TALLAHASSEE, FL – Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has formally acknowledged in a court filing that individuals convicted of non-dangerous felonies should not automatically lose their Second Amendment rights, marking a significant shift in the state’s legal position on firearm possession.
The updated stance was revealed in a filing submitted to Florida’s First District Court of Appeal in the case Christopher Morgan v. State of Florida. The Attorney General’s office notified the court that, after further review, it now believes Morgan’s conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm violated his constitutional rights.
According to the filing, the state previously argued that Morgan was properly convicted under existing law. However, the Attorney General’s office stated it had reconsidered that position and now recognizes a constitutional distinction between dangerous and non-dangerous offenders.
“Properly understood, the Second Amendment permits the government to dispossess felons whose convictions indicate that the felon is dangerous, but not merely all felons as a categorical matter,” the filing states.
The Attorney General also informed the court that it was “confess[ing] error” and urged the appellate court to reverse the conviction. The updated position was submitted ahead of scheduled oral arguments in the case.
Gun Owners of America publicly highlighted the filing, stating that the Attorney General conceded that only dangerous felons should lose Second Amendment protections. The organization characterized the move as a significant pro-Second Amendment development.
The case centers on whether blanket firearm prohibitions applied to all convicted felons are consistent with constitutional protections. By revising its legal argument, the Florida Attorney General’s office signaled support for a more individualized approach that evaluates whether a person’s prior conviction demonstrates dangerousness rather than applying a universal prohibition.
While the court has not yet ruled, the filing could influence how similar cases are evaluated moving forward, particularly as courts across the country continue examining the scope of firearm restrictions under modern Second Amendment interpretations.
The issue reflects an ongoing legal debate about how constitutional rights apply after criminal convictions. Restoring rights to individuals who do not pose a public safety threat aligns with the principle that constitutional protections should not be permanently removed without clear justification tied to dangerous behavior.
The appellate court’s eventual decision will determine whether the Attorney General’s revised position results in a reversal of Morgan’s conviction and could shape future legal challenges involving firearm possession laws in Florida.
