For now, common sense speaks louder in debate to undo post-Parkland gun laws
On Monday, Sen. Kathleen Passidomo, R-Naples, said she will not allow the bill to be heard in her powerful Senate Rules Committee, meaning the legislation likely will stall and die. The Florida House has already passed House Bill 759 with a 78-34 vote. This might be the third year in a row that the House has tried — only to be blocked by the Senate — to repeal the post-Parkland law that increased the minimum age for long-gun purchases to 21.
Passidomo's timing couldn't be more opportune.
Last Thursday, a suspected gunman killed two people at the Florida State University campus, not too far from where lawmakers are meeting in Tallahassee. Passidomo said the decision to block the bill was made before the shooting, CBS News reported.
The optics of lawmakers undoing gun restrictions in the wake of another campus shooting would have been terrible. Some former students from Parkland's Marjory Stoneman Douglas High were on the FSU campus as the shooting took place last week.
Luckily, this does not appear to be a case of the Florida Senate trying to avoid bad press.
Passidomo has been steadfast in her support for the gun-control law she helped pass in the aftermath of the 2018 school massacre, which left people 17 dead. When she was the Senate president in 2023, she told reporters she would not support repealing that law and letting people aged 18 to 20 purchase a rifle. Federal law already sets a minimum age of 21 for handgun purchases.
To be clear, it appears the state law would not have prevented FSU shooting suspect Phoenix Ikner, 20, from having access to a weapon. Ikner, a student at the university, is the stepson of a Leon County Sheriff's deputy. He used his stepmom's personal handgun, which she previously used for work, Tallahassee Police Chief Lawrence Revell said at a news conference last week, the Tallahassee Democrat reported. A shotgun was found at the scene but it is unclear if it was used.
Arguments that a particular gun law would not have stopped a particular shooting miss the point because each of these horrific incidents is different. Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz, for example, used an AR-15-style rifle he bought from a Broward County dealer when he was 18. He's the reason lawmakers and then-Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican, raised the purchase age minimum. The law makes exceptions for people aged 18 to 20 who serve in the military, corrections and law enforcement.
The challenge with mass and campus shootings is that they involve multiple factors, from mental health issues to, yes, easy access to weapons. It's impossible to know how many incidents the post-Parkland law might have prevented, but we should be making it harder, not easier, for unstable young people to access guns. Asking them to wait until the same age they can drink alcohol is not an extreme measure.
Instead of repealing sensible gun-control measures, lawmakers should be passing new, reasonable restrictions on the types of weapons and the amount of ammunition people are allowed to buy. They should be looking at closing loopholes that, for example, allow people to buy guns without a background check through private transactions.
While the stalling of House Bill 759 is a good sign, lawmakers are still pushing to provide incentives for people to buy guns. The Senate has advanced another bill that would exempt the purchase of firearms and ammunition from sales taxes for about three and a half months in 2025. Lawmakers in 2023 passed a law that allows people to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.
This is the history of Florida and gun control. A little progress always comes with big setbacks.
Click here to send the letter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
13 minutes ago
- USA Today
Congress passed Trump's spending cuts. What does that mean for their power of the purse?
A drama-filled week in DC saw Democrats accuse Republicans ceding Congress' power to Trump and a curveball involving Jeffrey Epstein. WASHINGTON − President Donald Trump is racking up legislative wins with the help of a Republican-controlled Congress. Not without a touch of drama and complaining, though. Republicans in the House and Senate this week approved $9 billion worth of spending cuts, targeted at public broadcasting and foreign aid programs, sending the bill on to Trump's desk for his signature into law. Made at Trump's request, the canceling of federal funding represents just a slice of the almost $200 billion the Department of Government Efficiency, once spearheaded by Elon Musk, claims to have cut from the federal budget. More: Rural PBS stations could bear brunt of public media cuts. Just ask those in Kansas Still, agencies like the World Health Organization and U.S. Agency for International Development, who use federal grants to support things like global health initiatives and peacekeeping efforts, will feel the impacts. The cuts could also be a potential death knell for local PBS and NPR stations across the country, who rely heavily on government funds to keep the lights on and the public in the know. For Trump, the legislative victory represents an unusual ceding of authority from one branch of the U.S. government to another, as Congress typically tightly guards its Constitutionally-given power of the purse rather than taking the lead from the White House. Adding to the intrigue: Republican leadership faced a big challenge in trying to advance the Trump-requested package of spending cuts while dealing with an unrelated series of other topics − namely Jeffrey Epstein − that cast a shadow over everything on Capitol Hill. Here are three key takeaways from this rare congressional scene. Pickpocketing the power of the purse Congress previously approved the specific spending totals that they just clawed back in a bill that Trump signed into law in March. The decision to then revoke $9 billion (a relatively small amount in the scope of the $1.6 trillion federal budget) is rare and unusual. The last time the legislative branch made such a move was in 1999, when Democratic President Bill Clinton was nearing the end of his second term. More: Lawmakers warn Trump he can't 'pick and choose' what to spend from funding bill The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, a privilege and responsibility its elected lawmakers protect fiercely. Democrats have accused their Republican colleagues of ceding that power to the president with measures like the recent spending cuts, as well as a sweeping tax, spending and policy bill passed earlier in July at Trump's urging. They also see it as a winning issue on the campaign trail next year. 