In what sounds like the precursor to the next viral "Florida Man" headline, politicians in the Sunshine State are rapidly advancing a bill which would allow churches to arm congregants and other unlicensed volunteers for use as security guards.
In Florida, armed security personnel are required to have a professional security license. That license, which includes a background check and 28 classroom hours of safety and proficiency training, typically takes between 30 and 90 days to complete.
But FL Senate Bill 52 removes those hurdles for houses of worship, allowing churches, synagogues, and mosques to utilize unlicensed volunteers instead.
As the bill quickly makes its way through the Florida legislature, many are now asking: What could go wrong?
Arming the Flock?
The idea of arming volunteers to defend houses of worship has proved popular, and the legislation has moved quickly since its introduction in September of last year. Within weeks it found its way in front of influential committees, and last month it was unanimously approved by the Florida Senate.
It is expected to pass the House and be signed into law by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, where it would take effect on July 1st.
The measure to expand church defense comes amidst concerns about violence at houses of worship nationwide, including high-profile attacks like the shooting at a Catholic school in Minneapolis last August which left two children dead and 21 others injured.
The Cost of Security
Supporters of the bill say it's a necessary change due to the cost of professional security.
Church leadership seeking armed guards often find themselves having to reach into their pockets to protect their flock – and the bills add up quickly. And while most megachurches have security, smaller churches – many of which are already barely scraping by – are simply unable to afford the extra expense.
Elvis Piggott, pastor at Triumph Church of Tampa, explained that most churches simply don’t have the funds to afford security. "It can get very costly," Pastor Piggott said. "Just for myself at an event could be roughly $900 to $1,000 for two hours."
On its head, the bill has a noble intent: Make it easier to protect congregations from gun violence by arming the flock. But some critics say it could have the opposite outcome.
Is This a Good Idea?
“Nothing says safety like untrained people with guns,” offered one Reddit user. Online comments seemed concerned that allowing guards to bypass safety training could result in even more violence, as they may overreact in the moment or fail to de-escalate situations.
“Letting random armed volunteers handle security sounds like a flawless plan,” added another Redditor. “Guess thoughts and prayers count as training now.”
Others had an even more cynical response. ”Go for it!” said another Reddit user sarcastically. “I'm sure God will 'protect the innocent' – just like he does at schools and grocery stores.”
Supporters of the bill counter that churches should have the right to defend their property from threats without emptying the coffers to do so.
What is your reaction? Do extra guns mean extra safety, even in the untrained hands of volunteers? If this was an option for your church, would you support it?
161 comments
-
Christian
EVERY member of the assembly should be invited to Constitutional Carry, the entire adult group. This is your natural god given pre-existing universal human right. Natural: Applies to every living person born. God Given: Not the Government, YOUR CREATOR FATHER. Pre-Existing: Before the creation of the nation, YOUR RIGHTS are supreme. Universal Human RIGHT: ALL Humans, as living creatures, have the natural right to defend themselves, their family, their home, their place of worship, their business, their private property, and their animals. EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD BE ARMED AT ALL TIMES. That's why we have our BILL OF RIGHTS.
-
Rev. BH
Uvalde: Salvadeor Ramos remained in the classrooms for 1 hour and 14 minutes before members of the United States Border Patrol Tactical Unit breached the classroom.
That is, men trained and licensed in firearm usage can still be subject to fear and unwillingness to confront as killings continued. Having guns may make you brave until bad guys with guns are shooting back at you.
-
Minister Rob
As the Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon said on: Mar 11, 2026 at 10:20 am
In addition after actually looking into it; Florida Senate Bill 52 (2026), titled "Security Services at Places of Worship," allows volunteer, unpaid security personnel at churches, synagogues, and mosques to carry concealed firearms without requiring a professional security license. The bill passed the Senate unanimously and requires approved security plans and background checks. Florida House of Representatives (.gov) Florida House of Representatives (.gov)
Key Aspects of SB 52 (2026): Purpose: To help smaller congregations afford armed security amid safety concerns. Exemption: Volunteers providing security do not need to meet the licensing requirements for private security guards. Requirements: Volunteers must have a valid Florida concealed weapon license and pass a level 2 background check. Plan Approval: The security plan must be approved by the local sheriff's office. Scope: Services must be provided exclusively on the premises of the place of worship. Status: The bill passed the Senate 39-0 on February 11, 2026, and is now in the House.
The bill is sponsored by Senator Don Gaetz and is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2026.
"Churches" (not just Christian that can include Satanic Church, Church of Lucifer, Church of Diana, Church of Charles Manson, ECT); Synogue (Hebrew/Jewish); Mosque (Islamic/Muslim). They must have "Conceal caring" & must "Complete firearm training"&"must "have background check". Then the local "Sheriff must approve". So way is everyone's panties in a bunch? It's the Religious place of worship that should be complaining about government violations of First Amendment.
-
Eric E Erkkila
As a retired police officer with 20 years of service. It's not a good idea to have untrained personal carrying firearms and acting in the capacity of security officer you open yourself and your organization up to criminal and civil charges if the people you hire as security officer are not trained properly and if the is a situation that happens and deadly force is used that will be the first thing that law enforcement and lawyers look at from both sides you or your organization should sit down with a lawyer who knows the laws criminally and civily in the state your in.
-
Deborah Jane Vogel
Hmmm… Untrained and unlicensed individuals with loaded weapons….. What could possibly go wrong?
People need to stop thinking that a gun is the answer to all potential violence. Violence begets violence and it mushrooms out from there.
When will the United States be willing to spend the money, time and effort to address the social and economic roots of violence instead of always defaulting to the base impulse of “more guns”?
-
Joseph Grieco
What could go wrong? It's Florida! Follow the news! The "Florida Man" meme is for real. So, if they want armed guards, let them be off-duty police officers. Why? Even off-duty they have accountability for their actions. Now, here's the other side of that argument. How many folks desiring to take part in worship would turn around and leave at the sight of armed guards standing at the entrance of the church?
-
Christian
The BILL OF RIGHTS protects ALL of We The People's Natural God Given RIGHT to be armed & shall not be infringed. ALL Gun laws are uncontitutional and illegal Hate Crimes against the U.S. Constitution. Every member of every church should be armed at all times : if they are Americans in USA. Slave countries do not permit subjects to protect themselves. FREE MEN need not ask permission from anyone to defend their lives , faith, & families.
-
Minister Rob
I am a "licensed" Armed Security Officer as well as a CCW permit holder in good ole' Commie-fornia! This will remove restrictions required or previously required for someone like me. (I've been properly trained by SB County Sheriff's office I also have on-going training while licensed and have been through more "back-round checks" and "mental evaluations" than almost anyone I know!)
Now, if I lived in FL and I chose to offer my services for FREE to my Church, I would be able to do so without my Church having to hire me through a "Security Company" at super inflated rates! It would be up to the Church whether or not I was "incognito" or in Uniform. And if they wanted me in uniform, a uniform and patches can be made very easily and cost effective! I'd supply my own level 3A+ vest and any other "gadgets" they wanted me to carry. (think pepper spray, baton, handcuffs and or Taser)
I really don't think they're going to go "Hey Billy Bob, you got yerself a pistola right??? Can ya hit the broad side of a barn with it?? Well then yee haw! yer now our "security guard"!
-
Minister Rob
The Second Amendment can be broken down into two main parts that work together to protect the right of citizens to own and carry weapons . 1. The Why: The Prefatory Clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
The Purpose: This part explains why the right exists. The Context: At the time of the Founding, the authors feared a large standing federal army could become tyrannical. The Militia: They believed a "militia"—essentially the body of the people trained to use arms—was the best way to secure a free country without relying solely on a professional military. "Well Regulated": In 18th-century terms, this meant "disciplined" or "functioning properly," rather than "heavily restricted by government laws".
- The What: The Operative Clause "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Right: This is the actual command of the amendment. "The People": The Supreme Court has ruled that this refers to individual citizens, not just people currently serving in a military unit. "Keep and Bear": "Keep" means to possess or own; "bear" means to carry for a particular purpose, like self-defense. "Shall Not Be Infringed": The government is prohibited from taking away or unconstitutionally limiting this pre-existing right.
