Senators debate bill to bar firearm possession for assisted outpatient treatment respondents

An Annapolis committee heard competing views Friday on Senate Bill 509, a measure that would prohibit people subject to court-ordered assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) from possessing firearms while the order is in effect.

Sen. Shanika Henson (D–District 30A) said the bill is intended to close a “loophole” in Maryland’s AOT statute so that people who are severely ill and under court-ordered outpatient treatment cannot access firearms during the period of supervision. “One of the major impetus for the bill is suicide prevention,” Henson told the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, saying AOT respondents are a narrow population “with serious and persistent mental illness” who are at elevated risk.

Supporters framed SB 509 as chiefly a suicide-prevention measure and said law enforcement’s existing enforcement tools could be used to carry out the prohibition. Henson told the panel the enforcement mechanism would run parallel to the state’s extreme risk protective order process, allowing sheriffs to seize firearms under a court order.

But the Office of the Public Defender and Disability Rights Maryland testified in opposition. Crystal Williams of the Public Defender’s Office said the bill “would categorically prohibit all individuals . . . who would be subject to the assisted outpatient treatment program from possessing a firearm,” and that there is no evidence that all AOT respondents are violent or suicidal. Courtney Bergen of Disability Rights Maryland, who said she has lived experience with involuntary placements that led to NICS reporting, described significant collateral consequences when mental-health-related entries are placed into federal background-check systems, including lost employment opportunities and licensing barriers.

Opponents urged the committee to narrowly tailor relief to situations involving individualized findings of dangerousness. Williams and Bergen warned that inserting AOT entries into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) could contravene federal limits on use of that database and could criminalize or stigmatize people seeking treatment.

The discussion repeatedly returned to distinctions between AOT proceedings — civil orders intended to produce treatment adherence — and the state’s extreme risk laws (ERPO/IRPO). Henson and supporters said the bill would add firearm relief to AOT orders to avoid two separate court processes; opponents said the statutory language as drafted would sweep too broadly and carry collateral harms.

Committee members pressed both sides on evidence about suicide risk and on whether the bill’s reporting provisions would run afoul of federal law governing NICS entries. Henson cited research and expert testimony (including written testimony from a Johns Hopkins analysis submitted for the record) that links firearm access to increased suicide lethality. Public defenders and disability advocates called for narrower, targeted remedies tied to individualized findings of dangerousness and raised HIPAA and NICS concerns.

The committee did not take a vote during the hearing.

Ending

The bill drew sharply divided testimony: proponents emphasized suicide prevention and ease of enforcement under existing court processes; opponents urged more limited remedies and raised concerns about reporting to NICS and collateral harms that may deter people from seeking care. The committee will consider the competing views as it prepares its recommendation.