Connect with us

Politics

Bill banning AI gun detection zips through first House committee

Published

on


A bill that would ban cameras powered with artificial intelligence from detecting firearms in public areas zipped through its first House stop with little discussion and no opposition.

Members of the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee voted 13-0 for HB 491, which would make using AI gun detection without a warrant a first-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and $1,000 in fines.

The measure’s sponsor, Palm Bay Republican Rep. Monique Miller, noted that the restriction would only apply to concealed firearms. The word “concealed” did not appear in the originally filed bill, but was added through substitute language filed Monday.

Notably, the companies that offer AI gun detection like Actuate, Coram, Omnilert and ZeroEyes say their software does not detect concealed weapons, and Florida is not an open-carry state.

Miller, a cybersecurity executive and self-described “staunch gun rights advocate,” said last month that she planned to file open carry legislation for the 2025 Session but ultimately did not do so.

HB 491 includes exceptions for federally protected areas like schools, courthouses and other secure areas like police stations.

Asked by Weston Democratic Rep. Robin Bartleman whether law enforcement supported the bill, particularly how it may affect large-scale events where extra protections might be welcome, Miller said she’s had “many conversations with folks” about the bill.

“I’ve not had any concerns about this,” Miller said Wednesday. “We have a right to privacy with concealed weapons, so this is why there’s an exception for brandished weapons. … And if you would like to see if someone has a concealed weapon, then they can get a warrant and do that.”

A representative from ZeroEyes signaled support for HB 491, which will next go to the House Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee.

Its upper-chamber analog (SB 562), which is still missing the “concealed” qualifier, has yet to be heard. That bill’s sponsor, Spring Hill Republican Sen. Blaise Ingoglia, has said the use of AI for gun detection is “nothing but a technological infringement upon both our Second and Fourth Amendment rights.”

The Second Amendment states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Fourth Amendment generally safeguards people from unreasonable government searches and seizures.


Post Views: 0



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Auburn Tigers take on the Florida Gators in Final 4

Published

on


The game is tonight.

Florida Gators (34-4, 17-4 SEC) vs. Auburn Tigers (32-5, 16-4 SEC)

San Antonio; Saturday, 6:09 p.m. EDT

BETMGM SPORTSBOOK LINE: Gators -2.5; over/under is 159.5

BOTTOM LINE: No. 4 Auburn and No. 3 Florida meet in the NCAA Tournament Final Four.

The Tigers’ record in SEC play is 16-4, and their record is 16-1 against non-conference opponents. Auburn scores 83.2 points while outscoring opponents by 14.0 points per game.

The Gators’ record in SEC action is 17-4. Florida has a 2-1 record in games decided by 3 points or fewer.

Auburn averages 9.1 made 3-pointers per game, 2.4 more made shots than the 6.7 per game Florida gives up. Florida has shot at a 47.3% rate from the field this season, 6.7 percentage points above the 40.6% shooting opponents of Auburn have averaged.

The teams meet for the second time this season. The Gators won 90-81 in the last matchup on Feb. 8.

___

Republished with permission of the Associated Press.


Post Views: 0



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Donald Trump makes big bet on tariffs

Published

on


Not even 24 hours after his party lost a key Wisconsin race and underperformed in Florida, President Donald Trump followed the playbook that has defined his political career: He doubled down.

Trump’s move on Wednesday to place stiff new tariffs on imports from nearly all U.S. trading partners marks an all-in bet by the Republican that his once-fringe economic vision will pay off for Americans. It was the realization of his four decades of advocacy for a protectionist foreign policy and the belief that free trade was forcing the United States into decline as its economy shifted from manufacturing to services.

The tariff announcement was the latest and perhaps boldest manifestation of Trump’s second-term freedom to lead with his instincts after feeling his first turn in the Oval Office was restrained by aides who did not share his worldview. How it shakes out will be a defining judgment on his presidency.

The early reviews have been worrisome.

Financial markets had their worst week since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, foreign trade partners retaliated and economists warned that the import taxes may boost inflation and potentially send the U.S. into a recession. It’s now Republican lawmakers who are fretting about their party’s future while Democrats feel newly buoyant over what they see as Trump’s overreach.