How It's Applied Today While the amendment's language is old, modern legal interpretations from the Supreme Court have simplified how it applies to you:
Individual Right: You have a personal right to own a firearm for lawful purposes, such as self-defense in your home. Public Carry: Recent rulings (like Bruen in 2022) have clarified that the right also extends to carrying a firearm in public for self-defense, subject to certain historical-based regulations. Not Absolute: The government can still place some limits, such as banning dangerous or unusual weapons or preventing certain people (like felons) from owning guns.
-
Aaron Ray Short
Heck yes I support it. While there are many concealed and carry gun owners that have no training whatsoever. There are many more that do have some type of training, even if just self taught. However I think it should be left up to the individual congregation, to choose what kinda of security they see fit. I feel that a gun free zone is, a zone waiting to be targeted.
-
Donald G Magel
I betcha that Florida christians found a passage in the Trump bible where Jesus Christ "speaks" of carrying a licensed hand gun while traveling in the desert. Were all of the Apostles carrying also? I bet J carried a Glock 9. He knew his guns.
-
Cam Kirmser
Trump is living, rent-free, in the space betwixt your ears.
And, you gave him the key.
-
Minister Rob
and there it is! The "I must bring Trump" into every conversation about anything! Go home with your tired rhetoric!! Everyone is sick of it!
-
Dr. Bob Thomas
NASB: Luke 22: 35And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” 36And He said to them, “But now, [j]whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and [k]whoever has no sword is to sell his [l]cloak and buy one. 37For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me: ‘AND HE WAS COUNTED WITH WRONGDOERS’; for that which refers to Me has its [m]fulfillment.” 38They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”
-
-
Lion on the Beach
Our congregation has discussed this. Overwhelmingly approved in a congregational vote. We have a large number of active duty and retired military as well as law enforcement volunteers for this after the Minnesota debacle. We have had calls and individuals have inquired if we would be providing security for worship service attendees. We have yet to have any negative responses when we tell them of our implementation of this security feature. Our attendance has grown by 12% since February of this year. We will be posting warning signs on the property for those considering being a fatality.
-
Leslie A. Hulberg Née Tomasura
That’s just a disaster waiting to happen. I thought the church/temple/mosque was a sanctuary. Why would anyone bring a firearm or any weapon into the house of their deity? Perhaps it’s my naivety. But in my mind, there’s no better place for life to end than during a worshiping service. If that is meant to happen. I know some places of worship do bring weapons. Some even have a cache of weapons (Think Branch Davidian). I know my mother and my former husband told me of at least 3 groups had armed guards and/or a cache of weapons. But to me, it seems inherently more dangerous and wrong on levels too numerous for my taste. Thanks, but I won’t be attending or presiding over any of those services.
-
Leslie A. Hulberg Née Tomasura
That’s just a disaster waiting to happen. I thought the church/temple/mosque was a sanctuary. Why would anyone bring a firearm or any weapon into the house of their deity? Perhaps it’s my naivety. But in my mind, there’s no better place for life to end than during a worshiping service. If that is meant to happen. I know some places of worship do bring weapons. Some even have a cache of weapons (Think Branch Davidian). I know my mother and my former husband told me of at least 3 groups had armed guards and/or a cache of weapons. But to me, it seems inherently more dangerous and wrong on levels too numerous for my taste. Thanks, but I won’t be attending or presiding over any of those services.
-
Bishop William Dusenberry, DD
In my SHP denomination (Secular Humanist Pantheist) of the Universal Life Church; we interpret the Second Amendment to mean that firearms for everyone only applies to “members of a well armed militia” which translates into members of the National Guard and Military Reserve units. The SCOTUS members who decided to ignore this critical “well armed militia requirement”, did so due to the tremendous lobbying efforts by the NRA, and conservatives who want every American to have easy access to a firearm — the results of which have catapulted the USA into the # 1 position in the World for being murdered by a firearm; and making “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition” the most popular hymn in the Christian lexicon.
-
Cam Kirmser
Is that why the Second Amendment reads, "the right of the militia?"
Oh, wait, that's not how it goes. The Amendment reads, "the right of the PEOPLE."
Consider the following;
"An educated Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
Does this mean that only Congress has the right to keep and read books?
I know you won't give a direct answer - no one has in over 20 years of my asking other liberals this question. Why should I expect more from you?
-
Minister Rob
The Second Amendment can be broken down into two main parts that work together to protect the right of citizens to own and carry weapons . 1. The Why: The Prefatory Clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
The Purpose: This part explains why the right exists. The Context: At the time of the Founding, the authors feared a large standing federal army could become tyrannical. The Militia: They believed a "militia"—essentially the body of the people trained to use arms—was the best way to secure a free country without relying solely on a professional military. "Well Regulated": In 18th-century terms, this meant "disciplined" or "functioning properly," rather than "heavily restricted by government laws".
- The What: The Operative Clause "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Right: This is the actual command of the amendment. "The People": The Supreme Court has ruled that this refers to individual citizens, not just people currently serving in a military unit. "Keep and Bear": "Keep" means to possess or own; "bear" means to carry for a particular purpose, like self-defense. "Shall Not Be Infringed": The government is prohibited from taking away or unconstitutionally limiting this pre-existing right.
How It's Applied Today While the amendment's language is old, modern legal interpretations from the Supreme Court have simplified how it applies to you:
Individual Right: You have a personal right to own a firearm for lawful purposes, such as self-defense in your home. Public Carry: Recent rulings (like Bruen in 2022) have clarified that the right also extends to carrying a firearm in public for self-defense, subject to certain historical-based regulations. Not Absolute: The government can still place some limits, such as banning dangerous or unusual weapons or preventing certain people (like felons) from owning guns.
-
Ari Joseph Bertine
He's going to read about 4 words of that and then demand an answer you already gave him. It's no point trying to explain things rationally here, people are only interested in fighting.
-
Dr. Bob Thomas
The 2A does not read: "members of a well armed militia", it reads "a well-regulated militia." The National Guard does not fit that definition. The National Guard is not a militia, it is a State Sponsored Military with the same responsibilities of the Federal Military and is required by Law to train to and meet the exact standards of the Federal Military. The other problem with that interpretation is the fact that "The National Guard (read that carefully - NATIONAL)" did not exist when the 2A was written. The Militia was defined as local individuals that would respond to a call to arms in a time of crisis. They were required to provide their own arms, ammunition, food, clothing, and whatever else was necessary to meet that call. They were also required to submit to the established authority, that being the Regulated part. The Federal Government at that time had great difficulty in putting a standing army in the field, therefore a call to arms of every able body citizen was deemed necessary to the welfare of the Nation. It still is today. It is all too common for people to try and apply today's standards to a situation that existed hundreds of years ago. That is exactly why the Supreme Court changed the understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights recently to try to reflect that understanding and apply it to today's applications.
-
Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon
Then you should explain that to the United States Military as at Naval Training Center in San Diego in 1989 at least; they told us in training that the "Weekend Warriors" National Guards and Reserve s are the the "Militia" of the Second Amendment and the Second Amendment only applies "Protected" to those that took an oath joining the military system. That's our Government views on the Second Amendment.
-
-
-
Kevin M Kimball
I live in Florida and hold a Florida license for Concealed Carry. I fully respect and support the 2nd Amendment. As most people are aware, the recent changes in the law now allow for open carry with no requirements for any training in Florida. I intend to keep my License current and believe some level of classroom and range training was and is a very good idea for everyone's' safety. Guns in churches might be even more beneficial if the carriers had some basic level of training.
-
Ari Joseph Bertine
Florida already allows both open and concealed carry without a permit for registered gun owners. It's a Stand Your Ground state. What part of those things isn't enough? Instead of relying on their "Good Guy With A Gun" they want to put guns into the hands of untrained fools and let them shoot their own feet and the heads of small children off? Idiotic.
-
Cam Kirmser
Back when Florida was the first state to allow concealed carry, ABC came out with this silly TV-movie dramatizing their leftist view of the consequences. They portrayed various leftist hyperbole and warned viewers the Old West was returning. Thing is, the only Old West they know of is that out of Hollywood.
