After Florida's open carry ban was struck down in McDaniels, can private investigators, security officers, and repossession agents still be required to hold a Class G license or barred from carrying firearms while working?
Plain-English summary
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier ruled that McDaniels v. State — the September 2025 First DCA decision that struck down Florida's general open carry ban — does not affect the special firearms regulations that apply to private investigators, security officers, or repossession (recovery) agents licensed under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes.
Specifically:
- Private investigators and security officers still must obtain a Class "G" license under § 493.6115 before they can carry a firearm in connection with their licensed duties.
- Recovery agents (repossessors) are still prohibited under § 493.6118(1)(x)(9) from carrying a firearm while performing repossession activities on private property — even if they hold a Class G or concealed-carry license.
The reasoning: McDaniels invalidated § 790.053 (the open carry ban) as applied to "ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens" engaged in everyday public carry. It said nothing about specialized professional licensing schemes or about the conduct of regulated occupations. The court applied the Bruen/Rahimi historical-tradition test to a single statute; that ruling doesn't extend automatically to other statutes that weren't litigated.
These licensees retain their Second Amendment open-carry rights when they are not working — but the licensing and conduct restrictions still apply when they are.
What this means for you
If you are a licensed private investigator or security officer
Nothing changes about your professional firearm carry. You still need a Class "G" license under § 493.6115 to carry a firearm in connection with your investigative or security duties. McDaniels does not let you skip the Class G training and licensing simply because the general open carry ban was struck down. Off-duty, you have the same open and concealed carry rights as any other ordinary, law-abiding citizen.
If you are a licensed recovery agent (repossessor)
The prohibition in § 493.6118(1)(x)(9) is still in force. You may not carry a firearm on your person while on private property performing repossession duties — even with a Class G license, even with a concealed-carry license. Off-duty, your Second Amendment rights are unaffected. But during a recovery operation, you remain subject to this professional restriction.
If you operate a Chapter 493-licensed security or recovery agency
Make sure your written policies still require Class G licensure for armed personnel and prohibit recovery agents from carrying firearms during repossessions. Don't read McDaniels as a relaxation of these professional requirements — DACS will continue to enforce them, and disciplinary action remains available for violations. Train your staff on the line between off-duty rights and on-duty restrictions.
If you are a Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) licensing official
You can continue to apply Chapter 493's licensing requirements without modification. The AG's view is that McDaniels did not invalidate, narrow, or implicate the Class G regime or the recovery-agent firearm prohibition. Rule revisions are not necessary in response to McDaniels alone.
If you are a firearms or Second Amendment attorney
This opinion is a useful reference for arguing the scope of McDaniels. The AG reads McDaniels narrowly: it addressed only § 790.053 as applied to ordinary citizens, and it did not declare open carry "absolute or immune from reasonable regulation." The opinion distinguishes between manner-of-carry rules (broadly invalidated) and occupational licensing/conduct rules (left intact). Future challenges to other firearm statutes would need their own Bruen/Rahimi historical-tradition analysis.
If you are a property owner dealing with a repossession on your land
Recovery agents repossessing your property cannot lawfully be armed while on your property doing the repossession. If a recovery agent threatens you with or displays a firearm during a repossession, that is potentially both a § 493.6118 violation and a possible violation of § 790.10 (improper exhibition).
Common questions
Q: What did McDaniels actually decide?
A: The First DCA struck down § 790.053 (Florida's general open carry ban) as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, applying the Bruen/Rahimi historical-tradition test. The State failed to identify any "founding-era law that broadly prohibited the open carry of firearms in public." The decision binds all Florida trial courts.
Q: Does McDaniels mean Florida is now a "constitutional carry" state?
A: For ordinary, law-abiding citizens carrying in most public locations, yes — the AG's post-McDaniels guidance memorandum explicitly described it that way. Permitless concealed and open carry are now allowed for ordinary citizens. But occupational licensing schemes (like Class G), location-specific restrictions (§ 790.06(12)(a)), and conduct restrictions (like § 790.10's improper exhibition) all remain in force.
Q: Can private investigators or security guards now open carry without a Class G license?
