and use of a gun. Whose side are these people on? Who are the fools that believe in and elect these politicians?

    mailman in reply to Cleetus. | February 10, 2023 at 9:29 am

    Hint. They are not on YOUR side.

      BierceAmbrose in reply to mailman. | February 10, 2023 at 2:33 pm

      Well, looking at what they actually do, vs. what they say,

      — they don’t care about people getting killed, just the wrong people getting killed,

      — they don’t care about people getting killed, just the wrong people doing the killing,

      — they don’t care about killing, just killing they don’t direct.

      In the end, the whole “gun” debate is just a proxy about agency and ownership: you don’t own your own life, and are not to have any agency in living it.

    alaskabob in reply to Cleetus. | February 10, 2023 at 10:56 am

    They are members of the same trtibe…. Hint…not Northern European. Back in 1985 or so the New England Journal of Medicine published a paper extolling the gun bans in D.C. The ban was so effective that crime was reduced before the law came into effect. As the crime and murder rate later climbed..theur position was that as more died, more lives were saved because of the ban. The data was not corrected for population. It was “the science” ….

    BierceAmbrose in reply to Cleetus. | February 10, 2023 at 2:30 pm

    See the book, “Emily Gets Her Gun.”

The whole licensing thing for concealed was meaningless anyway. Criminals of course don’t carry about the concealed carry laws and the law abiding go through the process to get the license but after that most don’t continue training or even read the laws to stay current on them. It’s more of a get a gun without having to wait 3-5 days thing.

I’ve got my FL CC. Plan on keeping it even if they say you don’t need it because you’ll need it for some other states.

Not a huge fan of open carry but I agree that if you’re going to call it Constitutional Carry you might as well go all the way and allow open carry.

    texansamurai in reply to TheOldZombie. | February 10, 2023 at 12:19 pm

    Not a huge fan of open carry but I agree that if you’re going to call it Constitutional Carry you might as well go all the way and allow open carry.

    understand–my only reservation about open carry is that if you’re suddenly in the presence of an armed robbery, a gang incident, etc. you become a primary target–prefer not to advertise, myself–if others want to open carry go right ahead–criminals, of course, aren’t hampered regardless

      henrybowman in reply to texansamurai. | February 10, 2023 at 2:04 pm

      Although I agree with this, I don’t have a problem with the same salami-slicing (incrementalism) approach that our enemies take. Take the current bill now, amend it later, you’ll eventually get there.

      We did precisely that in Arizona. Before Y2K, open carry (other than resaonably sensitive places) was a constitutional right, concealed in any fashion was a crime, and there were no licenses (weird, eh?) First we pushed for concealed licenses with buttloads of training. Then reduced the training. Then eliminated the licenses.

      At each step, we had the benefit of being able to argue to the legislature, “Every time we relaxed the law, our jackass opponents predicted Dodge City and blood in the streets. They were not only 100% wrong, but crime actually went down. Why are you still even listening to them?”

    amatuerwrangler in reply to TheOldZombie. | February 10, 2023 at 2:36 pm

    I’ve never understood the open carry thing. With open carry everyone knows you are armed, and as stated, you become the primary target should a criminal with robbery on his mind walk in the door…. Concealed makes crime a guessing game: no one knows just who has a gun, be it the intended victim or someone else in the immediate vicinity.

    Maybe some of the open carry crowd see it as a cure for ED.

      CommoChief in reply to amatuerwrangler. | February 10, 2023 at 5:26 pm

      Devils advocate: The presence of several visibly armed people could deter the criminal once they arrive and take a look around. Even if they are not deterred there are multiple known threats in this scenario. Nor would this preclude the presence of a person with a concealed carry permit who, under your scenario, could take advantage of the criminal being focused on the open carry individuals.

        texansamurai in reply to CommoChief. | February 10, 2023 at 6:16 pm

        Devils advocate: The presence of several visibly armed people could deter the criminal once they arrive and take a look around.

        while certainly possible, still feel more comfortable with cc–problem with open carry is it identifies you immediately as a threat–that there may be several others open carrying may not prevent an amped-up / drugged-up / angry perp from deciding “this is it” and attempt to take everybody with him–particularly if the perp has a shotgun–hell, if he’s some twit gamer he may decide to take-out the room and then go after the register/safe–point is, if he can’t see my weapon he MIGHT NOT shoot me first, otherwise am tapped for sure–in reality, whether cc or open carrying, drawing / pulling on an armed opponent while looking down the barrel of THEIR weapon takes some stones indeed

          CommoChief in reply to texansamurai. | February 10, 2023 at 7:40 pm

          All true. Lots of variables in each scenario however, while I personally wouldn’t open carry mostly due to Karans /hassling but if others choose to do so then more power to them. Not my cup of tea but it should be an option without need for licences, pesky 2nd amendment.

