On Wednesday, a 19-year-old former student with an assault rifle walked into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Broward County and opened fire, killing 17 people and wounding at least 15 more.
On Thursday, at 1 p.m., the Florida Senate Appropriations Committee will consider a bill that would make it easier for convicted felons who have had their rights restored to get a gun permit without the state first getting all the criminal background information.
Yep, you heard that right. Convicted felons whose rights have been restored can’t vote, but they can sure get their 
guns. Paperwork, schmakerwork.
This is in addition to a slew of proposed bills in the Florida House that will allow guns in private schools (HB 113), allow guns in public schools (HB 621), allow guns on property owned, rented, leased or used by churches or religious institutions (HB 1419) and make it easier for people to get their guns back after they’ve been confiscated by police (HB 6013). Ladra will watch as these move through committees. Stay tuned.
Today’s scheduled discussion will be about Senate Bill 740, sponsored by Sen. Kelly Stargel (R-Lakeland). Buried in a couple of paragraphs near the end of the 98-page Senate Bill 740 — an agricultural piece of legislation about oyster harvesting and water vending standards and seed labeling and restrictions on telephone solicitors — is a change in the law that allows agents with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to grant firearm permits within 90 days even when the criminal background checks are not complete.
Here’s the actual language from page 88 of the bill:
“In the event the department receives incomplete criminal history information or no final disposition on a crime that may disqualify the applicant, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services must expedite efforts to acquire the final disposition or proof of restoration of civil and firearm rights, or confirmation that clarifying records are not available from the jurisdiction where the criminal history originated. Ninety days after the date of receipt of the completed application, if the department has not acquired final disposition or proof of restoration of civil and firearm rights, or confiration that clarifying records are not available from the jurisdiction where the criminal history originated, the department shall issue the license in the absence of disqualifying information. However, such license must be immediately suspended and revoked upon receipt of disqualifying information.”
So, basically, they’re gonna take the guns back when they give them to people who shouldn’t have them. “Ooooops. Sorry, Mad Dog. Can we have that AK back?” Not sure how that’s gonna work.
Currently, gun permit applications are held indefinitely until all the background criminal history information is complete. And according to published reports quoting proponents of the bill, only 1% of gun permit applicants are denied based on incomplete information. So we need to change the law for this one percent? What possible public policy purpose could this relaxation on background checks — which reportedly was requested by Agriculture Commissioner and gubernatorial candidate Adam Putnam — provide the community? I can’t think of one.
Well, maybe, just out of respect for the 17 students and teachers killed Wednesday in a high school, maybe the committee members ought to table this for another day.
After school shooting, state lawmakers consider making guns easier to have added by Ladra on
View all posts by Ladra →
The spirit of the bill…at least in my mind, is that if in 90 days nothing bad has been reported…then why hold up someone’s right to purchase a gun? I understand the concerns with this… to error on the conservative side would mean that we wait until all is cleared rather than trying to confiscate the gun later on. I mean, at the end of the day…what this bill aimed to do was not place the burden of bureaucracy some governmental agencies live by….on citizens. But issuing a gun without full vetting is not a good idea.
Putnam withdrew this bill before this was even published. So yeah? 🤔
Yes, he did. And I will applaud lightly just to be polite. Because, really, he should never have proposed something like this. If he really thought it was defensable, he wouldn’t have buried it in a 98-page bill about oyster harvesting and seed labels.
Love, Ladra
Please remember that far right wing Republican Adam Putnam (who is running for govenror) wants to make it EASIER for people like Nicholas Cruz to have guns. When is Florida going to vote for responsible politicians, and stop this madness?
The problem isn’t people who vote for forked tongue, up for sale hypocrites like Marco Rubio .
Problem are the political apathetic basura who don’t bother voting but complain .
I agree with your premise but I disagree with your methods if they table the motion as you suggest it stands a better chance of passage later
Let the hearing proceed now while Marjorie Stoneman Douglas is fresh. The hypocrisy alone will kill it.
Good thinking. I think that’s what happened because Putnam withdrew the bill.
This is insane.. it needs all to be revisited.. lawmakers are only concerned about funding their campaign and do nothing to stop these murders.. a kid 19 years old can t drink a beer but can buy a rifle of the kind and nobody cares? Washington lawmakers are really sick…
I’m disgusted and sadly not in the least surprised. These politicians have sold their souls for mere pennies compared to the wealth of gifts the victims of all of these murderers contribute. We need a second oversight committee to oversee and research every single line of every single bill. We need a law stating that bills can only be voted on 1 week to 10 days after full copies are received by those voting on it. Where are the people working in Washington? What are they actually getting their lifetime of pay from their constituents for?