Playing Politics With CCW Permits In Florida

Nikki Fried (D-FL) is the Florida Commissioner of Agriculture. As such, she is in control of the issuing of concealed carry permits for the State of Florida. She is also the only statewide Democrat office holder. She is an announced candidate for governor of Florida in 2022. Her announcement video mentions that she “kicked the NRA out of gun licensing” for “the children”.

Commissioner Nicole "Nikki" Fried
Official Photo

When she ran for Commissioner of Agriculture in 2018 her major issues included medical marijuana and gun control. Fried has both a medical marijuana card and a Florida carry permit. She has contended under Florida law it is legal to have both. However, Federal law still prohibits the purchase as well as possession of firearms by those with medical marijuana cards. As a lawyer and former public defender one would think she would be careful about setting up people to run afoul of Federal firearms laws.

Today, Fried has gone a step further in playing politics with gun rights. She has suspended the carry permits of Floridians charged with involvement in the Jan. 6th riot at the US Capitol.

From Florida Politics:

“The deeply disturbing events that occurred at our nation’s Capitol on Jan. 6 were sedition, treason and domestic terrorism — and those individuals involved in the insurrection must be held accountable for attempting to subvert our democratic process,” Fried said.

“Since charges began being filed, we are using our lawful authority to immediately suspend the licenses of 22 individuals involved in the storming of the U.S. Capitol. This is an ongoing effort, and as charges and sentences continue in the wake of this despicable attack, we will further suspend and revoke any additional licenses granted to insurrectionists.”

Florida law allows the suspension of carry licenses for those charged with a felony. However, many of those arrested for involvement in the riot have not yet been charged with any crime which calls into question whether Fried is acting outside the law. She certainly is playing politics with carry permits.

The article from Florida Politics goes on to note:

While Fried’s office by law cannot identify which individuals arrested have ever applied for or received a concealed carry permit, several of the individuals arrested were outspoken gun rights advocates.

It does make you wonder whether she is targeting only certain individuals. Fried certainly is using loaded language when she calls these people “insurrectionists”.

Retroactive Background Checks?

John Crump had a very interesting article in Ammoland.com today. It seems that ATF leadership is asking its industry inspectors to gather names of those of us who used our carry permit to substitute for a NICS check. In North Carolina, the Concealed Handgun Permit substitutes for the NICS check. You still have to fill out the Form 4473 but no call is made to the FBI to run a background check. It is presumed that the check run to issue or renew the CHP establishes that you are not a prohibited person.

From John’s article:

In the conference call, the ATF leadership asked its Industry Operations Inspectors (IOI) to collect information on the customers that used concealed carry permits instead of obtaining a background check through the NICS. The purpose of obtaining this information would be to run the customer’s data through the NICS to see if the customer would have received an approved or denied status. In addition, the IOI will pass on the names and information of customers denied by the NICS to the criminal branch for a special agent to follow up….

The information from the firearms background check paperwork (ATF Form 4473) is not submitted to the FBI when the customer uses their permit. Before the new policy, the only time the government would know a person bought a gun is when the FFL goes out of business, a trace request is submitted, or the customer buys multiple handguns within a seven-day period.

It is as if the BATFE doesn’t trust state and local law enforcement to do their job on background checks. The Complementary Spouse just submitted the paperwork to renew her own NC CHP. Included in the packet of paperwork were multiple releases authorizing the sheriff to get any mental health records from mental health providers. This was in addition to the requisite criminal background check.

Read the whole article.

SCOTUS Accepts Carry Case

In Orders of the Court released this morning, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in NY State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Corlett et al. This is a case that challenges New York’s requirement to show cause for issuance of a carry permit.

20-843 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE, ET AL. V. CORLETT, KEITH M., ET AL.


The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to
the following question: Whether the State’s denial of
petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for
self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

From the Washington Post:

The court will hear the challenge to a century-old New York gun control law in the term that begins in October. It is considering a law that requires those who seek a permit to carry a concealed weapon show a special need for self-defense. It is similar to laws in Maryland, Massachusetts and elsewhere that the court in the past has declined to review.

The individual plaintiffs in the case – Robert Nash and Brandon Koch – have permits to carry outside the home for hunting and target practice purposes. However, they were turned down when they requested carry permits for self-defense.

It takes four justices to agree to take a case. Last year, the court turned down a number of Second Amendment cases. The operating consensus was that the conservatives on the court were unsure of where Chief Justice John Roberts would come down. Now, however, with the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, that has changed and there are five potentially reliable Second Amendment votes.

