SB 1338 would create a new section of Florida law prohibiting the sale, transfer, importation, distribution, and possession of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, subject to limited exceptions. The bill defines “assault weapon” broadly by listing specific firearm models and by covering semiautomatic firearms with certain military-style features, as well as parts or combinations of parts that can convert a firearm into an assault weapon. It also defines “large-capacity magazine” as a feeding device capable of holding more than 10 rounds, with exceptions for certain permanently altered devices, .22 caliber tube magazines, and tubular magazines in lever-action firearms.
The bill creates a registration-style grandfathering system for weapons and magazines lawfully possessed before October 1, 2025. Owners in lawful possession before that date would have to apply for a certificate of possession by October 1, 2026, submit identifying information and a thumbprint, and undergo a background investigation by the Department of Law Enforcement. After the effective date, possession without qualifying for an exception would be a third-degree felony, with a mandatory minimum sentence of one year, while sale or transfer violations would generally be third-degree felonies with a two-year minimum. Transfers to minors would carry a second-degree felony and a six-year minimum. The bill also requires certificates of transfer for sales to licensed gun dealers, sets rules for relinquishment, transport, and continued possession, and exempts permanently inoperable firearms and certain law enforcement, corrections, military, and dealer activities.
SB 1338 would also amend Florida’s sentencing enhancement statute to increase penalties when certain felonies are committed with an assault weapon or large-capacity magazine. For specified serious offenses, possession of one of these weapons during the crime would trigger a 15-year minimum sentence; discharging the weapon would trigger a 20-year minimum; and discharging it and causing death or great bodily harm would trigger a minimum sentence of 25 years to life. In effect, the bill would add both a broad weapons restriction and enhanced punishment provisions tied to their use in violent felonies.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available record is limited because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials, but the bill’s final status indicates it died in the Senate Criminal Justice Committee. That outcome suggests the proposal did not advance, likely reflecting significant policy disagreement or insufficient support. The bill’s structure and penalties indicate a strong public-safety approach, but its sweeping restrictions, mandatory registration requirements, and criminal penalties would likely have been the main points of concern for opponents.
Notable contention would likely center on the breadth of the assault weapon definition, the ban on possession and transfer, the certificate-of-possession process, and the mandatory minimum sentences. Supporters would likely view the bill as a gun-violence prevention measure aimed at limiting access to high-capacity firearms and increasing penalties for their use in serious crimes. Opponents would likely argue that it burdens lawful gun owners, creates a de facto confiscation or registration regime, and imposes severe criminal penalties for conduct involving commonly owned firearms and magazines.
The bill would create new Florida Statutes section 790.301 and substantially change state firearms law by banning the sale, transfer, importation, distribution, and possession of defined assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, while establishing a certificate-of-possession system for preexisting lawful owners. It would also impose new duties on the Department of Law Enforcement to adopt rules, process applications, conduct background checks, and maintain transfer records. In addition, it would amend section 775.087 to add enhanced mandatory minimum sentences when certain felonies are committed with an assault weapon or large-capacity magazine.
The available legislative record shows no committee debate or vote detail, but the bill ultimately died in the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, indicating it did not secure enough support to advance. The bill’s policy direction is clearly restrictive and public-safety oriented, but the lack of progression suggests substantial resistance or concern within the chamber. Overall, the sentiment can be characterized as unfavorable to the bill’s advancement despite its strong gun-control framing.
The main points of contention would likely be the bill’s broad definition of assault weapons, its prohibition on possession and transfer, and the requirement that existing owners obtain certificates of possession and submit to background checks and fingerprinting. Opponents would likely object to the mandatory minimum prison terms, the limits on future transfers, and the practical burden placed on lawful owners who already possessed covered firearms before the cutoff date. Supporters would likely emphasize crime prevention, public safety, and tougher penalties for violent offenses involving these weapons, while critics would focus on Second Amendment concerns, registration-like requirements, and the scope of the ban.