A proposal to expand Florida’s “school guardian” program to colleges and universities received support from the Republican-controlled House Wednesday evening.
The bill (HB 757) passed on an 83-25 vote, and now heads to the Senate.
The measure builds on changes made in the public school system after the 2018 mass shooting at Parkland’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. The bill gained traction this year as lawmakers recalled a shooting during the 2025 legislative session, where a student killed two people and wounded five others at Florida State University.
“We were all here that day a year ago, either in our committee rooms or in our offices,” said bill sponsor Rep. Michelle Salzman, R-Pensacola. “We all saw the news. We all got the alerts. It was a scary time.”
Under the proposal, each school would have to establish an “active assailant response plan,” and the president of each college or university could designate employees and faculty who would be trained and able to receive a concealed-weapons license to carry guns on campus.
In voting against the measure, Jacksonville Democratic Rep. Angie Nixon questioned the amount of training individuals would receive.
“I have seen what folks that are part ICE have done with training, or lack thereof,” Nixon said.
The bill also promotes the use by post-secondary schools of the mobile suspicious activity reporting tool, FortifyFL, and calls for student psychological evaluations to be transferred when the individual moves from high school to a state college or university.
Rep. Christine Hunschofsky, a Democrat who was the mayor of Parkland at the time of the shooting, expressed concern that state colleges don’t have the level of funding for law enforcement as found at the state universities.
“Our universities are able to stand up a police force. They can afford to do that,” Hunschofsky said. “Thank goodness. FSU had that police force a year ago. They did a wonderful job responding, and the University did a fantastic job in the aftermath. But our colleges don’t have that same funding.”
–News Service of Florida
JimboXYZ says
Just my gut feel, is that there will be more “safe” guns & as intended for self defense CCW’s on any given campus with this legislation than there will be mass shooters with guns. Does that mean the mass shootings disappear completely, are deterred materially/significantly ? I think it’s doubtful that it moves the needle one direction or another for any type of shooting on a campus ? I mean, that’s the way it is anywhere that isn’t a campus. One has to look at the motives of the mass shootings, whether it’s a campus or any other workplace shooting. There’s usually a bigger issue that hasn’t been addressed & dealt with in a lot of those mass shootings, rather than someone CCWP in accordance with State laws. And there are always going to be the one’s that start trouble with another and misinterpret SYG situations that may create those type of rarer shootings we’ve seen over recent years. Who knows though, maybe a reduction in protests that become violent, those seem to attract the gun types just the same.
JimboXYZ says
Here are some worst case scenarios ?
With a higher number of firearms on campus, the crime scene during the mass shooting & post mass shooting is going to be one chaotic mess for determining who the shooter(s) are as mass shooters or who was SYG. Are others going to be “accidentally” shot in the chaos & confusions of the event. The Good Samaritan SYG types are going to have to be held accountable & responsible for their actions as are law enforcement for mistakes made. Statistically it makes no sense to be CCW in a campus mass shooting. those that survive the mass shooting has to be 99.9.% or higher. Some “victims” won’t ever be in the line of fire or proximity of the mass shooting event, I mean a campus the size of FSU or any University for that matter, the mass shooting might as well have occurred on the other side of the city for the proximity for being at risk & in harms way. Unless the mass shooter(s) are virtually standing for a line of fire, those potential victims are unlikely to be unfortunate victims. I mean, the worst mass shootings ? +/- 25 victims ? On a campus of thousand(s). That may not diminish the threat & loss of life, but it serves to quantify the survival rates. Litigation will increase, because several gun persons, SYG types will somehow have to lawyer up & prove in a courtroom or trial that they were not mass shooters. They may have to surrender their firearms for ballistics & whatever other investigations that forensics & the criminologists must perform to prosecute any mass shooter(s). With that statistical math, it just seems the smarter choice to just show up for classes without a gun. If one is going to be a Good Samaritan the one’s that are 1st & closest proximity would be heroes for tackling the shooter & incapacitating them. Not sure anyone would have an issue with a Good Samaritan in that moment to terminate the shooter & limit/eliminate any need for the case to ever go to trial ? But with more guns on a campus, the whole process will become as difficult as trying to figure out the mass shooting perpetrators & crime scene like a battlefield/war zone to figure out which are the ally(ies), which are enemy(ies). It just won’t be as cut & dried as who is wearing a uniform, who has a badge or not ?
Skibum says
Republi-cons absolutely love to stick a Band-Aid on a pig! Guns, guns and more guns, boy howdy!
Each and every time they push forward with another one of these insane ideas, the job of law enforcement officers becomes more difficult, and the lives of untrained civilians who think they are helping by having a gun in their hands when law enforcement arrives on scene will be in ever increasing danger. Officers cannot automatically determine who is a “good guy with a gun” from a “bad guy with a gun”, and more innocent good samaritans may get shot for their attempt to help and end up in the hospital or the morgue.
Way to go, republi-cons! You’ve done it once again… TO us, not for us!
Jim says
I’m just curious. You are on the staff and authorized to carry a concealed weapon on campus. An incident occurs in your general area and people get shot or stabbed or clubbed or something else just as bad. You didn’t do anything. Are you going to be held liable for all the injuries and/or deaths that occur? I didn’t see anything in the article about liability responsibilities so just curious. On the flip side, you misunderstand what’s going on and you shoot someone who’s innocent. Are you liable?
If the law passes, I think you’d be an idiot to get in this system. Cops are trained and they have a hard time sometimes. And they are on duty almost daily. Anyone toting a gun under this system is really putting themselves in a bad situation.
Deborah Coffey says
Combined IQ of the Republican House…25? More guns will stop killings…brilliant.
Liability Plus says
I’m waiting for some idiot in Congress to recommend arming all of the students on a daily basis, so that they can protect themselves. Wouldn’t the NRA and the gun and ammo companies love that, more profits.
Another thought, when the 1st innocent person is killed by one of these new gun toting “Guardians”, would they be charged/sued or would they try to use the “Stand your ground” loop hole in the law.
How about like the parents of the shooters that provided guns to their troubled kids, should the Congress and Senate and Governor that supported the bill, then be charged/sued for arming the Guardians knowing accidental deaths or injuries were likely?