Florida AG, NRA argue nonviolent felons should keep Second Amendment rights
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, with support from the National Rifle Association, is arguing that nonviolent felons should not lose their Second Amendment rights.
“My duty is to protect and defend the rights of the people as enshrined in our Constitution because those rights are nonnegotiable. As Attorney General, my commitment is to the people, no matter the cost,” Uthmeier said in a post on X.
The Attorney General’s position mirrors efforts by the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, the organization’s legal and lobbying arm, which has long worked to defend Second Amendment rights through litigation and policy advocacy.
“The NRA has long held that firearm bans for nonviolent felons violate the Second Amendment, and Uthmeier is now advancing that argument in a state case, underscoring that such individuals are not barred from exercising their constitutional rights,” the advocacy arm of the NRA wrote on its X account.
Uthmeier made the case in Morgan v. State of Florida, which is now before the state’s First District Court of Appeal. The case involves Morgan, who was convicted in 2007 of a third-degree felony under Pennsylvania law for carrying a firearm without a license.
During a traffic stop in 2022, Morgan told officers he had a gun in his car’s center console. He was charged with possession of a firearm by a felon. Morgan challenged the law as unconstitutional. After a trial court upheld his conviction, he appealed.
The state initially defended the conviction but changed course on Feb. 13, 2026. On March 18, Uthmeier filed a supplemental brief explaining the shift.
The brief leans on the Supreme Court’s text-and-history test, arguing that prohibiting gun ownership for nonviolent felons isn’t justified. It says Morgan, despite his felony, remains part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment.
It also points to historical examples, noting that English, Founding-era, and Reconstruction-era laws only disarmed people who were demonstrably dangerous or posed a public safety risk. Uthmeier’s brief argues that a felony conviction alone shouldn’t automatically strip someone of their gun rights.
While the brief notes that most felonies suggest some level of dangerousness, it says Morgan’s record shows no evidence he posed a threat.