So Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier comes out saying only dangerous felons should lose their gun rights, and the media loses their minds. Typical.
Here's the deal: a case made its way to Florida courts questioning the state's ban on firearm ownership for non-violent felons. Uthmeier's position? Only those who've proven they're actually dangerous should lose their Second Amendment rights. That sounds pretty reasonable to me – and apparently to Gun Owners of America, who called it "what a REAL pro-gun attorney general looks like."
But the left-leaning media can't stand it. They've got headlines about the "gun lobby" praising Uthmeier – because God forbid we call anti-gun groups the "gun control lobby" like they're just "safety groups" or whatever. It's the usual double standard.
The Florida Phoenix piece is a perfect example. They spend most of the article explaining why the case shouldn't matter, then drop one quote from GOA at the end like it's some radical position. They didn't bother presenting any actual defense of Uthmeier's stance – just tried to paint it as extreme.
Here's what gets me: these are people who've already served their time. They paid their debt to society. If they're non-violent, why should they be stripped of their constitutional rights forever? The media doesn't want to have that conversation – they just want to paint anyone who agrees as a radical.
Uthmeier is right on this one. The Second Amendment doesn't come with an asterisk for people who made mistakes years ago. Non-violent felons deserve a pathway to have their rights restored, and it's refreshing to see an AG actually say it out loud.