          IMO, the point of all types of carry is self defense. It is not to play super cop. If some weirdo is jacking the place but not directly impacting me b/c they are at the register with multiple aisles in between that’s on the folks over there to defend themselves. A mass shooting scenario is different but most self defense scenarios are not mass shootings.

          Again my opinion but too many dime store cowboys get it into their head that if they buy the tacti-cool gear they are transformed into combat ready warriors. These folks usually get themselves into legal problems b/c they shift from defense to offense. If those jabronies want to open carry and potentially become bullet magnets that’s on them.

      henrybowman in reply to amatuerwrangler. | February 11, 2023 at 3:02 am

      One big argument for legalizing open carry is to cover accidental open carry. Wind blows your jacket back; you have your arms high and your t-shirt rides up; etc. Incidental error? It sure is. And in certain states, Texas being one of them around 15 years ago, you could get slammed for “illegal open carry.” Hell, you could even get slammed for open carry in Massachusetts, despite the fact that they didn’t have a single law specifying whether carry was open, concealed, or anything else. (The cops would make it up as they went along.)

        CommoChief in reply to henrybowman. | February 11, 2023 at 10:02 am

        Yep. The anti gun Karen shrieking is to be avoided if possible and if not then a simple law like constitutional carry undercuts their BS.

That Frost dope is my representative, much to my dismay and chagrin.

Also, this is a FL legislative issue, not a U.S. Congress one, so I don’t know why he needs to chime in. Apparently the civics requirement wasn’t in place when he went to school.

    alaskabob in reply to hrhdhd. | February 10, 2023 at 10:36 am

    There will be no “blood in the streets”. As Florida joins the other 25 states, this casts a Deep shadow over the blue restrictive states as they increase their restrictions. The only thing they don’t ban is crime.

    natdj in reply to hrhdhd. | February 10, 2023 at 3:25 pm

    Frost (the socialist snot nosed child) does not realize that what he owns is made by evil capitalists who have helped to benefit society. Oh yeah, I do feel sorry for you that he is your Congressman.

Yes, individual liberty is fascism. The United States has always been a fascist state under this definition. And if that is how they want to define it, so be it. They can all pound sand before I will surrender my liberties to them.

If cherishing individual liberty makes me a racist, homophobe, whateverfobe, fascist then I am a racist, homophobe, whateverphobe, fascist.

As a former Florida CC permit holder, I say BRAVO! Keep it rolling Governor DeSantis!

Florida seems to be having trouble with the Constitution in general. HB 53 is calling for the removal of the electoral college, as per the wishes of da Gov.

The roots of conservative centrism.

With the passing of this, I think a majority of the US population will have the ability carry concealed w/o restriction. It was half the states, but not half the population.

War is peace, Freedom is slavery. We have always been at war with Eastasia. Orwell nailed the facists so hard their descendants three generations down are caught uttering the same nonsense. The CC movement totally depends on individual responsibility, and every time the grasping claw of facism begins to creep closer, it is the duty of responsible adults to work within the law to keep the freedoms we fought for. Each element of the legal changes we’ve managed are designed to preserve freedom, not imperil it.
–Concealed carry – so violence against an individual can be resisted without having to wait for the State to eventually respond. Maybe.
–Open carry – So petty Karens can’t call the police to arrest a CC person who let their shirt ride up while reaching for a box in the store
–Constitutional carry – Because you *should* attend a CC course and get gun range practice before you carry in public, but that doesn’t mean the hand of the State gets to determine those responsibilities so narrowly that the freedom vanishes. (Yes, New Jersey/New York, I’m looking at you) Still, go take the course. Please.

Voice_of_Reason | February 10, 2023 at 1:00 pm

I do think a background check should be required to carry, although I know that others will argue that a prohibited person (convicted felon or convicted of a misdemeanor that can result in I think 5 years in jail) commits a crime if they carry regardless of permitting schemes. Tell me why I am wrong?

