House Bill 901 would authorize and regulate “safety hold agreements” between a federally licensed firearms dealer, manufacturer, or importer and an individual gun owner. Under the bill, a firearm owner could voluntarily ask a federal firearms licensee to take physical possession of a lawfully possessed firearm for an agreed period of time and then return it later. The agreement could not require a fee, and the bill directs the State Bureau of Investigation to create a modifiable form for these agreements and post it on the SBI website.
The bill also establishes confidentiality protections for these agreements and states they are not public records under Chapter 132 unless the parties agree otherwise. It further clarifies that a licensee is not required to accept an unlawfully possessed firearm or return a firearm to someone legally prohibited from possessing one. The bill takes effect July 1, 2025, and authorizes the SBI to adopt implementing rules, including through an expedited rulemaking process.
HB901 would add a new section to Article 53B of Chapter 14 of the North Carolina General Statutes, creating a statutory framework for temporary firearm storage arrangements with federal firearms licensees. It would provide civil liability protection for licensees against claims arising from acts or omissions related to a safety hold agreement, including the return of a firearm, except where the licensee acted negligently, recklessly, or unlawfully. The bill would also affect SBI administrative responsibilities by requiring a standard form and rulemaking to support implementation.
The available record shows no committee debate or recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment beyond the bill’s introduction and referral. Based on the text, the measure appears designed as a voluntary public-safety option for gun owners and a liability shield for participating licensees, suggesting a generally facilitative rather than punitive approach. Because no transcripts or votes are available, support or opposition cannot be measured from the provided materials.
The main policy tension in HB901 is between expanding a voluntary firearm-storage option and limiting legal exposure for firearms businesses. Supporters would likely emphasize safe temporary storage for owners who want to separate themselves from firearms during a crisis or other period of concern, while critics may focus on the immunity provision, the confidentiality of the agreements, and the possibility of disputes over negligent storage or return of firearms. The bill also leaves some discretion to licensees, since they are not required to accept unlawfully possessed firearms or return firearms to prohibited persons.