A: Not while performing licensed duties. Off-duty as ordinary citizens, they can carry under McDaniels. But once they're working in the licensed capacity, § 493.6115's Class G requirement still controls.
Q: Why doesn't McDaniels strike down these Chapter 493 restrictions too?
A: The AG's reasoning is that stare decisis "doesn't apply to statutory interpretation unless the statute being interpreted is the same one that was being interpreted in the earlier case." McDaniels analyzed only § 790.053. A challenge to § 493.6115 or § 493.6118 would require its own Bruen/Rahimi analysis — and the State could plausibly defend professional licensing schemes and conduct rules under the historical tradition of regulating licensed occupations and bonded agents.
Q: What about recovery agents who carry off-duty for personal protection?
A: Their off-duty rights are unaffected. The § 493.6118(1)(x)(9) prohibition only applies "while engaged in recovery activities on private property."
Q: Is the AG's view binding on Florida courts?
A: No. AG opinions are persuasive authority. Courts may consider them but are not bound. A licensee who wants to test the limits of McDaniels against Chapter 493 restrictions should expect DACS to defend those restrictions and would need to litigate the issue.
Background and statutory framework
Florida regulates the private security, investigation, and repossession industries through Chapter 493. The Class "G" license under § 493.6115 is the firearm endorsement required for private investigators and security officers who carry on the job. It involves additional training, examination, and good-moral-character requirements beyond the underlying private investigator or security officer license.
Section 493.6118(1)(x)(9) takes a different approach for recovery agents: rather than allowing armed work with extra licensing, it categorically prohibits firearm carry during repossession activities on private property. The rationale is that repossessions are inherently confrontational interactions on private land, and the legislature judged that armed repossessors would heighten the risk of violent escalation.
McDaniels v. State, decided by the First DCA on September 10, 2025, applied the U.S. Supreme Court's Bruen and Rahimi framework to invalidate Florida's general open carry ban. After McDaniels, AG Uthmeier issued a guidance memorandum to law enforcement clarifying that the decision did not implicate (1) the prohibition on improper exhibition (§ 790.10), (2) felon-in-possession laws, (3) location-specific restrictions in § 790.06(12)(a), or (4) the right of private property owners to exclude armed persons. This opinion extends that reasoning to the Chapter 493 occupational licensing scheme.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- § 493.6115, Fla. Stat. (Firearm carry by PI/security officers — Class G license)
- § 493.6118, Fla. Stat. (Disciplinary actions; firearm restrictions for recovery agents)
- § 790.053, Fla. Stat. (Open carry — invalidated by McDaniels)
- § 790.06, Fla. Stat. (Concealed carry license)
- § 790.10, Fla. Stat. (Improper exhibition)
Cases:
- McDaniels v. State, 2025 WL 2608688 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 10, 2025)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)
- United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024)
Original opinion text
The Honorable Wilton Simpson
Commissioner of Agriculture
PL-10, The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Dear Commissioner Simpson:
Thank you for sharing my commitment to protecting and advancing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Floridians. As the Commissioner of Agriculture, you submitted a letter to my office on September 22, 2025, requesting an official opinion on what impact, if any, the First District Court of Appeal's ("First DCA") recent decision in McDaniels v. State has on certain professions that you regulate in the course of your official duties.
Specifically, you asked whether McDaniels impacts the requirement that private investigators and security officers licensed under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, obtain a Class "G" license in order to bear a firearm while performing licensed activities. Additionally, you asked whether McDaniels impacts the prohibition of recovery agents licensed under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, from carrying firearms for any purpose while engaged in recovery activities. In short, my answer to both questions is no. McDaniels did not address the requirements and restrictions on private investigators, security officers, and recovery agents licensed under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes.
Background
In McDaniels, the defendant was charged under section 790.053, Florida Statutes, for openly carrying a sidearm in a holster inside his waistband where the firearm was uncovered and visible. Section 790.053(1), Florida Statutes, provided that "it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device." The defendant moved to dismiss the case arguing that the law violated his Second Amendment rights, but the trial court rejected that argument and the defendant was convicted and sentenced to probation and community service.