But, end result?
All the leftist fear-mongering never came to pass.
Ol' Ari here is just doing his part to fan the flames of fear, hoping for some tragic event to which he can point and say, "See? I told you so!"
-
Ari Joseph Bertine
So training with guns so as to use them safely and not accidentally shoot yourself is a leftist idea, huh? Bet the NRA would be shocked. Are seat belts and motorcycle helmets also leftist? Wait--is staying alive a leftist idea? If that's the case then I will have to go ahead and claim to be leftist, since I like not accidentally killing myself and others due to incompetence.
By the way, the Old West is not about accidental shootings due to incomptence, and absolutely not anything I mentioned. I'm not sure whose post you read before replying to mine, but 1. I said nothing negative about Florida's carry laws, concealed or otherwise, except that it should be enough, and 2. quit being a nut. Talk about alarmist, jeez. You don't even read things all the way through before you rant at them and make accusations.
Guns. Need. Trained. Users. Period.
-
Cam Kirmser
When it is forced by the government, yes.
Seat belts and motorcycle helmets? Yes. Your body, your choice. If you don't mind flying through the windshield in an accident, that's your decision.
So, unless government FORCES you, you would take no steps to avoid injury on your own? Do you only use the rest room when the government tells you to?
You. Don't. Decide. Training. For.Others. Period.
Not as long as "shall not be infringed" exists.
Deal with it. Oh, but make sure you check with the government to get their permission, first.
-
Ari Joseph Bertine
You absolutely decide training with deadly weapons for others when your lack of training can kill them. Cars, guns, same thing. Driver's licenses have been a thing for decades and nobody complains about those. You have to have training to get a driver's license. It's a good thing and it would be insane to bitch about something that keeps a rando from wiping you out on the road. "Shall not be infringed" does not mean no conditions. It means that right is promised. It does not mean you don't have to take a test to get it. It means the government cannot abolish that right. Making people get training and take a test to keep from killing others accidentally is part of having a government instead of anarchy. Regulation is not infringement.
-
Cam Kirmser
1: Shall not be infringed. That shoots down your entire argument, right there. 2. Cars and guns are not the same thing. Unless you can point out the Amendment to the Constitution that concerns cars. 3.A driver's license is necessary ONLY on public roads. There is no need for a DL on private property. 4. Regulation is most certainly an infringement. That's why it is directly applied to the militia, not the People. 5. I think it is safe to say that everyone who killed someone accidentally while driving had training.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Cam,
Things have changed since the Constitution was written. Transportation was by horse and buggy not 3,000 lb. metal objects that could go 100 MPH. Guns were single shot muzzle loaders, not guns that could dispense hundreds of rounds in a matter of minutes or seconds. Also the greatest majority of traffic fatalities involve drivers that were impaired by drugs or alcohol, but yes, there have been fatalities by untrained drivers when underage and unlicensed drivers get behind the wheel, both on public roads and on private property.
You certainly sound like one who is totally against any government regulation of anything, and it is probably fruitless to try to get you to understand that there are times when your freedom to do whatever you want infringes on my right to life, and to do whatever I want.
Also, people within the NRA and other 2nd Amendment fanatics insist that every American Citizen is part of a militia, so the 2nd Amendment applies to everyone.
-
Cam Kirmser
Then, by your argument, the First Amendment does not protect anything not written by hand with a quill pen or printed on a single page printing press.
Give an example of when one of my freedoms impacts - let alone infringes (seems you do know what that word means when you use it) - your right to life. Then tell us how you have the right to do "anything" you want, but no one else does.
No, we do not say that every American citizen is part of the militia, especially since there is a federal statute that defines exactly who is; 10 USC S 311 (a).
Yet, the militia has nothing to do with who the right applies to. The Second Amendment is quite clear that it is a right inherent to the People.
Further, that this right applies to the whole of the People is reinforced by the supreme Court decision, District of Columbia v. Heller - “There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
"[C]onferred an INDIVIDUAL right."
Of course, the right was conferred by God as no man or man-made entity can confer rights; the Second Amendment guarantees the right.
Only the willfully obtuse say otherwise.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Are you confused about amendments? First or Second? It is really quite simple. Your rights end when they infringe on someone else's. Since you can't seem to get it straight, I'll tell you some times when your first amendment rights infringe on my rights, and the law has upheld that it is not covered:
Freedom of Speach: -Libel (lying about someone that causes harm has civil consequences.)
-Perjury (lying under oath)
-Terroristic threatening
-Encouraging or instigating a riot
-Requesting or coercing someone to enjoin in a criminal act
-And it now appears that [if POTUS has his way] saying anything negative about the current administration or the war in Iran can get a journalist in hot water for treason (freedom of the both speach and press)
Need any more? Do I need to go on to Freedom of religion and the right to peaceful assembly?
-
Cam Kirmser
Meaningless. None of your points violate a right; they address consequences.
For instance, while it is illegal to rob a bank with a firearm - or any kind of weapon - the right to keep and bear those arms is not impacted.
Perhaps you need to try comprehending your own posts, before sending them. Better yet, try using your own thoughts, rather than those of others.
-
Michael Hunt
These all address times where freedom of speech is limited due to the speech infringing on someone else's rights. The consequences you speak of are for infringing on someone else's rights in ways that are otherwise protected.
Robbing a bank with a firearm, to my understanding, results in losing the right to bear arms. Using the firearm to threaten the rights of others can cost you that right.
-
-
-
Patricia Ann Gross
There is plenty of precidence. You have to be trained, pass a written and in-person test to prove you know how to drive a car before you are issued a license to drive one, and a gun is much more deadly, especially if you talk about those that can dispense multiples of shots per second. Why is this a difficult question. Do you also think that strapping in children in child seats should not be mandated by law?
-
Cam Kirmser
So?
There is no amendment protecting driving. And, as I told Ari, a license is only needed when driving on PUBLIC roads. If you drive on private property, no license is necessary.
This is by no means a difficult question - unless one is incapable of comprehending English.
As for car seats, no, they should not be mandatory. Their use is decided by the PARENTS, not the government.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
I presume then that you have never seen the results of a child becoming a projectile in a head-on collision. My husband and a child in a car seat were the only two out of five that were strapped in and the only survivors in such a collision.
-
Cam Kirmser
Presume anything you like, no difference to me.
-
Michael Hunt
So it should be a parent's right to put their child in danger? They should be able to risk the life of their child by not putting them in a seat belt or car seat? Should someone be able to risk the possibility of being ejected from their car in an accident and injuring someone else?
-
-
-
-
-
-
Dr. Bob Thomas
The reason for the "change" in the Florida Law was to put a Safety Team in the same legal framework as Private Security and Private Investigators. It does not call out for Church SWAT Teams. The author of the article left this fact out, I suspect so that it would create a "click bait" set of responses, Which it certainly has.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Dr. Bob,
So, in Florida are Private Security and Private Investigators allowed to concealed carry without any training?
-
-
-
Cam Kirmser
From the tease; "some argue that responsibility for gun violence is not isolated to the shooter."
"Some" are looking for any excuse to absolve them from responsibility for their actions.
The ONLY person responsible for a shooting is the SINGLE person who pulled the trigger.
As for guns in church, that is up to the property owner and only the property owner. I have no problem with it, but it's not my decision.
-
Donald Sam Vicari
Unfortunately, it is necessary today with Islamic radicals and the transgender violence. We must protect our children!
-
Michael Hunt
What transgender violence? Are you talking about the violence directed at the transgender community?
-
-
Donna Christ
I do not think guns belong in a church!
-
Minister Rob
Tell that to the CRIMINALS!! O, wait, criminals by definition DO NOT FOLLOW the LAW!!
-
-
Thomas Michael Donahue
No one should be able to own or have access to any firearms until they have demonstrated enough responsibility to seek out competent training in the use of such weapons.
-
Cam Kirmser
Could you point out the part of the Second Amendment that requires any such "demonstration?"
Thanks.
-
Ari Joseph Bertine
The words "well-regulated".
-
Cam Kirmser
Afraid I don't see the word, "demonstration," in my copy.
