Committee adopts changes to firearm-surrender timing in protective-order proceedings after contested testimony on survivor safety and due process

The Senate Judiciary Committee adopted a committee substitute for SB 963, a measure that would limit the circumstances in which firearms may be surrendered in connection with personal safety orders (chapter 53) and domestic violence protective orders (chapter 48). Under the committee substitute, a surrender would be required only if the accused does not appear for the hearing, consents to surrender, or after a full adversarial hearing in which the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent engaged in prohibited violence or threats.

Gabriel Musil, the prosecuting attorney for Monongalia County, testified in opposition, stressing survivor safety. Musil said access to firearms is a leading lethality indicator in domestic violence homicides and that the committee substitute as drafted “minimizes the protections for domestic violence survivors” by delaying mandatory surrender in some emergency ex parte orders. He also raised concerns that the change could create confusion between state and federal prohibitions on firearm possession.

Witnesses who testified in favor emphasized due process for respondents. Darren Stid of Young Americans for Liberty framed the bill as ensuring that “if you want to take a person’s guns away, you have to follow due process.” Stid and other proponents said the measure would curb abuses of the protective-order process and add a more timely appeal process.

Committee discussion covered procedural details: senators queried whether magistrate hearings (often ex parte and not courts of record) would satisfy the bill’s requirement for a full adversarial hearing, whether respondents would be entitled to appointed counsel in these civil proceedings, and how state and federal requirements for firearm surrender would align. Counsel (S10) explained that the committee substitute preserves appeals to circuit court and incorporates appellate provisions from chapters 48 and 53.

After debate weighing survivor safety against due-process concerns, the committee agreed to the committee substitute and voted to report SB 963 to the full Senate with a recommendation that it pass.

What happens next: The measure was reported to the full Senate and will proceed through the legislative process; the committee record shows competing safety and due-process rationales that could shape floor debate and any subsequent amendments.