Assuming that the court agrees that there carry outside the home for self-defense is a key component of the Second Amendment, Chief Justice Roberts will have a hard decision. If he goes along with the majority, he gets to assign the opinion or reserve it for himself. If he is in the minority, then the assignment choice goes to the longest serving Associate Justice in the majority. In this case that would be Justice Clarence Thomas who has telegraphed many times his frustration with the court’s refusal to treat the Second Amendment as any thing other than a second-class right. Part of me hopes that Roberts is in the minority because that means a stronger decision in favor of the Second Amendment.

DC Won’t Appeal In Wrenn Case

It is being reported by District of Columbia new station WTOP that the Attorney General of DC has decided not to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision in Wrenn v. DC. The decision overturned the District’s “good reason” requirement to obtain a carry permit. The last time the District of Columbia lost in a major Second Amendment case they appealed. That case was DC v. Heller.


From WTOP:

After days of consulting with the mayor’s office and city council members, D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine has reportedly decided not to fight a ruling that effectively strikes down the District’s strict law that makes it difficult for gun owners to get concealed carry permits.

Sources told WTOP’s broadcast news partner NBC Washington that Racine made the decision not to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court and will formally make an announcement later on Thursday.

This cements the win for carry in DC. Conversely, an appeal to the Supreme Court might have provided the opportunity to overturn negative decisions on carry such Peruta in the 9th Circuit and Kalchalsky in the 2nd Circuit. Whether or not the Supreme Court will ever take up a carry case still remains to be seen.

H/T Sebastian

Some Good Gun News Out Of Illinois

Hearing positive gun rights news out of the Prairie State is usually the exception instead of the norm. Yesterday was the exception. The Illinois Senate passed a bill allowing active-duty military members based in Illinois and their spouses to apply for non-resident carry permits. Moreover, they would only be charged the in-state rate of $150 instead of the out-of-state resident rate of $300.

As some might know, while Illinois will issue carry permits to out-of-state residents, the law limits it to residents of those states which the State Police find have “substantially similar” requirements. Thus, only residents of Hawaii, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Virginia qualify to apply for an out-of-state resident carry permit in Illinois. SB 1524 says that this limitation does not apply to active-duty military members and their spouses stationed in Illinois.

Now for the really good news. SB 1524 passed the Illinois Senate on a 53 yea, 0 nay vote. Now on to the State House.

The text of SB 1524 as it passed the Illinois Senate can be found here.

The Second Amendment Foundation’s lawsuit against Illinois on behalf of out-of-state residents with carry permits who are precluded from applying to obtain an Illinois permit is currently on appeal to the 7th Circuit. If the bill above passes, the lead plaintiff in Culp et al v. Madigan et al, Col. Kevin Culp may have to be removed from the case if he is still stationed at Scott Air Force Base.

Tone Deaf Politicians

If there is one thing that this political season has shown is that people are sick and tired of business as usual. How else do you explain the rise of a reality-TV star and billionaire businessman on the Republican side and an obscure, not even elected as a Democrat, self-avowed socialist on the Democratic side of the ticket. Both Trump and Sanders would be long gone in years gone by.

In the midst of all of this comes a proposal from New Jersey State Senator Gerald Cardinale (R-Bergen, Passaic) that would allow legislators and municipal and superior court judges to obtain carry permits to protect themselves. Nevermind that it takes an Act of God and then some for ordinary New Jerseyans to get carry permits or even a pistol purchase permit. Witness the death of Carol Bowne who was still waiting for her permit when her stalker killed her.

From the Bergen Dispatch:

Senator Gerald Cardinale (R-Bergen, Passaic) introduced a bill that would allow legislators, as well as judges at the superior and municipal court levels, to obtain permits to carry handguns provided they complete at least eight hours of firearm safety training.

“Judges and legislators face a greater risk of falling victim to violent attacks, simply because of their easily identifiable position in public life,” Senator Cardinale said. “This measure will ensure that public servants have the means to protect themselves from those who might violently disagree with their viewpoints or decisions. A judge should feel safe returning home each night no matter how they ruled or what they ruled on that day.”

The bill (S-1982) was inspired by attacks, such as the 2011 shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. Giffords was shot in an assassination attempt during a meeting with constituents at an Arizona supermarket. More recently, a Texas judge was wounded in a shooting outside of her home in Austin.

Judges and legislators would be exempt from New Jersey’s requirement to show “justifiable need”. They would merely have to show that they took an 8-hour class.

Alexander Roubian of the NJ Second Amendment Society is correct when he calls Cardinale’s proposal completely hypocritical.

Judges and politicians are generally well-guarded by security and they have easy access to police, Roubian noted. And, he argued, they’re already more likely than average citizens to pass the “justifiable need” test because they’re friends with the judges who issue the permits.


“Basically, this is a clear-cut example of how New Jersey operates as a fiefdom. The politicians’ and the judges’ lives, they truly believe, are more valuable than those of average citizens like you and I,” Roubian said.

