An Act amending Titles 18 (Crimes and Offenses) and 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in firearms and other dangerous articles, further providing for persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer firearms and for abandonment of firearms, weapons or ammunition; in community and municipal courts, further providing for masters; adding provisions relating to extreme risk protection orders; imposing duties on the Office of Attorney General; and imposing penalties.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Lisa Borowski and 40 co-sponsors

Pennsylvania would create extreme risk protection orders to temporarily restrict firearm access for individuals deemed dangerous, expand possession prohibitions, and assign enforcement to the Attorney General.

Motion to reconsider final passage

Legislative bill overview

HB 1859 is a comprehensive firearms regulation bill that would expand prohibited firearm possession categories, establish extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) in Pennsylvania, clarify abandonment procedures for weapons, and assign enforcement duties to the Attorney General's office. The bill modifies criminal code provisions related to who can legally possess firearms and creates a civil mechanism allowing courts to temporarily restrict firearm access for individuals deemed at risk of harming themselves or others.

Why is this important

Extreme risk protection orders represent a distinct policy approach to gun violence prevention—sitting between criminal prosecution and unrestricted access by allowing temporary, court-ordered firearm removal without criminal charges. For Pennsylvania, which currently lacks ERPO legislation, this would establish a new legal tool that some states credit with preventing suicides and mass violence incidents. The bill also clarifies existing restrictions on firearm possession for certain categories of individuals and assigns the Attorney General explicit enforcement authority.

Potential points of contention

Due process concerns: Critics argue ERPOs could restrict constitutional rights based on civil proceedings rather than criminal conviction, raising questions about evidence standards, notice requirements, and appeal mechanisms

Implementation costs and burden: Establishing ERPO infrastructure requires training for law enforcement, judicial resources, and staffing—raising questions about who bears these costs and whether local systems can handle caseloads

Definition of "extreme risk": The bill's criteria for determining dangerousness could be interpreted broadly or narrowly, affecting how consistently it's applied across different counties and judges