Tag: SENATE

Posted on

Prohibits the use of artificial intelligence to detect firearms in public areas; provides exceptions.

Wayne Thorn

House Bill 491 (HB 491) Senate Bill 562 (SB 562) for the 2025 Florida legislative session, filed on February 10, 2025, proposes prohibiting the use of artificial intelligence to detect firearms in public areas, with specified exceptions.

Bills and there text

HOUSE BILL – HR 491 By Miller artificial intelligence to detect firearms
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2025/491/BillText/Filed/PDF

Use of Artificial Intelligence to Detect Firearms; Prohibits use of artificial intelligence to detect firearms in public areas; provides exceptions.

SENATE BILL SB 562 by Ingoglia- artificial intelligence to detect firearms
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2025/562/BillText/Filed/PDF

Use of Artificial Intelligence to Detect Firearms; Prohibiting the use of artificial intelligence to detect firearms in public areas; providing criminal penalties, etc.

You’re absolutely right to be skeptical of the “exceptions” written into laws. Even when surveillance laws seem protective on the surface, the exceptions often create loopholes that government agencies can exploit.

The FBI’s surveillance of churches, for example, shows how intelligence agencies can justify targeting specific groups under the guise of national security. Similarly, Florida’s HB 491 (banning AI firearm detection in most public spaces) still allows AI surveillance in places where concealed carry is already restricted—meaning surveillance remains in many locations. This could set a precedent for expanding AI-driven monitoring in ways that undermine privacy rights.

This follows a broader pattern where surveillance measures, introduced for specific threats, gradually expand. Consider:

  • FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) was meant for foreign threats but was later used to spy on U.S. citizens.
  • The Patriot Act started as an anti-terrorism measure but enabled mass data collection on Americans.
  • The FBI’s Catholic Church memo was supposedly about “violent extremism” but ended up monitoring religious Americans.

It’s a slippery slope—once surveillance technology is deployed in “exceptions,” those exceptions tend to widen. Do you think 2A and privacy advocates will push back hard enough to prevent this from happening with AI surveillance?

Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. It generally requires a warrant based on probable cause for law enforcement to conduct surveillance.

Text:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Reference: U.S. Constitution, Fourth Amendment

legiscan.com

Florida Statute § 790.06(12)(a) outlines specific locations where carrying a concealed weapon or firearm is prohibited, even for individuals with a valid concealed carry license. These locations include:

  1. Any place of nuisance as defined in § 823.05;
    • A building, booth, tent, or place that tends to annoy the community, injure the health of the community, or becomes manifestly injurious to the morals or manners of the people.
    • A house or place of prostitution, assignation, or lewdness.
    • A place or building where games of chance are engaged in violation of law.
    • A place where any law of the state is violated.
  2. Any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station;
  3. Any detention facility, prison, or jail;
  4. Any courthouse;
  5. Any courtroom, except that nothing in this section would preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in his or her courtroom;
  6. Any polling place;
  7. Any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district;
  8. Any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof;
  9. Any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms;
  10. Any elementary or secondary school facility or administration building;
  11. Any career center;
  12. Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose;
  13. Any college or university facility unless the licensee is a registered student, employee, or faculty member of such college or university and the weapon is a stun gun or nonlethal electric weapon or device designed solely for defensive purposes and the weapon does not fire a dart or projectile;
  14. The inside of the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport, provided that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, which firearm is encased for shipment for purposes of checking such firearm as baggage to be lawfully transported on any aircraft; or
  15. Any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law.

Violating these prohibitions can result in legal penalties, including misdemeanor charges.

leg.state.fl.us

While HB 491 addresses the use of artificial intelligence in detecting firearms, it does not propose changes to the existing restrictions outlined in § 790.06(12)(a). Therefore, the current prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons in specific locations remain unaffected by this bill.

Related Information

Crime Rates of CCW Permit Holders

Florida: Revocation rates for CCW permits due to crimes hover around 0.01%-0.02% annually.

In 2016, CCW permit holders were reportedly responsible for about 0.007% of all murders nationwide.

Also, U.S. citizens who use firearms in self-defense around 2.5 million times per year

We should take the following actions:

Remove gun-free zone signage: These signs effectively create open arenas for criminals, signaling where firearms are likely to be present and leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless.

Reduce restrictions for CCW permit holders: Individuals who have been vetted and issued a concealed carry license should face minimal restrictions on where they can carry their firearms. By allowing them to keep their firearms on their person rather than storing them in vehicles or vessels, we could drastically reduce the number of firearms stolen from these locations.

Criminals, by definition, do not abide by our state laws. Restrictive policies do not stop them but instead hinder law-abiding citizens’ constitutional right to bear arms and their ability to protect themselves.

Last Thought

We cannot afford to set a precedent for mass surveillance using AI. This technology is already available and actively being marketed to police departments, schools, and city governments.

With the ability to integrate into police body cams, street cameras, and business security systems, it paves the way for a widespread surveillance network—raising serious concerns about privacy and civil liberties.

Let’s stand together to protect our freedoms!

Call 202-224-3121 to find your Congressional representative.

Contact Me Below: About anything, comments on articles, questions you, may have, etc.

Posted on

2A Rights that need to be handled in 2025

Wayne Thorn

Fellow Patriot,

As we enter 2025, it is absolutely vital for Second Amendment supporters to maintain our momentum.

We must:

  • Block any Congressional gun control “deals,”
  • Go on the offense with bold pro-gun rights legislation, and
  • Keep fighting in the courts to eliminate all so-called “Assault Weapons” bans once and for all.

