Frank Ettin has pointed me to other statutes that DO discuss affirmative defense, and in each of those I have seen the statute starts out by saying [act] is a crime, BUT [condition] shall be an affirmative defense. Probably the most universal of these is the law against killing another person -- the laws of every state say we aren't allowed to do that, but then they toss in some sort of affirmative defense that says "but if you do it in self defense you can raise that as an affirmative defense."
In the Florida law, it doesn't say that. It doesn't say "You can't carry a concealed firearm, but if you are caught with one and you have a permit you can raise that as an affirmative defense." What it says is:
(A) Carrying a concealed firearm is a crime.
(B) If you have a permit, (A) DOES NOT APPLY.
Words have meaning, even (especially?) in laws. "Does not apply" is pretty straightforward. If the law says carrying a concealed firearm is a crime but if you have a permit the law DOES NOT APPLY, therefore and ergo, if you have a permit carrying a concealed firearm is NOT a crime ... for the simple reason that the law that otherwise makes it a crime says it does not apply to you.
If the law doesn't apply to me, then there is no underlying "crime" for which I can/should/must raise any affirmative defense. I have a permit; carrying a concealed firearm is not a crime for me. Period.
The AG is functionally illiterate.