Safe Storage Lockers for House Office Buildings Act
Summary
HB1749, titled the Safe Storage Lockers for House Office Buildings Act, would allow certain employees of the U.S. House of Representatives who are legally permitted under District of Columbia law to carry self-defense weapons outside federal buildings to bring those weapons into House office buildings for the limited purpose of storing them in secure lockers. The bill applies to self-defense spray, stun guns, and firearms, and it requires employees to enter through an external pedestrian entrance, place the weapon in a Capitol Police-operated locker, and retrieve it only when leaving the building.
The bill also directs the Capitol Police Board to design, install, operate, and regulate storage lockers at the entrances of each House office building within 180 days of enactment. It amends federal law governing weapons in federal buildings to create an explicit exception for this storage arrangement, and it defines covered employees broadly to include interns and fellows, while excluding garages from the definition of House office building.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would modify federal restrictions on weapons in House office buildings by creating a narrow exception for secure transport and storage by House employees who are otherwise authorized to carry those weapons under District of Columbia law. It would require the Capitol Police Board to establish and manage locker systems at the entrances of specified House office buildings, and it would amend title 40 of the U.S. Code to conform federal building-security law to the new exception. The practical effect would be to change access and storage rules for House employees, interns, and fellows who carry self-defense weapons in the District.
Sentiment
The bill’s stated rationale is strongly supportive of expanded self-defense options for House employees, emphasizing violent crime in the District of Columbia and the safety concerns of staff who commute on foot. The bill text reflects a pro-security, pro-carry posture, and there is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials showing formal opposition or support beyond introduction and referral. Overall, the available context suggests the measure was introduced in a favorable tone toward personal protection and workplace safety.
Contention
The main point of contention is the balance between employee self-defense and federal building security. Supporters would likely argue that House employees who are legally allowed to carry weapons in D.C. should not be forced to leave those weapons entirely outside the workplace, especially given crime concerns. Opponents would likely focus on the risks of bringing firearms, stun guns, and pepper spray into federal facilities, even if only for storage, and on the operational and security burdens placed on the Capitol Police Board. The inclusion of interns and fellows, and the explicit application to the House wing of the Capitol, may also raise concerns about scope and security sensitivity.