    Because background checks have never been proven to be effective at preventing crime, only inconveniencing the law abiding.

      Voice_of_Reason in reply to NotCoach. | February 10, 2023 at 3:51 pm

      Do you have any data to support that assertion? I don’t think that’s completely true

        henrybowman in reply to Voice_of_Reason. | February 11, 2023 at 3:30 am

        In a typical year (2010), the EXISTING background check system denied over 72,000 gun purchases “for cause.” Obama’s Justice Department prosecuted only 42 of those criminals… and convicted only 13. Nothing stopped the rest of the prohibited buyers from walking out of the retail gun store and obtaining a gun on the black market.

        John Lott reports that roughly 95% of NICS rejections are false positives. Not all of them get corrected — sometimes the buyer doesn’t have the money required to correct government records that wrongly mark him as ineligible. The appeals process has had backlogs of up to 8 months or more — if you desperately need self-defense, what do you do in the meanwhile?

    TheOldZombie in reply to Voice_of_Reason. | February 10, 2023 at 2:13 pm

    Background checks won’t stop someone from committing a criminal act.

    Background checks are used to buy a gun in the vast majority of cases. If you can pass a background check to buy a gun in the first place why do you need a background check to carry that gun concealed?

      Voice_of_Reason in reply to TheOldZombie. | February 10, 2023 at 3:48 pm

      My thought is that if you bought one or more guns, you’ve done the 4377 and been checked in nics. That satisfies the background check i referred to.

        But there’s no record of your having passed the check. Or at least there isn’t supposed to be, so they won’t admit to having one. Which means you’d have to go through it again when getting your CCW. For what purpose?

    CommoChief in reply to Voice_of_Reason. | February 10, 2023 at 5:39 pm

    What background items do you feel is necessary to check? Violent felony conviction and adjudicated mental health problems isn’t close to encompassing the reach of disqualifying items a background check. There a lot of creep in what items prohibit firearms.

    Anyone currently prohibited from carrying or possessing a firearm would already be in violation. I don’t see how an additional law requiring a background check would preclude bad actors from illegally carrying firearms they already illegally possess. Not to mention the potential for the State to compile a list of firearm owners via the backdoor.

      henrybowman in reply to CommoChief. | February 11, 2023 at 3:45 am

      “Violent felony conviction”
      Ah, if only it were. Violence is no prerequisite.

      The bureau did not have a total for the arrests that resulted. But they included a man in Oklahoma for embezzlement; a woman in Texas for tampering with government records; one man in Indiana for child neglect and another there for larceny; a man in Texas for criminal nonsupport of family members; and a man in Missouri, a woman in Nebraska and a man in Mississippi on separate fraud warrants…

      In one case, Roehm says, the ATF [processed the rejection of] a black man who had been convicted of a felony 40 years ago in Mississippi. His offense: possession of playing cards that featured naked white women. “Is it worth the taxpayers’ money to go after a person like this?” Roehm asks…

      Where are the violent criminals, the drug kingpins, and the terrorists — the “felons, fugitives, and stalkers” the Clinton administration repeatedly insists that Brady has been so successful in stopping?

      In one case John Lott reports, a Florida applicant was denied a gun because he wrote mortgage checks which bounced because his own paycheck bounced… through no fault of his. He eventually got his record cleared; however, the acquittal never made it into the system. It cost him $3,600 to fix the government’s error, before he could buy his gun. And then he was stopped again because of the existence of a felon in Kentucky with “same or similar” name and birthdate.

        CommoChief in reply to henrybowman. | February 11, 2023 at 10:07 am

        Yep. Disqualifying items on a background encompass far more than a conviction for a violent felony or an adjudication of mental incompetence. Plus as you correctly point out the large number of errors in the system and of the potential for abuse of process.

    The Gentle Grizzly in reply to Voice_of_Reason. | February 11, 2023 at 6:00 am

    Who background checks the background checkers?

I live in New Hampshire, and we’ve had Constitutional carry for years with no ill effects, as have our neighboring states of Maine and Vermont. You can pretty much carry anything you want anywhere you want.
Massachusets is a different story and, in some parts, a different world.

    NotCoach in reply to jamesleetn. | February 10, 2023 at 2:12 pm

    Vermont has been constitutional carry ever since they have been a state because their own constitution prevents any permitting. Yet despite this centuries long example of how constitutional carry does not lead to blood in the streets the same old nincompoops can’t stop repeating themselves.