But, that's irrelevant; your incorrect answer only applies to a militia, not the People.
-
Joseph Grieco
One of the first acts passed by Congress and signed by George Washington in 1789 was the Militia Act which described and outlined the duties and responsibilities (including regular training) of the State Militias, down to the community level. This same act was rewritten numerous times until after WWI when the Militias were reorganized into the National Guard. So at no time was the militia intended to be individuals who came together on their own. A handful of states, including Texas and Connecticut, still maintain militias that are fully under the Governor's control, and are not part of the National Guard, but that do regularly participate in local state emergencies, including peace keeping. And for personal reference, I'm in my 70s, have been a sport shooter for over 60 years, was a rifle marksman in the USN, and believe everyone who wants to own a firearm needs to pass a safety training course, that includes firing the weapon they desire to use.
-
Cam Kirmser
And, I rate Sharpshooter. Not relevant.
All of your prior points relate to a militia, or a form of one, and those are addressed in the Second Amendment; they are to be "well regulated."
But, the right - the RIGHT - is guaranteed to the PEOPLE, not just the militia, whatever its form, and it "shall not be infringed."
-
Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon
As much as I support individuals properly trained and I was an NRA member (legal reasons bar me now) I also have to agree with your statement as that's exactly what we were told upon recruitment at Navy Training Center, San Diego in 1989. The Second Amendment only protects the "Militia" now called "National Guard". That they may have their weapons accessible at all times for National Defense. In boot camp those we fully active enlisted called "Weekend Warriors". And we were wrong to criticize them they are just as brave and honorable, the ones that would be here defending our home ground and families.
-
-
Ari Joseph Bertine
So, grammar actually means things, and punctuation is a part of grammar.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The grammar is a bit antiquated, with the use of an extra comma that doesn't need to be there after the word militia, and of course the extra capitalizations are odd. But the composition of this sentence is still clear after all this time. The entire reason they declared that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. They were speaking of citizen militias, which meant that if the state was threatened, they expected the citizens to grab the gun off the hooks over their mantel and go fight to defend it.
Back then, pretty much every home had a gun. It was necessary equipment for life; you hunted with it and you fought off raiders, bandits, and bears with it. You got it from your dad and he taught you how to use it as soon as you were old enough to hold it steadily and not kill yourself with it. It was valuable, hard to replace if you broke it, and so were you, so he taught you to be CAREFUL with the durn thing and not shoot yourself, your sister, or a random tree that might scare you into dropping the gun down a canyon. You were trained with it. You used it with supervision until it was known that you could use it without making mistakes, because that was very important.
Nowadays, any city mouse can go buy a gun he's never seen except in movies and thought looked cool, and then go fool around with it or strut around wearing it because it makes him feel like less of a screwup than his job does. He doesn't hunt with it. He isn't going to run into any bears or raiders or banditos unless he's either really unlucky or is hanging out somewhere unsafe, but if he does, oh boy is he ready to either fire it without taking the safety off, shoot himself in the leg drawing it, or blow Granny's head off because he was so beside himself with adrenaline that he finally gets to use the ol' shootin' iron that he mistook her for a bear in the dark.
Well-regulated means someone checks on people to make sure they're not idiots. This law is proposing the EXACT opposite--let unsupervised, unvetted, emotionally worked up and frightened people carry guns around without going through the work that a licensed gun owner did to earn that license.You can open or concealed carry without a permit to do so specifically like some other states require, but you still have to have passed a qualified firearms training course to get that license at all. They want to make that go away--no training required. That's like stuffing all the sixteen-year-olds full of coffee and sugar and then sticking them behind the wheel of a car without driver's ed and telling them to have at. Sure, some of them will stay on the road, and might not even scratch the car. And a lot of them will die, and a lot of them will kill other people and maybe die.
Maybe don't use the Constitution to excuse foolishness. It wasn't meant for that. None of us have the right to panic and stampede over other people's lives. We have the right to do what normal sane adults do, and stay well regulated, like the paper says.
-
Cam Kirmser
"Well regulated" applies to the militia, not to the People. The RIGHT belongs to the People - which includes the militia.
Twist and deflect all you like, this is a fact that cannot be denied.
I don't think you'll answer, but consider this;
"An educated Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
Does this mean only Congress can "keep and read Books?"
-
Ari Joseph Bertine
Why would you respond to a post you didn't read? I went into that in my post.
-
Cam Kirmser
Like I said, you wouldn't answer.
Don't feel too bad about it, no one else on the left ever has, either, so you're in the company you keep.
-
Michael Hunt
"An educated Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
No, this does not mean only Congress can "keep and read books" but this isn't an equivalent comparison to the Second Amendment.
In your hypothetical, keeping and reading books allows for people to be educated members of congress. In the Second Amendment, keeping and bearing arms does not constitute a militia that is well-regulated. “A well regulated militia" is the specific phrase that the Founding Fathers used so that there could be regulations that ensure a well trained and responsible militia.
Lots of people on the left have addressed this topic. Here are the first 2 I found.:
https://mises.org/mises-wire/why-we-cant-ignore-militia-clause-second-amendment
https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/3837733-forgotten-words-a-well-regulated-militia/
-
Cam Kirmser
Man, liberals sure enjoy twisting things to fit their lies.
It is an EXACT equivalent to the Second Amendment.
You switch from apples to cinder blocks when you change "allows for people" into " does not constitute." What a laughable obfuscation.
Just as Congress is a subset of the People, so is the militia.
The RIGHT is guaranteed to the People, so that a militia can be created. The militia is then well regulated, but this does not apply to the People.
"Lots of people" have not addressed my analogy, so don't pretend they have.
If I present a car with a flat tire, you would respond that the windows have been cleaned. Perhaps both apply to a car, but they have nothing to do with each other.
-
Michael Hunt
Man, conservatives sure enjoy twisting facts to fit their agenda and seem incapable of reading articles presented to them.
You're right, constitute was the wrong word to use as a synonym for "allows for" so I do apologize as it was not my intent to obfuscate. The point I was trying to make is that they are not equivalent because reading books makes you educated but owning and bearing arms does not make a "well-regulated militia."
I understand SCOTUS's Heller ruling just fine and, although it's completely unsurprising that the 5-4 decision was solely voted in favor by conservative justices, I find it amazing how their decision completely omits the idea of a well-regulated militia. Have you read the dissenting opinions in that case? How can a militia be "well-regulated" if no one can pass regulations on guns and gun ownership? How
I was not saying lots of people have addressed your specific analogy, I'm saying lots of people have addressed the issue of how the current interpretation of the Second Amendment ignores the "well-regulated militia" phrase.
Regulating guns does not deny people from owning and bearing arms, but it can help prevent needless gun deaths.
If you presented me a car with a flat tire, I'd say, "you should get that fixed." If I told you, "If you jump off this bridge, I'll give you $100," you'd just start pestering me for the $100 because you ignored the part about jumping off a bridge.
-
Cam Kirmser
I have twisted nothing - unless you can point out where I have. Indeed, I have not read the articles; they are meaningless to me, are irrelevant to my comment(s) and I have no intention of giving them any notice.
At any rate, you are continuing to twist the Second Amendment. The MILITIA is to be "well regulated," not the PEOPLE. Further, the Amendment says, "shall not be infringed." That does not limit what it prohibits to denial only.
You said it yourself; "well regulated militia." It is not, "well regulated People." The PEOPLE have the right - ALL of them. The militia is well regulated - a SUBSET of the People.
-
Michael Hunt
How do you know the articles are irrelevant to your comments if you didn't read them? In truth, they're specifically relevant as they provide a critique of your viewpoint.
"The PEOPLE have the right - ALL of them. The militia is well regulated - a SUBSET of the People."
Is this to say that if a person wanted to be part of a militia, they are subject to regulation, but as long as they're not in a militia, they cannot be regulated in any way? Does that mean people with a documented history of violence must be allowed to own firearms? What about a person experiencing severe mental distress who indicates a desire to hurt others; are you saying we can't stop them from owning a gun either?
Your interpretation of the Second Amendment seems to me to be completely ignoring the first half of it: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." The entire purpose of giving the right to bear arms to the people seems to be so a well regulated militia could provide security to the state. That shouldn't mean any random person should be able to walk into a store and buy whatever weapons they want without restriction.
