Delaware House Bill HB342

Delaware 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/9/26
• Refer: 4/9/26

Caption

AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 11 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO THE POSSESSION AND PURCHASE OF DEADLY WEAPONS BY PERSONS PROHIBITED.

Summary

HB 342 amends Delaware’s deadly-weapons disqualification law to expand who is barred from purchasing, owning, possessing, or controlling a deadly weapon or firearm ammunition. Under current law, the prohibition applies to people subject to certain Family Court protection-from-abuse orders. This bill keeps that rule in place and adds a new category for people subject to domestic violence protection orders issued by a court in another state or territory, so long as the order either expressly prohibits firearm/weapon possession or meets the federal standard in 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8). The bill also preserves an existing exception for certain contested Family Court orders issued solely under specified provisions of Title 10. In practical terms, HB 342 is intended to close a gap in Delaware law by recognizing qualifying out-of-state protective orders for purposes of state weapons restrictions, aligning state law more closely with federal domestic-violence firearm prohibitions.

Impact

HB 342 would amend Title 11, Section 1448 of the Delaware Code, expanding the list of persons prohibited from purchasing, owning, possessing, or controlling deadly weapons or firearm ammunition. The main legal effect is to make Delaware’s weapons prohibition apply not only to in-state Family Court protection-from-abuse orders, but also to qualifying domestic violence protection orders from other states or territories. The bill affects individuals subject to protective orders, law enforcement, courts, and firearm sellers or possessors subject to the statute.

Sentiment

The available bill text and synopsis suggest generally supportive sentiment, with the measure presented as a public-safety and domestic-violence enforcement update rather than a controversial policy shift. The sponsor list is broad and bipartisan, indicating cross-party support. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no evidence in the supplied materials of organized opposition or divided debate.

Contention

The main point of legal nuance is which out-of-state protective orders qualify. The bill limits the new prohibition to orders that either specifically bar firearm or deadly-weapon possession or satisfy the federal criteria in 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), which helps avoid overbroad application. Another potential issue is the existing exception for certain contested Family Court orders under Title 10, which remains in place and could be a focus for those concerned about due process or the scope of firearm restrictions. No specific opposing arguments are included in the record provided.