Attorney General's office briefs Judiciary panel on fixing firearm-surrender compliance

Carolyn Hansen of the Attorney General's Office told the House Judiciary Committee that recommendations from a working group set up under Act 64 (2025) would not create new firearm restrictions but would address a failing process for enforcing firearm-surrender orders. "There is no new firearm restrictions coming out of this group. Okay?" Hansen said, adding the effort is about improving the process so prohibited people actually lose access to firearms.

Hansen said the group met repeatedly between July and November and included judges, prosecutors, state police, victim-service providers and firearms industry stakeholders. She described three storage pathways courts currently use when an order requires surrender: law enforcement custody, storage with a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL), or an approved third party. She told lawmakers many jurisdictions lack storage capacity for law enforcement and that FFLs have been reluctant to participate because of liability and unclear procedures.

To address that gap, Hansen said the recommendations would: create a standard acknowledgement form to document where firearms are kept; require courts to vet and conduct background checks on proposed third parties; remove ammunition-storage requirements for FFLs; align the statute to a 72-hour rule tied to the completion of a background check; and provide FFLs with limited immunity when they follow program rules. "FFLs are going to charge. So we're making sure that defendants are given that information," Hansen said about fees and notification obligations.

Committee members pressed on enforcement and practical issues. Hansen recommended training for officers who serve orders so they ask about firearms and document where they are; she said a failure to surrender when the court has evidence defendants still possess firearms can lead to warrant applications and criminal enforcement. She also said the proposed acknowledgement and improved victim-notification steps would help victims include firearms status in safety planning.

Lawmakers asked whether criminal conditions of release that prohibit firearms could use the same storage pathways; Hansen said prosecutors already can use storage options and that the working group's model could be applied to related protective orders to avoid duplicate processes. Members also raised concerns about the security of storage, potential theft, and whether an entrepreneurial third-party business holding firearms would fall under ATF regulation. Hansen said courts would vet third parties and that ATF rules govern certain transfers; creating paid third-party businesses was not the group's focus.

The working group emphasized that third-party custody is a less-safe option than law enforcement or FFL custody and that courts should have information to make informed decisions: "It is a less safe option all around," Hansen said. She added that many of the recommendations are consensus-based and intended as incremental fixes so the program becomes usable for victims and law enforcement.

The committee did not vote; members said they expected to review implementing language after the Senate settles companion bills and to continue work on law-enforcement protocol and victim-notification procedures. The committee adjourned until Tuesday.