Bill would let Kansas law enforcement sell forfeited firearms to licensed federal dealers

SB 137, a bill introduced in committee on Oct. 27, 2025, would amend the Kansas standard asset seizure and forfeiture act to allow firearms forfeited under the civil forfeiture code to be sold or transferred to a properly licensed federal firearms dealer instead of being destroyed or retained only for law‑enforcement use.

The measure was explained to the committee by Mike Hyam of the Reviser's Office, who said the amendment inserts language that firearms ‘‘may be sold or transferred to a properly licensed federal firearms dealer’’ and makes the civil statute comparable to existing criminal procedure provisions in chapter 22. Senator Mark Owens, the bill sponsor, testified in support on behalf of a Harvey County sheriff.

Supporters told the committee the change is narrow and intended to align the civil forfeiture code with criminal forfeiture practice, limit administrative costs from firearm destruction, and keep usable firearms in lawful circulation. ‘‘Firearms belong in the hands of responsible firearm owners,’’ Megan Hilbish, executive director of the Kansas State Rifle Association, told the committee, adding that destruction can be lengthy and expensive for law enforcement.

Senator Owens and the Reviser's Office read the statutory language into the record. Under the amended sentence, ‘‘when firearms are forfeited under this act, the firearms in the discretion of the seizing agency shall be destroyed, used within the seizing agency for official purposes, traded to another law enforcement agency for use within such agency, sold or transferred to a properly licensed federal firearm dealer, or given to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation for law enforcement testing comparison or destruction by the Kansas Bureau of Investigation Forensic Lab.’’ The committee was told the only change in the bill is to add the ‘‘sold or transferred’’ option for properly licensed federal firearms dealers.

Lawmakers asked several clarifying questions. Representative Nolan asked whether the bill singles out particular kinds of federal licenses; Hyam and Owens answered that retail dealers and manufacturers have distinct federal firearms licenses but ‘‘any federal firearms dealer that receives firearms and sells firearms has to fall under the same amount of regulation,’’ and the bill does not differentiate among federally licensed dealers. Representative Kessler asked why agencies would use an FFL instead of a public auction; witnesses explained that even at public auctions an FFL typically must be involved to perform required federal background checks.

Committee members raised concern about whether permitting sales could create financial incentives to increase forfeitures. Senator Owens pointed to reforms enacted last year that he said substantially increased protections for property owners — including raising the burden of proof from a preponderance standard to clear and convincing evidence — and the addition of fee‑shifting rules that can require law enforcement to pay claimants' attorney fees if a claimant recovers at least half the property. Owens said those earlier reforms reduce the risk that the change to disposal options will incentivize abuse.

The committee record included a written proponent, Ed Klump, and no opponents were listed. Megan Hilbish said the Kansas State Rifle Association supports the bill and that the Senate passed the measure on a 39‑1 vote when it previously moved through the Senate committee. No formal committee vote occurred during the hearing.

The hearing closed after proponents completed testimony and the committee indicated there were no opponents.

Notes and next steps: the bill remains at the committee hearing stage; no committee motion or final disposition was recorded in the transcript. If advanced, the bill would alter only the listed disposal options for forfeited firearms and would leave other civil forfeiture procedures unchanged, according to the sponsor and reviser.