    Voice_of_Reason in reply to jamesleetn. | February 10, 2023 at 3:54 pm

    Both Vermont and New Hampshire proved that with the right demographics, no gun control is needed. Unfortunately, the demographics in those states are slowly changing, too

      henrybowman in reply to Voice_of_Reason. | February 11, 2023 at 3:48 am

      And the demographics aren’t necessarily racial. Vermont’s crime problems appear highly correlated with the influx of new residents from Massachusetts and New York, escaping their own fouled nests.

        CommoChief in reply to henrybowman. | February 11, 2023 at 10:10 am

        High trust society v low trust society and cultural differences are far more important factors than race. The color of skin doesn’t have jack to do with crime but person’s upbringing and the cultural behaviors they adopt absolutely do.

“This bill is not constitutional carry. This bill is not close to constitutional carry. This bill is not what the other half of the country has, and I am fed up with being a second-class citizen to those folks,” Rose told the panel.

It seems like the perfect is the enemy of the good for this gentleman.

This reminds me of a kerfuffle some years back — a couple hunters into a Starbucks getting a cup of coffee on their way out in the morning, with their rifles slung on their backs.

The Karen-ing was epic, tho the language had not yet coined that term.

In perfect “staricase wit” I wish they had replied to “Why you hafat carry that — obvs a political point. Put it in your trunk.” with something like:

“What? Takin it with me so it doesn’t get nabbed. Stuff gets robbed in your lot all the time.”

Here in Florida I don’t believe we will ever see “Open Carry” simply because the “conservative” Republicans in our legislature oppose it. It is that simple. As for Constitutional Carry, it took this long to wait because the votes were not there despite Republicans control the legislature by large margins.

MoeHowardwasright | February 10, 2023 at 4:05 pm

I have been a resident of Florida for over 50 years. I have been a CC permit holder for over 40 years. I will still renew my CC permit simply because I travel frequently out of State. I too would have preferred that they go all the way and permit open carry. I wouldn’t avail myself of the right all the time, but there are places that it would be preferable. Since I travel via our Motor Coach it’s way more comfortable to wear a shoulder holster outside of the clothing. I do this all the time when in National Parks out west. Brown bears, black bears, grizzlies and mountain lions are no joke in the Rockies and sierra mountains.

I would rather the FL legislature narrow the state’s overly broad carry-exclusion rules. That would be far more valuable than con-carry.

    Lanceman in reply to randian. | February 11, 2023 at 8:16 am

    I’m with ya. I’m tired of being criminal because I carry my gat into a bar/club. A gun in my car is useless if I’m walking back to it. Tennessee dudn’t do that shit.

And in certain states, Texas being one of them around 15 years ago, you could get slammed for “illegal open carry.”

had an experience similar to what you describe when still lived in austin, though taught me a valuable lesson about carrying ammo–had left a .45 at a gunsmith to have some barrel work done and was driving home in central austin–got pulled over for a rear turn signal that wasn’t functioning–had emptied the weapon at the gunsmith and for some reason had put the loose ammo (six or seven of them)in my center console ash tray–when officer approached the driver’s side as was sitting with my hands on the wheel in plain sight, she suddenly drew her weapon, went into a crouch and yelled “out of the car!”–ok–slowly opened the door, got out and walked toward her with my hands up as another car pulled-up behind her–he gets out, draws and tells me to come toward him and put my hands on the hood of his car–ok–asked him what the problem happens to be and he says “we’re going to search your car!”–ok, keys are in it–and they search the entire vehicle(including the trunk)–of course, other than the few rounds of .45 in the console ashtray, there’s nothing in the vehicle–then she says “we’re going to search YOU now”–ok–am unarmed so no issues–much back and forth on the walkie-talkies/comms–then a third car shows up with a supervisor along–after searching me the others have holstered their weapons but am still standing there with my hands on this guy’s hood–supervisor walks over and says “we’re going to let you go now”–ok, but why all this john dillinger nonsense?–“officer smith recognized your .45 ammo and that stuff will go thru these vests like butter–she figured you were armed”–ok–understood the whole thing–since was my carelessness that had caused the excitement, apologized to all three of them–“what do you want to do about my turn-signal?”–the lady officer looked at me and said “get the damned thing fixed!”–she then got in her car and drove away

the last time carried ammo in open sight