THE ISSUE: CHALLENGING FLORIDA’S CLASS G FIREARMS LICENSING REQUIREMENT

Protecting the Second Amendment Rights of Florida’s Private Security Officers

Florida’s private security professionals are required to obtain a separate Class G Statewide Firearm License before carrying a firearm in the performance of their professional duties, even when those same individuals may otherwise lawfully carry firearms as private citizens.

This requirement raises an important constitutional question: Should a law-abiding American lose the ability to exercise an otherwise lawful constitutional right simply because that individual puts on a security uniform and reports to work?

We believe the answer deserves serious judicial examination.

The McDaniels Decision and Constitutional Rights

On September 10, 2025, Florida’s First District Court of Appeal issued a landmark decision in McDaniels v. State, finding Florida’s general prohibition on the open carrying of firearms unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The court examined the constitutional right to bear arms in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi.

The decision recognized that the constitutional right to bear arms must be evaluated according to the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.

However, Florida continues to require private security officers to obtain an additional Class G firearms license under Section 493.6115, Florida Statutes.

The Florida Attorney General has taken the position that McDaniels does not invalidate professional firearms licensing requirements under Chapter 493.

We believe this distinction deserves a direct constitutional challenge.

If a law-abiding individual is constitutionally entitled to carry a firearm in public, why should the act of accepting employment as a private security officer automatically require a separate government-issued firearms license?

We seek judicial review of whether this additional occupational licensing requirement is consistent with the Second Amendment and the constitutional standards established by the Supreme Court.

The Burden on Florida’s Security Professionals

Florida security officers must comply with a separate regulatory system that includes:

Obtaining a Class D security officer license.
Completing an additional 28-hour firearms training course for initial Class G qualification.
Paying additional licensing, training, and administrative expenses.
Completing four hours of firearms requalification training annually.
Maintaining compliance with renewal and reporting requirements.
Facing possible license suspension, disciplinary action, and loss of armed employment opportunities for noncompliance.
These requirements affect hardworking individuals who protect apartment communities, shopping centers, businesses, hospitals, residential properties, and the general public.

A security officer who lawfully carries a firearm while off duty may be prohibited from carrying that same firearm while performing paid security duties without a separate Class G license.

We question whether that distinction is constitutionally justified.

Public Safety and Responsible Firearms Training

We recognize the importance of firearms safety, responsible handling, and professional accountability.

However, we believe that requiring a separate government-issued firearms license is not necessarily the only way to accomplish those objectives.

Security employers should be able to establish appropriate training and qualification standards based on their employees’ responsibilities and the needs of their clients, subject to applicable law.

Our position is that firearms competency and constitutional rights can coexist without requiring a separate occupational firearms license.

We seek to determine whether less restrictive alternatives could protect the public while respecting the rights of qualified security professionals.

Economic and Employment Consequences

The additional Class G licensing requirements create financial and administrative burdens for both employees and security companies.

Security officers may experience employment interruptions when licenses expire, are suspended, or cannot be renewed because of administrative or training compliance issues.

For individuals who depend on armed security work to support their families, the consequences can be significant.

Security companies may also experience staffing difficulties, increased expenses, and disruptions in their ability to fulfill contractual obligations.

We believe these consequences warrant consideration when evaluating the necessity and constitutionality of the current licensing structure.

What We Are Seeking

Our primary objective is the complete elimination of Florida’s separate Class G firearms licensing requirement for otherwise legally qualified security professionals.

We seek:

Constitutional litigation: Identify attorneys willing to challenge Florida Statute 493.6115 and related Class G licensing requirements under the Second Amendment.
Application of McDaniels: Examine whether the constitutional reasoning in McDaniels v. State, together with Bruen and other relevant Supreme Court decisions, provides a legal basis for challenging separate occupational firearms licensing.
Legislative repeal: Pursue legislation removing the separate Class G licensing requirement while preserving appropriate professional accountability and public safety protections.
Statewide petition: Organize security officers, private security companies, employers, and concerned Florida residents who support examining and changing the existing licensing system.
Legal and organizational support: Seek assistance from constitutional attorneys, civil liberties organizations, firearms rights organizations, and others interested in the legal issues involved.
Our Constitutional Question

Why should a Florida citizen who is legally entitled to carry a firearm be required to obtain an additional firearms license solely because that citizen is working as a licensed security officer?

We believe this question has not received the constitutional examination it deserves.

The McDaniels decision did not directly resolve the constitutionality of Class G licensing. That unresolved issue is what we seek to bring before the courts.

Our objective is not to eliminate responsible security practices. It is to determine whether Florida’s separate occupational firearms licensing requirement imposes an unconstitutional or unnecessary burden on otherwise law-abiding security professionals.

We are requesting legal representation, constitutional review, organizational support, and assistance pursuing the complete repeal of the Class G licensing requirement.

Our position is simple: Constitutional rights do not disappear when a citizen puts on a security uniform.