Committee hears wide support and implementation questions for bill requiring firearm surrender at temporary protective orders

Delegate Bartlett, sponsor of the Family and Law Enforcement Protection Act (HB83), told the House Judiciary Committee the bill would require petitioners to provide known firearm and license information in protective-order filings; it would make relinquishment mandatory at the temporary stage and set out procedures for surrender, written proof, and law-enforcement response.

"House Bill 83 requires that every individual filing a petition for relief from abuse... include information about whether the respondent holds a valid gun license or permit and whether they own or possess a firearm," Bartlett said, summarizing the bill's core elements.

Supporters urged passage as a life-saving measure. Karen Herron of Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, called the bill "time- and court-tested," noting federal law (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8)) covers final orders but not temporary ones and leaves a gap states address. Laurie Ruth of the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence cited a multiyear rise in firearm-related domestic homicides and told the committee her group's fatality-review work finds firearms often drive lethality.

Debbie Feinstein, chief of the special victims division for the Montgomery County State's Attorney's Office, described fatality-review findings that roughly half of reviewed domestic-violence fatal or near-fatal cases involved firearms and defended the bill's search-warrant language as requiring the same probable-cause standards already used in other contexts. "If they don't believe that they have probable cause, they can't draft the warrant at all," she said.

Survivors and service providers described operational details they want: a clear court record about firearms, options for third-party lawful transfers, expedited law-enforcement compliance timelines (one witness referenced a 3-business-day compliance trigger), and safety-planning resources for petitioners. Several delegates pressed practical questions about notice (temporary orders take effect on service), whether ammunition is covered, whether law enforcement would receive funding for added duties (the fiscal note cited roughly $86,000 in state-level costs), and whether employment-based exceptions exist for security officers; panelists said the bill contains few categorical exemptions.

Opponents warned of unintended harms. John Joslin (TUI Maryland) testified the detailed firearm reporting could intimidate petitioners, that mandatory surrender could create a false sense of security, and that additional search-warrant activity risks civil and operational burdens for local law enforcement.

Committee members asked staff and witnesses for implementation details, including whether a lengthening of the current 7-day voluntary-surrender window was advisable and how the bill interacts with extreme-risk or red-flag orders. No final action was taken at the hearing; sponsors said they will refine implementation language and consider amendments.