I would add that Sen. Cardinale, in this of all years, just doesn’t get it. Given that he has been in one house or the other of the New Jersey legislature since 1980, maybe it is time for the 82-year old dentist to go home.

Just How Are We Supposed To Do That In DC, Pray Tell, Chief Lanier?

Emily Miller, author of Emily Gets Her Gun and one of only 45 people in the District of Columbia with a carry permit, tweeted this yesterday afternoon.

It was in response to the interview with DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier by 60 Minutes. In the interview which dealt with active shooters, Lanier said that it was unreasonable to expect the police to arrive in time to stop most mass shootings. She told Anderson Cooper:

I always say if you can get out, getting out’s your first option, your best option. If you’re in a position to try and take the gunman down, to take the gunman out, it’s the best option for saving lives before police can get there. And that’s– you know, that’s kind of counterintuitive to what cops always tell people, right? We always tell people, “Don’t– you know, don’t take action. Call 911. Don’t intervene in the robbery”– you know– you know– we’ve never told people, “Take action.” It’s a different– this is a different scenario.

 You can see the full interview below which also includes comments by NYC Police Commissioner William Bratton.

.cbs-link {color:#4B5054;text-decoration:none; font: normal 12px Arial;}.cbs-link:hover {color:#A7COFF;text-decoration:none; font: normal 12px Arial;}.cbs-pipe {color:#303435;padding: 0 2px;}.cbs-resources {height:24px; background-color:#000; padding: 0 0 0 8px; width: 612px;}.cbs-more {font: normal 12px Arial; color: #4B5054; padding-right:2px;}

One Step Down, One To Go For Emily Miller

Emily Miller became the 15th person to be preliminarily approved for a carry permit in the District of Columbia. Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier approved Emily’s carry permit subject to her successfully completing an 18 hour approved training course training course within 45 days. Emily says she fully intends to complete the process but won’t say when or where she will actually carry.

Emily reported on this yesterday on DC’s Fox 5 News. Her permit was approved based upon her two police reports involving threats. Chief Lanier dismissed her other documented threat as being too general in nature.

DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG

Emily was also on Fox and Friends this morning discussing the carry permit.

Congratulations to Emily on this. If I had to guess, Chief Lanier considered not only the documented threats but the uproar that Emily could have generated if she wasn’t given a permit. Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy Emily got her permit but I have this gut feeling that your average person’s application would not have been given the same consideration.

I’m sure the ne’er do wells at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic) will want to start another petition to get Emily fired from her job as an investigative reporter at Fox 5. In the meantime, that wailing and gnashing of teeth in DC just might be coming from them.

Cert Denied In Drake v. Jerejian

The Supreme Court denied certiorari to the New Jersey case challenging that state’s justifiable need requirement to obtain a carry permit. The list of orders gives no explanation for the denial.

Lyle Denniston of the SCOTUS Blog had this to say in his live blog of the announcement:

The denial of Drake was without explanation or noted dissents. That does not mean that no one voted for cert; probably that those who wanted to grant, if there were any, were unsure about prevailing on the merits. The list of denial of 2d Amendment outside-the-home cases is lengthening. It is unclear what kind of case on that subject will attract the Court’s attention.

While we have a split in the circuits, it doesn’t mean that they have to take a case. Countertop has a very good overview of what may have transpired regarding this case in the comments over at Shall Not Be Questioned. 

All I can say is damn. After they punted on Kachalsky and Woollard (especially Woollard!), I thought this might be the one. The only way around this for people living in occupied territories is to convince their friend and neighbors that this must change legislatively.

No Word Yet On Drake v. Jerejian (Updated)

Examining the list of orders from the US Supreme Court issued this morning, the one obvious omission on the list was Drake et al v. Jerejian et al. This is the New Jersey case that challenges that state’s requirement for the showing of justifiable need in order to obtain a carry permit.

The case was up for discussion as to whether to take it or not on Friday. As it hasn’t been denied, I guess this means no news is good news.

UPDATE: Dirk Diggler reports in the comments that the SCOTUS has passed this case to this coming Friday’s conference. Keep your fingers crossed.

UPDATE II: The SCOTUS passed on this again. It wasn’t denied nor was it granted certiorari. Thus, for now, no news remains good news.

From Lyle Denniston at the SCOTUS Blog:

The Court also took no action on the latest attempt to get the Court to expand the Second Amendment right to possess a gun so that it applies outside the home. The case is Drake v. Jerejian, seeking to challenge a New Jersey law that requires an individual to obtain a permit to carry a handgun in public. The law requires proof that an individual has a “justifiable need” to carry a gun in public for purposes of self-defense.

Here is the link to the SCOTUS Blog’s Relist Watch for this week which does mention Drake. It also notes that many of the more recent grants of certiorari have come from the relisted cases.