Calvert County - Contracts for Infrastructure or Asset Management - Contract Duration
HB1158 would expand Maryland’s firearms public nuisance law by creating a private right of action against firearm industry members. Under the bill, a firearm industry member could be liable if it knowingly creates, maintains, or contributes to harm to the public through the sale, manufacture, distribution, importation, or marketing of a firearm-related product by engaging in unlawful conduct or conduct that is unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances. The bill also requires firearm industry members to establish and implement reasonable controls over the sale, manufacture, distribution, importation, marketing, possession, and use of their products.
The bill keeps existing authority for the Attorney General, county attorneys, and the Baltimore City Solicitor to sue for public nuisance, but it adds a new right for any person to bring a damages action for injury or loss caused by a violation of the statute. A private plaintiff could seek injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs, and would have to notify the Attorney General within five days of filing. The bill also states that a plaintiff does not need to prove the firearm industry member intended to violate the subtitle. The act would take effect October 1, 2025.
HB1158 would amend the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article by broadening enforcement of Maryland’s firearm industry public nuisance provisions and expressly authorizing private civil lawsuits. It would expose firearm manufacturers, distributors, importers, and marketers to additional litigation risk, including damages claims by individuals, not just enforcement actions by government attorneys. The bill would likely affect how firearm industry members design compliance programs and sales/marketing practices, and it could increase the number of civil actions brought under § 3-2502 and § 3-2503.
Based on the bill text alone and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be a gun-regulation and civil-liability expansion with a clear public-safety rationale. The structure of the bill suggests support from advocates seeking stronger accountability for firearm industry conduct, while likely drawing opposition from firearm industry representatives and gun-rights supporters concerned about expanded liability and private enforcement. No formal vote history or hearing record was provided to show a documented committee consensus.
The main point of contention is the creation of a private right of action, which would allow any person to sue firearm industry members for damages tied to alleged violations. Opponents would likely argue that the bill invites broad and potentially costly litigation, uses an expansive “unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances” standard, and removes the need to prove intent. Supporters would likely emphasize that the bill targets unlawful or unreasonable conduct, strengthens accountability, and gives injured parties a direct remedy when public nuisance harms occur. The requirement to notify the Attorney General after filing suggests an attempt to coordinate private and public enforcement, but it may not fully address concerns about litigation volume.