Prince George's County work group approves package of gun‑violence recommendations

A Prince George's County gun violence study work group voted unanimously to approve a package of policy, prevention and mental‑health recommendations that members will now compile into a presentation for the County Council and the county executive.

The work group, co‑chaired by Councilwoman Corsoyova, said the package includes proposals to establish a county office of gun violence prevention; require or incentivize safety assessments and fees for developments that could affect public safety; expand extreme‑risk protective order interventions; increase access to trauma‑informed mental‑health services in schools; subsidize secure firearm storage; and invest in community‑based violence interruption programs and victim services.

Councilwoman Corsoyova, who represents District 7 and serves as a co‑chair of the study work group, framed the vote as the group's final step. "Today will be our final vote, and meeting for recommendations," she said, adding the next step is to assemble the recommendations into a report for county leaders.

Members described the proposals as a shift toward prevention and coordination. The recommended county office of gun violence prevention would sit under the County Executive's administration to coordinate cross‑agency violence‑reduction strategies, community outreach, data tracking and funding distribution, a staff summary read aloud during the meeting said. The group also discussed a proposal for a county gun‑violence impact assessment to require consideration of safety impacts for new developments and to create a fee structure to fund non‑police public‑safety investments.

Several members supported expanding mechanisms to temporarily remove firearms from people who pose risks. Alaina Butler said the recommendation to enable courts to order temporary removal of firearms "would be definitely a recommendation that would be worth pursuing" and cited domestic‑violence concerns as a reason to pursue expanded protections.

Speakers discussed safe‑storage strategies and existing state rules. One member noted Maryland requires licensing and training tied to firearm purchases; the transcript records discussion that licensing in Maryland includes safety classes and demonstration of range proficiency before purchase. The group recommended exploring local actions to increase safe storage, and several participants urged subsidized or no‑questions‑asked distribution of gun locks at community events and schools.

The work group heard from Britney Vasquez, program manager in the Prince George's County Health Department Behavioral Health Division, who described a county program tied to extreme‑risk protective orders. "I'm currently in the process of implementing a program called the extreme risk protective order liaison program," she said, and told the group the program was funded through the governor's office of crime prevention and policy, launched May 28, 2025, and that the grant period runs through Sept. 30, 2026. Vasquez said the county is seeking ways to sustain and expand the work after the grant period and that some positions are now general‑funded, which may allow continuation.

Members stressed school‑based prevention and earlier intervention for youth. Tabriz McAllister argued for starting social‑emotional learning earlier than middle school and for mandatory intervention programs for students found with firearms who have not committed a violent crime. "We definitely need to start younger," McAllister said, and recommended multi‑week mandatory programs that cover anger management, laws and coping skills for youths identified in gun‑related incidents.

The package compiled a long list of proposals discussed during the meeting, including: school‑based violence prevention; community mentorship initiatives; gun‑safety education; increased access to trauma‑informed services in schools; after‑school enrichment; stronger enforcement of existing laws; gun buybacks; victim compensation expansions; trauma recovery centers in high‑violence areas; funding for community‑based violence interrupters; crisis response expansions; legal assistance and survivor supports; restorative justice programs; and a proposed survivor reinvestment grant program.

After the chair read the final recommendations, a member moved to approve the full set and another seconded. Participants voted "aye" verbally without individual roll call; the chair then announced the recommendations had been "formally approved." The group directed staff to combine duplicate items, circulate a draft report to the work group for edits, and then forward the final recommendations to the County Council and the county executive for consideration.

The work group emphasized that some proposals — such as licensing, safe‑storage mandates or red‑flag legal changes — would require action at the state or federal level, and that local implementation would depend on available county budget, private funding and state law changes. Members noted existing local grants and partnerships (for example, the governor's office grant supporting the liaison program, and nonprofit safe‑storage efforts such as Moms Demand Action and the Diana J. McCallister Legacy Foundation) as possible tools to scale programs.

The group concluded by thanking staff and participants and by reiterating an intent to move the recommendations out of the work group into the county's formal deliberative process.