Requires police officers to take temporary custody of firearms for not less than one hundred twenty hours when responding to reports of family violence.
A00544 amends the Criminal Procedure Law to expand and clarify when police officers must temporarily take custody of firearms and related weapons during responses to reports of family violence. Under the bill, officers responding to a family offense would be required to seize firearms, rifles, stun guns, imitation weapons, shotguns, antique firearms, black powder firearms, and muzzle-loading firearms that are in the possession of a person arrested for, or suspected of, committing the family offense. The bill also requires officers to take custody of such weapons when they are in plain sight or found during a lawful search if the officer reasonably believes removal is necessary to protect victims or others, or to prevent further violence.
The bill further requires officers to take any associated license to carry, possess, repair, and dispose of the weapon, and to transfer the weapon and license to the appropriate law enforcement authority. It changes the minimum time before return of seized weapons from 48 hours to 120 hours, and only allows return if there is no order of protection, extreme risk protection order, criminal charge, conviction, or other legal impediment, and a written finding confirms lawful possession may be restored. The measure takes effect immediately and would affect police procedures, firearm owners involved in domestic or family violence incidents, licensing authorities, and courts handling return of seized weapons.
The bill would amend section 140.10 of the Criminal Procedure Law and related firearm-return procedures, increasing the mandatory holding period for seized weapons in family violence cases from 48 hours to 120 hours. It also broadens the circumstances in which police must take temporary custody of weapons, adds an explicit requirement to seize associated firearm licenses, and ties return of the property to court or licensing-authority findings that no legal barrier exists. In practice, the bill would strengthen temporary disarmament tools in domestic violence and family offense situations and affect police departments, courts, firearm licensing officials, and individuals subject to family offense arrests or investigations.
The available legislative history suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill, as reflected by its 16-6 favorable vote in the Assembly Codes Committee. The bill’s stated purpose aligns with a public-safety approach focused on reducing access to firearms during family violence incidents. No committee transcript was provided, so the record here shows support in committee but does not reveal detailed debate or amendments beyond the reported favorable action.
The main points of contention likely concern the expanded mandatory seizure authority and the longer 120-hour retention period before weapons may be returned. Supporters would view these changes as necessary to protect victims and prevent escalation, while opponents may worry about due process, property rights, and the breadth of police discretion in deciding when a weapon must be taken. The bill also raises practical concerns for firearm owners and licensing authorities because it requires seizure of both weapons and licenses and conditions return on multiple legal findings.