Gun rights advocacy group Florida Carry, Inc., along with its executive director Sean Caranna, has filed a motion in Leon County Circuit Court seeking a temporary injunction against the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and its commissioner Mark Glass. The organization alleges that the agency is violating state law by unlawfully charging specific individuals background check fees and conducting unauthorized supplemental background checks when those individuals purchase firearms.
The motion requests immediate judicial intervention to halt FDLE’s enforcement of policies the plaintiffs claim are in “direct contravention” of Florida Statutes §§ 790.065(1)(a)(2) and 790.065(1)(b), provisions that exempt specific categories of people from background check fees and redundant state screening.
Under Florida law, firearm purchases from federally licensed dealers (FFLs) require a criminal background check. FDLE serves as the state’s Point of Contact (POC) with the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI. While the FBI conducts federal checks free of charge, FDLE is permitted under state law to collect a fee for its own background screening process.
However, the law explicitly exempts certain groups, such as holders of valid Concealed Weapon or Firearm Licenses (CWFLs), and individuals with active law enforcement, corrections, or probation officer certifications from paying these state-imposed fees or being subjected to supplemental state background checks.
Florida Carry argues that FDLE, under Commissioner Glass’s leadership, has ignored those exemptions by continuing to charge fees and run supplemental checks against these “Excluded Individuals.” The group claims this violates both the Florida Firearm Preemption Law (§ 790.33) and the plain wording of § 790.065.
In the 16-page filing, Florida Carry asserts that FDLE’s rule 11C-6.009 and related policies unlawfully expand the agency’s authority. The plaintiffs contend that FDLE “created its own policies, rules, and regulations” without legislative authorization, thereby violating Florida’s preemption statute, which reserves all regulation of firearms exclusively to the state legislature. According to the motion:
FDLE is prohibited from charging fees or performing additional state-level background checks on CWFL holders and certified law enforcement personnel.
The agency’s enforcement of such policies represents a willful violation of state law and an unconstitutional burden on the right to keep and bear arms.
Each improper background check or fee payment constitutes a denial of constitutional rights, including privacy and property interests.
Florida Carry emphasizes that any delay or denial in firearm acquisition, even temporarily, constitutes irreparable harm, referencing federal court precedents such as Ezell v. City of Chicago. The group argues that once a constitutional right, like the right to purchase and possess a firearm, is infringed, monetary compensation cannot provide an adequate remedy.
The plaintiffs’ motion seeks relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610, which governs temporary injunctions. To succeed, a movant must demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, the likelihood of irreparable harm, the unavailability of an adequate legal remedy, and that the injunction serves the public interest.
Florida Carry contends it meets all four criteria. The organization argues:
The plain text of § 790.065(1)(b) states that “this subsection does not apply” to the excluded categories, leaving no legal ambiguity.
FDLE’s continued enforcement of fees and supplemental checks contradicts prior judicial interpretations, including State v. Watson and Florida Carry, Inc. v. University of North Florida, which confirm that state agencies cannot create firearm regulations absent express legislative authority.
The public interest is best served by upholding the Legislature’s intent and protecting citizens’ constitutional rights.
The motion also stresses that FDLE’s own discovery responses show a lack of accountability. According to the plaintiffs, FDLE could not determine how many exempt individuals have been charged fees or subjected to additional checks, raising questions about record-keeping and compliance oversight within the agency.
Florida Carry asks the court to issue a temporary injunction compelling the FDLE to:
Cease charging fees to exempt individuals, including CWFL holders and certified officers.
Stop conducting supplemental state background checks on those individuals.
Comply strictly with the statutory framework of § 790.065, limiting its role to federally mandated checks through NICS.
This filing represents the latest in a series of legal challenges by Florida Carry targeting what it views as government overreach in firearm regulation. The group, a not-for-profit corporation founded to defend the “fundamental civil right of all Floridians to keep and bear arms,” has previously litigated against universities, municipalities, and state agencies over similar issues of preemption and procedural overreach.
If successful, the injunction could have a statewide impact—potentially halting FDLE’s ability to collect millions of dollars annually in firearm background check fees from license holders. It could also reinforce limits on administrative rulemaking in firearm policy, emphasizing that only the Legislature can alter the scope of Florida’s gun laws.
The FDLE and Commissioner Glass have not yet filed a formal response to the legal motion filed by Florida Carry.
Patrick ‘Tate’ Adamiak’s Criminal Case Now Depends on his Appellate Attorney
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
