SB 113 revises Kentucky law governing confiscated, forfeited, and abandoned firearms and ammunition. It changes the disposition process so that most confiscated firearms held by the Kentucky State Police must be sold at public auction to federally licensed firearms dealers, while firearms used in a criminal homicide must be destroyed. The bill also requires the State Police and other law enforcement agencies to make a bona fide effort to identify and return firearms or ammunition to innocent lawful owners before sale or destruction, and it adds authority for destruction of firearms that are defaced, contaminated, unsafe, or requested for destruction by an innocent owner.
The bill also directs how auction proceeds are used. After the State Police retain 20% of gross auction proceeds for departmental use, the remainder goes to the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security to fund grants for local police, sheriff’s offices, university safety departments, school district law enforcement, and airport safety departments. Eligible grant purchases include body armor, firearms and ammunition, electronic control devices, and body-worn cameras, with body armor given first priority and body cameras lower priority. The bill adds standards for body armor replacement, body-camera policies, and a new requirement that agencies adopt policies for destroying firearms used in criminal homicides by January 1, 2027.
SB 113 also amends Kentucky’s forfeiture statute to require that firearms and ammunition confiscated or abandoned by state or local agencies be transferred to the State Police for disposition, generally within 90 days, unless needed as evidence. It prohibits agencies from intentionally damaging firearms before transfer except for forensic purposes, and it creates a special rule that firearms used in criminal homicides must be destroyed rather than retained or transferred. The bill further clarifies procedures for identifying lawful owners, notifying claimants, and handling property with obscured serial numbers or other identifying marks.
In addition, the bill updates eligibility requirements for the Law Enforcement Foundation Program fund. It keeps existing training, education, reporting, and policy requirements for police departments, and adds a new requirement that departments maintain a written policy on destruction of firearms used in criminal homicides. It also preserves eligibility for sheriff’s deputies to participate in the fund even if the sheriff does not. The bill makes a technical update to the recordkeeping statute to reflect the new emergency vehicle operation training requirement.
Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the overall sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll call history. Based on the bill text, the measure appears designed to standardize firearm disposal, prevent public resale of homicide weapons, and channel proceeds into law enforcement equipment and safety grants. Likely points of contention include the mandatory destruction of homicide firearms, the restriction of sales to federally licensed dealers, and the use of confiscated-firearm proceeds to fund police equipment rather than other public purposes.
SB 113 would substantially revise KRS 16.220 and KRS 500.090 by changing how confiscated, forfeited, and abandoned firearms and ammunition are handled in Kentucky. It shifts most firearm sales to federally licensed firearms dealers, requires destruction of firearms used in criminal homicides, and imposes transfer deadlines and handling rules for law enforcement agencies. It also amends KRS 15.440 and KRS 15.512 to add a new policy requirement for homicide-firearm destruction and to conform recordkeeping to the emergency vehicle operation training requirement. The bill affects the Kentucky State Police, local law enforcement agencies, the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security, and grant-eligible police and sheriff departments.
No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from hearings or floor action. From the text alone, the bill appears to reflect a public-safety and law-enforcement-oriented approach, with emphasis on destroying homicide weapons, returning property to innocent owners, and funding police equipment and protective gear. The absence of recorded debate means any broader political sentiment is not available from the supplied materials.
The main likely points of contention are the bill’s requirement that firearms used in criminal homicides be destroyed, the limitation of auction sales to federally licensed dealers, and the allocation of auction proceeds to law-enforcement grants rather than general revenue or other uses. Some may also question the breadth of the State Police’s discretion to order destruction of certain firearms, the administrative burden on agencies to identify innocent owners and meet transfer deadlines, and the new policy requirements imposed on police departments to remain eligible for state funding.