-
Cam Kirmser
I ignore them, because I already know they are irrelevant.
Yes, if a person wants to be - or, is required to be by existing law, like in the United States - they are subject to regulation.
But, ONLY those who want or are required to be in the militia. Everyone else has the right without the regulation, hence the "shall not be infringed."
Laws are already established that allow an individual to be restricted in the exercise of their rights due to states or conditions inherent to or placed upon the INDIVIDUAL; for instance, imprisonment. Lots of rights are curtailed, restricted or flat denied when one is imprisoned. But, because Bob is in prison and his INDIVIDUAL right to arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment and reinforced by Heller, does not mean that Tom has his right likewise infringed.
I'm not ignoring anything, as my posts have proved; liberals simply ignore what I've posted or attempt to twist my words into something they are not.
The right is not "given" by the Second Amendment. Nowhere does the Second Amendment say anything about "giving" the right. The right is inherent to the human condition; it is GIVEN by God; Man is not empowered to grant any rights.
Again, the militia is a subset of the People. Those in the militia are to be regulated, if nothing else than to ensure they are a reliable fighting force. But, the People have the right - all the People.
Yes, it DOES mean that any random person can walk into a store and buy any weapon available that they want.
-
Michael Hunt
"I ignore them, because I already know they are irrelevant."
"I'm not ignoring anything, as my posts have proved..."
You seriously typed both of these things in the same comment? You're literally ignoring critiques of your position and claiming they're irrelevant.
If anyone can walk into a gun store to buy a gun, what's to stop someone from walking into a store, buying a gun, and then committing a mass shooting right in the store? Their right to bear arms supersedes my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Giving access of firearms to everyone without regulations will only result in more people dying.
-
Cam Kirmser
Correction: "But, because Bob is in prison and his INDIVIDUAL right to arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment and reinforced by Heller [are denied]"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Donald V. Dunham
Common sense is exactly the issue here.
What this Florida bill actually does is narrower than the headline: CS/SB 52 would exempt certain unpaid volunteers at places of worship from the state’s private-security license rules. It has already passed the Florida Senate, and as of March 10, 2026, it was added to the House Special Order Calendar for March 11.
The real problem is this: removing the professional security-license requirement is not the same thing as creating good security. Earlier bill analysis referenced requirements like a concealed-carry license and background screening, but the committee substitute explicitly removed some of those added requirements and clarified that volunteer church security would not be subject to the same licensing regime as paid security personnel.
So the common-sense position is not “churches should be defenseless,” and it is not “just hand guns to volunteers and hope for the best.” The common-sense position is that if someone is going to stand armed in a security role around families, children, and congregants, there should be serious standards, serious vetting, and serious training. The official bill text confirms the point of the bill is to create an exemption from license requirements for volunteer armed security at places of worship.
Common sense needs to be used here. If a church wants protection, that is one thing. But pretending that “armed volunteer” automatically equals “qualified security” is foolish. There is a difference between a person carrying a gun and a person trained, vetted, and prepared to handle security in a crowded church full of families, elderly people, and children. Those are not the same thing.
The problem with these kinds of bills is that they can blur that line. Real security requires judgment, background checks, discipline, training, and accountability. Not just a weapon and good intentions. I’m not saying churches should be left defenseless. I’m saying common sense says that if someone is going to stand armed as security, the standards should go up, not down.
Because once something goes wrong, nobody will be talking about “freedom” and “flexibility.” They’ll be talking about why obvious safeguards were removed in the first place.
That’s the part people need to think about. Here’s a harder version: Common sense has left the building when people start acting like an armed volunteer is the same thing as trained security.
A gun does not magically turn somebody into a competent protector. It does not give them judgment, discipline, threat assessment skills, de-escalation ability, or the nerve to make the right decision under pressure.
If churches want security, fine. But lowering standards around armed security is not wisdom. It is gambling with people’s lives and calling it policy.
If you are going to put an armed person in charge of protecting a congregation, then common sense says that person should be thoroughly vetted, properly trained, and held to a real standard.
Anything less is not security. It is wishful thinking with a firearm.
-
Paul Luther Smith
Amen
-
Minister Rob
see my comment above.
-
Dr. Bob Thomas
The problem with "common sense" is that it changes from person to person. The Florida Law was specifically focused on those local churches that cannot afford "Private, professional security". It addresses the classification of the chosen individual and invites specific legal protection equal to a Private Investigator or Professional Security Guard. It is an attempt to clear up a legal matter, not to create private SWAT Teams for the Churches.
I am sure that if you investigate the churches even in your own area, that the large churches employ some sort of security personal in order to meet insurance standards. If you advance that research to the Synagogues and Mosques, you will discover that their Security Personal are even more highly specialized.
-
-
Bailey McSwain
Christanity is becoming a death cult... maybe it always has been. Even the symbol of Christanity, the cross, is a torture/execution image. Yikes!
-
Cam Kirmser
No one forced you to come to this forum and you are free to leave.
-
-
Rev. Kev
Worst. Idea. Ever.
-
Rev. B.D. Rees
WHAT A MORONIC IDEA!!! Who in their right mind would place paritioners untrained in firearms in a position of security?? Do churces not listen to their very message?? If a person wrongs me, forgive him 70x7...... If a person slaps me on one cheek, turn to him the other.... No amount of guns in a church will detour a shooter if he really wants to kill people.... What if one of those seemingly innocent people the congregation just handed a weapon to and they were deranged enough to use that weapon on their fellow parishoners?? No.... This is NOT a good idea, nor a smart one.....
-
Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon
Who are you to say the people are untrained? Down here in the South, and Florida is more south than us in Mississippi and Louisiana, 98% of us grew up with a gun in our hands. I was taught from as long as I can remember gun safety and use. As to the teachings of Yeshua Messiah who told us "sell your cloak and buy a sword" which is a modern gun. To protect yourself not to attack others. Forgiveness doesn't absolve the person committing a crime/sin for punishment. Most have that wrong.
-
Rev. B.D. Rees
Rev. Dixon: Who the hell are you to say that people are trained?? I don't care one iota about how yall grow up with guns in your hands.... All it takes is one idiot with a grudge to create a crime scene!! Christ also said, Paraphrasing of course: if your neighbor needs a cloak give him yours.... Forgiveness may not absolve the person commiting the crime, but, Christ said that is what we are to do.....
-
Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon
My point is neither can everyone make the assumption that they won't be trained as the requirements specify that they be trained, background checks and the local sheriff gets the final say.
-
Rev. B.D. Rees
You and I both know that De-santis is kissing Trumps ass.... I think that we can indeed make that assumption!!
-
Minister Rob
the "I must bring TRUMP into every conversation" person! # 2
-
Rev. B.D. Rees
Why not?? So far everything I have heard from you is an idea from the Trump camp!! Do you or have you ever had an idea or thought of your own, Minister Rob??
-
Cam Kirmser
Typical post from someone who has none of his own.
Obviously, you are unaware that those ideas predate Trump's political ambitions.
-
-
-
-
Cam Kirmser
Christ also said, get a sword. If you have to, sell your cloak to get one.
-
Rev. B.D. Rees
Christ also said, Forgiveness is devine!! If a person lives by the sword he will surely. Die by the sword!!! We can play semantics all day.... Giving guns to untrained people is. JUST WRONG!! You know it, and so do I....
-
Cam Kirmser
Do not have the unmitigated gall to dictate to me what I do or do not know.
Speak for yourself, "Rev," not for others.
-
Rev. B.D. Rees
Mr. Kirmser: Apparently you need someone to speak for you when it comes to your self proclaimed idiologies!! Yes, Mr. Kirmser, I do have the Gall when it comes to someone just being DEAD WRONG, Mitigated or Unmitigated!!
-
Cam Kirmser
Now, you have the arrogance to presume another is "wrong."
Jesus said what I posted, and you are calling Him "DEAD WRONG."
You are a shameful person.
-
Rev. B.D. Rees
Not half as shameful as the thought that you have about allowing any "Tom, Dick or Harry" to be armed with God knows what, and for what reason, to play security at a CHURCH????? What kind of people are you??
