Florida’s Escambia County is one of the most rural counties in the state. It borders Alabama on two sides and the Gulf of America on one side. It is teaming with wild animals, both in and out of its large bay. It is one place where one would want to carry a firearm.
Today’s case, however, began not because a man was out in the woods or on the bay. He was standing on a street corner in downtown Pensacola, waving to people and displaying a copy of the United States Constitution. When he lifted his arms, people could see a gun he was carrying. That is exactly what he intended.
Mr. McDaniels wanted to challenge Florida’s prohibition against openly carrying firearms. He knew he had to get arrested and convicted for that to happen. He was polite and cordial during his arrest, trial and conviction. The trial court stayed imposition of sentence to allow him to appeal and get his wish. On September 10, 2025, a unanimous panel of Florida’s First District Court of Appeal (DCA) delivered a very detailed opinion in which the court agreed with Mr. Mc Daniels that the Florida law is unconstitutional. I am not going to outright say that Christmas came early for me this year, but Santa, if you are reading this, please remember the term “tie-down holster.”
In McDaniel v. State, the unanimous First DCA went through a lengthy history of firearm regulations and prohibitions and court decisions. They first addresses the fact that the Florida Supreme Court has already upheld the statutory ban. They rightfully pointed out, however, that the supremacy clause of the United States constitution requires intermediate appellate courts to follow the U.S. Supreme Court decisions when they conflict with Florida Supreme Court decisions. On this issue, the Florida Supreme Court decision upholding the ban relied on a two-step analysis that courts had been using after the US Supreme Court decision overruling the District of Columbia’s band on firearm ownership.
In 2022, however, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the State of New York’s process of only granting concealed carry permits after that state decided the applicant had a special need to carry a firearm. The Supremes held that the New York law was unconstitutional. Although not necessary to the analysis in that case (what we call dicta), the country’s highest court stated that the two-step analysis being used by lower courts was wrong. It was too restrictive. The Supreme Court said it was “one step too many.” Jurisdictions in which precedent was established under the wrong standard had to reexamine their laws following the analysis used in the New York case.
I like the McDaniels decision because the First DCA went far beyond explaining why any ban on openly carrying firearms is unconstitutional. They reviewed the history of laws and regulations limiting the Second Amendment. They finally pointed out something about which I have been complaining since 1987.
Like most states, prior to 1987, Florida permitted openly carrying firearms, but severely restricted carrying them in a concealed manner. Across the United States, there are cases all the way back to the beginning of the 19th century that discuss how it is much more dangerous to allow people to conceal a firearm than to allow open carry. Mainly, it allows someone to sneak up on a victim before the victim or anyone else notices they have a firearm. In other words, it is the logical restriction. There are thousands of cases that support this fact.
When I was in high school, everyone who owned a pick-up truck had a rifle or shotgun in the gun rack behind the bench seat. Funny, with several guns in the trucks in the school parking lots every day none of those guns ever shot anybody.
Nevertheless, in 1987, Florida followed the mob mentality and like the vast majority of other states prohibited openly carrying firearms, including carrying gun racks in vehicles. Over the next three years, Florida toyed with its concealed-carry law, settling on a law that allowed any citizen over the age of 18 without a felony conviction to obtain a permit and carry a firearm as long as it is concealed (with some exceptions). Two years ago, the legislature decided to no longer require a permit to carry a firearm, but still required the holders to conceal it. There are several other advantages of having a permit, however, such as being able to purchase firearms without a waiting period. Because of the added benefits, more than 2.3 million Floridians still hold permits to carry concealed firearms.
This month’s McDaniels decision simply returned Florida to the law allowing open carrying of firearms that existed from the founding of St. Augustine in 1565 until 1987. Because the opinion was very well researched and written, I expect the Florida Supreme Court will adopt it as its own and courts in many other states will follow it when changing their own case law to comply with the 2022 Supreme Court decision.
My only suggestion now would be that Florida repeal the law that allows people to conceal-carry without a permit. That would aid law-enforcement in prosecuting people who actually want to hide their firearms so they can sneak up on people.
——
In other court news, the United States Supreme Court on Monday slapped down the Washington DC District Court, which once again entered an injunction preventing the President from firing people. In Trump v. Slaughter, the Supreme Court took an additional step, which it had been warning the lower courts it would take if they continued to interfere with the President’s ability to fulfill his constitutional duties. On its own motion, the Court treated the Trump Administration’s application for a stay as a petition for writ of certiorari. This rare move will enable the Supreme Court to enter a final decision on the merits of the case sometime next spring. Otherwise, this case and all of the other similar cases filed against the Trump Administration will not be ultimately decided until after President Trump‘s term is over.
This is probably the most important court decision in President Trump’s second term but it was pretty much ignored by the news media on Monday because they were too concerned about a late-night comic being suspended by ABC. This decision should clear the way for President Trump to further remove corrupt and unnecessary federal employees at all levels with almost three years remaining on his term.
——
As to the ABC affair,
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to RADlaw Newsletter to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.