Pennsylvania House Bill HB355

Pennsylvania 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/13/23
• Refer: 3/13/23

Caption

In firearms and other dangerous articles, further providing for sale or transfer of firearms, for duties of the Pennsylvania State Police and for altering or obliterating marks of identification and providing for destruction of confiscated or recovered firearms.

Impact

The introduction of HB 355 significantly alters how Pennsylvania law handles confiscated firearms. By formally establishing a timeline for the destruction of such items after efforts to return them have failed, the bill proposes a more definitive process that aims to streamline the management of recovered firearms. This change is expected to relieve law enforcement agencies from the ongoing burden of maintaining firearms that cannot be returned to their owners, thus also reducing potential liabilities associated with their storage and management.

Summary

House Bill 355 seeks to amend Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes in relation to the sale and transfer of firearms, and specifically addresses the duties of the Pennsylvania State Police concerning confiscated or recovered firearms. The bill mandates that if law enforcement does not succeed in identifying the lawful owner of a confiscated firearm within a set timeframe, or if the identified owner is banned from possessing the firearm, the item must be destroyed. This move marks a significant position on firearm regulation by ensuring that unclaimed or prohibited firearms do not remain in the possession of law enforcement indefinitely.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 355 appears mixed. Supporters argue that the bill is a proactive step towards responsible firearm management, ensuring that firearms that cannot be rightfully owned are effectively taken out of circulation, thereby enhancing public safety. Critics, however, express concerns over the potential for mishandling or rapid destruction of firearms that might still belong to lawful owners or those undergoing due process. Thus, the debate encapsulates broader tensions within gun control discussions, emphasizing the balance between effective law enforcement and rights of ownership.

Contention

A notable point of contention lies in the section that mandates the destruction of firearms within a strict timeline. Opponents contend that the 120-day period to identify lawful ownership may be insufficient for cases involving prolonged investigations or legal complexities. Additionally, there might be objections related to due process for individuals who may not have immediate access to claim confiscated firearms. This could lead to calls for amendments that extend the time frame or enhance transparency in how confiscated firearms are handled prior to destruction.