-
Cam Kirmser
The RIGHT of the PEOPLE (that includes Tom, Dick and Harry) shall NOT be infringed.
I am morally and LEGALLY right. Deal with it.
-
Rev. B.D. Rees
Even when your WRONG..... Your funny!!
-
Cam Kirmser
I think that someone who doesn't know the proper use of "your," and is unaware of the use of the contraction, "you are," really has no room to comment on someone being "wrong," particularly when they are not.
To demonstrate how I am not wrong, I cite the following two quotes from District of Columbia v Heller (aka, Heller);
• "There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms."
• "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia…"
And, in McDonald v The City of Chicago, the Court held that this individual right applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.
INDIVIDUAL; therefore Tom, Dick and Harry, and all other INDIVIDUALS of the United States.
Again, I am morally and LEGALLY right. And, again, deal with it.
-
Rev. B.D. Rees
OOOOO..... I am so impressed with you're little diatribe.... You're STILL WRONG..... What part of "KISS MY A__S don't you understand?? You can cite all the 2nd amendment crap you want, it is still Morally Wrong to arm citizens who have no training to play "RENT-A-COP" at a church who are not trained but have a license to carry!! You DEAL WITH IT, and the next one who gets killed by security will be on your head!!
-
Cam Kirmser
You should be impressed. And would be, if it were within your limited wit.
I provided the cites, twinkie, so I'm right and you are just too butt-hurt to accept it.
I deal with rights and you want to deny them.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Roy S. Thorpe
Untrained is the operative word! Even a hunter with training would a better choice! These untrained owners have shot themselves while carrying, cleaning, and showing off their " new" toys! They would shoot with little knowledge of background, how to place a disabling shot instead of kill shot, etc etc!
-
Minister Rob
I'm a trained Armed Security Officer and a Commie-fornia CCW holder, we are NOT trained to "disable" that's only in movies and TV! We are trained to "STOP THE THREAT!!!!" in security training AND CCW training!!! they train you to "never SHOOT TO DISABLE!!!!" even the USCCA, one of the biggest CCW insurers out there say to NEVER shoot to "disable"!! ANYONE who thinks it's good to "Disable" need to go take a beginner gun safety class and they will teach you why! That stuff ONLY WORKS in TV and Movies! This is REAL LIFE!!!
-
-
Steven Ferrell
You are not being 100% honest on your information about the bill. You are leaving out two factors.
The volunteers MUST have a Conceal Carry Permit, which does require training to obtain.
The volunteers MUST pass a background check.
It is NOT just let anyone who wants to carry a weapon into the church.
-
Sharon Faye Shores
I have no problem with church security as outlined in the article above. Besides that, the training these folks are getting is at least 6 times the training a typical conceal carry class received. Here in my state: conceal carry classes are 4 to 5 hours.
-
Minister Rob
16 hours in Commie-fornia!
-
-
Rev. Dr. Robert Allan Roush
Could we require enough safety and respect-for-firearms training to even own a gun in order to make this possible? Ya, I didn't think so...
-
Minister Rob
Most of us were taught that at a young age and continue to self educate after Adult-hood!
-
-
Herb Kopper
I believe the point is safety. Most criminals are driven by a strange economic outlook. Why would you attack church members? Because you want to hurt the innocent. With the option of arming the members, the odds of a crazed assailant attacking goes way down. I am not a fan of asking retired police to work, but I am old military and do carry. Never would I allow myself to assault a person, however to defend innocent, yes. But in 30 years I never had to, so it will control the crazies, that is what right to lawfully carry is for. Don't over think the whole world.
-
S. Venneman
The difference here is that you have had some amount of training, and due to that training you likely maintain your skills. Statistically, it is highly unlikely that no more than 3% of the people in a given population have the same basic level of firearms training you have, and even less likely that they’ve maintained their skills.
-
-
Lawrence A. Benson
Before we all get bent out of shape about 2nd Amendment rights and religious rights, let's keep things in perspective. The current laws do not prohibit church members from legally obtaining a license to carry a weapon, so the only "restriction" is that they (like everyone else) must abide by state laws. IMO, the negative side of this bill would be that unqualified, unlicensed people carrying firearms to and from religious services. There is also the consideration that some unscrupulous but "legal" churches will be able to arm their members without the normal background checks. I think that most of the people on this site can understand what I am alluding to.
-
obere mchugh
Never, not ever will there be gun in my home church ever, i dont agree with guns and seeing how crazy gun owners are there not responsible enough ill trained emotional and poor judgement. i will never agree with gun's as most people are just too unstable and to easy to anger and use them for emotional purposes and anger. i also dont allow anyone i dont know or trust as we believe in perfect love and perfect trust so if i dont 100% trust you you dont get to come to my home so yeah. never ever ever.
-
Merlin
Nothing new. Christians and other beliefs have killed millions in the name of God.
-
Burt Cox
This is simple if a gun is gonna be around someone should be tried in how to use it. Church's probably could find off duty officers to help out I bet.
-
Ronaldo
In several states, including mine but not Florida, proficiency testing is required in order to obtain a concealed carry permit, but is not in order to pass a background check and purchase a firearm. This is a problem. While I am against mandatory training, I am for mandatory proficiency testing for anyone who purchases a firearm or applies for a concealed carry permit. If this testing was required nationwide, everyone legally carrying a gun would have some idea how to use it. I'm against mandatory training because, while I have never purchased a firearm, I was trained in their use as a child, and retrained more seriously when I served during the Vietnam Conflict. I see no good reason for me to have to shell out potentially several hundred dollars to undergo a training course I could probably teach.
-
Cam Kirmser
The "proficiency training" is covered by "a well regulated militia." But, that training is only for the militia. The remainder of the people do not have that requirement.
However, I will say that I doubt the Founding Fathers ever thought we'd become a nation in abject fear of tools.
-
Michael Hunt
Tools of death. They are made to stop someone or something from being alive. Their whole purpose is to kill their target. Nearly 47,000 people died due to firearms in the USA in 2023. Sucides account for 58% of the deaths, murder 38%. A firearm was involved in 79% of all murders in the USA and 55% of all sucides. I don't find it unreasonable to have a healthy fear of such a violent tool.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/05/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-us/
-
-
-
Tami Tabone
For me, the whole idea of weapons seems contracting to religion. We don't have armed guards at grocery stores, nor at movie theaters or gas stations. So why is it OK in churches to have weapons there. Anyway, one of the reasons I don't go to church anymore is because of all the hypocrisy. Even some of the priests, pastors, etc. Are hypocrites. So I stay away from immersing myself 8n that kind of energy.
-
Cam Kirmser
For one, there are grocery stores, movie theaters and gas stations that have armed guards.
For another, it is OK, because we have the Second Amendment guaranteed right. It is up to the owner of the property whether or not to allow people on the property to be armed. If you want to be the one to make that decision, buy the property and do so. Otherwise, it is up to each property owner.
-
Dr. Bob Thomas
I you have a problem with "Hypocrisy" then you should accept the responsibility of confronting it and correcting it. You cannot do that by "staying away." That only perpetuates it.
-
-
Rev. BH
What's in that Florida drinking water anyway?
-
Ari Joseph Bertine
A ton of salt and nasty chemicals, I found during my last visit. It must get to them after putting up with it for years.
-
-
Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon
I will let my Messiah Yeshua answer this issue; Luke 22:36 (KJV) Then said Jesus unto them, "But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." That was crystal clear and protected under "Free Exercise thereof" of the First Amendment.
-
Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon
In addition after actually looking into it; Florida Senate Bill 52 (2026), titled "Security Services at Places of Worship," allows volunteer, unpaid security personnel at churches, synagogues, and mosques to carry concealed firearms without requiring a professional security license. The bill passed the Senate unanimously and requires approved security plans and background checks. Florida House of Representatives (.gov) Florida House of Representatives (.gov)
Key Aspects of SB 52 (2026): Purpose: To help smaller congregations afford armed security amid safety concerns. Exemption: Volunteers providing security do not need to meet the licensing requirements for private security guards. Requirements: Volunteers must have a valid Florida concealed weapon license and pass a level 2 background check. Plan Approval: The security plan must be approved by the local sheriff's office. Scope: Services must be provided exclusively on the premises of the place of worship. Status: The bill passed the Senate 39-0 on February 11, 2026, and is now in the House.