'This is absolutely going to frame the 2026 election,' Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, told USA TODAY earlier this month. 'They have decided to cave in completely to Donald Trump and the wishes of the billionaire class. More: Dismantling agencies and firing workers: How Trump is redefining relations with Congress and courts Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Missouri, defended the move in an interview with Politico. "The rescissions process," he said, referring to the action taken this week, "actually considers the legislature's role in what the executive branch is identifying as waste, fraud and abuse, and that's what we're doing right now." How Jeffrey Epstein factored into debate An entirely unrelated debate threatened to derail the process of the House approving the spending cuts. Lawmakers were facing a July 18 midnight deadline to see the rescissions legislation pass through Congress, otherwise the federal funding would need to be spent as mandated by law. But moving quickly became a challenge as Trump and his MAGA base started sparring over the Justice Department's Epstein case file review, a fight that spilled into the halls of Congress and took Republicans' attention away from the impending spending vote. With the deadline fast approaching, a key House committee eventually came to an agreement to placate its Republican members, at least for the time being, without angering Trump, who has asked his supporters to move on from the heated issue. House Republicans crafted a non-binding resolution, meaning if passed Trump and his administration would not be required to comply, calling for the release of files related to Epstein's case. GOP leadership has not indicated when or if this resolution would come up for a vote on the House floor. More spending fights to come Trump and the GOP can expect more headaches as Congress tackles additional spending debates before year's end. Director of the Office of Management and Budget Russell Vought suggested midweek there may be more spending cuts to come. "There is still a great enthusiasm" for these bills, Vought said at a July 17 event. Speaking to reporters on July 18, deputy White House chief of staff James Blair said some of the items in the White House sights include "everything that just doesn't come aboard with the president's agenda, that doesn't make sense, really just taxpayer waste." But even Republican senators, already weary from this week's process, have warned that they would want the White House to provide much more detail in any future proposals. "I hope this is just a warm up for what should be tens of billions of dollars worth of rescissions," Thom Tillis said July 15, before the Senate vote. "I think we need to get it right." There is also the looming prospect of a government shutdown, if Congress does not act in time to pass its annual appropriations bills before a September 30 deadline. With both chambers out for recess through August, Republicans have less than six weeks to make it happen. It will require bipartisan support, a daunting task given partisan tension that were only heightened by the recent spending cut process and ongoing complaints against passing a continuing resolution as the alternative.
Atlantic
14 minutes ago
- Atlantic
A Congress That Votes Yes and Hopes No
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. In fall 1963, as President Lyndon B. Johnson struggled to pass the Civil Rights Act, some allies warned him that the success wouldn't be worth the electoral hit he'd take. Johnson was insistent that the point of winning elections was to push the policies he wanted. 'Well, what the hell's the presidency for?' he said. No one would have to ask President Donald Trump that question. His vision of power is dangerous but clear, and he's wasted little time in implementing it. One reason he's been so successful is that members of the House and Senate seem to have no idea what the hell the Congress is for. The past few weeks have seen Republican members of Congress wringing their hands furiously over bills under consideration, criticizing the White House's legislative priorities … and then voting for them. The most torturous, and tortuous, example is Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, a prominent member of the supposedly populist wing of MAGA Republicans. On June 28, Hawley criticized Medicaid cuts included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in the form of work requirements. 'If you want to be a working-class party, you've got to deliver for working-class people,' he said. 'You cannot take away health care from working people.' Three days later, on July 1, he voted for a bill that did exactly that. It also cut funding to rural hospitals, and yet, a few days later, he told NBC News, 'I think that if Republicans don't come out strong and say we're going to protect rural hospitals, then, yeah, I think voters aren't going to like that.' This week, he introduced a bill to roll back some of the Medicaid cuts he'd voted for two weeks earlier. If Hawley didn't like the cuts, he could have voted to stop them. I don't mean that symbolically: The bill passed 51–50, with Vice President J. D. Vance breaking the tie. By withholding his vote, Hawley could have killed the bill or forced changes. This is how legislating is supposed to work. But in his defense, Hawley has terrible role models: He's a relatively young senator surrounded by elders who seem just as confused about their role. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted for the OBBBA too, and then told reporters that she hoped that the bill she had just voted for would not be enacted as written, pleading with the House to do her job for her by altering it. (The House didn't.) Years ago, my colleague Ashley Parker, then at The New York Times, identified the existence of a Republican ' Vote No/Hope Yes Caucus.' Murkowski is perhaps the spiritual founder of a Vote Yes/Hope No Caucus. She has plenty of company. Her comrades were out in force for this week's vote on rescissions, retroactive budget cuts requested by the White House and approved by Congress. Some members worry that acceding to the rescissions is effectively surrendering the power of the purse to the executive branch. 