UPDATE : Florida's Game-Changing Move on Felon Gun Rights

Added: 2026-05-25

[00:00:00]Ladies and gentlemen, this is one of the most important Second Amendment developments of 2026, and it is happening right here in the state of Florida. Florida's attorney general, James Umeire, just told Florida's first district court of appeal that the state wrongfully convicted a man for being a felon in possession of a firearm because a conviction violated the Second Amendment. Yes, you heard that correctly. The state of Florida has confessed constitutional error and the implications are going to be enormous.

[00:00:33]If you love the Second Amendment and especially if you are a convicted felon, you're going to want to stick around for this. Hello everyone and welcome to the Firearm Firm channel. I'm attorney James Phillips and today we're talking about how the state of Florida has changed its position when it comes to certain felons being in possession of firearms. I'm specifically talking about the case of Christopher Morgan versus the state of Florida. Here's what happened.

[00:01:03]Christopher Morgan had a single prior felony conviction from Pennsylvania in 2007 for carrying a firearm without a license. That was his only conviction.

[00:01:15]No violent crime, no robbery, no assault, no domestic violence, no drug trafficking, just plain old simple carrying without a license. Moving to 2022 during a routine traffic stop in Florida, Morgan informed officers that he had a firearm in the center console of his car and that he had a prior felony conviction. He was arrested and then charged under Florida's statute 790.23 for possession of a firearm by a felon.

[00:01:47]Morgan challenged the law as unconstitutional both facially and as applied to him. The trial court rejected his argument and he eventually entered a plea preserving his right to appeal the court's denial of his motion and was sentenced to two days in jail with served. He then followed through by filing a timely appeal. And when the state responded in their brief dated September the 30th of 2025, the state took the position that Florida statute 790.23 23 did not violate Morgan's second amendment rights. However, earlier this month, they changed their mind. In a filing dated February the 13th of 2026, the Florida Attorney General James Umeire notified the court that upon studied reflection, the conviction violated Morgan's second amendment rights. The state wrote chakra properly understood. The second amendment permits the government to dispossess felons whose convictions indicate that the felon is dangerous but not merely all felons is a categorical matter. Sir, sir or that is a dramatic shift. Not all felons. The state now says only dangerous felons. The attorney general concluded that Morgan, as a non-dangerous felon, retained his right to keep and bear arms and that the state must confess error and urge the court to reverse the conviction. Now, for decades, courts have treated felon and possession bans as essentially automatic and virtually immune from serious constitutional challenges. Both federal law under 18 USC922G1 and parallel state statutes like Florida statute broadly prohibit all felons from possessing firearms regardless of whether their prior offense was violent or possessed any ongoing threat to public safety. Courts often relied on language from the District of Columbia versus Heler decision describing felon prohibitions as presumptively lawful.

[00:04:06]But that landscape shifted dramatically with the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Breuan. In that decision, the court rejected the interest balancing and means in scrutiny in second amendment cases and replace them with a historical traditional uh tradition test. If the government now wants to restrict the right to keep and bear arms, it must show that the regulation is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulations. Now, that historical inquiry creates serious problems for categorical lifetime bans on all felons.

[00:04:48]There is meaningful historical evidence supporting the disarmament of individuals who are dangerous, those actively threatening public safety or political order. However, there is far less evidence supporting a blanket rule permanently disarming every person convicted of any felony, particularly those convicted of nonviolent or regulatory offenses. The attorney general's filing acknowledges this distinction and signals that if allowed to file a supplemental brief, the state would discuss the lack of historical evidence supporting the dispossession of all felons as distinct from the strong historical evidence supporting the dispossession of dangerous felons. Now, that is a true application of Breuan's methodology there. What makes this even more significant is the broader national context. Since ruin, there has been a wave of litigation challenging felon in possession laws, both facially and as applied to non-violent offenders.

[00:05:52]Multiple petitions for CERT have been filed with the United States Supreme Court asking the justices to clarify whether lifetime firearm bans for nonviolent felons are constitutional under the historical tradition framework. So far, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to grant certain those cases. That makes developments like this one especially important when a state attorney general, particularly the chief legal officer of a major state like Florida, publicly embraces the dangerous versus non-dangerous distinction and confesses error in a pending appeal. It adds substantial weight to the argument that categorical bans may not survive historical scrutiny. courts pay attention to this uh when the state itself acknowledges constitutional limits on its own authority that that's a big indicator for them to pay attention. The following uh document also underscores attorney general U's view of his constitutional obligations. The document emphasizes that the attorney general is the chief state legal officer of Florida and has sworn an oath to uphold the US Constitution. It states that when the state obtains a conviction in violation of the Constitution, it is his duty to admit its error and to make conscientious judgment in deciding whether to continue defending a law.

[00:07:23]Now, that's not routine language. This is a formal confession of a constitution error ahead of oral arguments coupled with the request for leave to file a supplemental brief expanding on the historical analysis. If the first DCA accepts a confession of error, Morgan's conviction will likely be reversed. The bigger question is how broadly will the court rule? It could resolve the case narrowly by accepting the state's concession without extensive analysis, or it could issue a substantive opinion clarifying Florida's felon in possession statute is unconstitutional as applied to non-dangerous offenders. At its core, this case raises a fundamental constitutional question that the United States Supreme Court has not yet squarely answered. Does the Second Amendment allow permanent disarmment of individuals who have committed nonviolent, non-dangerous offenses? With multiple SER petitions already filed in recent years and more likely on the way, it seems increasingly probable that the justices will eventually have to confront that question directly. On the surface, this case involves a traffic stop, a single nonviolent conviction from nearly two decades ago, and a two-day jail sentence. But constitutionally, it could represent a turning point. If courts move toward a dangerous standard grounded in historical tradition, the structure of felon disarmament law in America may fundamentally change. And if the Supreme Court finally agrees to take one of these cases, the decision would reshape the boundaries of the Second Amendment for decades to come. Be sure to let us know what you think about this case down in the comment section you below where you can also leave any questions you have about this video or any other Second Amendment related questions. Till next time, stay armed and educated.