The bill is sponsored by Senator Don Gaetz and is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2026.
"Churches" (not just Christian that can include Satanic Church, Church of Lucifer, Church of Diana, Church of Charles Manson, ECT); Synogue (Hebrew/Jewish); Mosque (Islamic/Muslim). They must have "Conceal caring" & must "Complete firearm training"&"must "have background check". Then the local "Sheriff must approve". So way is everyone's panties in a bunch? It's the Religious place of worship that should be complaining about government violations of First Amendment.
-
Minister Rob
thank you! Well said!
-
Dr. Bob Thomas
Finally! Thank you!
-
-
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
Actually pew-pew pew pistols COULD be a wonderful idea. They’d be prepared if they suddenly had a Jonestown/Heaven’s Gate moment.
-
Rev Morse
Yes, protect the churches.
-
Douglas Robert Spindler
God tells in one one of the commandments, "Thou Shall Not Kill". How do we know gun carrying church goers will obey God's commandment and not kill with their guns. Why do church goers need guns, when they have God's protection?
-
Cam Kirmser
Yet, there are copious examples in the Bible of God instructing the Israelites to kill.
The Commandment should, more properly, read, "Thou shalt not murder."
-
Dr. Bob Thomas
First: The KJV translated the Latin into Old English and the concept of Murder, Manslaughter, and like terms had not been fully developed or approved by "The King". Therefore "kill" was used when it should not have been.
Second: Jesus Himself commanded His disciples to arm themselves.
From the NASB: Luke 22: 35 - 38 Jesus is speaking to His disciples and issuing them His final commands ...
35And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” 36And He said to them, “But now, [j]whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and [k]whoever has no sword is to sell his [l]cloak and buy one. 37For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me: ‘AND HE WAS COUNTED WITH WRONGDOERS’; for that which refers to Me has its [m]fulfillment.” 38They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”
-
-
Rev Ned
Armed, liscenced pros? OK! Armed yayhoos like Kyle Rittenhouse? HELL NO!!!
-
ServantOfJudgement
Kyle performed pretty darned well under tremendous pressure. He had quite a few icky anarchists trying to kill him. Of the three that got shot while trying to kill him, all three had a rap sheet and one was a sickie sex offender. The brother didn't just start spraying bullets like in Chicago playgrounds (shhhh don't talk about that too loud). He aimed, fired and put down the threat.
I wonder if the one that lived will still try to burn cities down in peaceful but firey protests.
-
Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon
I'm curious as to your "sickie sex offender" do you call him that because he actually proven without reasonable doubt and you've read the court and evidence against him and didn't Stop at "sex crime" but actually know the facts? Or you just another sheep hearing "sex offender" and believe every rumor, lie, misdirection. Example: The guy that got 5 years and now treated as a "sickie sex offender" because he told his wife "f-off" in an Applebee's in Monroe, Louisiana. Now, has to register for life. He guy that got 10 years for taking a leek behind an abandoned gas station and arrested for "public exposure" when he was trying not to be seen. And the adult prostitutes and their adult johns fully consensual but now, "register Sex Offenders" treated like pedophiles.
-
ServantOfJudgement
Mr Dixon, the dirty dog that the young patriot put down had his way with 5 kids, 9-11 year old and was found guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers.
Thats who you're defending and that's who gave you thumbs up is defending. Five kids 9-11 years old bub, them's the facts.
You've got people on this website defending molesters of 5 children.
What can a Christian say to that?
-
Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon
I'm not defending anyone, I never heard of them until this statement and when I looked up the news data no mention of any sex offender. Now the black man shot and killed by the police had a record of drugs dealer and robbing and assault of officers. And three separate universities from three different nations happened to get the same results in a study that 89% of Drug dealers are sexual predators dealing in sex slavery. Yet, no one seems to care they get a slap on the hand and released unregistered. The three the other guy shot there's no data other than the one survivor sued the police and the guy that shot him. The only thing I'm defending is for people not to throw out allegations without the facts. This whole issue is about private security in places of worship. Everyone throwing out "untrained" when the bill clearly says they must be trained, have a background check and the sheriff gets the final say.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Where are people getting the "untrained" notion? Reread the first line of the article where it says, "... politicians in the Sunshine State are rapidly advancing a bill which would allow churches to arm congregants and other unlicensed volunteers for use as security guards." It will happen since they don't require a license if they are volunteering for the church, unless the church mandates the same education and training as the licensing board does.
-
-
-
-
Michael Hunt
He put down a threat that he created by inserting himself into a situation where he didn't belong. He certainly didn't deserve to be charged with murder, but it seems weird to me that a minor can operate a firearm without adult supervision in public in a state where that is illegal to do and then he shoots multiple people, killing 2, and he receives no legal repercussions.
-
-
-
Patricia Ann Gross
The only problem I see with this is: If a firestorm breaks out, how do you tell who the "bad guys are?" I have a brother-in-law who is security for his church, is licensed for concealed carry, and wears a vest during the service identifying him as church security. This is in a more rural community where for the most part, everybody knows everybody else, but in heavily populated and mega churches, like would exist in Florida, when someone calls 9-1-1, and the police arrive at an active shooting, how would they know if a person pointing a gun is a congregant that brought it for protection or the active shooter? This is why the extra traininng and licensing for concealed carry is essential in this situation. I grew up around guns and have a healthy respect for what they do, which is why I don't have one or carry one. As a place of sanctuary, why in the world would a church want to bypass the extra safety measures?
-
Patricia Ann Gross
BTW - even though my BIL has the training and licensing, he volunteers his services to the church as part of his tithe. Churches must require that even their volunteer force have the proper training and are easily identified as security in the scenario I presented here.
-
-
Nicholas J Page
I think it will hopefully determine terrorist attacks in places of worship. Like i say religious buildings need to be protected and religious groups and leaders our world is getting far too dangerous and out of control and yes England has problems too.
-
Colleen McAllister
I do not approve of guns. Certainly not in church. And in the hands if untrained? No. Simply no.
-
Cam Kirmser
Fortunately, you don't get to decide for others.
-
ServantOfJudgement
Colleen, guns in a synagogue Detroit just saved the lives of a bunch of people.
Islam can't help itself, it's true believers Must kill jews and christians.
-
Ari Joseph Bertine
Yes, Colleen, you do not get to decide for others.
Only people with money and guns get to decide for others.
-
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
Florida calls Tennessee's bid for dumbest State in the Union with deciding to allow just any ol’ willfully ignorant, religiously delusional yeehaw to serve as an ARMED GUARD. This to deal with protests at churches happening about 1500 miles away.
-
Keith D
I find it obtuse. The Second Amendment says not only 'keep' but 'bear.'
My annoyance here is that there is a question, even. Armed citizens can handle it without having to designate 'officers.'
Let the ministers vet the congregation, if they deem it necessary. But what? Metal deyectors at churches? Gimme a break!
-
Michael J Kidwell
I went to church my whole life, and most were armed at all times.We went hunting or just fishing after church. It is a totally normal thing. I have carried a pistol since I was 21, 36 years later with the crazies we call democrats, I never leave the house without a gun or 2 on my person.
-
Michael Hunt
Funny, I've never carried a gun in my life, nor have I ever been scared enough to feel a need to always carry one. I'm fine with people exercising their second amendment right, but it's wild to be so afraid of "the crazies we call democrats" that you don't leave the house without a gun.
The truth of the matter is that you're statistically more likely to be victim to a right-wing terror attack than a left-wing attack.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/ideological-trends-us-terrorism
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/right-wing-extremist-violence-is-more-frequent-and-deadly-than-left-wing-violence-data-shows
I live in a blue state and city and I have never once felt afraid of "democrat crazies" in my community. The only time "riots" have occurred here are when far-right provocateurs show up to pick fights with their political opponents or police arrive and start throwing tear gas and shooting rubber bullets at peaceful protesters.
