Uthmeier’s arguments, rooted in Second Amendment jurisprudence, draw a distinction between felons whose crimes make them “dangerous” and those deemed “nondangerous.” Laws disarming the latter group, he argues, are inconsistent with the nation’s “historical tradition.”

The highly unusual move by Florida’s chief legal officer, whose job it is to defend the laws of the state, has stirred mixed reactions in legal and law enforcement communities while drawing praise from gun rights advocates.

Last week, Florida’s elected prosecutors stepped in, voicing strong opposition to Uthmeier’s position in a friend-of-the-court brief.

The Florida Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, a professional organization representing the state’s 20 elected state attorneys and their assistant prosecutors, asserted that Uthmeier’s arguments are misplaced.

They warned that Uthmeier’s position could create havoc within the criminal justice system, as many felons potentially could claim their convictions placed them in the nondangerous category.

They also asserted that a felony conviction need not be “violent” to be an indicator that a person is dangerous.

“A person who chooses to act in their own self-interest in a manner that risks being sent to prison is a dangerous person,” wrote Douglas Wyler, the general counsel for the prosecutors association. “Such a person has demonstrated their disregard for the law without concern for the consequences. From a constitutional perspective, it is a class of people who were historically barred from possession of a firearm, precisely because they are dangerous.”

In a video posted Tuesday on X, Uthmeier referenced the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment and “American tradition,” saying that to be disarmed, a person must pose “a credible threat to the physical safety of others.”

“For instance,” Uthmeier said, “a man who is convicted of carrying a firearm without a permission slip from the government in another state who poses no danger to the community should not be disarmed or dragged to prison as a felon for exerting his right to self-defense.”

The case that spawned the controversy centers on Christopher Morgan, a Tallahassee man who has a 2007 conviction for carrying a gun without a license in Pennsylvania. It is his only prior brush with the law.

On Sept. 12, 2022, a Tallahassee police officer stopped Morgan for speeding and having an obscured license plate on his car. During the traffic stop, Morgan told the officer he had a gun in his car’s center console, a gift from his girlfriend, according to an arrest report.

The officer searched and found a Glock handgun with a loaded magazine next to it. In a backpack in the front seat, the officer found two more magazines loaded with more than 30 bullets. Morgan was charged with possession of a firearm by an out-of-state felon.

In court, a public defender representing Morgan asked a judge to dismiss the case, arguing that Florida’s law prohibiting felons from possessing guns violated the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to bear arms. The trial court judge denied the request.

Morgan pleaded no contest, reserving his right to appeal the judge’s ruling. When he did appeal in February 2025, Uthmeier’s office initially defended Morgan’s conviction.

On Feb. 13, Uthmeier filed a brief explaining that the state had changed its opinion.

“On further reflection, the Attorney General is of the view that the conviction violated Morgan’s Second Amendment right to bear arms,” the court motion stated. “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 document, which bore Uthmeier’s name and those of three lawyers in the state solicitor general’s office, was filed with the Tallahassee-based 1st District Court of Appeal.

In a subsequent brief filed this month, Uthmeier evoked what’s known as an originalist interpretation of the law. It’s a legal philosophy, championed by the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and popular among conservative political leaders, which calls for the Constitution to be interpreted the way the nation’s founders understood it at the time of its adoption.

Laws disarming nondangerous felons are inconsistent “with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” Uthmeier’s brief argued. Morgan’s conviction, the brief stated, did not make him a dangerous felon. Therefore, it was unconstitutional to deprive him of his right to possess a gun.

The state’s changing position stirred speculation within the legal community about its impact on the enforcement of laws regulating guns. State and federal laws broadly prohibit convicted felons from possessing guns.

Uthmeier’s brief drew words of support from gun rights advocates. The National Rifle Association’s legislative arm wrote in an article that his position is consistent with its efforts to “vindicate the Second Amendment rights of nonviolent felons.”

“As the brief makes clear, the Second Amendment was never understood to allow the disarmament of peaceable citizens,” the article stated.

Attorneys at Brady United Against Gun Violence, an organization that advocates for background checks and waiting periods as a condition of gun purchases, expressed concern that Uthmeier’s position could cause confusion for gun sellers and undermine background check systems.

They noted that many crimes, while not always clearly violent, nevertheless are indicators of dangerousness. It may become difficult for individual gun dealers to determine whether someone’s past offense makes them dangerous enough to bar a sale.

“We think this is a serious problem,” said Douglas Letter, the chief legal officer for Brady United. “We think this would mean that Florida would be undermining their own system of protecting against and trying to prevent gun violence. This would mean more people would have guns who shouldn’t.”

Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, a Republican who is also a lawyer, was among those who took notice after Uthmeier’s office changed its position.

Gualtieri cautioned people against “getting out over their skis” by speculating about the ramifications of Morgan’s case, noting that Second Amendment issues are legally nuanced.

“I think it is a legitimate legal question,” Gualtieri said. “I think it raises a legitimate constitutional concern. I think there is a valid basis for robust discussion about it.”