He has promised that the taxes on imports will bring about a domestic manufacturing renaissance and help fund an extension of his 2017 tax cuts. He insisted on Thursday as the Dow Jones fell by 1,600 points that things were “going very well” and the economy would “boom,” then spent Friday at the golf course as the index plunged 2,200 more points.

In his first term, Trump’s tariff threats brought world leaders to his door to cut deals. This time, his actions so far have led to steep retaliation from China and promises from European allies to push back.

As Trump struggles with the economy, Democrats are beginning to emerge from the cloud of doom that has consumed their party ever since their election drubbing in November.

They scored a decisive victory in Wisconsin’s high-profile state Supreme Court election on Tuesday, even after Elon Musk and his affiliated groups poured more than $20 million into the contest. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker then breathed new life into the Democratic resistance by delivering a record 25-hour-long speech on the Senate floor that centered on a call for his party to find its resolve.

___

Republished with permission of the Associated Press.


Post Views: 0



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

State can enforce DEI general education course ban while litigation plays out

Published

on


The state of Florida may enforce a law eliminating general education courses that teach “identity politics” at Florida’s institutions of higher education pending resolution of a lawsuit filed by professors, a federal judge has ruled.

In January, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida filed suit on the professors’ behalf alleging that SB 266, a 2023 law limiting general education course classifications and funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, harmed the professors’ academic ambitions. General education courses are required for students to graduate.

Days after a preliminary injunction hearing in Tallahassee in front of U.S. District Chief Judge Mark Walker, he ruled Wednesday that the professors had not established they would suffer any harm.

“This ruling is disappointing, but also offers a clearer path forward to prove this law is unconstitutional,” said Bacardi Jackson, executive director of the ACLU of Florida in a news release. “The law is a blatant effort to control the content of higher education, muzzle Florida’s scholars, and erase perspectives the state finds politically inconvenient. We remain committed to fighting alongside faculty, students, and the broader academic community until this undemocratic law is struck down.”

Among the plaintiffs is University of Florida political science professor Sharon Austin, who complains she was denied funding to present at a 2024 conference hosted by Diversity Abroad, which the school had paid for her to present at in 2023. The school specifically cited SB 266 in refusing to pay for her to appear subsequently, the suit alleges.

“As for Plaintiff Austin, her declaration demonstrates that she has already suffered a denial of state funding to attend conferences in 2024. However, to obtain prospective relief, she must demonstrate an unambiguous intention to seek funding to attend conferences at a reasonably foreseeable time in the future. That she has not done,” Walker wrote.

Professors who have had their courses removed from general education requirements, or fear it may happen, say their injury is chilled speech and potential repercussions in post-tenure review.

“To the extent these Plaintiffs claim their classroom speech associated with courses for which they have no stated plans to teach at a reasonably foreseeable time in the future will be chilled, such a hypothetical future chill is both too remote and speculative to amount to a cognizable injury in fact,” Walker wrote.

ACLU will continue
The plaintiffs allege viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment; that the law is over-broad; and that it violates Florida’s Campus Free Expression Act.

State University System Chancellor Ray Rodrigues said in January that the law has helped address a Gallup poll that found “political agendas” as Americans’ Number One reason they have lost confidence in higher education.

Education Commissioner Manny Diaz Jr. said the law helps students who can be “overwhelmed by the number of courses that are out there,” and that students can take whatever classes they wish, “but the easier we can make it for them when it comes to general education and making sure that they’re getting what they need there I think is very important.”

Walker did not rule on merits of the underlying case and the ACLU said it will continue its challenge.

“Plaintiffs’ evidence does not demonstrate that any Plaintiff faces an imminent injury — namely, chilled speech — that is traceable to any Defendant’s enforcement of the general education requirements,” Walker wrote.

“For what it’s worth, Plaintiffs’ existential concerns about the survival of their academic departments and the future viability of their areas of expertise in the state of Florida are certainly understandable. However, these concerns, as described at length in Plaintiffs’ declarations, do not give rise to a concrete, imminent, and non-speculative injury in fact sufficient to permit Plaintiffs to seek a preliminary injunction against Defendants’ enforcement of the general education requirements.”

___

Jay Waagmeester reporting. Florida Phoenix is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Michael Moline for questions: [email protected]


Post Views: 0



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.