“Prohibitions on the possession of firearms by convicted felons are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition,” the association wrote in its brief. “Any opinion to the contrary would result in needless uncertainty, confusion, and inconsistent application of the law.”
The state’s 20 elected prosecutors — 15 of whom are Republicans, like Uthmeier — are engaging in a remarkable dispute: They rarely ever head to court to oppose the attorney general over the issue of fighting crime.
Uthmeier, however, believes that non-dangerous felons should be able to possess guns. Only those involved in “potentially “potentially dangerous” activities or those that pose a public safety risk should have their guns taken away. Both violent offenses and drug crimes would fall under these categories, he argued.
“As noted in their brief, the FPAA does not speak for the State. That authority belongs exclusively to the Attorney General,” Jeremy Redfern, Uthmeier’s deputy chief of staff, told the Phoenix.
“The Attorney General has a duty to uphold the rights of the people, and it’s the State’s position that the Second Amendment rights of Floridians who pose no danger to the community should not be infringed.”
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
SUPPORT
The case is now before the Florida First District Court of Appeal, where the parties have filed briefs arguing over whether a swath of ex-convicts should be able to own guns.
It’s divided the legal bedfellows down the middle, creating an unusual triangulation: Uthmeier siding with the man he was prosecuting while the state’s attorneys urge the judge to oppose both.
They want Judge Stephen Everett to ignore Uthmeier’s claims and uphold the law as is.
Prosecutors argued Uthmeier’s decision is dangerous because it could create subjective, case-by-case arguments shifting from felon to felon. This could include wiggle room for violent felons convicted of lesser offenses, the prosecutors argue.
“From a constitutional perspective, all felons are dangerous felons,” FPPA wrote. Uthmeier’s attempt to parse which are dangerous and which are not is “contrived and forced,” and leads to “confusion,” they said.
How did it get here?
The differences evolved from a 2022 gun case centering on Christopher Michael Morgan, a felon convicted in Tallahassee for possessing a firearm. Morgan had been previously convicted in Pennsylvania of carrying a firearm without a permit, a third-degree felony in Pennsylvania.
Morgan has tried to appeal his case, and initially Uthmeier opposed him — opting to uphold state and federal law barring felons from owning guns.
But weeks later, Uthmeier reversed course.
He filed a new brief siding with Morgan, arguing felons who don’t pose a threat or “disturb the peace” should be able to carry under the Second Amendment. He employed a variety of case law, relying heavily on a group of 1600s English and colonial laws that preceded the Constitution and Reconstruction era laws banning drunkards and “tramps” from carrying.
Florida law does allow felons who have completed all terms of their sentence to apply to get their gun rights back, but that process only begins after a waiting period of at least eight years from the time of the completion of their sentence, the Phoenix previously reported.
Federal law also bans felons from possessing firearms.
But in 2024, a federal appeals court judge predicted that “[o]ne day — likely sooner, rather than later — the Supreme Court will address the constitutionality of Section 922(g)(1) or otherwise provide clearer guidance on whether felons are protected by the Second Amendment.”
Independent Journalism for All
As a nonprofit newsroom, our articles are free for everyone to access. Readers like you make that possible. Can you help sustain our watchdog reporting today?
SUPPORT
Florida Phoenix is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Michael Moline for questions: info@floridaphoenix.com.