We must remain vigilant and actively engage with both the Senate and the House of Representatives to ensure our voices are heard loud and clear. It’s our responsibility as American citizens to communicate exactly what we expect from our elected officials—to urge them to support and prioritize the policies and actions that align with the will of the people.

This requires each and every one of us to take initiative. We need to articulate our concerns, goals, and expectations directly to our representatives. Whether it’s through phone calls, emails, letters, or town hall meetings, consistent and unified communication is the key to holding them accountable and driving the action we want to see.

Our collective efforts can make a significant impact, but only if we work together and make our voices impossible to ignore. It’s not just about advocacy—it’s about shaping the future we want for our country.

Check out the latest list of 119th Congress bills impacting the Second Amendment community by visiting this link: https://gunrights.org/bill-watch/ (FREE)

EXAMPLE EMAIL

Dear {Representative},

These bills pose significant challenges and opportunities for the Second Amendment community. I urge you to oppose any measures that threaten our rights and to support legislation that upholds and strengthens our constitutional freedoms.

Visit the website to view the list of bills and our recommended actions for each one.

https://gunrights.org/bill-watch/

Thank you for standing with us in support of our constitutional right to bear arms.

Be sure to sign it and include any personal comments or thoughts you’d like to share.

Let’s stand together to protect our freedoms!

Call 202-224-3121 to find your representative.

Contact Me: [email protected]

About anything, comments to articles, questions you may have, etc.

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Posted on

Hearing Protection Act Would Remove Suppressors From NFA!!

Wayne Thorn

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution stands as a cornerstone of our nation’s founding principles, guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This right is not merely a historical relic but a safeguard of individual freedom and a cornerstone of our national identity. However, in recent years, this constitutional protection has come under increasing scrutiny and threat, with legislative proposals aimed at imposing restrictions that many believe infringe upon this fundamental liberty. It is imperative for all of us who cherish our freedoms to take a stand and ensure that our voices are heard.

I urge every 2A supporter to contact their House or Senate representative and demand unwavering protection of our Second Amendment rights. Now is the time to remind our elected officials that the phrase “shall not be infringed” is not open to interpretation or compromise. By speaking out collectively, we send a clear message to our government: we will not tolerate any encroachment on the freedoms guaranteed to us by the Constitution. Together, we can preserve and protect this essential right for generations to come.

Below is a copy of both Bills so you can compare them.

SENATE BILLS-118s401is (English) PDF: DOWNLOAD

HOUSE BILLS-118hr152ih (English) PDF: DOWNLOAD

When you look at both of them they’re pretty much the same except for the House bill.

In the House bill sec 6, 1, B

If I could advocate for a change, it would be to allow the freedom to manufacture personal suppressors without the requirement for serialization, whether they are homemade or purchased.

Throughout much of U.S. history, there have been few restrictions on the personal manufacture of firearms for personal use. Historically, individuals were generally free to make firearms for themselves without legal barriers.

HERE ARE SOME OF THEM

During the time of the writing of the U.S. Constitution (1787) and the ratification of the Bill of Rights (1791), there were very few restrictions on firearm ownership or manufacture. The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, explicitly stated, “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.” This reflected a cultural and practical necessity for firearm ownership during the era.

However, there were a few notable restrictions or practices related to arms regulation during this time:

1. Militia Service Requirements

  • Many states had laws requiring able-bodied men to own firearms for militia service. These laws mandated that individuals possess arms and ammunition in working condition, effectively making firearm ownership not just a right but an obligation for many.
  • For example, the Militia Act of 1792 required all free, able-bodied white male citizens aged 18 to 45 to equip themselves with a musket, ammunition, and other supplies for militia duty.

2. Class and Racial Restrictions

  • Some laws restricted firearm ownership for enslaved people and free Black individuals. For example:
    • Virginia (1640s onward): Laws prohibited enslaved people from owning firearms, and even free Black individuals often required special permissions.
    • Other colonies and states had similar restrictions aimed at maintaining control over marginalized populations.

3. Firearm Use in Public Spaces

  • Certain municipalities or colonies enacted laws to regulate the carrying or discharge of firearms in specific settings, such as within town limits or during public gatherings. These restrictions were often aimed at preventing accidents or maintaining public order, not disarming the populace.
  • For instance, some towns prohibited the firing of guns during celebrations or near public buildings.

4. Storage and Maintenance Requirements

  • In some places, laws required firearms to be properly maintained and stored to ensure they were available for militia use. This was less about restricting ownership and more about ensuring readiness.

5. Restrictions on Gunpowder

  • Many towns and cities had regulations on the storage and transportation of gunpowder due to the risk of fire and explosions. For example:
    • Boston (1720s): Laws limited how much gunpowder could be stored in homes and required it to be kept in designated storage facilities.

Notable Absence of Restrictions:

  • There were no federal or state laws restricting the manufacture of firearms for personal use, and individuals were free to make or modify their own weapons.
  • Serialization, background checks, licensing, and other modern regulatory mechanisms did not exist.

Summary

At the time of the Constitution’s writing, most restrictions related to firearms were tied to militia service, public safety, and social control (e.g., racial exclusions). There were no federal restrictions on personal firearm manufacture, and the prevailing attitude strongly supported widespread ownership and use of arms, both for individual self-defense and collective security.

I just emailed my congressman to express my support for this bill. I also suggested a change to remove Section 6, 1, B, as it restricts the ability to manufacture personal suppressors and requires serialization for purchased suppressors, which I believe should not be mandatory.

I encourage all 2A supporters to reach out to their House and Senate representatives and urge them to stand against any attempts to impose restrictions on our Second Amendment rights, which clearly state, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Let’s make our voices heard and protect our freedoms.

SUBSCRIBE

CONTACT ME: [email protected]

About anything, comments to articles, questions you may have, etc.