No, and the belief has outlived the law by some years now.
Florida had restricted breed-specific local ordinances for a long time, but exempted those adopted before October 1, 1990. Miami-Dade’s ban predated that date, so it survived. So did the City of Sunrise’s 1989 penning-and-muzzling ordinance in Broward.
House Bill 941 deleted that grandfather clause, effective October 1, 2023. Section 767.14 now permits local safety ordinances “provided that no such regulation is specific to breed, weight, or size,” with no exception for old ones. Both ordinances lost their basis.
HB 941 also barred governmental public housing authorities from restricting dogs by breed, weight, or size.
Two things this does not change:
Liability for a bite. Section 767.04 has never mentioned breed. The repeal is not a defense and it is not a claim.
Insurance. Section 767.14 binds local governments, not insurers. A carrier may still maintain a restricted-breed list and still decline coverage.
If someone has acted on the old ban
The ordinance is gone, but people still enforce it from memory. What to do depends entirely on who is doing the enforcing, because preemption reaches some of them and not others.
A county or city official. Section 767.14 constrains local government ordinances. A municipal or county rule specific to breed, weight or size is preempted.
A public housing authority. HB 941 barred governmental public housing authorities from restricting dogs by breed, weight or size.
A private HOA or condominium association. Different question entirely. A covenant is a private contract, not a government ordinance, and § 767.14 does not by its terms reach it. The distinction, in full.
An insurer. Not reached at all. Section 767.14 binds local governments; insurance is regulated under a different part of Florida law, and a carrier may still maintain a restricted-breed list. Why that gap matters.
Check the date on what you were told
A great deal of material describing the Miami-Dade ban as in force was published before October 2023 and is still online, still confidently worded, and still wrong. If something is being cited at you, look at when it was written.
And note what the repeal does not do. It is not a defence for an owner whose dog bit someone. Section 767.04 has never mentioned breed, so the repeal changes nothing about liability in either direction.