On appeal, the First DCA overturned the defendant's conviction and vacated his sentence, holding that Florida's open carry ban in section 790.053, Florida Statutes, was unconstitutional because the Second Amendment protects the right of "ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens" to openly carry firearms in public. In reaching its holding, the First DCA applied the framework offered in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), which requires that the State prove the firearm regulation in question "is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." The State failed to carry its burden of providing a "founding-era law that broadly prohibited the open carry of firearms in public" or "any historical regulation imposing a burden or justification" like section 790.053, Florida Statutes. The Court therefore declared the law unconstitutional and reversed McDaniels' conviction.
I. Attorney General Guidance Memorandum
After McDaniels, I issued a guidance memorandum to Florida's law enforcement agencies and prosecuting authorities, instructing them that the First DCA's decision binds all Florida trial courts and effectively became the law of the State. The memorandum noted, however, that McDaniels does not: (1) prevent enforcing laws against those who "exhibit [firearms] in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner" in public in violation of section 790.10, Florida Statutes; (2) restrict the State's authority to prohibit felons from possessing firearms; (3) implicate Florida's law listing certain locations where the open or concealed carrying of a firearm may be unauthorized (§ 790.06(12)(a), Florida Statutes); or (4) supersede private property owner's long-standing legal prerogative to compel individuals carrying firearms to leave their premises. McDaniels made Florida a "constitutional carry" state—permitless concealed and open carry for law-abiding citizens in most locations.
II. Other Firearms Regulations
Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, contains several other provisions that regulate firearms for the private security, investigation, and recovery professions. Pertinent here, section 493.6115, Florida Statutes, prevents private investigators and security officers from carrying a firearm in connection with their duties unless they first obtain a Class "G" license. And section 493.6118(1)(x)(9), Florida Statutes, prevents a licensed recovery agent from carrying a firearm on his person when on private property and performing duties under his license regardless of whether the agent has a Class "G" license or a concealed carry license under section 790.06, Florida Statutes. By enacting those provisions, the Legislature recognized that certain regulations were necessary to ensure the "interests of the public will be adequately served and protected" while understanding the inherent risk to public welfare if "untrained persons, unlicensed persons or businesses, or persons who are not of good moral character" are placed in positions of trust.
Analysis
McDaniels does not impact the restrictions on private investigators, security officers, and recovery agents licensed under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, when performing their professional duties. As explained above, McDaniels only addressed Florida's open carry ban in section 790.053, Florida Statutes, and the constitutionality thereof for "ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens." Put differently, McDaniels addressed the manner by which law-abiding and otherwise qualified citizens could carry a firearm; it did not address licensing and qualifications for those who seek to carry during and in aid of the performance of these specialized and unique professions. Given that the First DCA's analysis in McDaniels focused on "[f]ounding-era law that broadly prohibited the open carry of firearms in public," as applied to section 790.053, Florida Statutes, the constitutionality of the firearm regulations under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, was neither considered nor addressed. "[S]tare decisis doesn't apply to statutory interpretation unless the statute being interpreted is the same one that was being interpreted in the earlier case."
And McDaniels did not declare the right to open carry "absolute or immune from reasonable regulation." Private investigators, security officers, and recovery agents may of course exercise their open carry rights articulated in McDaniels when not performing their licensed duties. But the nature of their licensed work generally presents uniquely dangerous and confrontational personal interactions where the potential for violent escalation is ripe. Both section 493.6115's requirement that private investigators and security officers obtain Class "G" licensures when carrying a firearm in connection with their duties (which ensures, inter alia, basic firearm competency) and section 493.6118(1)(x)(9)'s proscription on recovery agents personally carrying on private property during licensed repossession activities are professional regulations, believed by the Legislature to serve private and public safety purposes. In any event, McDaniels didn't address either.
Conclusion
Accordingly, I conclude that McDaniels does not affect the requirement that private investigators and security officers licensed under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, obtain a Class "G" license in order to bear a firearm while performing licensed activities. Additionally, McDaniels does not affect the prohibition of recovery agents licensed under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, from carrying firearms for any purpose while engaged in recovery activities on private property.
Sincerely,
James Uthmeier
Attorney General