"[W]e respect human life and we are not trying to kill people that think differently than us. Only democrats do and say that kind of stuff." Tell that to Melissa Hortman and her husband who were assassinated by a far-right Republican Trump voter. Republican lawmakers poked fun at Democrats after her death; I've yet to find a single Democrat lawmaker make a statement that celebrated or mocked the death of Charlie Kirk. Trump didn't even have flags lowered to half-mast for Hortman, but for Kirk, a white supremacist and Christian nationalist who made a living promoting hate and fear, he did.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/16/republicans-trump-minnesota-lawmakers-killings
It's also very naive to think all gun owners are properly trained. There are lots of people who purchase guns with zero training and the United States average more than 1 mass shooting per day so if you're not carrying a gun to protect yourself from other people with guns, who are you protecting yourself from?
https://massshootingtracker.site/data/?year=2026
-
ServantOfJudgement
Naw mr Hunt, it's not fear, it's foresight and preparation. I'm sure some people carry guns out of fear, sure. That's not the rule though.
Would you carry an umbrella because you're afraid of water or would you carry it in case it rained? Depends on where ya live right?
Well, we live in a world that'll cause a fella to be prepared.
Islam psycho with a gun just crashed a synagogue in Detroit and another Islamic high value citizen blasted a Virginia University on the same day.
Let Mr Kidwell do the obvious and protect his own from the obvious.
-
Michael Hunt
I'd carry an umbrella if it was going to rain because I'd be afraid of getting wet. Still a fear response. It doesn't mean the fear is unfounded or not useful to our survival, but you're wrong to say it isn't a behavior rooted in fear.
We live in a country where there are more guns than people, the only country in the world where that's true, so I understand if someone wants to prepare themselves on the off chance someone with nefarious purposes begins using a firearm, but it's still fear that this event would happen. In truth, 58% of gun deaths are from su*cide, compared to 38% of them being homicides. Additionally 79% of all homicides are committed using a firearm. If you feel the need to always carry a firearm, it's because you are afraid a situation will arise where you will need to use it.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/05/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-us/
-
-
-
Rev. BH
Michael, fishing with a gun?
Carrying 2 guns at all times is not a normal thing. Don't know a soul who does. Are you scared, angry? Like the feeling of deadly power on your hip? Protection from like-minded 2 gun toters?
-
Michael J Kidwell
You are definitely a democrat. I can tell because you can't read, it's a braindead-brainwashed reply, you twisted my words to make your narrative look clever, and you hate the constitution, especially that pesky part about the Second Amendment.
I don't fish with a gun, but I do have gun on me when I go fishing.
Carrying 2 guns is a normal thing, there are people who carry much more.
I'm not scared, or angy. I'm just prepared. I don't know where you live or if you have watched the news and seen the riots? People are lost and are out of control. Most of them are on medication and democrats. I happen to live in a blue city and state, so I see the democrat crazies always spilling their hate where they say they want to assassinate the president and anyone who doesn't believe like them. They praise the Charlie Kirk murder.
I like feeling protected when I need it, and it not always on my hip.
I don't need protection from other gun toters, we have all been trained in protecting ourselves and you. Plus we respect human life and we are not trying to kill people that think differently than us. Only democrats do and say that kind of stuff.
But if you are an American, you should get used guns. It's the law here, and protected by the Second Amendment. I have the right to carry guns. Not a priviledge, a right.
-
Rev. BH
OK, Mike. Angry it is.
-
Michael J Kidwell
Ok, your cognitive dissonance is spewing through your gaslighting.
I am not angry at all. I'm used to dealing with leftist like you that are so brainwashed they have to slander others.
-
Minister Rob
well said!
-
ServantOfJudgement
Michael,
You're wise to be prepared. Evil strikes at any given moment.
The left has demonstrated that violence is acceptable and encouraged. They support anarchy and pillow talk with arsonists and rioters. They carry guns to protests where they physically fight law officers and storm churches, then cry foul when they get shot.
They, for all practical purposes have become a religious death cult hell bent on destroying all things good and decent. They'll side with satanists who don't worship Satan and islamists who'd kill them if given the chance. They're driven by blind psychopathic rage like a slobbering dog with rabies.
Carry bro. Carry.
-
Michael Hunt
Tell that to Melissa Hortman and her husband...
Claiming "The left has demonstrated that violence is acceptable and encouraged" completely whitewashes the fact that the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks in the United States are committed by those with far-right ideology, not far-left.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/ideological-trends-us-terrorism
"They carry guns to protests where they physically fight law officers" is an apt description for the January 6 rioters but making that claim about left-wing protestors fails the basic eye test. I understand that you consume far-right propaganda that portrays leftist protestors as violent scum who hate America but in reality these protests are largely peaceful.
"They're driven by blind psychopathic rage like a slobbering dog with rabies." This here is solely to dehumanize leftists to further justify your ridiculous attacks on them.
As a member of the left, I have no blind rage, nor have I been brainwashed into a cult. I was raised in a very conservative family only to become a leftist progressive after realizing that the modern conservative movement, especially now with Trump, is a cult that pedals constant lies and misinformation to keep their base afraid and pliable to manipulation.
I'm not saying that the left is perfect or that there aren't any bad actors on the left, but in contrast to the burgeoning far-right movement today, the left looks like saints.
-
-
-
-
-
Dr. Bob Thomas
From the NASB: Luke 22: 35 - 38 Jesus is speaking to His disciples and issuing them His final commands ...
35And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” 36And He said to them, “But now, [j]whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and [k]whoever has no sword is to sell his [l]cloak and buy one. 37For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me: ‘AND HE WAS COUNTED WITH WRONGDOERS’; for that which refers to Me has its [m]fulfillment.” 38They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”
-
-
-
Reverend Paula Copp
Sure, why not? What could possibly go wrong? All that is missing is a religious nutcase to blow up a congregation they were supposed to protect… yeah… NO!
-
Doctor Loyal
Any CV License holder as well as ex-military should have no issues, unless you enjoy having services disrupted by armed fanatics or Don Lemon followers.
-
Rev. BH
Yeah, sure, Doc. Happens all the time.
-
-
Skye
Shouldn't matter if they paid for a licence to exercise their 2nd Amendment right. Does a gun store have to pay for a state license? No, they use employees. does a gun club have to get a state license to have "guards?" Or do they use their "members"? Now for those saying they are using untrained people, Do you mean because they are not "trained" police or military? I carry 24/7 when I am out, so because i do not carry a badge i am untrained?
-
Noe Domingo Martinez
I dont know if you are trained or not, but common sense says that if you are going to carry one should know the laws, and know how to use the weapon of choice.
now answer this....how many active or retired military, police, first resp. are in your church???
there are 4 in mine. people trained to use a weapon. I'm diabetic and could not serve, but they come to me when it comes to packing heat. why??? because i have a LTC and i know how to use the firearm/weapon.
I don't think that is a bd idea. we should do that in our schools too.
-
Elizabeth Jane Erbe Wilcox
Not in our schools EVER! The district I live in had the idea to arm teachers. They were going to have them go through a program called “Faster.” The program was sponsored by christian nationalists. As the saying goes, “Faster would be a disaster.” The public made it absolutely clear this would NOT be welcomed in our district.
-
-
-
Robert Gagnon
If these guys have a concealed carry permit I think that would qualify. Off duty police, ex military, have been trained in firearm safety. Who's complaining Don lemon?
-
Religion as a Weapon is Wrong
As of July 1, 2023, you do not need a license or permit to carry a concealed weapon or firearm in Florida. You don't need training or safety training.
-
Robert Gagnon
There is a difference between ex or current law enforcement, military or anyone else with a safety or training certificate. Your nephew Cletus that lives in fatigues may not be the best choice.
-
-
-
Keoni Ronald May
If the church private security, were former law enforcement officers, in good standing, then I have no problem with the church private security.
I think everyone entering the church should go through metal detector and those carrying should be known so as to detect a possible criminally minded person.When anyone can carry and someone in the church merely stands up and starts shooting does the intended legislation solve a problem? No Metal detectors and someone known, inside the door carrying would be a little safer for all.