'I don't have any problem with reducing spending. We're talking about not knowing,' complained Kentucky's Mitch McConnell, the former Senate majority leader. 'They would like a blank check, is what they would like. And I don't think that's appropriate. I think they ought to make the case.' McConnell voted for the bill. 'I suspect we're going to find out there are some things that we're going to regret,' North Carolina's Thom Tillis, ostensibly freed up by his decision not to run for reelection, said on Wednesday. If only there were some way to avoid that! But Tillis voted yes, because he said he'd been assured by the White House that certain programs wouldn't be cut. It should be clear by now that the administration's promises to senators aren't worth the red cent that Trump is eliminating; regardless, the way to ensure that something happens is to write it into law. Isn't that what we send legislators to Washington to do? Apparently not. Also this week, Senate Majority Leader John Thune paused a bill to levy sanctions against Russia, deferring to Trump, who has threatened to impose tariffs on Moscow. 'It sounds like right now the president is going to attempt to do some of this on his own,' he said. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise concurred: 'If anybody's going to be able to get Putin to the table to finally agree to peace, it's President Trump.' Never mind that the Constitution places the tariff power primarily with Congress. Trump's executive-power grab, I've argued here and in my recent book, is the product of careful planning laid out in Project 2025, whose authors make a case for how and why the president should seize new authorities. In Project 2025's main document, Kevin D. Roberts, the head of the Heritage Foundation, attacks 'Congress's preening cowardice' in refusing to exercise its duties and leaving them to the presidency. Project 2025's paradoxical response is for the executive to seize even more power. That has worked because members of Congress are—unlike LBJ—afraid to take votes that might create some sort of political backlash. They might pay the price anyway. 'In recent decades, members of the House and Senate discovered that if they give away that power to the Article II branch of government, they can also deny responsibility for its actions,' Roberts writes. That trick works for only so long. Trump never has to face voters again, but having passed up the chance to set their own agenda, many members of Congress will have to answer for his decisions in next year's midterms. After the longest vote in House history this week, Speaker Mike Johnson—no relation genealogically, ideologically, or stylistically to Lyndon—lamented the state of affairs in the legislature. 'I am tired of making history; I just want normal Congress,' he said. 'But some people have forgotten what that looks like.' It's a shame that Johnson doesn't know anyone who has the power to change the way things work at the Capitol. Today's News President Donald Trump asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to unseal grand-jury testimony from the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking crimes. An explosion at a Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department training facility killed at least three deputies, according to department officials. The House gave final approval to Trump's request to cut $9 billion from public-broadcasting funding and foreign aid. Trump is expected to sign the bill into law. Dispatches The Books Briefing: Emma Sarappo on what Andrea Gibson understood about very simple poetry. Evening Read What to Do With the Most Dangerous Book in America By James Shapiro The novel had once served as a deadly template for domestic terrorists such as Timothy McVeigh, who drew from its pages when he planned the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City, and Robert Jay Mathews, whose white-supremacist gang took its name, the Order, from the novel; a member of the Order killed the Jewish radio host Alan Berg. I also knew that it had inspired John William King, part of a group that dragged James Byrd Jr., a Black man, to death behind a pickup truck. As King shackled Byrd to the vehicle, he was reported to have said, 'We're going to start The Turner Diaries early.' The book is a vile, racist fantasy culminating in genocide, but it isn't just a how-to manual for homegrown terrorists. What has been labeled the 'bible of the racist right' has influenced American culture in a way only fiction can—by harnessing the force of storytelling to popularize ideas that have never been countenanced before. More From The Atlantic Culture Break Watch. Eddington (out now in theaters) is a nasty, cynical, and eerily accurate look at all-too-recent history, Shirley Li writes. 'The summer I was twelve I don't remember / Thirteen we drive the Continent, hit Chamonix / The summer I'm fourteen go back alone to Čechy'
Associated Press
14 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Minnesota lawmaker convicted of felony burglary for breaking into estranged stepmother's home
A Minnesota state senator was convicted of burglary Friday for breaking into her estranged stepmother's home, allegedly in search of her father's ashes and other mementos. The jury found Nicole Mitchell, 51, guilty of first-degree burglary and possession of burglary tools. The Democrat from the St. Paul suburb of Woodbury has maintained her innocence and refused to resign since her arrest in the early hours of April 22, 2024, at her stepmother's home in the northwestern Minnesota city of Detroit Lakes. Mitchell insisted in her testimony that she went there purely to check on her stepmother, who has Alzheimer's disease. And she said she initially lied when she told police repeatedly the night of her arrest that she went there in search of her late father's ashes and other items of sentimental value. She testified that she didn't want to further upset her stepmother by expressing concern about her well-being.
