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 concluded that McDaniels v. State, the First DCA's September 2025 decision invalidating Florida's general open carry ban, does not affect the firearm requirements and restrictions that apply to private investigators, security officers, and recovery agents licensed under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes.

Section 493.6115 prevents private investigators and security officers from carrying a firearm in connection with their licensed duties without a Class "G" license. Section 493.6118(1)(x)(9) prevents a licensed recovery agent from carrying a firearm on his person while on private property performing duties under his license, regardless of whether the agent holds a Class "G" license or a § 790.06 concealed-carry license. The AG read each as undisturbed by McDaniels.

The AG's reasoning is that McDaniels "only addressed Florida's open carry ban in section 790.053, Florida Statutes, and the constitutionality thereof for 'ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens,'" and "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." The AG also cited the canon 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." Because the constitutionality of the Chapter 493 firearm regulations "was neither considered nor addressed" in McDaniels, the AG concluded those regulations remain in force.

The AG also noted that McDaniels "did not declare the right to open carry 'absolute or immune from reasonable regulation,'" and that Chapter 493 licensees retain their open-carry rights "when not performing their licensed duties."

What this means for you

Private investigators and security officers licensed under Chapter 493

The opinion concludes that § 493.6115's Class "G" license requirement for carrying a firearm "in connection with [licensed] duties" remains in force after McDaniels. The AG identified McDaniels as a holding about the general open carry ban for ordinary citizens, not a holding about occupational licensing for armed work.

Licensed recovery agents (repossessors)

The opinion concludes that § 493.6118(1)(x)(9)'s prohibition on carrying a firearm on the agent's person while on private property performing recovery duties remains in force after McDaniels, regardless of whether the agent holds a Class "G" license or a § 790.06 concealed-carry license. The AG identified McDaniels as addressing § 790.053 only, not § 493.6118.

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services licensing staff

The opinion concludes that Chapter 493's firearm requirements survive McDaniels without modification. The AG identifies the legislative purpose, ensuring that "the interests of the public will be adequately served and protected" against the risk posed by "untrained persons, unlicensed persons or businesses, or persons who are not of good moral character" in positions of trust, as supporting the Class G framework and the recovery-agent prohibition.

Off-duty Chapter 493 licensees

The opinion expressly notes that private investigators, security officers, and recovery agents "may of course exercise their open carry rights articulated in McDaniels when not performing their licensed duties." The AG did not separately analyze the boundary between on-duty and off-duty carriage.

Firearms and Second Amendment attorneys

The opinion identifies a narrow reading of McDaniels: the Bruen/Rahimi analysis there addressed only § 790.053. The AG distinguishes manner-of-carry rules (which McDaniels invalidated for ordinary citizens) from occupational licensing and conduct restrictions (which the AG reads as not addressed). The AG framed the question of whether Chapter 493's specific provisions can withstand their own Bruen/Rahimi challenge as unresolved.

Common questions

Q: What did McDaniels decide?
A: The First DCA held § 790.053, Florida's open carry ban, unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as applied to "ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens," because the State failed to identify "founding-era law that broadly prohibited the open carry of firearms in public" under the Bruen/Rahimi historical-tradition framework.

Q: What did the AG's post-McDaniels guidance memorandum cover?
A: The AG identifies four points the memorandum addressed: McDaniels did not prevent enforcing § 790.10 (improper exhibition); did not restrict felon-in-possession laws; did not implicate § 790.06(12)(a)'s location-specific restrictions; and did not supersede private property owners' authority to compel armed persons to leave their premises. The memorandum described Florida post-McDaniels as "permitless concealed and open carry for law-abiding citizens in most locations."

Q: Why doesn't McDaniels reach Chapter 493 automatically?
A: The AG cites the rule 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 § 790.053; the Chapter 493 regulations are different statutes that "[w]as neither considered nor addressed."

Q: Does a private investigator or security officer still need a Class G license to carry on the job?
A: Under the AG's reading, yes. Section 493.6115 prevents armed carry "in connection with [licensed] duties" without a Class G license, and McDaniels did not address that requirement.

Q: Can a recovery agent carry a firearm during a repossession on private property?
A: Under the AG's reading, no. Section 493.6118(1)(x)(9) prohibits the agent from carrying a firearm on his person while on private property performing duties under his license, and that prohibition "regardless of whether the agent has a Class 'G' license or a concealed carry license under section 790.06."

Q: How firm is the conclusion?
A: AG opinions are persuasive but not binding. The opinion identifies the unresolved question (a hypothetical Bruen/Rahimi challenge to the Chapter 493 firearm regulations themselves) without analyzing how such a challenge would come out.

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; the Legislature enacted that requirement against the backdrop that "certain regulations were necessary to ensure the 'interests of the public will be adequately served and protected'" given 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."

Section 493.6118(1)(x)(9) takes a different approach for recovery agents, categorically prohibiting firearm carry on the agent's person while on private property and performing duties under his license, regardless of any other firearms license the agent holds.

McDaniels v. State, 2025 WL 2608688 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 10, 2025), applied the U.S. Supreme Court's Bruen and Rahimi framework. The court required the State to prove the regulation in question "is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation," and concluded the State had not carried its burden as to § 790.053. The AG read McDaniels as binding all Florida trial courts and effectively the law of the state on § 790.053, without reaching the Chapter 493 firearm regulations.

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)

Source

• Original PDF: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/28041

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