A ‘constitutional carry’ gun law would be bad for law enforcement and for Florida

Put it on my desk, I’ll sign it.” That was Gov. Ron DeSantis’ response in early March about any “constitutional carry” firearms bill that might make its way through the Florida Legislature. It’s a moot issue, though, because the bill died in the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Subcommittee; it was never heard in either legislative chamber.

House Bill 103, Carrying of Firearms Without Licenses — sponsored by Rep. Anthony Sabatini, R-Howey-in-the-Hills — would have stripped away the requirement of a license for a concealed firearm and reduced places where carrying a concealed firearm is prohibited.

As Sabatini explained, “Any legal firearm that a Floridian is able to purchase and have for their own self-defense — so, you know, typical rifles, shotguns, pistols — [they] should be able to carry those firearms without permission from the government.”

Twenty-four states allow “constitutional carry,” which is also known as permit-less carry, unrestricted carry and even Vermont carry (for the first state to allow it.)

But it’s a moot question in Florida now. Or is it?

FLORIDA’S SPECIAL SESSION

DeSantis has called for a special session starting April 19 to establish congressional voting districts. What’s the connection to HB 103? DeSantis mentioned that in the upcoming special session, he’d like to see “constitutional carry” discussed.

As a recently retired 3 1/2decade law enforcement professional who rose to the top of his profession, I cannot fathom how any law enforcement officer, regardless of rank, would support this. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, said the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep suitable weapons at home for self-defense, unconnected to militia service.

The Court held that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense. Requiring a permit to carry a firearm that is concealed and not allowing open-carrying of a firearm do not infringe upon this right.

In Florida, a concealed firearms permit is allowed if the person is at least 21, has demonstrated proficiency with the weapon and has completed a recognized firearms safety training, among other requirements.

A person would be ineligible if they have “an inability to handle a firearm safely.” Let’s look at that one for a minute. What would happen if every Tom, Dick and Harry — regardless of training — could carry around a concealed firearm?

If “constitutional carry” became law, it would put a whole lot more armed people on the street, nefarious intent or not. My concern with allowing those weapons to be carried concealed is the lack of even minimal training with safe gun handling. I can also see far more issues of escalating tension and short tempers because people would be able to pull out a concealed firearm when they feel threatened. The current concealed permit has been working, by and large.

AN UNKNOWN

The bigger concern for me, personally, is the open-carry provision. After 30 years as a cop in South Florida and then head of a police department in North Carolina (which has open-carry), I faced that challenge. There was a constant discomfort. Being called to a scene and not knowing what was taking place, while one or two people had sidearms in holsters, was concerning.

It is also far easier for someone with malicious intent to draw from their holster and shoot a police officer than it would be to reach into their waistband and pull out a firearm. That’s a move that the officer is better equipped to control.

Why? Because we are used to it. With open carry, though, the question might become whether every encounter with law enforcement could potentially come down to who could draw their weapon faster.

And for agencies that write reports whenever an officer unholsters their gun at a threat, what will a steep rise in reports indicate? Because no officer arriving at a scene where a person is standing around with a gun in his holster (save for a security guard, crime victim who called the police or a gun shop owner) should keep their service weapon holstered — at least the officer knows what transpired.

With the HB 103 not even making it out of committee, why would the governor want to keep this issue alive? A police officer’s job is hard enough. This is not good for law enforcement. It is not good for Florida.

David Magnusson recently retired from law enforcement after a 36 ½-year career. Most recently, he served as police chief for the Village of El Portal. He was also chief of police in Havelock, North Carolina. He retired from the Miami Police Department as a major in 2014. Magnusson is a historian who has researched and written about military and presidential history. He remains on the Association of Miami-Dade Police Chiefs COVID-19 and Domestic Violent Extremism committees. He is a member of Miami Herald Editorial Board’s community advisory board.

Let’s not let Putin kill good journalism, too. What, who, where, when and why. The famous five W’s of good journalism have resonated in my head in recent weeks. I remember my time as a journalism student and I remember the professors teaching us good professional practice when there was no Twitter, there were no haters or fact checking companies or conspiracy theorists because, among other things, they didn’t have opaque social media accounts to hide behind.

The denial of the Russian massacre of civilians in the Ukrainian city of Bucha has been one more step in the destruction of prudence and common sense that the social media networks — especially Twitter — are imposing. Having to listen to statements like “You have to listen to both versions,” “The deaths could be a set up” or “How can you accuse Putin of being responsible if you weren’t there” are a threat not only to journalism and the media — they already have enough problems — but also for the verification and writing of History, with a capital letter.

Would anyone in their right mind have avoided condemning the slaughter of Jews in World

War II while waiting for the Nazi version? Could it have been argued that the images of the skeletal and crowded corpses of the murdered Jews were a set up by the Allies? Would it have been necessary for anyone lamenting this barbarism to actually be looking through a hole into the gas chambers?

TRUSTING THE NEWS

These questions sound ridiculous, but today, 77 years later and with the Russian invasion of Ukraine as the scene of war, the media and journalists have fallen for this kind of provocation to justify ourselves when we shouldn’t be — because we have seen, heard and read rigorous and professional chronicles from correspondents who have told us what they are seeing, as is their obligation. And many of them are paying with their lives.

Sometimes the work of verification companies can seems exaggerated or ridiculous, a kind of internal affairs department investigating journalists — the direct witness, the one who in another time was considered a professional who carries out social work, a public service. Because even if the New York Times uses satellite images to show that the massacre in Bucha took place while Russian troops were still in the city, Putin’s propaganda and his subsidized media will continue to deny it.

I have repeated many times when I have been asked on radio and television that the survival of journalism involves making the audience understand that they have to look for information in the great proven historical brands that have journalists in the places where the news takes place. Anonymous profiles on Twitter can never be a source of information.

Let us then trust the serious media and their journalists regardless of their editorial line. It is legitimate and healthy that there are newspapers, radio stations and television networks with a conservative vision, just as there are those with a more liberal or leftist tendency.

A FREE MEDIA?

In South Florida, a disconcerting movement is emerging that claims to be fighting misinformation, especially accusing Spanish-language radio stations of having a Republican agenda and of spreading falsehoods. But — surprise — when one investigates the profiles of the promoters of the movement, one finds that they are analysts and opinion makers with a Democratic tendency. Politicians are not good advisers to a free media.

At this point, I want to return to my journalism class and remember the five Ws. Facts are one thing and opinion is another. Let us demand that the media clearly separate information from opinion. Everything is a matter of good professional practices. There is still hope.

Manuel Aguilera is founder and CEO of the HispanoPost Media Group. He is a former executive editor of Univision’s online platform.