Pennsylvania House Bill HB1859

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 9/11/25
• Refer: 9/11/25

Caption

In firearms and other dangerous articles, further providing for persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer firearms and for abandonment of firearms, weapons or ammunition; in community and municipal courts, further providing for masters; adding provisions relating to extreme risk protection orders; imposing duties on the Office of Attorney General; and imposing penalties.

Impact

If enacted, the bill would significantly affect Pennsylvania's firearm laws by introducing ERPOs that allow law enforcement or family members to petition the court for restrictions on firearm possession when there is evidence of imminent danger. These orders could be issued swiftly and would require immediate compliance from the individual in question. This change is designed to enhance safety while providing courts the authority to respond to emerging threats more effectively. Additionally, it addresses issues like abandonment and wrongful possession of firearms due to protective orders, thereby reinforcing legislative intent against gun violence.

Summary

House Bill 1859 amends Titles 18 and 42 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, focusing on firearm possession and the implementation of extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs). The bill aims to establish a more robust framework for preventing individuals deemed a risk to themselves or others from acquiring or holding firearms. Specifically, it details the conditions under which a court can issue an ERPO, outlining the responsibilities of law enforcement in enforcing these orders and mechanisms for relinquishing firearms. Moreover, the bill emphasizes protecting public safety by ensuring that individuals subject to ERPOs are prohibited from possessing firearms until further court evaluation.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 1859 is mixed among lawmakers and the public. Proponents argue that these measures are necessary to prevent gun violence and suicides, presenting the law as a means of proactive intervention that can save lives. Conversely, some opponents view this legislation as an infringement on personal liberties and a potential overreach of governmental authority. There are concerns about the implications for law-abiding gun owners and the mechanics of implementing such protective orders without infringing on rights due to potential misuse or false allegations.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the procedural safeguards involved in the issuance of ERPOs, particularly regarding due process for those affected. Critics question whether the bill sufficiently protects individuals from unjust restrictions without adequate evidence of danger. Furthermore, there is debate over how effectively law enforcement agencies could manage the implementation of such orders in practice, especially concerning the relinquishment of firearms and the potential for legal disputes arising from claims of wrongful confiscation. This tension between ensuring public safety and preserving individual rights remains at the forefront of discussions surrounding the bill.