Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Despite knowing that Floridians didn't want permitless carry, Gov. DeSantis signed it into law. Permitless carry strips important measures, like a background check and safety training—meaning anyone could carry a loaded gun in public. Florida will now be a more dangerous state.

115,426 views • 3 years ago •via X (Twitter)

10 Comments

CB's profile picture
CB3 years ago

A felon bought a gun in a bar... But wouldn't carry illegally before this law? Lololol

Nuance Bro's profile picture
Nuance Bro3 years ago

Yeah, nobody is buying your shtick. You’ve come out against carry permits too. If you want to incentivize more people to get permits and go through training etc maybe you should support National Concealed Carry Reciprocity legislation. But you won’t because your agenda is antigun

Navi of Boomhandia's profile picture
Navi of Boomhandia3 years ago

Both people could carry a gun before now with the same qualifications

Tim 🏴‍☠️🏴Decentralize and nullify 🏴🏴‍☠️'s profile picture
Tim 🏴‍☠️🏴Decentralize and nullify 🏴🏴‍☠️3 years ago

Care to explain why several constitutional carry states are safer than highly restrictive MA?

Assault Clip, #2A Voter's profile picture
Assault Clip, #2A Voter3 years ago

Giffords is against concealed carry, even with training and permits.

Justine's profile picture
Justine3 years ago

That’s a lie. The new law does not allow prohibited people to legally carry a firearm. Which is no different then it was before.

2AY2K 🇺🇸 🦺's profile picture
2AY2K 🇺🇸 🦺3 years ago

Convicted felon? Man 2 was carrying illegally before Florida passed permitless carry and will be carrying illegally after Florida's permitless carry goes into effect on July 1st.

Armed Educator's profile picture
Armed Educator3 years ago

States that have enacted permit-less carry have either seen no significant change or a drop in gun homicides.

Army Patriot🇺🇸🇺🇸's profile picture
Army Patriot🇺🇸🇺🇸3 years ago

Seems odd to focus on the 26th State to pass Constitutional Carry Besides “Man #2” committed a crime whether it was before or after this law was passed This is a “tell me you know nothing about guns & laws w/o telling me” tweet 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

Douglas Dunklin's profile picture
Douglas Dunklin3 years ago

The only thing true in this statement is the fact that Gov DeSantis signed the law. Everything else you said is a bald faced lie. Which makes you........... a liar.

Related Videos

Yesterday, our Judiciary Committee passed HR 38, National Reciprocity. I support this bill, but there is a better option, and it is National Constitutional Carry. 29 states already have Constitutional (i.e. permitless) Carry. Why not extend it to all 50 states? Under HR 38 (Reciprocity), a resident of one of the Constitutional Carry states can carry in any state that allows their citizens to obtain a permit. The recent “Bruen” Supreme Court decision requires all states that aren’t Constitutional Carry to issue carry permits to their citizens. This means that when HR 38 passes, any resident of those 29 Constitutional Carry states will be able to carry in any of the 50 states without a permit. Ironically, however, residents of the 21 states (like New York or California) that aren’t Constitutional Carry will need a permit to carry in their own state, while visitors from states that are Constitutional Carry (like Kentucky or Ohio) won’t need a permit to carry in states like New York or California. If Congress, relying on the Second Amendment, can force California to allow “Permitless” Carry for Kentuckians who visit California, why would we not force California to allow “Permitless” Carry for Californians who are in California? In other words, why not pass National Constitutional Carry and afford everyone in the United States the right to “bear arms” which is enshrined in the Constitution? The other quirk of HR 38 is that (I believe) it would allow a person from Kentucky to carry an AR-15 pistol with a 20-round magazine in California, while Californians would not be allowed to carry, or even own, the same equipment. The Supreme Court decision in “D.C. v. Heller,” whether you agree with it or not, allows states to have some regulations on firearm equipment and eligibility to possess, but HR 38 seems to contradict that framework. Contrast this with my National Constitutional Carry bill which basically says if a state allows people to possess (KEEP) a particular firearm, that state must also allow people to carry (BEAR) that firearm. I introduced my National Constitutional Carry bill in committee yesterday as a substitute amendment to HR 38, National Reciprocity. After introducing the amendment for the record and describing it, I withdrew the amendment instead of putting my Judiciary Committee colleagues in the position of deciding whether to replace National Reciprocity with National Constitutional Carry. The dilemma is that not enough Republicans in the whole House understand the difference, and the prevailing opinion is that Reciprocity can pass the whole House, but Constitutional Carry cannot. Perhaps when more of my colleagues who are not on the Judiciary Committee understand why we should pass National Constitutional Carry instead of (or in addition to) National Reciprocity, we can make a strong push to report National Constitutional Carry out of the Judiciary Committee for a vote in the full House of Representatives. In the meantime, I’m glad HR 38 is going to the House floor for a vote.

Thomas Massie

229,372 views • 1 year ago