TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Florida lawmakers are considering a proposal that would let people buy guns without having a completed background check.

Buried near the end of 114-page bill by Sen. Kelly Stargel, a Lakeland Republican, is a provision that would give the Department of Agriculture 90 days after receiving a concealed-weapons application to issue a permit, even if the department has not acquired proof of restoration of the person's civil and firearm rights.

Taylor Houston, communications director at the LGBTQ advocacy group Pride Fund to End Gun Violence, called the change absurd.

"It's ironic that they would potentially not be allowing convicted felons who have served their time, you know, restricting their right to vote,” Houston said; “but also at the same time, giving access to the same convicted felons to carry loaded, hidden weapons in public."

The provision in Senate Bill 740 was requested by Florida's Agriculture Commissioner and Republican candidate for governor, Adam Putnam. It's also receiving praise by pro-gun groups as it appears to be advancing to final passage.

After a license is issued, the bill says it would be immediately suspended if disqualifying information is found later. Houston said he's stunned that lawmakers voting for the bill are willing to bypass overwhelming evidence.

"We know that background checks save lives; actually more than 2 million people have been blocked from purchasing a gun after failing federal background checks since 1998,” he said. “So, background checks are an absolutely essential piece at solving the gun-violence epidemic."

Putnam's office said the provision would apply only to those applications that would otherwise be suspended because full documentation is not available. A House version of the bill is awaiting a floor vote, where it is also expected to pass.


get more stories like this via email

Groups that fight for greater access to health care are criticizing the Republican budget blueprint currently before the
U.S. House of Representatives, claiming it could lead to huge cuts to Medicaid -- known as Medi-Cal in the Golden State. Republicans can only afford to lose a couple of votes in order to use reconciliation to pass the bill on a simple majority vote.

Kiran Savage-Sangwan, executive director of the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, is asking voters to get in touch with their local members of Congress.

"Devastating health-care cuts can still be stopped," she said. "With the slimmest of a majority in the House of Representatives, it would take less than a handful of House Republicans to vote 'no' on this plan to save health care for 15 million Californians who count on Medi-Cal."

The House version of the budget blueprint calls for $880 billion in cuts to the part of the government that funds health care for low-income families, seniors and people with disabilities. House Speaker Mike Johnson has said the savings are necessary to fund President Donald Trump's other budget priorities.

Adriana Ramos-Yamamoto, a senior policy analyst with the California Budget & Policy Center, said the administration's priorities stand to hurt average Californians.

"Republicans want to cut funding for basic health care and nutrition programs that millions of people rely on, all in order to help pay for tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy and corporations," said Ramos-Yamamoto. "These cuts would be a major hit to California, where federal dollars make up about a third of the state budget."

Amanda McAllister-Wallner, interim executive director of the nonprofit Health Access, notes that Congress will soon adjourn for a two-week break, sending lawmakers back to their districts.

"When these members are home in their district, we want to make sure that they're hearing from constituents -- and that they are accountable when they go back to D.C. and they start talking about the details of this plan," she explained.

Details of the campaign to protect Medi-Cal are online at fightforourhealth.org

Plans to slash funding for the Institute of Museum and Library Services have drawn swift opposition from library and union leaders, as cuts threaten Michigan's nearly 400 libraries, as well as libraries across the nation, with rural areas expected to be hit hardest.

A lawsuit has been filed on behalf of the American Library Association and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees by Democracy Forward and co-counsel Gair Gallo.

The suit asks the court to block the dismantling of the Institute, as directed by presidential executive order.

Cindy Hohl, president of the American Library Association, said the institutions are critical.

"Libraries are a trusted anchor institution, providing Americans with access to the internet and technology - and especially in small and rural areas where people may not be able to afford those services or access in their homes," she said.

Around 125,000 libraries across the nation may be affected. Supporters of the cuts maintain that reducing federal spending is essential for budget efficiency. They believe local governments should take on more responsibility and that cuts will push libraries to find alternative funding and improve efficiency.

In Michigan, libraries provide vital community programs, including job training, literacy initiatives, and senior support services. Cuts to library funding could disrupt these services, which mainly assist underserved populations, such as those in rural communities. Hohl highlighted the consequences these communities could face from cuts.

"When we're looking at our small and rural communities, if we see a decrease in federal funding to the point of where it's a third or even a half of their budget, those libraries will have to make difficult decisions and they may have to close," she added.

The American Library Association recently sent a letter urging the acting director of the Institute of Museum and Library Services not to cut federally mandated library programs.


get more stories like this via email

A lawsuit to reinstate 16,000 fired federal probationary workers could get new life today at a federal district court hearing in San Francisco.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for the firings to proceed, dismissing a preliminary injunction from the same California judge who ordered reinstatement.

Erik Molvar, executive director of the Western Watersheds Project, said the high court objected to nonprofits having the standing to serve as plaintiffs. Advocates want the judge to issue a new injunction to block the firings on behalf of the workers' unions.

"We're continuing to fight to try and make sure that these probationary federal workers are able to retain their jobs," Molvar emphasized. "And to hold the Trump administration accountable for breaking federal law."

The Trump administration said the reduction in force only affected nonessential positions and is necessary to save money. Advocates for the workers said the mass firings were illegal because they came from the Office of Personnel Management, not the agency heads and because the dismissals cited the workers' alleged poor performance, without evidence to back it up.

Janessa Goldbeck, senior adviser to the nonprofit VoteVets, said 30% of federal workers are veterans, making the firings deeply unjust.

"We certainly owe people who have served in uniform, at the very least, due process when it comes to hiring and firing decisions," Goldbeck pointed out. "But more than that, we owe the American people the very best federal government and the services that many Americans rely on."

The lawsuit claimed the firings were haphazard and put essential functions at risk. For example, the only wildlife biologist for the Los Padres National Forest was targeted, as were all of the employees of a Bureau of Land Management office in Northeastern California responsible for overseeing grazing on nearby federal public lands.


get more stories like this via email