Senate Judiciary resumes markup of S.329, debates expanded firearm prohibitors and relinquishment rules

The Senate Judiciary Committee resumed markup of S.329 on April 21 and advanced discussion on several firearm‑related reforms, but members left multiple technical issues unresolved and asked staff to return with drafting fixes and stakeholder input.

Eric, legislative counsel for the Office of Legislative Council, reopened the bill review and framed the remaining decisions: whether to retain a section elevating second unlawful possession by people previously convicted of a violent crime to a felony, how to craft a court‑commitment ("mental‑health") prohibitor, machine‑gun language that mirrors federal law, and a package of relinquishment procedures for firearms taken under court orders. "This is the provision that involves . . . the mental health prohibitor," Eric said, noting Department of Health suggested tweaks were still pending.

Why it matters: S.329 would change who may be prohibited from possessing firearms and how courts and third parties handle firearms when orders require relinquishment. Proposals discussed include a graduated penalty for repeat possession, a new misdemeanor prohibition for knowingly having a firearm on premises licensed to serve alcohol (maximum one year jail, $1,000 fine), and a uniform process for storing firearms when a court orders relinquishment.

On the bill's substance, committee members split on scope. One member flagged the bill's definition of "violent crime," saying it currently includes some drug offenses described in subparts C and D and warning that language could treat acts of "sharing" drugs as violent offenses. "My concern is our definition of a violent crime . . . sharing drugs a violent crime," the committee member said, urging either removal or narrowing of those subsections. Counsel recommended staff check cross‑references and trafficking‑amount thresholds so the committee could decide whether to strike those subparts or to limit them to trafficking (felony) offenses only.

The committee also debated treatment of people found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of insanity. Members expressed hesitation about imposing higher penalties on persons who lack capacity to navigate the criminal system and asked staff to reconcile those policy concerns with federal definitions and existing state law.

Section four would mirror federal machine‑gun provisions and preserve federal exceptions — for example, weapons lawfully registered under the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Eric described the text as "verbatim of the federal definition" and said that alignment preserves federal exceptions for otherwise lawful, registered machine guns.

Section five would add premises licensed to serve alcohol to the list of "sensitive places" where firearm possession can be regulated; the draft creates carve‑outs (takeaway purchase sites, special events, sidewalks dividing outdoor seating) and includes a conspicuous posting requirement similar to existing hospital signage. Members debated whether adjacent parking lots would count as part of licensed premises and noted the license boundary language controls that determination.

A large portion of the hearing focused on proposed relinquishment procedures created by a legislative task force. Key elements discussed include: who may hold relinquished firearms (law enforcement, FFLs, or court‑approved third parties); a court process and form documenting where firearms are stored; a requirement that any third party pass a background check before taking custody; victim‑notification duties; and rules for returning firearms (FFLs must run background checks before return). Counsel noted the draft shifts some current practice — for example, it creates a requirement for hearings before approving third‑party storage that current law does not uniformly require.

Committee members repeatedly raised procedural questions: whether judges can consolidate hearings to approve third parties at the initial protection‑order proceeding, how a third party could document title or sell firearms if an owner never reclaims them, and whether a third party who holds firearms indefinitely could legally dispose of them under property law. Counsel said these are open technical questions and that staff would research abandoned‑property and transfer issues and return with options.

Members also debated an amendment that would count time a firearm spends in transit toward the 72‑hour waiting period when a buyer orders a firearm online. Senators voiced practical concerns about verification and documentation: FFLs would need a reliable way to confirm shipment date (for example, tracking numbers) and would need discretion to withhold transfer if documentation is unreliable. The committee asked staff to consult federal shipping rules and stakeholders to tighten that language.

The committee agreed in principle to attach the relinquishment language to S.329 and to continue working on technical fixes and stakeholder input. Staff were asked to follow up with the Department of Health on the mental‑health language, to check federal cross‑references for prohibitors and trafficking thresholds, and to seek outside assistance on storage, title and abandoned‑property questions; the committee also planned to hear additional testimony (including from a judge and other experts) before finalizing the amendment.

The Judiciary Committee recessed after agreeing to continue work; no final votes on the bill text were recorded at the April 21 session.