Florida has a Republican supermajority. While other states with a similar makeup are considering things like having the state sell machine guns to private citizens, even those made after 1986, Florida is something very different.
They're still trying to argue if adults under 21, who are old enough to fight and die for their country, should be able to buy long guns on their own.
And right now, the powers that be seem inclined to keep the answer to that question as "no."
House Bill 133, sponsored by Rep. Tyler Sirois, restores the ability for young adults to acquire firearms by lowering the minimum age requirement to purchase from 21 to 18. Since 2018, Florida has completely banned 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing a firearm of any kind, for any purpose. A young adult in violation faces stiff penalties, including up to five years of imprisonment, a fine of up to $5,000 or both.
The House passed the legislation last month, marking the fourth straight year it has passed nearly identical measures recognizing the Second Amendment rights of young adults. However, a Senate committee chairman is currently blocking further consideration of the bill.
The organization Florida Carry is calling on its members and other Second Amendment supporters to pressure Senate Rules Committee Chair Kathleen Passidomo and Senate President Ben Albritton to allow a vote on the measure.
“Senator Kathleen Passidomo, chairperson of the Florida Senate Rules Committee, is blocking House Bill 133 from getting a hearing,” the organization said in an email to members, noting the bill was referred to Passidomo’s committee on January 16, 2026, just one day after the House overwhelmingly approved it by a commanding 74-to-37 margin.
For the record, Passidomo is why this didn't pass last year, either.
She is, in no way, shape, or form, a friend of the Second Amendment.
The truth is that for as long as she's in any position of authority, the gun rights of law-abiding adults under 21 simply won't exist.
"They can have guns, they just can't buy them," someone might try to reply. To that, I'll point out that if something depends on the actions of another, it's not a right. It's just a privilege bestowed on me by a parent or another adult over 21 rather than the government.
Passidomo has no interest in treating legal adults like legal adults. They can vote, they can own property, sign contracts, enlist in the military, and a host of other things, but apparently, she doesn't think that gun rights are remotely the same thing.
So that makes me ask, just where does she really draw the line? At what point does Sen. Passidomo feel that the right to keep and bear arms should no longer be infringed upon? What level of infringement is acceptable to her?
I've argued for a while that there's a difference between being anti-gun control and pro-gun. There's a place for each, to a degree, but in Florida, there's no excuse to elect the former when the latter are so readily available as candidates.
With Possidomo, though, I'm not sure she's even anti-gun control. After all, she was one of those who helped pass this in the first place, and has stated that's why she has no interest in letting the legislature vote to repeal it.
She's not even anti-gun control, basically.
Why do Florida Republicans keep putting her in positions of authority, then?
Editor’s Note: President Trump and real Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member